OPINION

It's 10 p.m. and Collin County is still reporting early voting numbers. What gives?

Updated 10:18

Election results were delayed Tuesday night in Collin County, where officials said voting was extremely heavy.
At some polling places, people waited in line more than hour, said Patty Seals, assistant county elections administrator. And some polls still had people waiting in line to vote at 7 p.m., when the polls are supposed to close. Those people were allowed to vote.

"A lot of locations probably could have used more [voting] machines," Seals said.
The county's highest-profile race was the Republican primary for county judge, and first-term incumbent Keith Self led John Muns in early voting. The winner will face Democrat David Smith in the fall. He had no opposition in his party's primary.

Two interesting statewide races. Victor Carrillo is losing to Porter for Texas Railroad Commissioner (60%-40%) and Kinky Friedman is losing to Hank Gilbert by roughly 9 percentage point margin.

Normally, incumbent RR commissioners don't lose primaries.Although the editorial board recommended him almost by default, we've sharply criticized Carrillo, current commission chairman, for his lack of leadership on the removal of potentially dangerous natural gas couplings and have disagreed with him on several other issues.

Porter has been campaigning against White House policies and has vowed to raise the awareness of the oil and gas industry. He's not been very specific about his plans but apparently something is connecting. Still really early, but surprising.

Based on early voting numbers, Texas House District 102 could turn into a rout. Stefani Carter, a conservative, Harvard-educated lawyer who also is African American is way ahead of Geoff Bailey, whose ties to Boone Pickens and youth (26) might be hurting him. Carter did not interview well with the editorial board. She spent a lot of time not answering questions and not offering specifics on anything.

However, she is seen as the GOP's hope to win back the seat in the fall from Carol Kent, who ousted veteran Republican lawmaker Tony Goolsby in 2008. Carter said as much during the editorial board interview, adding that it would take a woman to beat Kent.

This district includes parts of North Dallas, Lake Highlands and Garland.
.

It's never easy to read the intent of the Department of Veterans Affairs, especially when they're talking about "Gulf War illness."

However, this mention from VA secretary Eric Shinseki caught my eye. He's promising a "fresh. bold look" to help vets who complain of Gulf war illness. This supposedly includes training clinic staffers who work with Gulf War vets to make sure that they simply don't tell vets that their symptoms are imaginary. That happened to Viet Nam vets and to Gulf War vets.

"I'm also asking the question, how do we ensure that 20 years from now, that future secretary isn't answering questions about PTSD or TBI, sort of the signature injuries of this war, in the same way that I'm having to look back and try to address these issues," he said.

How this squares with the VA's decision to cut research ties with the UT Southwestern Medical Center is beyond me. Yes, it's good to remove red tape, but shouldn't we also be interested in what might have happened to these guys on the battlefield, which was a focus of the UTSW study. The VA has suggested that it will pursue answers, just not with UTSW. But in addition to research expertise, UTSW had a measure of independence that gave it credibility.

It seems to me that until the key question is answered, treatment will be mostly hit-and-miss and probably marginally effective at best. I'm not sure that moving along the paperwork -- while better than letting it languish in an administrative pit -- gives vets what they need.

A lot of what Shinseki is saying depends on whether vets trust the VA as their ally and continue to see it as an agency primed to deny expensive disability claims. We'll see.

I'm really intrigued by the lawsuit case filed against R. Allen Stanford, Texas' version of Bernie Madoff.

The suit seeks to recover more than $1.6 million that Stanford and a top company officer donated to various Democratic and Republican congressional and senatorial committees. And according to legal experts the committees would have to show that Stanford received something in return.

This isn't a new strategy, but I wonder why the committees didn't just return the dollars and wash their hands of Stanford. The committees aren't going to go broke, but a $1 million seems like a small price for a political committee to "resolve" a sticky political mess.

That said, the suit raises an interesting question: How do we know that everything Stanford did was part of a Ponzi scheme, and is it really fair to demand that a church or another organization that unwittingly receives "dirty money" return it. Believe me, I'm not saying that the political parties are naive -- to the contrary. I'm jut wondering where the line are drawn.

According the story, the National Republican Congressional Committee, which Congressman.Pete Sessions, chairs, has no plans to return the money.

Just got an e-mail with this as a headline. It was just so good. I had to pass it along.

I have a partial answer to the question in the language of golf: He's no longer behind a tree, but he is still in difficult high grass. But let's face, this appearance is the first public phase of a media/image re-building strategy. Tiger apologized to his wife, sponsors, charities and then set some real boundaries for tabloid intrusion into the day-to-day activities. It's smart and also very appropriate. It's a step on the road back assuming that there aren't other secrets, such as performance enhancing drugs, which he directly denied using.

In the end, the sponsors and charities will want proof that they're not tied to a person who has no hope of regaining credibility. The immediate public reaction to Tiger's appearance, which I expect will be slightly more positive than negative, will be an early gauge of the public's temperature and capacity to move on. Iif he stays away for a few more months passing up the opportunity to appear in a his cherished "majors," and the returns as someone who is sincerely making progress, I think Tiger will rehab enough of his public image to at least be relevant off of the golf course.

Interest rates are still incredibly low so the Fed's decision to increase interest rates isn't a complete surprise. They had to do something to avoid re-inflating the cheap money bubble any longer than necessary.

Besides, an uptick in interest rates now is hardly going to deter economic recovery. The bigger economic issue is the lack of certainty on taxes, healthcare reform, energy and financial regulation. I'm sure I missed listing another ball dangling in the air, but you get the picture. Businesses don't know what they' ll be facing and therefore are doing less, rather than more. especially on the jobs creation front.

As a student of the Great Depression, Fed chief Ben Bernanke is making the calculated risk that it is time to slowly readjust interest rates, which went real low as an emergency measure. I'm guessing the other side of the wager is that he wants to stop the "emergency" mindset and thinks moderately higher rates will not be factor as stimulus dollars flow through the economy. Builders might not like it, but let's face it, there is excess capacity in real estate markets.

The surest sign of a political campaign in trouble -- other than a candidate regularly placing his foot in his mouth -- is the defection of so-called professional staffers.

The Shami campaign, such as it is (or was), has hit that rut.. Today's story notes the departure of several staffers over "strategic differences."

In other words, too many voices, no unifying theme or idea, and a candidate who strikes me as someone who has been comfortable pursuing his way in life without taking much advice from anyone. Is a campaign meltdown the inevitable outcome when an extremely successful self-made executive attempts to transition from the autocratic style of a company chairman who can operate in his comfort zone to a political candidate who must deal with issues that he has not thought about, let alone thought through.

In some ways, that was the curse of the Perot presidential run, but at least he had ideas and a clear purpose to his run. I haven't found any of that with Shami, and I think that is yet another in growing list of reasons Shami's campaign is in shambles. Even the Tony Sanchez campaign in 2002 had a clearer reason for being than Shami's and I might even rank Clayton Williams' ugly, insulting campaign ahead of Shami..Yikes.

I spend a lot of time on the tollway. In the last few days, I've rediscovered I-35, and wish I hadn't. Randy Lee Lofis' story and the accompanying picture of potholes in the southbound lane of I-35 are on target.

In at least one of the lanes from about LBJ to the Loop 12 split, there's a pothole. And these aren't small -- some up to about 6 feet in length or width.and maybe 2 or 3 inches deep. No fun hitting these at 50 mph plus or watching as cars swerve to avoid hitting these moon craters.

I know there are a bazillion potholes out there -- the words of TX DOT spokesman Mark Pettit -- but surely I-35 through the heart of Dallas is a priority. I mean, it's embarrassing and dangerous.

Hey, I don't like the feeling that the bottom of my car is falling out when I hit one of these monsters. But here's another example of how bad things are around town.

Boy It's not so bad on the roads. Trip to a doctor's appt across Collin and Denton Counties was faster than usual. No stop-and-go traffic. No slipping and sliding. Just wet streets.

I'm still trying to figure out why traffic seems so much easier than usual. Yes, fluffy snow is easier to navigate than ice, but was there better preparation/response to the weather? If so let's bottle the plan.

Let me preface my comments with a huge disclaimer. I don't know why Uiniversity of North Texas president, Dr. Gretchen Bataille is leaving and leaving so suddenly.

But I can tell you I found her to be very impressive educator/administrator. She appeared at several editorial board meetings and was thoughtful, progressive and committed to academic excellence.

I applaud her efforts to push UNT toward becoming a Tier one research institution and standing with other university presidents in the state in a mostly united effort to increase the number of top research institutions in Texas. UNT may never become Tier one, but that's beside the point. She seemed to be making UNT better. That's what university presidents are supposed to do.

Just once I wish Elizabeth Warren would be the bearer of good economic news. It's not her fault that she isn't. As head of the Congressional Oversight Panel, which is probing the Troubled Asset Relief Program, she sees more balls bouncing in the dirt or sailing to the backstop than perfect pitches.

The latest problem has been just under the radar for months. mall banks drowning in bad commercial real estate loans. In turn this keeps them from making the basic loans that small businesses need to exist.

I have to admire her for urging regulators to perform stress tests of small U.S. banks in the same way that regulators scrutinized the 19 largest U.S. banks in 2009 to examine their ability to withstand future losses.

But I have two questions:
1) Regulators are supposed to assess the financial vulnerability of banks. That's what the super secret CAMEL ratings -- short for Capital, Assets, Management, Earnings, Liquidity -- are supposed to accomplish.

and

2) What did we learn from the stress tests on the big banks last year?

Gee, a part of the financial crisis that can't be blamed on ACORN...amazing.

White won in a landslide, but i have a few post-debate questions:

1) Can anyone tell me what Farouk Shami stands for and what he might do in office?

2) Is Texas trending purple enough to elect Bill White in the fall?

3) Would Bill White fare better against KBH or Rick Perry?

4) What's likely to be Bill White's biggest policy weakness in the fall?

Inquiring minds want to know.. Have at it folks. And feel free to offer your own questions-- tasteful and serious ones, of course.

I've posed this question on our Southern Dallas blog and I'm reposting the link here in the hope that we can have a thoughtful, respectful and broad-based discussion of this subject. Please post your thoughts in the comments section of the Southern Dallas blog.

One of the major things lost in the national discussion of jobs is the incredible uncertainty that the Obama administration has created by trying to do so many things at once, and more important, not closing the deal the initiatives.
Businesses create jobs when they have a level of certainty about costs and the demand for products. The latter feasts on consumer confidence which is pretty low right now, and the former is shaped by a variety of factors, including tax policy.

Now if you're a business tell me the following right now:
* What will be your costs per employee based on cap-and-trade legislation? Answer: Heck, if I know.
* What will be your costs per employee for the administration's health care reform? Answer: Heck, if I know.
* What will be the cost per employee and impact of financial reform on consumer credit and other credit?
Answer: Heck, if I know.

Now imagine what your response would be if you had no idea whether your car payment will be $200 a month or $750 a month, or whether your mortgage will be $750 a month or $3,000 a month. Unless you have unlimited cash -- which I presume you don't - then the logical response would be to not buy a car or home, or cut your discretionary spending to the bare minimum. Why? because, they is no certainty.

In his town hall in New Hampshire yesterday, President Obama hinted that he might be willing to split out the green energy jobs stuff from cap-and-trade legislation. He also seems willing to take the same approach with health care reform. But on the subject of bank regulatory reform, the president's last minute introduction of measures to curb risky activities seems to be complicating an already complicated and delicate process. I support the principle of reining in risky bank activities, but when is this president going to cross a few initiatives off his list so the private sector will know the new rules on healthcare, banking, energy etc.?

Want to create jobs? Give businesses a roadmap that they can read, understand and follow. And do it sooner, not later.

. In Texas, justices of the peace and county constables have enormous authority. Among other things, they can put you in jail. And there aren't a lot of prying eyes to make sure that everything is on the up-and-up.

Over on the Southern Dallas opinion blog, I offer reasons the DMN this morning broke with our recent history and recommended candidates in one JP and two Dallas County constable races.

A couple of observations from last night's SOU, which amounted to a repackaging of hope and change promises, with a few exceptions, i.e energy policy.

- Support for oil drilling and nuclear energy: A bit surprising given his campaign rhetoric on both. The big elephant in the room is cap-and-trade. It's still a contentious proposal with regional opponents in fossil fuels states which means the outcome of climate change legislation is more is complicated than simply counting Ds and Rs.

Overtures toward offshore drilling and nuclear energy will not be enough to ally the carbon tax opponents. Simply saying climate change is real -- which I believe it is -- will not be enough to resolve the economic concerns surrounding the cap-and-trade solution.

As I noted in another posting last week, former Bush advisor Keith Hennessey was seeking input, i.e. questions to ask a group of bank CEOs set to testify tomorrow to a commission investigating the cause(s) of the current economic crisis.
.
Here's the direction he's heading. The list is continuing to evolve.

• Whether or not your firm faced any risk of failure in 2008, do you think that investors then believed your firm was too big for the government to allow to fail?

•In 2008, did you ever discuss the scenario of your firm failing with any members of your board? Did possible government rescue ever enter into those discussions as a mitigating factor?

•Do you think your firm's participation in the Capital Purchase Program and the stress tests has strengthened the perception of investors or your board members that the government will, if necessary, prevent your firm from failing?
• Is your firm larger today than it was at the end of 2008?

• Can you measure the impact this perception has on your firm? Has it provided you with a funding advantage relative to some of your smaller competitors?

•Does this perception create what an economist would call moral hazard, an incentive for a firm's managers to take bigger risks because they know they are partially protected from the downside costs of failure?

•Do you want to have this protection, this put option to the government? Or would you prefer a policy environment in which your firm is subject to a similar failure process as almost any other American firm?

•Obviously no manager wants their firm to fail. What have you done, or what are you doing, to prepare your firm for such a failure scenario?

•What changes should policymakers make to allow large unsuccessful large financial firms to fail?

He's clearly focusing on Too Big to Fail issues.. Not a bad place to start.

Now that Mark McGwire has admitted steroid use during his career, including during his record-setting home run season, should MLB take action against him?

Michael Landauer wants to scrub the record books, but it seems to me that almost anything MLB and the legal system would contemplate doing to him would be so after the fact and anti-climatic as to be meaningless.

And whatever happens to McGwire would also have to apply to dozens of other current and retired players, like Bonds, Sosa, A-Rod, etc. etc. I'm not sure that's such a bad idea, but it is sure to be a long, messy sifting process for MLB or for prosecutors if they decide to build cases.

So if you think, McGwire's admission isn't enough, then what would satisfy you?

Great entry, Tony. I agree with you. I won't repeat. I'll add a few points.

On whose offensive comment is worse -- Lott or Reid: Lott wins this one. I have a real problem with someone who suggests a separate and unequal United States is good. That's a chilling message even if it is the result of loose language and a birthday party setting.

In contrast, Reid used offensive words (or at least outdated ones), but he spoke basic truths Until Obama, the American ideal of 'presidential" had been white male. Obama's style and dare I say, personal history, helped dispel lingering racial stereotypes..Anyone who suggests Obama's look and style weren't winning factors in his campaign is being less than honest.

On the "if my guy had to resign, so should your guy" argument. It is a childish argument. Obama, the subject of Reid's critique, accepted the Nevada senator's apology. Over. Done.

Yet, just a few days before Reid's comments became public, GOP chairman Michael Steele unleashed his own offensive "honest injun" comment. It's tacky and unbecoming of a GOP chairman. He got called on this and rightly so. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't heard him apologize.

On the use of race in political debate: If it is relevant, fine. If not, don't go there. But if a pol decides to trek down this path, then the point being made had better be absolutely clear. There is a difference between a racist comment and a racial comment. A racial discussion is not necessarily racist. Unfortunately, most pols are too clumsy or too cold and calculating to appreciate the difference. And when they don't, the mistakes and finger pointing will soon follow.

I got an e-mail earlier today from Keith Hennessey, a former Bush administration advisor and one of 10 commissioners on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which is empowered to ask more who, what, when, where and how questions of the panel of financial executives listed below. The commission's task is to submit a report to the President and Congress on the causes of the current financial and economic crisis.
.
• Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs
• Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase
• John Mack of Morgan Stanley
• Brian Moynihan of Bank of America.

But he's also looking for questions that aren't pulled from the usual Washington policymaker script with these main objectives in mind.

• Questions that are appropriate to ask a firm CEO or Chairman. These are general managers who think about their firm as a whole. Questions should be about the forest or at least big trees, not about leaves and twigs.
• Questions that can elicit information that is not otherwise available but should be.
• Hard questions.

I hope DMN readers take this seriously and post THOUGHTFUL questions in the comments section of this blog entry below, and also on Keith's website.

Those familiar with Texas politics might remember the name John Montford -- a former state senator; former chancellor of the Texas Tech University and former AT&T/SBC executive.

He's taking on a new challenge as a lobbyist at General Motors, teaming up again with another former AT&T/SBC executive Ed Whitacre, GM's current head honcho. It's an interesting choice and speaks mostly to Whitacre's comfort level with Montford, who I recall was an early voice in Texas on tort reform, water needs and insurance issues.

I'm not suggesting that a veteran lawmaker -executive-lobbyist with chops is all that stands between GM and success.There is that tiny matter of new product.

The GM saga has the potential to become the most interesting business story of the next decade as the company attempts to reinvent itself. No one knows whether that will work or who will be sitting in the top seats if a turnaround works. But if you like a good story, GM's challenges to restore its manufacturing base and product lines are every bit as interesting and compelling as the challenges in all forms of media today.

Most communities have a champion or unforgettable personality. In West Dallas, Mattie Nash was both. She passed away Sunday.

For more about her, click here.

A former member of the Dallas City Council, she but probably was best known as a housing activist in West Dallas, an area that for years was a forgotten part of Dallas. In fact, at one point in its history, West Dallas wasn't even part of Dallas and suffered from the lack of basic services. West Dallas is still trying to shake that legacy.

Given the history of West Dallas, her hard work is why the huge, crime-infested West Dallas housing projects are gone and why a neighborhood recreation center stands in her honor. She made a difference and did it in an era when racial politics in Dallas were red-hot, red-hot, red-hot.

I saw her briefly at a West Dallas gathering this summer. While she seemed to be struggling physically, she was mentally sharp, alert and perceptive. West Dallas will miss her.

May She Rest In Peace

Time for a confession. I also have had enough of Santa. Thought i was the only one until I read this piece over the weekend, whch also got some traction in USA Today this A.M.
As the parent of a barely teenager, I no longer have to worry about Santa as a mainstay in our house. (I do remember my son at age 3 or so being very concerned that some strange guy in a red suit would be wandering around the house while we slept. I tried to explain that Santa was harmless, but I think my son though the while idea of a stranger sneaking in and out was pretty rude.)

But I digress. There are red stockings over my fireplace and if I look hard enough, I'll probably find a Santa in a napkin design or card. But we haven't perpetuated a Santa ritual for several years. Now I feel clean.

Over on the Southern Dallas blog, several people have offered constructive comments about Pinkston High School, a West Dallas school which is on the hot seat and in danger of being closed or reorganized unless academic achievement improves. I'd like to open up this conversation to regular readers of our main Opinion blog and ask them to offer constructive thoughts and observations of how best to address some of the persistent academic issues facing Pinkston and West Dallas. Click here to read and comment on the two related threads.

The bankers went to Washington yesterday and left behind with two messages.
* "We'll try to make more loans."
* "Ignore our lobbyists, we believe in re-regulation."
I did the classic sit-com spit take with my coffee over these two declarations. I don't believe either, especially the second one.
But here is the WSJ story on the second point.

Chief executives of the largest U.S. banks acknowledged Monday the "disconnect" between their expressed support for re-regulating financial markets and the work of their lobbyists to weaken any new rules.

The executives pledged during a White House meeting with President Barack Obama that they would personally intervene on behalf of the legislation.
Some of the CEOs said their lobbyists had taken stronger stands than they would have wanted, an assertion met with raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D, Mass.), chief architect of financial-overhaul legislation in that chamber, said in an interview he was "highly skeptical."

SInce when has a slew of lobbyists not represented their client's position? Give me a break

Today's front page story on state-mandated vehicle safety inspections really surprised me. I thought more states conducted safety inspections, not just Texas and 18 other states.

As the story indicates, there is no serious effort in Texas to eliminate safety check, and I think that is wise. Yes, I know that unless your car is falling apart, safety inspections probably aren't the difference between safe motoring and a serious accident. Still, I like the idea of having my car inspected regularly even though I know not all items identified in a "safety" check deserve my immediate attention.

I also like the idea for other reasons -- it generally coincides with emissions testing and forces drivers to show proof of insurance. These are real benefits in a state that grapples with serious air quality problems and a flood of uninsured drivers.

A once-a-year opportunity to monitor emissions, check for valid insurance, and identify potential safety problems seems reasonable to me as long as the administrative costs and inspection fees are not crazy.

In the Tiger Woods saga, I see the same personal tragedy everyone else sees -- a man who has stumbled badly and publicly. I also see the partial erosion of Tiger Inc., a marketing juggernaut, which had made him a $1 billion pitchman for products and services unrelated to golf. This says a lot about our perceptions of celebrity endorsers -- and it's not all favorable.

Accenture rode Tiger's seemingly squeaky clean coattails, in essence marketing itself this way: If you trust Tiger, then you should trust us and our consulting services.

Now recall Accenture's corporate roots as the arm of Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm in the Enron debacle. I would argue that Accenture, which spun off from Arthur Andersen, probably benefited more from Tiger than the other way around because Tiger's image put distance between the new firm and its tainted corporate lineage. (See extended entry for Accenture's response. It speaks to the exact legal structure and illustrates the public image confusion in the marketplace)

I can accept the "Trust Tiger, Trust our products" take from Nike, since Tiger knows a little bit about golf and Nike knows how to latch onto athletic stars.

Tiger's travails ought to give advertisers reason to rethink high-dollar celebrity endorsements and for the rest of us to look at endorsements for exactly what these are -- hired credibility. The sooner we do, then the sooner we'll understand that international fame doesn't make anyone a flawless role model or expert except perhaps in their very narrow line of business, in Tiger's case, golf. And maybe then,we will not convey unrealistic and inflated traits to either party to a basic business transaction.

The country is in a recession, right? Private industry has been cutting workers and salaries, right?
And so too has the federal government, right?
Wrong.
USATODAY has an interesting analysis that shows federal salaries have actually increased through this recession while 7.3 million private sector jobs have gone POOOF! Now the average federal worker's salary is $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.

So I ask, did the percentage of $100,000 salaries in your industry increase in the last two years? Did most workers in your industry get an automatic pay bump based on longevity or the fact that your boss got a raise?

I don't begrudge anyone (with the possible exception of bailed out Wall Streeters) for getting a raise, but at a time when the private sector is hurting big-time, isn't it just a bit mind-boggling that the percentage of federal workers making more than $100,000 jumped from 14 percent to 20 percent?
The key reasons, according to the newspaper's analysis:

Our editorial today pointed out the huge contradiction between "federal $$$ spender Barack Obama," and "debt hawk Barack Obama." And our point is clear -- even in the face of this tough economy, the federal government is going to have to get serious -- sooner not later -- about controlling debt. unless you're a Keynesian to an unrealistic infinite degree, then you would have to concede that Keynesian economics has limits in a private-sector-driven, free market economy, which most Americans say we want. Controlling debt was a problem in the GWB administration and it is an increasing problem in the Obama administration as well.

Now, before all the political partisans start screaming, take a moment to consider this commentary from former Bush advisor Keith Hennessey who astutely points out why using unspent TARP funds for part of another stimulus is either mission creep (the polite interpretation) or bait-and-switch (the less-than-polite interpretation).

Even on runoff Election Day and in the middle of the holiday season, the DISD just can't seem to avoid controversy. The latest on the DISD blog is the report that Patricia Viramontes, DISD's executive director of information technology and the wife of Chief of Staff Arnold Viramontes, was fired today.

Our reporters are trying to connect the dots, but I can't imagine this becoming anything less than a huge public relations and credibility disaster for the district. This isn't a low-level administrator or principal or teacher. This is part of DISD's ruling brain trust, and according to sources who have talked to DMN reporters, this doesn't seem to be a resignation, which in itself would be oddly timed. I don't know whether this applies in this instance, but the district has come under fire several times for loose and not always consistent interpretations of residency and nepotism rules, the latter involving Viramontes.

Stay tuned

The Wall Street Journal has an intriguing story today about the push-and-shove between the Federal Reserve and several big retailers over credit cards. It seems the Fed wants retailers to do an income verification check before they issue credit cards to customers.

In other words, you would have to fork over a pay stub at the department store cash register or customer service department before you'd get the retailer's branded card. The Fed reasons that the default rate on store cards is higher than on general purpose, Visa, MasterCard, AMEX etc. The default trends make sense -- if you only have X number of dollars to go around, then the toy store or department store card quite sensible will be the last card paid since it can help you the least.

I expect the retailers to win this battle and they should. Yes, Americans have too much debt, but if a specific store wants to take a chance on being stiffed, I think that should be their call and a credit score should be sufficient evidence for a retailer to use to make their decision on whether to extend credit. The Fed's focus should remain on ending deceptive marketing practices of the general-purpose card companies. That's the real danger to individuals and to the broader economy.

President Obama will outline his strategy for Afghanistan next week and the Center for American Progress has just issued a scorecard for what they hope to hear in the president's announcement.

Put aside the Center's political leanings and consider the merit of their concerns. Pretty much on target, in my opinion. But do you think we'll get answers or just a restatement of principles?

Set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces

Maintain the international nature of the mission

Insist that the Pakistani government battle extremists within its borders
.
Press reform and require good governance in the Afghan government

Pay for the mission.

In the universe of pressing economic problems, bright minds are badly divided on an old point -- debt vs jobs -- a divide which Business News' Brendan Case astutely noticed in two recent New York Times pieces.

One front page story, says the interest on debt will soon sink the United States in the equivalent of credit card interest rate purgatory. The other, a column by Paul Krugman, says recovery is all about jobs and debt/deficit worries are misguided.

Debating the level of spending and interest costs hide other aspects of the problem.The real issues in my opinion are return on government spending, the sort of question businesses ask daily, and the dollar, which will continue to weaken as spending and debt increase.

There's no doubt poorly targeted government spending edges out private sector investment and a weak dollar hurts American investment on these shores as, American exports become cheaper overseas and foreign imports more expensive here But neither does much to revive a U.S. economy since the domestic manufacturing base has been gutted and consumers now are careful and retrenching, realizing that they are still too leveraged for an economy that isn't growing and producing jobs. As much as I hate to say it, expensive long term debt and rising unemployment are both economy killers so what we're really debating is which poison to take. -- the long-acting one or the quick-acting one.

If the Obama administration is going to introduce another stimulus plan and address debt as he promises, he's got a basic square peg/round hole problem.
.

So while the past two administrations have talked about the importance of a strong dollar, the actual policy has been to encourage the opposite.
.

How bad are real estate prices and the overall Detroit economy?

I think this says it all:

Nearly 35 years after taxpayers spent $55.7 million building the Pontiac Silverdome and a year after a $20 million sale fell through, city officials have sold the arena once called the most desirable property in Oakland County.

The price: $583,000.

For years, doctors basically advised adult women to receive regular mammograms. Simple logic. Identify a problem early, cure it early.

Now a task force has contradicted the American Cancer Society's guidelines that women get a base mammogram by the age of 40, and perhaps earlier for women whose family history of cancer elevates their cancer risk. The task force wants women to start getting mammograms at the age of 50 and repeating the test every two years.

This moves the test recommendations closer to the schedules for prostate cancer screening, which I believe is yearly beginning at age 50.

The new recommendations strike me as the ultimate roll of the dice and playing of the odds -- that women are most at risk during a certain age range. That's no surprise,but it doesn't seem to account for a significant number of cancer patients younger than age 50,

Yes, delaying early testing under 50 will reduce testing costs. If this becomes the new guideline, then I would assume that insurance companies will stop playing for screenings until age 50. Is that good medicine or just good medical economics?

This illustrates a basic health care puzzle that underpins the current health care debate -- multiple testings and the impact on health care costs. Do you screen regularly knowing that you'll early detect some diseases or do you wait and run the risk of missing problems in people who get the disease outside the accepted testing window?

I'm not sure there is a right answer, especially since costs and risk are the measured trade offs. I just know that no one wants to be on the wrong side of the gamble.

I also find it odd that this report comes at a time when doctors, companies and the federal government all want more people to be proactive in preserving their health. The risk of cancer may be as much about lifestyle (in the case of smokers), as is a factor of genetics in some people.

Sadly, everything in life has risk, cost and benefit calculations. I'm not sure which one is winning this time.

As a kid, I hauled books to and from school. Yes, books are heavy, but it's nice to have these available for home study. If you missed something in class, you had the opportunity to reread and figure it out.

Now, as the dad of a middle school student, I'm a little concerned about what seems to be a "no books out of the classroom approach." This is quite different from the thrust toward putting more classroom materials online, which I favor as long as there is a way to close the technology gap between kids who have access to computers and those who don't.

In some of my son's classes, books are restricted to the classroom. Makes reading ahead -- or reviewing -- more difficult. This wouldn't be an issue if the textbook were available online... but it is not. I'm not sure that related teaching material found on online is enough.

I'm curious whether this is common -- or wise. Having a classroom set of books that stays at school is cheaper, i.e. few books and less wear and tear than if the kids took the books home. .Heck, in some classes, this might be appropriate. And maybe this has been going on for sometime and I'm just now noticing it.

I'm curious whether parents, teachers and students have thoughts to share on this subject.

Now that Kunkle is leaving the DPD:

What will be Kunkle's legacy?

What did he do right?

What did he do wrong?

And what should be the marching orders for the next chief?

Have at it, but keep it constructive..

Earlier today, President Obama announced a jobs summit to be held at the White House next month.

Count me as a skeptic. This is a political photo-op designed to give the impression that he's on top of the situation.

With unemployment at 10.2 percent and enormous spending is already in the pipeline, the idea that an economic roundtable will come up with new ideas is blatantly self-serving. At best, the forum might provide political cover for another round of stiimulus spending. I don't think the country has the appetite for more untargeted spending. I sure don't.

As I mentioned in an editorial board meeting earlier this week, I hope that he doesn't fall back on tossing more $$$ into this chasm. It was needed as emergency triage earlier this year, but continuing down this path is not sustainable.

If there is a go-and-do lesson for the administration, it is to encourage banks to expand credit to small businesses, which still provide the bulk of jobs, provide unemployment benefits to desperate Americans, and level the investment playing field so that Wall Street paper-shuffling doesn't displace true job creation. Another longer-range strategy would be to continue to pursue global markets so that more American-made goods will be consumed overseas.

None of this will be easy. We shouldn't pretend that it will.

At the risk of my comments being taken out of context, I'm still struggling to understand the political "advantages" of passing a health care bill in the House with a built-in poison pill.

As a matter of philosophy, I believe that the perfect should never be the enemy of the good. In other words, take what you can get and move on.

I see the inclusion of an amendment to restrict the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortion as another as another step away from health care reform. The abortion issue was tough in the House and is likely to be just as difficult in the Senate, and impossible to navigate in the inevitable Senate/House conference committee.

I understand what Pelosi was up against, but I'm still not sure it was wise or necessary for House leadership to have opened this fault line in order to get the votes for passage.

It 's hard to understand a tragedy as violent as the murders at Fort Hood.

I can't begin to fathom what is goes through the mind of someone who commits mass murder -- whether it occurs in a school, a business or government building. My guess is that the shooter is like a lot of other Americans who suffer in silence until one day they cross lines in the most heinous ways. I'll withhold judgment about the shooter's religion and other things in his background that may or may not be relevant to deciphering this massacre until we know a lot more.

About a year ago, Salon.com did series of stories on the suicides of returing and other so-called preventable deaths at Fort Carson. I'm still looking for the link online and will post when I find it.. And here it is.

The bottom line conclusion, which probably shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, is that the military doesn't adequately deal with the psychological and other problems of soldiers. We probably could have said that about every conflict since the Civil War. Soldiers are a high-risk population, unfortunately.

Can we absolutely prevent shootings in schools, workplaces and now military bases? Probably not. All have personal crisis intervention programs. However, such programs do not always reach individuals who pose the greatest danger to themselves and to others.

Today, as too many times before, we should take a moment to mourn the innocent loss of life and honor the heroes whose intervention kept this tragedy, as awful as it is, from being even worse.

I'm intrigued and amazed by the politics of the H1N1 vaccine, i.e, who gets it and how.

A week ago, headines suggested that Gitmo detainees and the soldiers guarding them would get the vaccine sooner than the general U.S. population, and even sooner than high-risk Americans.

Predictably, both Texas senators said not a vaccine for detainees until all Americans have a chance to get the shot. You won't get an argument out of me, but their stance is somewhat of a yawner, on par with coming out boldly against viruses.

But while we're on the subject of fairness, Businessweek has found a group held in less esteem than Gitmo detainees -- Wall Street firms, some of which apparently received more H1N1 doses than some New York hospitals.

Now BusinessWeek reported the story right-down-the-middle -- New York businesses get doses.

Not so for the Huffington Post which seemed to ignore the fact that Wall Street firms are big employers whose employees work in close quarters.

It's almost as though the Huffington Post believes Goldman Sachs, Citi and others should have been placed in line after the Gitmo detainees or punished for almost bringing down the global financial system in this bizarre way.

And an accompanying reader feedback box to the Huffington Post piece offers these choices for readers to describe this situation.

I meant to post this piece weeks ago, but with Sarah Palin dipping into political races around the country, this article remains relevant.

Mainly, it shows how much Palin and McCain were like oil and water last year, and McCain's worry that the Republican party is fast-tracking down a high-risk strategy to regain a voting majority or the White House.

In McCain's case, that means backing conservative pragmatists and moderates.

It would be tempting to dismiss McCain as part of the Republican Party's old guard and label his efforts to recruit moderates as a way to remain relevant as the conservative wing of the party exerts pressure to reshape the GOP away from the middle. That's probably true, but could you imagine the clashes between McCain and Palin that would have played out in public had they been elected?

I'm going to keep this short and sweet.

Today, there are statewide and congressional district races across the country.

How should the rest of the country view the various outcomes?

Are these truly local races?

Or are these contests valid finger-in-the-wind indicators of the direction of public sentiment heading into the 2010 midterm elections?

Remember the Alternative Minimum Tax? Well, say hello to the healthcare version.

Decades ago, the AMT was envisioned to prevent the rich from eluding taxes. But it was never indexed to inflation, which meant that as salaries climbed more and more middle class families got socked with this tax.. Pols love to rail against the tax, but not end it because it provides a pot of money that keeps the gapping hole in the federal budget from being even larger.

Well, the House version of the healthcare reform bill seems to going down this familiar road. The impact of the healthcare tax is supposed to be heaviest on the rich.But this measure isn't indexed to inflation, either. So guess what 20 years from now, if not sooner, we'll be complaining about the fairness of this tax -- and with good reason.

If you haven't seen Michael Jackson's This is it or Michael Moore's Capitalism, go now.

Both are great. Never thought I would say that since I'm generally tired of Michael Jackson stuff, and Michael Moore can be annoying, misleading and right on target in the same film. But i figure anytime a filmmaker can get a capitalist like me ticked off by capitalism, then it is a worthy of moment of introspection. Capitalism does a wonderful job at highlighting the major and absurd abuses that brought the global economy to its knees. Just try to ignore Moore's "capitalism has never gotten anything right themes," and accept the movie for its graphic portrayal of the consequences of unfettered capitalism.

This is it is interesting glimpse into the rehearsal routines of an amazingly talented performer..period. No opinions, just musical and dance artistry.

No doubt most Americans who carry credit card balance have seen their limits cuts, rates hiked and fees added. A lot of this is to head of the deadline for new federal rules on credit card company practices. (Read and comment here)

Some plan to charge customers new annual fees and others are charging consumers for not charging enough or using their cards often enough.

The irony of this is that some institutions aren't just hitting high-risk, late payers, but are also dunning good customers who pay off their balances on time. Obviously, an angry customer can find enough card, but that's not the point. What's a good interest rate -- built from responsble money management -- really worth if its offset by inactivity fees and penalties that could exceed what the borrower would have paid in interest on a balance? Think about it credit card companies aren't just penalizing unwise financial decisions, they're encouraging these decisions and penalizing credit frugality. Which they can do since the debt can offloaded on someone else in the form of penalties etc., or sold to a collection for dimes on the dollar.If they had to sit on the risk, their approach wouldn't be so perverse.

There is so much attention being paid to Wall Street bonuses because taxpayer dollars are involved and the pay packages aren't rewarding financial performance, but more of the risky strategies that created the economic meltdown. For the average American, however, credit card terror is the consumer war of neccessity.
.

If you want to reduce speed-related accidents, you::

(a) lower the speed limit
(b) enforce the new speed limit or
(c) give everyone a turbo-charged car.

The feds apparently went straight to (c), according to a gov. audit, which found new abuses associated with the $8,000 new home tax credit. Namely, 167 possible criminal schemes and a bunch of suspected civil violations, some unintentional and some quite intentional.

The Obama administration does not seem eager about extending the credit despite a big push from the housing industry. I'd love to see the president hold the line and let the excesses shake out naturally.

The credit was a useful one-time strategy, but the housing industry's "balloon" doesn't need to be re-inflated especially when the problems of mortgage fraud and related abuses apparently have not been curtailed.

Mention Net Neutrality and eyes glaze over. It's one of those technical, legal, fairness issues about devising new rules of the road for Internet and wireless communications.

.Yet, it is important because it speaks to the pace, direction and access to new Internet and wireless services and content. I'm conflicted and would welcome the thoughts of others.

Here are a few links for background and I'll try to frame the issue in non- tech terms in an admittedly imperfect analogy below.

I'll keep this to a short, simple rant.

Why in the heck didn't Texas ask for more swine flu doses?

As expected, every state is coming up short. Production still lags demand.

But the number of doses available in Texas has no semblance to the state's population.

And it's not like the swine flu skipped Texas, either.

This doesn't inspire confidence in the state's assessment and response.

Other states managed to work through the complicated process.

Why couldn't Texas?

Texas got bad job news today as reported on the DMN Economy blog

Texas employers cut payrolls by 44,700 jobs in September, and the unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent from 8 percent in August.

It is bad news, and a sobering counterbalance to the Texas stimulus related numbers yesterday and the Dow hits 10,000 headlines from earlier this week, which ironically returned the market t0 1999 levels. The competing headlines also reflect a classic Main Street/ Wall Street divide.

But there is another basic problem behind trying to link economic indicators together toward a thumbs up, or thumbs down prediction about the economy.

I've wonder whether President Obama is falling prey to a curse of presidents ----the D.C. bubble.

He travels to New Orleans and snaps at a person who asks a very reasonable question - why the area doesn't have a full service hospital back up and running so many years after Katrina.

"Now I wish I could just write a check -- you say why not? -- well, you know, there's this whole thing about the Constitution and Congress," he added. "One of the interesting things you find out about being president is everybody will attack you for spending money unless you're spending it on them."

It's snide, elusive, and a surprisingly, politically tone deaf. New Orleans was ground zero for post Katrina government inaction during the Bush administration so tensions are high and nerves are frayed.

But that is why Obama can't begin to answer the question with the "I wish I could write a check" and simply dismiss the concern by saying everyone wants a piece of the federal budget. And when his next stop is a high-dollar partisan fund raiser in San Francisco where people are writing checks, it's hard for anyone on the ground in New Orleans to be anything but frustrated.

No doubt recovery along the Gulf Coast is spotty and expensive. The Obama administration's recovery efforts have drawn praise from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican who could be a 2012 presidential candidate. Yet the president's comments make him sound far too removed from the pain that may not be fresh to anyone in Washington or Dallas or San Francisco, but is still an everyday pain along the Gulf Coast.

I'm not one to scoff at the Dow's return to 10,000. As they say, "any port in a storm" works when your ship is getting battered.
Nonetheless, it's hard to determine whether this market is ascending toward fair value (in the face of a wide range of economic uncertainties) or toward a premature, bubble-creating fantasy. I'd like to think it is the former, but in the absence of new jobs, I think it is the latter. As so do many others in this CNN/Money piece.

Barry Ritholtz, CEO and director of equity research at Fusion IQ, said that despite their reputation as a leading indicator, the stock markets do a terrible job forecasting the economy.
"Beware of economists pointing to the stock market," he said. "The rallies tend to be false starts because it's a reaction to what came before. The sell-offs tend to be overdone because, as they gain momentum, they lead to panics."

Indeed, the economy is recovering, but except for some banks (and that's another long, ugly story), corporate earnings aren't climbing confidently and consumers aren't buying, at least not in the volume that justifies lots of new manufacturing output.
On the bright side, the fact that a lot of the stimulus money won't flow until next year may be a disguised blessing in that industry will put that money to work during an upswing when it can really be leveraged positively for growth, instead of expended as an emergency parachute. The tricky part is managing the period between the end of unemployment benefits and the start of broad, new jobs filtering into the economy.

It's never easy to decipher politics, especially health care politics. Votes matter. Statements matter. Timing matters And these points are so evident as the Senate Finance Committee moves today toward a vote.
* Snowe -- is she a yes or no?
* Which Ds vote no i.e Wyden.
* How will the two major events of the past few days -- the CBO scoring and America's Health Insurance Plans, an insurance industry trade group, critical assessment of the Senate Finance Committee's proposed legislation -- play into the committee votes and the broader debate?

I'm pretty sure that a bill will emerge from the finance committee but beyond that I'm not at all sure since the real horse trading on the Senate side will be during the melding of the Senate bills down the road.

I'm curious how others read the process,especially whether the insurance industry's 11th hour opposition works for or against eventual passage of a health care reform bill.

I'm always troubled by the digital divide. For years now, I've seem study after study show a great disparity in household access to broadband services and computers in minority and low income communities.

In many ways, I think this is one of the most serious economic development impediments in low-income communities. It's hard to attract businesses to an area that can't handle high-speed data transfers.And this isn't just an issue in poor urban communities. It's just as important to the economic development future of rural areas as well.

This subject came up during a recent conversation with Randall L. Stephenson, AT&T's chairman, who sees wireless mobile communications as the future of mobile communications. And that got me thinking about how a telecom company like AT&T might hook up with neighborhood level efforts to more effectively use mobile communications in low-income neighborhoods (Read and comment on this West Dallas and SMU effort.).

The digital divide is real and we've got to find a way to close it.

i

I"m loving these potential unintended consequences to the House and Senate's knee-jerk reactions to defund ACORN. Rod Dreher indirectly raised this issue in an editorial a couple of weeks ago when he talked about private contractors being caught up in the House's anti-ACORN legislation. Actually, I'm glad that they've been caught up in the dragnet and here's why.

The Senate bill names ACORN for a funding cutoff, which arguably could violate the Constitution. Legislation that targets one group always faces this bar so it is a waste of time and political nonsense. But the gem is the House version, which is broader and would ban entities receiving any federal contracts or grants if those have "filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency."

It targets more than ACORN, is definitely legal, and is the sort of good government provision that all taxpayers, regardless of their political leanings, should cheer. That's what gone unnoticed because the focus has been on ACORN and Congress didn't really know what it was doing. Surprise. Surprise.

But look at the list of businesses that could be swept up in the anti-Acorn legislation, according to the Project on Government Oversight.

At least 62 federal contractors including more than a few Fortune 500 firms and major military contractors, would be at risk of a funding cutoff under the House version. And I'm not weeping for any of them. If these firms are running a shell game with taxpayers dollars, then they deserve the same consequences as ACORN. Like Rod, I want to see the political backpedaling on this one. But actually, I'd like to see this stick.

Who would have thought Congress would get tough on government fraud? Gee, not even Congress.

We''ll find out sometime next year now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that goes to the core of this fundamental gun rights/gun control issue.

The facts of the case are particularly interesting since the people at the heart of the case don't fit "gun nut" stereotypes.

For example, Otis McDonald is a community activist who lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Chicago. He says he needs the gun to protect himself from violent drug dealers and other criminals who don't want him around. Chicago denied his application for a handgun permit.
In many ways, his bio sounds a lot like that of the average handgun owner --a person who wants to protect himself or family. He doesn't sound like a wild-eyed militia member, and that makes this a "cleaner case" for the court. Likewise, the other gun owners seem to have pretty ordinary bios and reasons for wanting a gun.

Given the makeup of the Supreme Court, my best guess is that the justices will affirm the right of states and cities to limit gun ownership if that's the local will, but that the High Court also will raise questions about what constitutes "reasonable control." It would not surprise me if the court found the Chicago ban (see details in extended entry link) to be too broad and overreaching.

The court already has affirmed the right of an individual to bear arms. Now it's a question of how far cities and states can go to control guns. My guess is that the answer to that question will be punted down the road until it is challenged and decided on a case by case basis.

I grew up in Chicago and thought I'd seen every version of a political fight possible.

Oh how wrong.

It doesn't matter whether you like or dislike District Attorney Craig Watkins, or the Dallas County Commissioners. It's clear that raw and unabashed personal vendettas are driving decisions for these elected officials. And the personal issues are no longer below the surface or couched in a Dallas nicety.

Twice in recent weeks, Dallas Commissioners have gone around Watkins and hired other lawyer/ investigators as a no-confidence slap in the face to Watkins. the latest this morning's decision to hire an outside lawyer for advice in the constables case. This is not to be confused with the vote earlier this month to hire former FBI agent Danny Defenbaugh because commissioners weren't confident that Watkins, a Democrat, would thoroughly investigate criminal allegations involving the two Democratic constables.

Now there are lots of ways Watkins could have avoided the political hit from this standoff, by asking for outside investigators to help instead of playing cat-and-mouse with everyone on whether he was looking into the constables' matter.

But I'm really irked by the Commissioners, who now seem to be grandstanding for the sake of grandstanding by hiring outside legal advice at taxpayer expense to undermine Watkins. And of course, Watkins has opened up another front with these questions about commissioner Ken Mayfield and potential conflicts of interest.

The commissioners may be doing the right thing in both instances, but for the wrong reasons. I question their motives, and the effect these dustups will have on the credibility of Watkins' office, and even more importantly, whether serious issues raised in the constables cases will be lost in the shuffle.

I certainly hope that other law enforcement agencies are involved in trying to figure out whether the constables and a towing service are breaking the law.

If the constables have done something wrong, a smart lawyer will attack the credibility of the county-level investigation as politics. And I'm not sure jurors wouldn't see it that way as well.

Hey folks, play politics with the budget if you must. That's what boards do. But don't play games with the justice system. There's too much at stake.

The arrest of a 19-year-old Jordanian who plotted to blow up Fountain Place ought to remind us all that terrorism is real. Was he part of a conspiracy or a confused wanna-be? I don't know yet and it doesn't really matter to me whether this is a lone wolf or sleeper.

Hate ideology, whether home grown or foreign born, is dangerous. It's hard to quell, so the only defense is to take every threat seriously. The FBI apparently did that. Some may argue that he was entrapped because the FBI helped him move the plot forward.

But let's be real. He didn't back off. He seized the opportunity and detonated what he thought was a bomb. To me, that's a pretty clear sign of murderous intent. Can you imagine what would have happened had he hooked up online with someone other than the FBI?

I hope this arrest redoubles our diligence. At the same time I hope that this doesn't serve as an excuse for an ill-directed wave of anti-Muslim sentiment. The sympathetic lone wolf may be far more dangerous than the organized Jihadist only because the lone wolf isn't part of a traceable network. This doesn't minimize the organized threat by recognizes the immense challenge facing law enforcement agencies to get it right every time.

I can't believe it. After all that criticism for basically selling party passes until the printing press shut down, the Dallas Cowboys have come up with a pretty defiant response. They won't limit the number of party passes.

I find it amazing that the city can't demand some limits on standing-room only. And it sure sounds to be that the Cowboys are saying to fans "Buy a pass, take a chance."

Really sad.

As I've said on this blog many, many times, I'm a sucker for interactive websites. Here's one that I want to point out to folks who have concerns about where all the bailout money is going. It's one of the best one-stop compilations that I've seen so I pass this along as a resource.

Have at it.

I'm not City Hall expert, but I can't remember the last time a Mayor's Task Force empowered to come up with creative ideas for the betterment of southern Dallas neighborhoods got so... how shall we say.. ticked off as to dash off an angry letter to Mayor Tom Leppert suggesting that their recommendations aren't getting a fair hearing.

We believe that by adequately supporting the projects being promoted by the Task Force, a clear signal will be sent to the members of the Task Force and the City as a whole. That signal, in short, is that Southern Dallas is indeed a development priority for the City, and that the thousands of hours of time that have, will or can be invested will not be in vain.

Wow!

Last week, Oak Cliff Chamber of Commerce president Bob Stimson wrote council members to express disappointment at the lack of progress. And now in another letter, the Task Force chairs are expressing the same thoughts to the mayor. (see extended entry for the Task Force's letter).

I am not going to get into a debate over what's doable and what's not in these tight financial times, but I admire their spunk because Dallas has a long, embarrassing history of task force reports gathering dust on a shelf. This newspaper is equally concerned about the lack of progress as noted in this recent editorial There's a lot a stake and the council owes it to the Task Force to make some decisions that move the ball forward. Anything more than, "Thanks, we'll get back to you later.">

After seeing Barack Obama on the Sunday shows --minus Fox -- I raised the "Is he overexposed" question at our Monday morning staff meeting. I said "yes.' Some of my co-workers disagreed. The same question is raised in this NBC/WSJ poll today and the answer seems to depend on party loyalties.

I'm hearing the president's voice in "catch-up mode" on health care so he's sounding redundant to me. Had he launched this media blitz a month ago before the Town Hall meetings seized the stage, then I might have different thoughts about the strategy.

Maybe that's a "media ear" response. I consume lots of information so what seems old to me might not play that way to someone who isn't a journalist.

He's doing what every president does when he's pressing a program. Bush did it on Iraq, but eventually the phrases that made sense when he was trying to rally support suddenly become less persuasive. Obama is going through this cycle on health care reform which is why I don't think the appearances are moving the needle very much in his favor. It strikes me that he has lost the "closer" leverage, because he now has to rescue the deal and close it at the same time.

So is he overexposed, and should others in the administration (not the Congress) have carried the health care reform sooner. And, if he is overexposed, then how should he push forward without turning his voice into background noise?

For the past hour, I've been watching MSNBC replay NBC's minute-by-minute live coverage of Sept. 11, 2001. I'm struck by a couple of things.

NBC's coverage was measured, professional, clinical. Information was being very carefully evaluated, and reported with sourcing and acknowlegement of what iwasn't known.And within 30 minutes NBC had offiicial government confirmation that this most likely was a terrorist attack. And within the hour, Bin Laden was on the list of most likely suspects.

This is the era before blogs exploded. It's impressive that wide speculation didn't rule the coverage. It's fine journalism.

The other day I made a comment to a few of my fellow board members that I had serious doubts whether health care reform could wring enough costs out of the way doctors are paid without making a shortage of health care providers worse than it is right now.

We've known for years now that the nation needs more primary care doctors, especially in poor neighborhoods and rural communities. And this New York Times video raises some of these issues. If a student can make $$$$$$ as a specialist, is it even possible to create the financial and lifestyle incentives needed to produce doctors who are willing to become general practice docs in poor neighborhoods and rural communities.
Medicine is a business, a lifestyle and a calling. But given the cost of a medical education, I really wonder whether enough people will make lifestyle and related sacrifice. And as this NYT video shows forgiving medical education loans -- and tort reform -- may not be enough.

Would love doctors and medical students to comment on this subject.

Bill's posting is must-reading, a pretty good overview of the issues and options. I'm really curious how Obama will explain the elephant in the room -- the impact of his approach on the deficit.

I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period.

Now add the next line:

And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize.

You know what will happen. The CBO will score his plan as adding to the deficit, and Obama will counter by insisting that savings and other revenue will make his plan a financial wash.

While I think Obama momentarily quieted the Town Hall anger and smartly co-opted some Republican ideas, he left too many financial questions on the table. He needed to lay out a few tangible cuts, the kind that people can get their minds around, and the kind that can be scored in traditional ways, and then we'd have greater confidence in the true cost estimates. If health care costs are a big part of the deficit, as he said last night, then he absolutely needed to green-eye shade specific spending cuts. And of course, the true measure of cost isn't in the start-up; it's in the sustainablity -- or lack of -- whatever system is put into place that really matters.

I don't think this part of his argument moves overall public opinion or on-the-fence members of Congress to his side.

The battle now moves to things like employer and individual mandates and the silly tax-the-goldplated-plans idea. I'm guessing the tax-the-plans notion, is an intentional red herring to be horse-traded for the mandates or some other feature during negotiations.

This isn't exactly what Barack Obama is planning, but I thought I'd find some video of George H.W. Bush speaking to a class.

Sure sounds policy oriented to me.

Just saying.

...is a new book that will be on my reading list. The main thesis, as discussed in this interview, is that what passes for conservatism today resembles radicalism,, circa the late 1960s..from the left.
- Don't trust the government
- All institutions are evil
- You can't have a civil reasonable discussion of differences

This book should be must reading for anyone who truly wants to put the best interests of the nation ahead of unfocused and dangerous anger. And it might explain much of the populist hysteria that is perverting legitimate debate.

Why can't there be a Third Way?

Just a few weeks ago, congressional influence and common sense seemed to have combined to save UT Southwestern's research efforts to determine why so many vets of the First Gulf War returned home with unexplained illnesses.

But now the optimism we expressed when we wrote this editorial circulated by several Veterans groups has been dashed as this DMN story details.

There's a big picture being missed, namely that Gulf War vets are ill and have no idea why. It seems to be me that there must be a simple way for UT Southwestern and the VA to reach a compromise. If this is mostly about VA access to the names of patients, then wise heads ought to be able to find a compromise that serves the VA and allows UTSW to protect the rights of veterans. University researchers deal with privacy issues all the time and do it quite well, with UTSW reconsenting most vets to find a way to give the VA most of what it needs.

We've also publishing a Letter to the Editor this weekend from Congressman Michael C. Burgess, a doctor, who says he is asking the VA reconsider canceling the funding for this breakthrough research. He says UTSW's work has advanced not only medicine's understanding of Gulf War syndrome, but also holds the promise to benefit research for ailments suffered by non-veterans, including chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia.

He's absolutely right. UTSW is doing important work so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make it work.

Yesterday, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said the FDIC had not yet decided whether to charge banks another special assessment to replenish the fund, but that the agency's board would meet toward the end of the third quarter to discuss the issue.
Now 416 banks are on the problem list, or about 5 percent of the nation's banks, up from 305 in March. The problem banks had a combined $299.8 billion of assets.

This isn't exactly a surprise. In a post earlier this week. Michael Landauer touched on this the increased strains on the FDIC fund in a blog posting pegged to BBVA Compass acquisition of Guaranty Bank. Since the FDIC isn't one to encourage panic, we don't know the names, ranks and serial numbers of those troubled institutions.

But let me add some perspective.These numbers aren't nearly as bad as the 1990s crisis and not anywhere near Great Depression numbers, when the FDIC didn't exist. And the troubled bank number might not really mean that the banking sector is falling apart, but that the feds are acknowledging the trouble in part because they're better positioned to work through it now than they were six months ago.

Just how much $$$$ the FDIC has to raise from the banks is important because $$$ paid to increase a safety net are $$$ that can't be loaned or invested. It might even mean that these $$$ can't be designated internally for the banks to use to pump up their own reserves. (By the way, i laid out some of these issues in this blog posting earlier this year.)

I'm guessing that the FDIC is going to be walking a fine line between directly infusing taxpayer dollars to replenish the fund and hitting up the banks directly for higher premiums. It's political decision and an economic decision. And yes, it will be painful.

On a related matter, I'm a sucker for an interactive map even if the map spells out trouble. If you've wondered about the geographic distribution of bank failures and foreclosures, this map is a great resource. For the analog folks, here's a list.

Talked to District Attorney Craig Watkins this morning, and he's livid over the Dallas County Commissioners' decision to hire an outside investigator to look into the constables' flap and is also still miffed at our editorial earlier this week, which he says calls him out as doing nothing to get the bottom of the matter. (I've included his response to the editorial in the extended entry portion.)

He says the commissioners' decision to hire an independent investigator is irresponsible and could jeopardize an investigation -- if one is underway.But again he declined to shed any light on what might or might not be going on.

He sees the commissioners' action as a stunt ahead of the election season to make him appear weak. And he again hints that the commissioners -- especially Maurine Dickey and Jim Foster -- know more about what's going on than they're letting on. (I'll call them later this morning and post their reactions.)

UPDATE: 11 A.M.: Dickey says Watkins told her privately last week that an investigation was underway, but that he swore her to secrecy. At that time she said she urged him to pursue an outside investigator to prevent the inquiry from becoming political.

UPDATE: 3:17 p.m.: Am still waiting for a return call from Jim Foster

UPDATE: 10:15 a.m.: Foster stands by his call for an independent investigator and his claim that he asked Watkins several times in recent weeks to investigate and was not given a direct answer.

I find a few things to be a bit odd.

President Obama's decision to reappoint Ben Bernanke probably averts a really ugly fight over the Fed chairman's job at a time when the economy is showing a few signs of life.
Also, Wall Street has to be pleased that he's back, if only for the fact that Obama didn't let Bernanke twist in the wind for another month or so and let the continued uncertainity create another cloud over the economy.

Like him or hate him, the fact of the matter is that Bernanke represents stability, and that's a valuable intangible at this time.

In a post a few weeks ago, I noted the names being tossed around, including Dallas Fed Bank head Richard Fisher, and outlined the case for and against Bernanke.

And this entry from DMN Business Writer Brendan Case is a nice roundup of perspectives on Bernanke.

I am not going to reinvent the wheel and repeat the main points made in this linked blog entry, but the piece underscores why the American public needs to figure out what is in developing health care legislation instead of fighting over what isn't.

My point is that most numbers presented in this health care debate are flexible estimates based on different assumptions, or as a cynic might say, pulled out of the air.

Different assumptions yield different conclusions. The problem is no one has the slightest idea of how all of the moving pieces will come together --- and by "no one," I mean the CBO and the White House.

Let me piece together two news items. In journalism circles, this means that we're two-thirds of the way toward establishing a trend.

Texas adds jobs as noted in this DMN economywatch entry. The 37,900 payroll jobs added in July represent the state's first net monthly employment gain since October 2008.

The national economy is on the cusp of a recovery, or so says Fed chairman Ben Bernanke.

Both headlines are bit surprising. Most analysts still expect a landmine or two to explode in the commercial real estate industry. And, of course, consumer spending isn't robust.

So will the "recovery," such as it is, be quick and deep, or long and shallow? The latter essentially describes a jobless recovery on the national stage. And wil the "recovery" in Texas look sharply different than the "recovery" elsewhere?

Thoughts anyone?

If I were Hillary Clinton, I'd be wondering whether somebody is trying to send me a message.
I understand why Bill Clinton jetted to North Korea to free a couple of journalists.
I understand why Hillary blew a gasket when she thought a student wanted her husband's opinion.
But I don't understand why Bill Richardson, and not Hilary Clinton is meeting with North Korean diplomats.

Could be this remark from North Korea's Foreign Ministry be the reason?

"Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping,"

I hate to admit it, but Astroturf campaigns work. Eventually the effect fades, but by then the damage has been done. That's the goal -- to change the dynamics when the issue is hot. Period.

We've seen Astroturf change public opinion in the health care debate, in effect creating heated debate over what's not in the bill, instead of conversation about what is and what reform is going to cost taxpayers.

I mention this misdirection of attention to note that a similar game is playing out in the energy debate in the form of the fake endorsement.

Shell groups that secretly represent industry and other special-interests aren't new. However, it seems to me that fake letterheads and endorsements on this blatant a scale are relatively new tactics and go beyond the usual dirty tricks.

Here are well-compensated third-party manipulators taking real groups, using their name and letterhead, and then spamming Congress and probably average citizens with false information attributed to the group. I'm particularly annoyed by this comment by Jack Bonner, whose firm masterminded the scheme. I find it distasteful and misleading.

If you could redesign the American health care system, what would it look like?

I don't want to hear rants about socialism or Obama. Put aside political party philosophies. Pretend the current debate isn't occuring and that you now have the opportunity to design improvements to the system -- additons, deletions -- whatever.

I want to hear constructive ideas working from the premise that if health care system is broken, then how can we make it better?

I'm looking for people to give me about five concise points.

If you think, cost is the probem, give me a solution.

If you think coverage is the problem, give me a solution.

And if your proposals involve costs, then give me ideas for how you would pay for these changes.

Of course, if you think the system is just fine --- that it is financially flush, and there no problems with docs or specialists or insurance companies, hospitals, cost, coverage etc. etc. etc., that's a perfectly legitimate answer, too. And if you work in any portion of the health care industry, tell me that as well.

I am not looking for a debate, personal stories or rants. I am seeking some consensus around policy points.

Most folks probably missed President Barack Obama's strategic retreat this week on comprehensive immigration reform.

It was pretty easy to miss. Town halls, wing nuts, health care, "I'm not channeling my husband... yada, yada, yada. Those are pretty big media distractions.

Besides, how many firefights on different fronts can anyone engage in at the same time and expect to win?

But here's what happened Monday. And this quote (below) shows how quickly political capital and focus can erode and why timing is everything.

"The longer the healthcare debate drags out not only does it make it harder to get healthcare passed, it makes it harder to get immigration passed," says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies.

How long have we heard that automakers couldn't increase gas mileage without compromising safety?

Well, I guess technology has made a huge jump. General Motors said its Chevrolet Volt set for release in 2011 will achieve a fuel rating of 230 miles a gallon in city driving.

Boy, is this a potential game changer in the face of a carbon constrained future.

Florida Sen. Mel Martinez is stepping down early, which means that Gov. Charlie Crist, who already is running for the seat, now gets to appoint a replacement.

I'll bet that the person appointed will be the weakest, and least politically ambitious Senate candidate ever.

Just saying

We've all heard a bunch of ideas for regulating -- or not regulating -- economic and financial activity. Most are pretty much to be epected -- find a federal agency, give it more power, or create a new agency with new authority.

But from the minds of academics come ivory tower approaches --(and I'll beat you all to the punch; I'm not talking about the editorial board). Lee Bollinger, who you might remember for his confrontational introducton of Iran's president President Mahmoud Ahmadinejada few years ago as "a petty and cruel dictator," told Bloomberg that the nation needs a First Amendment for the Economy, an idea that I'm still having a bit of trouble fully understanding.

I favor giving the Fed broader and formal oversight powers. But I guess I'm struggling with how Bollinger's idea promotes predictability, which all markets crave. It sounds like it would turn economic regulation into an ad hoc quas-judicial process without the bright line rules to help the markets and businesses to undersatnd what is allowable and what isn't.

Thoughts anyone?

Sometimes New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg makes me shake my head in amazement. Trouble is, I'm not sure whether I'm for him or against him on this one.

In an effort to control shelter costs, his administration is offering NY's homeless families a one-way ticket out of town.

Should Dallas consider something like this for homeless families with kids?

Homelessness is generally more complicated than the inability of a homeless familiy to go live with a relative elsewhere. Having said that, are the families and the city of New York better offer if people can be resettled elsewhere? According to the NYTimes report, more than 550 families have left the city since 2007 -- and none of these families returned. Actually I'm a bit surprised that this program, which has been underway for a couple of years, is now getting attention.

While I have some doubts, I can't say that I have a better answer. Not everone can get the training or other help needed to start over in a place like New York City. Maybe if those resources and shelter with a relative elsewhere were options, then maybe this isn't such a bad idea.

I sure know this is better than the way some ritzy California communities handled panhandlers and the homeless --- by having the local police round them up, drive them into L.A. and drop them off on some street corner, thus making them L.A.'s problem.

I sure wish Sen. John Cornyn would decide whether Sonia Sotomayor is in the mainstream or is a liberal judicial activist.

He continues to suggest that she's both. I don't think that's possible -- unless he also believes that is is possible to be half-pregnant. Take a look at this entry on the DMN's Trailblazers blog and you'll see what I mean.

Is it possible to provide a more contorted and confused rationale for a "no" vote?

If Cornyn truly thinks the vast majority of her rulings are in the mainstream, what other than pure politics would call for a "no" vote?

Just saying.

Dallas has a strategy to get through the tough budget times. It's called belt tightening.

But does Dallas have a strategy for the economic rebound when it comes?

A few weeks ago, I wrote an editorial urging Texas, and of course, Dallas to take advantage of tougher economic times in other states to lure the best and the brightest. Others have jumped on the bandwagon, including The Economist, which the DMN editorial board notes.

At the time, Mayor Tom Leppert said Dallas had that sort of thing in mind and hinted that the city was on the verge of pulling the trigger on something significant. He's out of town --- inToronto on a transportation related trip as Rodger Jones notes on the Transportation blog -- so I don't have an update right now.

So I called Jim Oberwetter of the Dallas Regional Chamber and John Crawford of Downtown Dallas. Oberwetter says the area is "well advanced" in developing a new strategy to attract corporate relocations and declined to offer specifics which he says would undermine our competitive advantage. So far, this document provides the major theme that the chamber is using in its sales pitch. Crawford is also out of pocket with the mayor, so I'll add his thoughts later.

If you're wondering why you should care, then read this NYtimes story and blrub below about Atlanta and figure that they're not the only city thinking beyond today.

And be sure to click on the Atlanta study. It is pretty detailed and doesn't just identify strengths and weaknesses. It's a game plan. Maybe Dallas and North Texas have a similar document/strategy, but I'm not aware of it. I certainly hope we do.

Those of you who lived here in the 1980s and 1990s, probably recall the guerilla warfare between Atlanta and Dallas for economic development coups. It was brutal then the nxt round is going t be just as tough and involve even more players.

I hope we're up to the challenge.

The Washington Post has a fascinating story on the CIA program that has caused such an inside the Beltway flap.
Put aside, the ridiculous Democrat attempt to help Nancy Pelosi save face by tyring to show that the CIA cheats and misrepresents (like this is news?). And while we're at it let's put aside the equally ridiculous Republican talking point that the Democrats are compromising national security and the ability to take out terrorist leaders.

Now consider the practical elements of any plan to kill anyone on foreign soil.

On Tuesday, we heard Lindsey Graham and Jeff Sessions go after Sonia Sotomayor for her "wise Latina" comment. And they got answers. Good reasoned answers.

So how does Texas Sen. John Cornyn open his questioning Wednesday? With the same line of questioning, and with less impact than his colleagues' questions.

As they say in court "asked, answered." Next question, please.

Just a quick set of observations:

* She took some body punches from Jeff Sessions, got a little bloodied, but is still firmly on her feet.

* Thought she gave a measured defense of the Ricci case, but I think that she hasn't changed non legal minds outside the hearing room. Going into the hearing, most Americans had no opinion on Sotamayor. For the record, this tracks pre-hearing sentiment of Justice Samuel Alito in 2006,(77 percent); Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. in 2005 (66 percent) , and Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991(64 percent). In other words, enough people don't care about or know enough about her to oppose her.

* The more interesting contest is not between the senators and Sotomayor. Several special interest groups on both sides are calling Senate offices to express so-called "grassroots" sentiments. It's an interesting high tech lobbyng effort that probably won't change party-line voting on her confirmation.

*And last, but not least. Want to read some detailed analysis of her record?
Here are a couple:
NYU on constitutional issues

Congressional Research's report for the Senators

As lawyers often say, you never now what might haopen when you go to court.

This story by DMN cops reporter Tanya Eiserer has me wondering aloud about senior District Judge Pat McDowell who tossed a case based on polygraph tests. What makes this unique, the story says, is that lie detector tests seldom are admitted into evidence --- except this time.

From the story it sounds as though the police squad had a checkered history and might have shaved a few corners. Alnd from this paragraph below, it seems as though the prosecutor realized that he had a bad case for various reasons and gave the judge a easy way to end the case:
First Assistant District Attorney Terri Moore said typically prosecutors object to the admission of polygraph evidence, but she added: "A prosecutor's job is to see that justice is done, and if he believed the polygraph, which is otherwise inadmissible, he may have just decided to let the judge consider it." .

Still, I find it amazing that the polygraph test and the judge's instinct provided the impetus for tossing this case. Wow!

This story hasn't gotten much attention in most Texas newspapers, but Texas Tech's decision to hire former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales hasn't gone unnoticed on the campus. An editorial in the Daily Toreador takes the school to task for hiring Gonzales to teach political science, be a guest speaker and recruit minority students.

By leaving Capitol Hill in disgrace, Gonzales did not fulfill his duty as attorney general, and he did not reach his full potential as a role model for minorities.

This trumps hiring a fiery coach from Indiana known for tossing a chair across a basketball court. Gonzales is notoriously accused of much more serious problems.

Ouch -- the Bobby Knight card. And of course the editorial recounts his controversial wiretapping program and torture memo.

I have the same thoughts about this hiriing.

Most people who have held the posts that Gonzales has held walk into a big law firm as a rainmaker or become the dean of a major law school. Instead, Gonzales ends teaching this poli sci course --"Contemporary Issues in the Executive Branch."

Oh the irony. Or maybe it it should be oh the gall.

For just a brief moment, I thought there was a teeny-weeny chance that the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing next week on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court might be civil.

Then I saw the witness list

Aside from the usual character witnesses and legal experts, the Senate Republicans will call New Haven firefighters Frank Ricci and Ben Vargas, presumably to testify against Sotomayor and the appellate court's refusal to back their reverse discrimination claim.

Since neither is a legal expert, I'm hard pressed to understand exactly what expertise they'll bring to a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. After all, aren't all the facts of the case in the legal record?

Now let's go to the Democratic witnesses, and we find David Cone, former Major League Baseball pitcher, presumbaly to back the judge who ended the baseball labor dispute by ruling for the players.

It's going to be a long week.

Michael's post about Dallas got me thinking.

Plenty of cities will have fireworks shows, but I'm betting that all of use have favorite celebrations and might even travel a bit to see their favorite. Let me prime the pump and tell you that I like Addison's show.

Now tell me what makes for a good fireworks show, whether there local favorites that you would suggest, and whether you have any special memories from past shows.

Is it just the roll of the dice that two of three recent crashes after car chases involved Dallas County constables, or are the constables in need of a little stricter chase policy?

I'm guessing the latter. But I'm also concerned about a couple of comments from Dallas County Commissioner Mike Cantrell in today's story.

This misses the point and assumes that fleeing suspects are rational. They're scared, desperate or both, and that combination doesn't make for thoughtful consideration of consequences. That's why I think the burden of chase/not chase falls on the law enforcement officer. I mean chasing some of these folks on crowded streets and expressways is really close to an officer firing a shot at a suspect in across a crowded mall. The risk of innocent people getting hurt is too great.

Also, it seems that county constables in this state fly under the radar and are taking on new responsibilities. Are they ready trained and up to the new tasks?
.

I'm always cautious when some spouts an "economic impact" statistic. These numbers are very fluid and generally filled with lots of assumptions, some accurate, some not so.
But I was taken back by this Dallas Business Journal story and these stats in the opening paragraphs.

Let's say, I'm impressed. I knew that the city had found a lucrative niche -- minor league professional and amateur sports -- but I didn't know how lucrative.

I intentionally avoided listening to radio and television coverage last night. Just a few minutes and then I found other things to do.

Why?

I wasn't all that interested in a Michael Jackson retrospective and didn't expect to learn anything of significance about the details of his sad death. I know that this makes me an exception. After all, the Twiiter feeds from Iran reportedly shifted from protest and election talk to Michael Jackson chatter as word of his death spread. That's a sign of international celebrity and one that almost defies comprehension.

But as a person who grew up in Chicago, about a 30-minute drive from Michael Jackson's hometown of Gary, I had grown tired of him. I respected the freakish nature of his enormous talent, but cringed at the freakish nature of his personality --- the child who wanted to be loved, never grew up and seemingly only could find refuge in a make-believe-world.

Indeed, that is the tearfulness of Michael Jackson -- a person who spent at least 40 of his 50 years in front of audiences who saw him go from a cute pre-teen in a brothers act to a global marketing, entertainment genius in Sgt. Pepper garb and a white glove, to someone we no longer knew, understood or could defend.

Even in death, Michael Jackson is unforgettable. I just wish I had less complicated memories.

This morning, the editorial board wrestled with the Don Hill case, particularly the way the judge was handling Hill's violation of her gag order. Regardless of whether you think gag orders are silly, ineffective etc., consider this:
Hill's PR firm will be holding daily briefings

So what part of silence do they not understand?
.

Mark Sanford now admits an affair and has resigned as head of the Republican Governors Association. It appears that he will not resign as governor.

As I watched the cellphone video of a 26-year Neda Agha Soltan being murdered in the streets while protesting in Tehran, i thought back to all of the defining photos that haved captured the emotions of a time and political revolution.
* The East German border guard jumping across barbed wire to freedom.
* A badly burned and frightened young Vietnamese girl running naking from her village after a napalm attack.
* A South Vietnamese officer executing a Viet Cong fighter
* Average folks chipping away at the Berlin Wall
* The toppiing of Saddam Hussein's statute
* A young student challenging a Chinese tank

I'm sure others have recollections of images like these that are so vivid and lasting in the in the mind's eye that we never again have to look at the photo to remember details.

Presidents like to say that they don't pay attention to polls. Yeah, and athletes don't know what's being written about them.

Barack Obama has to pay attention to this NYTIMES /CBS News poll. Americans like the guy, but aren't so sure that they like his economic strategy. On the DMN EconomyWatch blog, I ask how close he is to hitting the magic spending number that sends his approval rating into a real nose dive, and at what point Democrats in Congress who are up for re-election begin to distance themselves from the president. Like the NYTimes, I'm figuring health care reform, i.e. the trillion dollar-plus price, is the magic number.

The Obama financial industry reforms are mostly on target even though I suspect some aspects will turn out to be unworkable or just window dressing. A few quick hit thoughts:

* Creating a consumer financial protection agency is a good idea on paper, but boy do I see the possibility of raw politics distorting market dynamics. I'm betting on this becoming window dressing -- an information agency vs. another cop on the street.

* So tell me again, what exactly is too big to fail? No one knew what this phrase meant before and we still don't know. Is a firm "too big to fail" if it has huge market share in one important part of the economy? But what if a firm doesn't dominate a specific market, but has a lot of important interlocked holdings across numerous industries? Or is "too big to fail" simply a factor of current economic conditions -- a big firm can be allowed to fail if the economy is stong enough to absorb the impact, but the same firm would be "too big to fail" if someone determines that the economy couldn't absorb the hit?

* And what about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Weren't these GSE's part of the mortgage problem? Wny weren't these part of the plan?

* I'm also curious how many of these reforms will be constrained by money. Take for instance the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC's budget was cut before Enron blew up (as well as its enforcement will), and is still grossly underfunded given its broad scope of responsibilties.

* The Fed loses some independence to intervene in extraordinary situations. Does this open the door to a politicized Fed that is subordinate to the Treasury?

* The Office of Thrift Supervision goes away. As I recall, the OTS was formed when a predecessor agency whose name I can't recall at the moment messed up regulating S&Ls about 20 years ago. I hope we're not simply moving around the deck chairs.

Just asking

FYI: Just for grins, check out former Treasury Secretary Hank Pauslon's DOA plan from a year ago to modernize financial regulation.

The Irving City Manager's new contract, which I noted in a separate post earlier, got me thinking, admittedly a dangerous habit. But, for better or worse, that's what opinion writers do.

Just wondering: Has anyone tried to assess "publc sector" executive salaries -- school superintendents, city managers etc -- in some sort of efficiency/productivity study?

I mean, cities, including Dallas, have played around with price of government formulas to link locally generated taxpayer revenue to resident household ncomes, city services etc.

However, I don't know whether anyone has looked at public sector executive salaries in the same way. I've seen cross-city or cross-school district pay range scales, and I've seen performance reviews and salaries linked in "public sector" executive contracts. Neither is quite the same as what I'm talking about.

I'm shooting from the hip right now, but what if public sector executives had their rate of compensation increases measured and reported publically against the rate of local tax increases or some measurement of service quality.

I'm not saying that all compensation decisions should be made on this basis, but I think it would be an interesting way for taxpayers to think about what seems to be a sharp escalation of top-level public sector salaries.

Since these top managers are compensated mostly in taxpayer cash (instead of in cash from profits and stock like private sector executives) it should easy to measure.