The Obama Tape

Last night a video of a speech that President Obama gave back in 2007 was released in its entirety.  The tape is divisive, race baiting, and pandering.  One must ask themselves why that fake accent he is putting is not the moral equivalent of black face?  It isn't like the president grew up in a predominately black neighborhood and was speaking "Ebonics" as a child, then as an adult learned better diction but occasionally falls back into old habits when back in the "neighborhood".  Why the black community doesn't see how condescending it is for him to speak that way in front of them is beyond me.  

The speech was also widely inaccurate in terms of Katrina.  Of the course the media's conventional wisdom has been that President Bush put his feet up on his desk and thought to himself, hey I am gonna kill me some black people today.  New Orleans is what was put on television.  It certainly wasn't the whole story. The damage caused by the storm itself was much worse in Mississippi than New Orleans.  New Orleans actually survived the storm quite well until the levees were breached.  But New Orleans is what people saw.  The media didn't totally ignore what was going on in other parishes in Louisiana, but they almost did.  There was another parish that was just as devastated as NOLA was, and that one is predominately white.  The help didn't get to them anymore more quickly.  The government failed.  Which to me isn't a surprise.  I don't think the government is all that quick or efficient.  Matter of fact the government was by design meant to move slowly.  To me the biggest failures of Katrina in New Orleans was Mayor Nagin not doing enough to get those people out of there before the storm hit.  The Governor also was far too lax in her call for federal help.  

To this day many people don't realize that President Bush couldn't do anything for the first few days.  That pesky little thing called the constitution got in his way.  The state had to request federal troops.   The governor didn't do that for days.  We don't want the President of the United States to have the power on his own to put military forces on the ground in this country.  It is an invitation to tyranny.  

I also think it comes as quite a surprise to people like me who gave money to funds to help the victims of Katrina that I didn't care.  After all I am white, they were mostly black, so hey so what.  My church went to NOLA for about two years after the storm hit, cleaning up areas and helping people rebuild their lives.  We raised over $100K in those efforts in just the first month.  I am sure over the two years we raised a considerable greater amount.  But now I am being told that I didn't care.  That is news to me.  Not only did my faith based community give funds, they gave their time and their sweat.  But I guess I am just that average white person he talked about months later.  

I also found out that my roads don't need to be fixed.  Really?  I pay taxes too.   One of the things that I was reminded of while listening to that speech is the controversy here in D.C. surrounding the opening of the Walmart in several depressed neighborhoods.  He specifically mentioned that people have to go too far to do their everyday things.  That is very true in the neighborhoods that these stores are scheduled to open in.  But they have been fought tooth and nail.  It is mostly about Walmart not being unionized, but they won't admit that.  One of the D.C. council members actually said that opening them is a bad idea because people will get arrest records when they can't resist the urge to shoplift.  Yes, they really said that.  That is how little they really think of the poor.  

But the president had that covered too:

“We can’t expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.”

I must be an idiot.  It never occurred to me that being poor meant you couldn't figure out how to get to work on time or even understand why that would be important.  I didn't realize that they need to be taught how to dress.  Now, I can imagine that a person of limited income may need some help being able to afford nicer business attire, but not that they were unable to comprehend that they needed it.  I didn't know that being poor means that your intellectual capacity is very limited and the government needs to sweep in and teach you everything that may need to know how to behave in an office setting.  

Sadly, many in this country agree with him on this.  This is why I can't be a liberal.  I have more faith in the individual, even the poor ones.  I don't think they are so stupid they don't know these things without a government program to teach them.  Now, I would like someone who agrees with these statements to explain to me what makes you think if they lack the intellectual ability to grasp this without a government program why do you think they will ever get it?  Obviously you think they are so stupid that the concept of being on time to work doesn't occur to them on their own.  

Even this won't wake up the inner city/poor black community.  Here he is, telling you that you don't have the capacity to complete simple and basic thought processes on your own.  You are totally dependent on government to do that for you.  Yes, he has your best interests at heart.  

But, even more sadly is that, as president, he has done none of those things to help you.  The unemployment rate is almost doubled that of the general population.  But, hey details.  What do I know? After all, I am the racist for thinking this tape says something important about the liberal mindset of minorities and the poor.  Even though I have said repeatedly that being poor is more of a barrier in this country than color is.  Being born white and poor is no easier than being born black/hispanic/asian/ and poor.  I am still the racist.  

Juan Williams Doesn't Believe that Ann Romney has had Struggles

Yeah, cuz living with MS and surviving breast cancer is easy.  Taking care of five young children was a piece of cake.  Money doesn't make your life easy.  Money doesn't give you happiness.  You may have more options then people without it, that is true, but everyone has problems.  Everyone has struggles.  Was Sunny Von Bulow happy?  Gloria Vanderbuilt had a very stormy childhood because of her parents.

Putz

Open Letter to President Obama from Leon Cooperman, A Dirty, Rich Capitalist

Dear Mr. President,

It is with a great sense of disappointment that I write this. Like many others, I hoped that your election would bring a salutary change of direction to the country, despite what more than a few feared was an overly aggressive social agenda. And I cannot credibly blame you for the economic mess that you inherited, even if the policy response on your watch has been profligate and largely ineffectual. (You did not, after all, invent TARP.) I understand that when surrounded by cries of "the end of the world as we know it is nigh", even the strongest of minds may have a tendency to shoot first and aim later in a well-intended effort to stave off the predicted apocalypse.

But what I can justifiably hold you accountable for is your and your minions' role in setting the tenor of the rancorous debate now roiling us that smacks of what so many have characterized as "class warfare". Whether this reflects your principled belief that the eternal divide between the haves and have-nots is at the root of all the evils that afflict our society or just a cynical, populist appeal to his base by a president struggling in the polls is of little importance. What does matter is that the divisive, polarizing tone of your rhetoric is cleaving a widening gulf, at this point as much visceral as philosophical, between the downtrodden and those best positioned to help them. It is a gulf that is at once counterproductive and freighted with dangerous historical precedents. And it is an approach to governing that owes more to desperate demagoguery than your Administration should feel comfortable with.

Just to be clear, while I have been richly rewarded by a life of hard work (and a great deal of luck), I was not to-the-manor-born. My father was a plumber who practiced his trade in the South Bronx after he and my mother emigrated from Poland. I was the first member of my family to earn a college degree. I benefited from both a good public education system (P.S. 75, Morris High School and Hunter College, all in the Bronx) and my parents' constant prodding. When I joined Goldman Sachs following graduation from Columbia University's business school, I had no money in the bank, a negative net worth, a National Defense Education Act student loan to repay, and a six-month-old child (not to mention his mother, my wife of now 47 years) to support. I had a successful, near-25-year run at Goldman, which I left 20 years ago to start a private investment firm. As a result of my good fortune, I have been able to give away to those less blessed far more than I have spent on myself and my family over a lifetime, and last year I subscribed to Warren Buffet's Giving Pledge to ensure that my money, properly stewarded, continues to do some good after I'm gone.

My story is anything but unique. I know many people who are similarly situated, by both humble family history and hard-won accomplishment, whose greatest joy in life is to use their resources to sustain their communities. Some have achieved a level of wealth where philanthropy is no longer a by-product of their work but its primary impetus. This is as it should be. We feel privileged to be in a position to give back, and we do. My parents would have expected nothing less of me.
I am not, by training or disposition, a policy wonk, polemicist or pamphleteer. I confess admiration for those who, with greater clarity of expression and command of the relevant statistical details, make these same points with more eloquence and authoritativeness than I can hope to muster. For recent examples, I would point you to "Hunting the Rich" (Leaders, The Economist, September 24, 2011), "The Divider vs. the Thinker" (Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal, October 29, 2011), "Wall Street Occupiers Misdirect Anger" (Christine Todd Whitman, Bloomberg, October 31, 2011), and "Beyond Occupy" (Bill Keller, The New York Times, October 31, 2011) - all, if you haven't read them, making estimable work of the subject.

But as a taxpaying businessman with a weekly payroll to meet and more than a passing familiarity with the ways of both Wall Street and Washington, I do feel justified in asking you: is the tone of the current debate really constructive?

People of differing political persuasions can (and do) reasonably argue about whether, and how high, tax rates should be hiked for upper-income earners; whether the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended or permitted to expire, and for whom; whether various deductions and exclusions under the federal tax code that benefit principally the wealthy and multinational corporations should be curtailed or eliminated; whether unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut should be extended; whether the burdens of paying for the nation's bloated entitlement programs are being fairly spread around, and whether those programs themselves should be reconfigured in light of current and projected budgetary constraints; whether financial institutions deemed "too big to fail" should be serially bailed out or broken up first, like an earlier era's trusts, because they pose a systemic risk and their size benefits no one but their owners; whether the solution to what ails us as a nation is an amalgam of more regulation, wealth redistribution, and a greater concentration of power in a central government that has proven no more (I'm being charitable here) adept than the private sector in reining in the excesses that brought us to this pass - the list goes on and on, and the dialectic is admirably American. Even though, as a high-income taxpayer, I might be considered one of its targets, I find this reassessment of so many entrenched economic premises healthy and long overdue. Anyone who could survey today's challenging fiscal landscape, with an un- and underemployment rate of nearly 20 percent and roughly 40 percent of the country on public assistance, and not acknowledge an imperative for change is either heartless, brainless, or running for office on a very parochial agenda. And if I end up paying more taxes as a result, so be it. The alternatives are all worse.

But what I do find objectionable is the highly politicized idiom in which this debate is being conducted. Now, I am not naive. I understand that in today's America, this is how the business of governing typically gets done - a situation that, given the gravity of our problems, is as deplorable as it is seemingly ineluctable. But as President first and foremost and leader of your party second, you should endeavor to rise above the partisan fray and raise the level of discourse to one that is both more civil and more conciliatory, that seeks collaboration over confrontation. That is what "leading by example" means to most people.

Capitalism is not the source of our problems, as an economy or as a society, and capitalists are not the scourge that they are too often made out to be. As a group, we employ many millions of taxpaying people, pay their salaries, provide them with healthcare coverage, start new companies, found new industries, create new products, fill store shelves at Christmas, and keep the wheels of commerce and progress (and indeed of government, by generating the income whose taxation funds it) moving. To frame the debate as one of rich-and-entitled versus poor-and-dispossessed is to both miss the point and further inflame an already incendiary environment. It is also a naked, political pander to some of the basest human emotions - a strategy, as history teaches, that never ends well for anyone but totalitarians and anarchists.

With due respect, Mr. President, it's time for you to throttle-down the partisan rhetoric and appeal to people's better instincts, not their worst. Rather than assume that the wealthy are a monolithic, selfish and unfeeling lot who must be subjugated by the force of the state, set a tone that encourages people of good will to meet in the middle. When you were a community organizer in Chicago, you learned the art of waging a guerilla campaign against a far superior force. But you've graduated from that milieu and now help to set the agenda for that superior force. You might do well at this point to eschew the polarizing vernacular of political militancy and become the transcendent leader you were elected to be. You are likely to be far more effective, and history is likely to treat you far more kindly for it.

Sincerely,

Leon G. Cooperman Chairman and Chief Executive Officer