Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktSaying what a lot of people have been thinking….
OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA from Leon Cooperman.
November 28, 2011
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
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 Buffett’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
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
That's hilarious! If only he were warned.
LikeLike
Indeed, Troll. This is called spitting into the wind. Cooperman's feedback is just telling Obama and his "minions" they are getting exactly the message they want out there. Obama and crew are probably laughing their heads off, taking turns with humorous and dramatic readings of the letter.I'm sure I sound bitter, but that's basically just how I think Obama and his handlers and capos react to this.
LikeLike
"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."I think that moment has passed. Given the choice between "Change We Can Believe In" and "Politics As Usual", the President has chosen the latter.
LikeLike
It sounds like a bunch of bullshit campaign rhetoric to me. We've been trying to do something different here and discuss the issues without some of the rich vs. poor verbage, I think. I just told scott on an earlier thread that I'm tired of the class warfare battles. Whatever, he doesn't walk the talk anyway as you can see from John's link earlier.As you will see documented below, the Federal Reserve actually handed more than 16 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free money to the "too big to fail" banks between 2007 and 2010. So have you heard about this on the nightly news? Probably not. Lately Bloomberg has been reporting on some of this, but even they are not giving people the whole picture. The American people need to be told about this 16 trillion dollar bailout, because it is a perfect example of why the Federal Reserve needs to be shut down. The Federal Reserve has been actively picking "winners" and "losers" in the financial system, and it turns out that the "friends" of the Fed always get bailed out and always end up among the "winners". This is not how a free market system is supposed to work.According to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report….Citigroup – $2.513 trillionMorgan Stanley – $2.041 trillionMerrill Lynch – $1.949 trillionBank of America – $1.344 trillionBarclays PLC – $868 billionBear Sterns – $853 billionGoldman Sachs – $814 billionRoyal Bank of Scotland – $541 billionJP Morgan Chase – $391 billionDeutsche Bank – $354 billionUBS – $287 billionCredit Suisse – $262 billionLehman Brothers – $183 billionBank of Scotland – $181 billionBNP Paribas – $175 billionWells Fargo – $159 billionDexia – $159 billionWachovia – $142 billionDresdner Bank – $135 billionSociete Generale – $124 billion"All Other Borrowers" – $2.639 trillion
LikeLike
Will this letter change anything? No.Should BHO argue to allow the temporary GWB tax cuts to expire? Yes – if he seriously wants to attack deficits. 3 committees including the commission he appointed have told him this.Does this mark him as a failure? IMO, no.Does this prove he is not above political pandering? Yes. What else is new?Liberals will be tempted to defend BHO by blaming the "class" talk on conservatives.I ask you to try to avoid the "we are all full of it" argument as a defense to pandering. I think it is true. It is not a defense, IMO. Leave that to Greg Sargent who seems happy to vilify "the rich".Try to formulate a policy response without suggesting that the wealthiest Americans are malefactors. That is a legit exercise – IMO.Sometimes BHO has done it – I have heard him often on POTUS. BHO does it by framing R policies as attempting to destroy the fragile safety net while defending loopholes. When he goes on to say "for the benefit of the rich on the backs of the middle class" he panders and he loses the ability to argue for expiration of the GWB temporary tax cuts. LMS and I know the numbers. The recovery and federal revenues both are dependent in large part on the middle class.I think that is too hard for most politicians to say.
LikeLike
Here's a comment I made to Scott in an earlier post. I might want to change a few words now that I've read this letter but I won't. I've been talking about the middle class here and at the Plumline for over two years. Mark's right, it's the only thing that will bring us back.All I can tell you Scott is that I'm an advocate for the middle class, the working poor and seniors. Myself and the friends who work with me in the health care field, the food bank and even our business have seen the standard of living fall rather dramatically during this recession over previous ones. I read somewhere that real median income has fallen over 9% since 2008. People in the groups above have not only lost homes or equity, retirement, and jobs, they're also paying more for goods and services with no cushion or nest egg left. While we bail out the banks and buy up their stinky loans there's no political or financial will left for these people. If it's not intended to be this way you could have fooled me.I'm tired of arguing class warfare because I think we're better than that and it's not producing results anyway. That's why I say let the process work itself out and if we have a little less security at the bottom rungs of the ladder and a little more false security at the banks it's just too bad. Bush, Paulson, Obama and Geithner all catered to the same interests. I said yesterday I'd vote for Huntsman if he was running and if he meant what he said about TBTF banks, the risk of bailout still exists, look at Europe. I suppose some of this is also in the best interest of Main Street but I'm not so sure anymore. You mentioned yesterday the market looking short term rather than long term when it shows exuberance, I think that's what we're doing as a nation now, short term fixes and solutions for some very long term problems and the loser will be the bottom 50% to 60% of the population.
LikeLike
Dear Mr. Cooperman,You lie!Oh wait, that's right. Democrats are to blame for the tone in Washington. It must have been a member of my administration who said that to the President in a joint session.Yours sincerely,B. H. ObamaPres. U.S.A.
LikeLike
"Oh wait, that's right. Democrats are to blame for the tone in Washington. It must have been a member of my administration who said that to the President in a joint session."You don't really want us to start documenting Obama's divisive rhetoric going back way before that, do you? Heck, you can just look at that speech itself, where Obama engaged in what were probably unprecedented vitriolic attacks on people sitting right in front of him, including telling a flat-out lie about the Supreme Court justices sitting a few feet from him.Obama was never at any time about being post-partisan, a uniter or any of it. "I won, get in the back of the car and shut up."
LikeLike
QB – Spare me. There could have been a grand bargain last summer, but the Teahadists wouldn't dare consider moving a micron (oh, sorry, metric–must be a European plot) off their position. The Republicans have more than their share of flat out lies (check out Kessler, Politifact, or whatever source that is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party). Truth is, you don't give a damn about what I think and the feeling is more than entirely mutual.This was not meant as some kind of well-meaning open letter to the president. There were so many dog whistles in this letter that an entire pack of foxhounds was baying:"despite what more than a few feared was an overly aggressive social agenda""your [sic] and your minions' role in setting the tenor of the rancorous debate"Minions. Really? I wonder who gets the role of Igor (pronounced Eye-gore). Hump? What hump?"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 [cough cough *BULLSHIT* cough cough] or just a cynical, populist appeal to his base"BB
LikeLike
"Obama was never at any time about being post-partisan, a uniter or any of it. "I won, get in the back of the car and shut up." "The first six months of his administration set the tone for the rest of it. It would have been interesting to see if the results would have been different if he had been dealing with a Republican Congress in 2009 – 2010.
LikeLike
FB: but the Teahadists …A sure sign that this is an opinion that should be taken seriously. BTW, your "sic" in this quotation:"your [sic] and your minions' role in setting the tenor of the rancorous debate"…is misplaced. There is no error is what he said.
LikeLike
I'm trying to remember anything in writing from the WH last summer re: "the grand bargain."Having a tough time of it.Since the President's stated glidepath to jobs and recovery puts the nation another $9Tril in hock in ten years shouldn't that ephemeral, missed opportunity trope be something other than, "grand?" {"Cosmic" comes to mind.} And "bargain?" I've read Castanada novels more grounded in actuality.
LikeLike
It sounds like the letter writer got his feelings hurt. He also admits that he is willing to pay more taxes. He should either tell his congressman that or write a check.I have never found Obama's rhetoric particularly vitriolic. If anything he seems determined to couch even his most radical proposals (the rich should pay more taxes, everybody should have decent health care) in terms that are seemingly innocuous.
LikeLike
yello:I have never found Obama's rhetoric particularly vitriolic.The letter doesn't accuse Obama of using vitriolic rhetoric. It accuses him of using polarizing and divisive language, and pandering through the use of class warfare. Both of which he does quite often.
LikeLike
Mark:I ask you to try to avoid the "we are all full of it" argument as a defense to pandering. I think it is true. It is not a defense, IMO.What is the "we are full of it" argument?
LikeLike
Sorry – it is what I hear when anyone on either side argues "your side did it first" or "your side does it worse." I hear "We are ALL full of it."Everyone in politics does it, of course, but my suggestion is that we do not have to do it here – we can argue for a policy without pandering. Would any of us be skilled enough to do so successfully were we running for office?As to taxation arguments and what levels are appropriate, it often strikes me that the weakest arguments are based on the notion that any move from current rates are an attack on whomever pays more and a giveaway to whomever benefits. We are now at the lowest post WW2 level but we had a balanced budget at the second lowest level in modern times, the 2d Clinton term. I think the three bipartisan groups all saw that as a workable goal, coupled with significant spending reduction. BHO then rejected his own commission and boxed himself in.
LikeLike
Take Cooperman's description of "healthy debate" as a given."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."I wonder if he includes SS and Medicare and VA in the 40% on public assistance. I would not. When he says "central government" I think he means federal government, but if he means to include state and local government as well it loses definition for me.Having said that, I don't have any trouble with this formulation, as a framework for discussion.I think most of our discussions at ATiM are within this framework. I think most blog comments and lots of political pandering goes way outside this. Yesterday's gem from Newt Gingrich on the work ethic of very poor children was an example. I have seen dirt poor chicano kids WORK. So has LMS, I'm sure.If he had pointed out the low expectation for success in school for the urban poor as a social problem I would have given him points. Attacking their willingness to exchange labor for money except for criminal enterprise was a "class warfare" argument or worse. Whatever the public debate may look like, I really think ATiM can keep to the high road.
LikeLike