Knowitall's Page

SO LONG COACH

by john sawyer on 01/22/12

Legendary Penn State football coach, Joe Paterno passed away last night. Declining to shoulder the responsibility of an incident between two assistant coaches, Paterno was summarily fired two months ago by a unanimous decision of the (politically connected) Penn State Board of Governors, capitulating to pressure from the Governor of Pennsylvania, Fox News, and former friend Lee Corso and cohorts at ESPN Sports.

Alone among bloggers, I defended Paterno's actions at the time: http://www.sawyer2012.com/BLOG.html GET OUT THE TAR AND FEATHERS by john sawyer on 11/10/11

Joe Paterno could have coached anywhere at two to three times the lean salary he earned at Penn State. But he remained loyal to the players and university he so loved; football players and future leaders who were among the nation's highest in obtaining their college degrees. Joe Paterno taught and was head coach at Penn State for 46 years, and in the end he asked only to be allowed to coach the last two games of the year.

A sanctimonious University turned him down. I can't wait to hear all the wonderful things that Corso and others will have to say about him, now that Coach Paterno is gone.

He will be missed.

Comments (0)

SEARS AND K-MART R.I.P.

by john sawyer on 12/27/11

Oh yes. Gentleman. "Having just discovered that our Christmas sales were below expectations, the Board has decided to close 120 - 150 of our stores." Sure; that's how it happens. In the old days of retail (and, especially, restaurants), stores endured mysterious fires, almost all of which occured after Christmas sales and coincidentally just before the year end, when payments to vendors, suppliers, taxes (and fire insurance renewal premiums) became due. Then it was referred to as "putting a business in a teacup."

Of course that doesn't happen these days. No, corporate giants like Sears and K-Mart suddenly remember that their out-of-date, dinosaurs no longer attract customers, and by gosh it;s time to close. Blame Barack Obama for the poor economy? Blame Mitt Romney for closing failed businesses?

Try Blaming poor Management and directors who hastened the decline of Sears by making the incredibly stupid decision to purchase K-Mart in the first place. Decades ago, Sears became a household word. Being the only major store chain that accepted credit cards (Its own Sears Financing) it derived sales from a customer base that couldn't wait to save up enough money to 'have things" - a habit later adapted for the American People by Congress.

Poor Christmas sales caused their demise? Sears and K-Mart died years ago. Management just found out this Christmas.

Comments (0)

LETTER TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - OCT. 24, 2011

by john sawyer on 11/25/11

To Whom it May Concern:

In his rare departure from those ‘Harvardthink’ economic policies of which he is a major proponent, that have, inevitably, brought our economy, particularly the housing market, to the disastrous current state, Martin Feldstein offers a rare glimpse into a practical solution to this whole mess. Unfortunately, his solutions are predicated upon the faulty premise that the Obama Administration and the Republicans in Congress have resisted obvious solutions for political reasons.

RE: NEW MORTGAGE PLAN SCHEME FLOATED, Oct. 18.

Because political considerations are always first and foremost in the minds of our elected officials, and real, albeit complicated, solutions are simply beyond their intellectual grasp, we always shall be burdened with taxpayer-funded programs that will do nothing to solve our problems. For example: Smaller classrooms and increased teacher’s pay will fix public education; negotiating with our enemies will bring peace; more government programs will erase inequalities; people are in better health today so raise the retirement age; the upper 10% of the people in this country pay 90% of the taxes; cuts in capital gains taxes create jobs; the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to happiness; “risk takers” made this country; Islam is a religion of peace; I’ll give you the last word; Tom Izzo is the best basketball coach in America.

Okay, that last one is true.

My point is this: the more we depend on our incompetent elected officials (See: The Ryan Plan, and Obama Healthcare), the worse off our country will become. Case in point, the WSJ article: NEW MORTGAGE PLAN SCHEME FLOATED, Oct. 18. Apparently (anonymous) state and federal officials are meeting behind closed doors (between $16 bagel breaks) to persuade banks (excuse me - giant lenders) to reduce the mortgage balances of those “who have worked hard to stay current on their loans, even though they owe more than their home is worth.” (sic)

The question begs: what about those who have worked hard to stay current on their loans, but can’t keep up ? Oh well, throw them (us) under the bus along with those who were previously left out by the politicos in favor of huge bailouts for the “giant lenders.” With 1 in 4 homes vacant here in SW Florida, that attitude worked out really well didn’t it?

Correctly, the pols and giant lenders understand the consequences of a continuing level of defaults and foreclosures and their devastating impact on the housing market, and just about every other economic situation for that matter; not to mention the Obama Administration’s feeble refinancing schemes, that had zero chance of success. They seek to halt the decline in real estate values, suggesting that lending institutions should reduce existing mortgages to their current market value, with the institution and the Federal Government splitting the difference.

Implicit in their calculations is that the federal government has already spent hundreds of billions to bail banks, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and other giant lenders out of bad mortgages, and likely will be on the hook for billions more in the future anyway. Also, if an agreement can be made between “giant lenders” and their reeling customers, then the Fed might be persuaded (especially with the coming election) to back off the ir lawsuits, thus allowing said “giant lenders” to crush those (relatively few) defendants who actually stood up to them through litigation - but I’m just being a cynic, I suppose. Nonetheless, the negotiators are correct in their analysis of the problem.

Do the math: If a typical mortgage has an existing balance of $200,000, at a 7% interest rate, 30 years, the monthly payment (P&I) is $1,331.00. Under this plan, reduced to the market value of, say, $130,000 at 6% interest for 30 years, the monthly payment (P & I) would be $779.00 - a good incentive to stay put.

But reducing the balance on the mortgage to current values will, inter alia, have a deleterious effect on the value of all real estate by decreasing the book assets of the lending institution, needlessly reducing homeowners net worth AND, per force, contributing to a further decline in the value of real estate.

While I agree that this likely will bottom out the market, may I respectfully demur?

In this age of historically-low interest rates, the government should guarantee a 100% refinancing of ALL existing mortgages, at the current balance on the mortgage loan, assessing a fixed interest rate of 2%. The government would guarantee the loan (which they do now anyway, one way or another); the bank would charge an administration fee (say $1,000) and add it to the new mortgage balance, (accumulated penalties, late fees, and other charges can be forgiven). E.g.: $201,000 at 2% interest for 30 years, the monthly payment would be $742.00 (enough savings over the current proposal - $37.00 - to provide the Dept. of Energy two bagels every month).You can’t rent a decent place for that. Ergo, few would choose to default, move out, and pay a higher rate for living quarters. Foreclosures would end. Bankruptcy and foreclosure judges can return to the golf course, the federal government can get off the “giant lenders” backs.

People can stay in their homes. Eventually the banks gets all of their money back; the American Taxpayers pay out nothing; the slide in the real estate market comes to a grinding halt at a much higher level of value; the moribund construction market (our second-highest employer) would gets a quick jump start - without having to compete with short sale and foreclosure home prices. Finally, the specter of inflation and higher interest rates would be greatly reduced by the huge investment in low long-term 2% interest rates.

Politicians can focus their efforts on getting reelected - something they actually know how to do.

John W. Sawyer III

Conservative Candidate for Congress

Ft. Myers, Fl. 33912

Jwsawyer88@gmail.com

http://www.sawyer2012.com/

UPDATE: OCT 24, 2011

Today, President Obama announced his new save the people plan. Well - it's the Feldstein Plan noted above. Greeeeeeeeeeaaaattt. The Wall Street Journal - apparently liking the Obama Plan, refused to publish my letter.

Comments (0)

GET OUT THE TAR AND FEATHERS

by john sawyer on 11/10/11

After serving the Penn State University football program for 45 years - while winning more games AND graduating more football players than any other coach in history, 84 year old Joe Paterno was summarily dismissed from his position effective immediately.

No "thank you" Joe, no coaching the last three games of the season. And by the way, you are banned from attending Saturday's homecoming game in which your team will be competing for (yet another) Big Ten championship.

Whassup? Apparently in 2002 an "eyewitness" current assistant coach, Mike McQueary (then a graduate assistant), observed another assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, sodomizing a 10 year old boy in the shower, and reported the incident to Coach Paterno. Paterno then reported it to the school's athletic director.

However for those (of us) who are objective thinkers, let me opine: The information given by Mr. McQueary to Mr. Paterno was from (says he) personal observation. The question begs, of course, why didn't he intervene or why didn't HE go to the police. Such vacillation may be understandable in that he was a mere graduate assistant of 22 (?) at the time and Sandusky was the grownup coach. We might ask ourselves what we might have done in the same set of circumstances. What would WE have done if we had knowledge of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? Linda Tripp reported a wrong - what good came of it for her?

Nonetheless, McQueary told of what he saw to Coach Paterno. Paterno informed the Athletic Director. According to Frank Noonan, Pennsylvania Police Commissioner, Mr. Paterno had "a moral responsibility" to contact police. Apparently Mr. Noonan believes that he has the final word on such matters in Pennsylvania.

But is Frank Noonan right? Joe Paterno had a decision to make: should he keep quiet? Should he go to the police? Should he report it to someone else? He chose door number three. Keeping quiet would have been immoral, and probably illegal under Pennsylvania law. But Mr. Paterno's reporting of an incident about which he had no personal knowledge is 'hearsay.' Police could not possibly have made an arrest under those circumstances, and what if Mr. McQueary's story was not true?

Maybe Joe Paterno could have handled the situation more wisely, but hindsight always having a better look, I think Joe Paterno did what he thought was the right thing to do. Which is more that I can say for the Penn State Board of Regents.

I wish I had a couple of tickets for Saturday's game. I'd invite Joe Paterno and dare anyone to bar him from entering the stadium. I'll bet the student body would side with me.

Recently, Mr. Sandusky was arrested on charges stemming from several such incidents. Joe Paterno and the President of Penn State have been fired. Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. Is it politically correct? At an Eastern University - are you kidding? To the beards on the faculty, no friends of athletics, most of whom wouldn't know a forward pass from a lateral (Mr. Sandusky could explain the difference), it's clear: with child molestation - get 'em all.

Comments (0)

ANOTHER DUMB MORTGAGE BAILOUT

by john sawyer on 10/27/11

Yet again the Obama Administration has come up with a home mortgage bailout scheme that has zero chances of succeeding. The first scheme was a failure because somehow all those Ivy League geniuses in Washington failed to comprehend the simple fact that a homeowner would save only a few dollars a month by extending the term of their mortgage - a fact that surely was brought to the attention of every mortgagee by their bank loan officer.

Now that same bunch has come up with another bailout scheme. This time Mr. Obama proposes to refinance all existing underwater loans at the amount that the property is currently valued. “ We just can’t wait for Congress to come up with a solution” sayeth the President. So, in his haste to end-run Congress, and to institute another mortgage bailout program, the President, by fiat has ordered that existing mortgages be refinanced at their current market value, with the difference to be borne by the lending institutions and/or the taxpayers. Ok.

Here's something no one has thought of. When a person (or corporation) has a debt forgiven, even through bankruptcy, the Internal Revenue Service treats that as Income - mandated by rules and regulations under which it is governed, written by that same Congress that Obama now so cleverly seeks to circumvent. For example, your mortgage lender refinances your $200,000 mortgage balance to the present market value of, say, $130,000; thus ‘saving’ you $70,000. The IRS will tax that $70,000 as ordinary income - which it is. Thus, you will owe about $22,000 in taxes - NOW.

Unless that same Congress that Mr. Obama so smugly kicked under the bus with his Presidential Order, convenes immediately and changes the tax laws, I bet no one will take ’advantage’ of yet another ill-conceived bailout from this administration.

Comments (0)

FELDSTEIN TO THE RESCUE

by john sawyer on 10/14/11

In response to an article by Martin Feldstein in the New York Times, October 14, 2011 :How to Stop the Drop in House Values.

The Op-Ed Page
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To Whom it May Concern:

In his rare departure from those ‘Harvardthink’ economic policies of which he is a major proponent, that have, inevitably, brought our economy, particularly the housing market, to the disastrous current state, Martin Feldstein offers a rare glimpse into a practical solution to this whole mess. Unfortunately, his solutions are predicated upon the faulty premise that the Obama Administration and the Republicans in Congress have resisted obvious solutions for political reasons.

While politics is always the first consideration for almost all of our elected officials, the real reason is that these people are just too darn dumb to come up with any viable solutions (See: The Ryan Plan). Unfortunately, I believe that in his conclusions, Mr. Feldstein errs.

Correctly, Mr. Feldstein understands the consequences of a continuing level of defaults and foreclosures and their devastating impact on the housing market, and just about every other economic situation. He seeks to halt the decline in real estate values, suggesting that lending institutions should reduce existing mortgages to the current market value, with the institution and the Federal Government splitting the difference. E.g.: If a mortgage has an existing balance of $200,000, at a 7% interest rate, 30 years, the monthly payment (P&I) is $1,331.00. Under the Feldstein plan, reduced to the market value of, oh, $130,000 at 6% interest for 30 years, the monthly payment (P & I) would be $779.00. Implied is that the federal government has already spent hundreds of billions already to bail banks, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae out of bad mortgages, and likely will be on the hook for billions more in the future anyway. So Mr. Feldstein is correct in his analysis of the problem.

But cutting the balance on the mortgage will only decrease the book assets of the lending institution, needlessly reducing homeowners net worth AND per force, contributing to a further decline in the value of real estate. While I agree that this likely will bottom the market, may I respectfully demur?

In this age of historically-low interest rates, the government should guarantee a 100% refinancing of ALL existing mortgages, at the current balance on the mortgage loan, at an interest rate of 2%. The government guarantees the loan (which they do now anyway, one way or another); the bank charges an administration fee (say $1,000) and adds it to the new mortgage, E.g.:$201,000 at 2% interest for 30 years, the monthly payment would be $742.00 (enough savings - $37.00 - from the Feldstein plan for the Dept. of Energy to buy two bagels every month).You can’t rent for that. Foreclosures will end. Bankruptcy and foreclosure judges can go back to the golf course.

People can stay in their homes. The bank gets all of its money back; the American Taxpayers pay out nothing; the slide in the real estate market comes to a grinding halt at a much higher level of value; the moribund construction market (our second-highest employer) will get going again. Also, the specter of inflation and higher interest rates will be greatly reduced by the huge investment in long-term 2% interest rates.

It’s a shame we didn’t do something like this years ago.

?

Comments (0)

HMMMMM . . . . DOOOOOONUTS !!

by john sawyer on 08/21/11

So, here we are back in Lansing, Michigan, to celebrate Reba's high school reunion(Lansing Eastern). The first thing we do, of course, is to go shopping at Meijer Thrifty Acres, the mega food market chain famous in these parts for decades.

Years ago, I owned several retail bookstores in Michigan, and we always bought our groceries at Meijers - with their all-inclusive and low-priced merchandise, and 30 some checkout counters. When we moved to Florida 30 years ago, there was one thing missing - Meijers. As I owned 3 - 4 stores right near Meijers' home offices in Grand Rapids, I presumed to correspond with Fred Meijers upon occasion, in hopes of persuading him to open locations in Florida.

At the time, Michigan with its declining economy had about 8 million people, and Florida, just at the beginning of a huge economic boom, had (an official) population of some 16 million people. Publix Supermarkets and various smaller chains provided groceries, fairly adequately, to Florida's consumers.

In the near future, according to news reports, Wal-Mart would be opening Florida locations. Whoopie, thought I and I wrote to Freddie trying to persuade him that Florida was a viable market. He replied that he would think about it; that he didn't have the distribution centers in the South (so build some dimwit), and in thanking me, he mailed two coupons for a free ice cream cone. I wasn't offended; he was, after all, a grocer from Grand Rapids, not a lawyer from, ummmmm, Chicago.

So eventually Wal-Mart came in with hundreds of stores; Florida grew to 22 Million, and my wife buys our groceries from Wal-Mart. It's not Meijers, but the prices are right.

But now we are in Lansing, and shopping for groceries. We could go to Wal-Mart, but if you can buy caviar, why settle for sardines - we go to Meijers, and I head for the pastry department. Huge bagels for 59 cents (much bigger than Walmart) - get two. What's this ?!! Nutty doughnuts ? My favorite. Great big ones for 55 cents? Walmart doesn't even sell them in Florida. Nor does Dunkin Donuts or ANYONE ELSE.

Some people are allergic to peanuts you see? Sometimes, seriously so. Florida is a state crawling with lawyers. Lawyers run ads on TV in Florida - lots of ads. They sue anything that moves. If your face gets puffy after eating a nutty donut, call Morgan & Morgan ("for the people"). Don't people who have had just one reaction to eating nuts know they are allergic?

Where does the responsibility lie? Is it fair that those whose whole eating experience is centered around the elusive nutty donut should be deprived because some people are irresponsible, and because Morgan & Morgan is lurking behind every pastry case?

Apparently it's fair in Florida, but not in Michigan - at Meijers Thrifty Acres. I'll ingest as many as I can before we leave.

Congratulations Lansing Eastern High School Class of 1961.

Comments (0)

WELCOME TO OUR RACE REV. PERRY

by john sawyer on 08/20/11

I know it's getting old. Here we have another 'favorite' entering the race, who is the best in the world at creating jobs (as a government official , not the private sector, mind you), loves Jesus Christ; is from Texas (can that hack, Karl Rove be far behind?), yadadada.

We didn't learn after from our experiences by electing Lyndon Johnson and a couple of Bushes. Now we are agog over Rick Perry. Well Rick, is it asking too much that if you need to read your "extemporaneous" unfunny comments that you at least not stumble over every word?
Whatever happened to people who actually had thoughts of their own - not those hastily written by somebody else? Is thinking for yourself out of the question?
" Ummmm, I'd like to ummm . . . er . . . say that Barack, ummmm Obama is doing a lousy ummmm, you know, job, (searching his (speechwriter's) notes " oh w.t.f. who can remember whatever he said - but to say, he stumbled over it.
It's amazing how good a candidate looks when he IS NOT a candidate (remember Fred Thompson), but how bumbling he is when the cameras are running (remember Barack Obama?)

Comments (0)

AARP - JUST SAY "NO"

by john sawyer on 07/26/11

President, AARP

Dear Sir:

Thanks for you mailing requesting me to "‘Say no‘ to $112 Billion Social Security Cuts.“ But I have been saying "NO" to both parties for years on my Presidential Campaign website:

http://www.sawyer2012.com/ . And I have offered solutions that would not come out of seniors pockets. Now partly through the political support afforded candidates of BOTH parties by AARP, we have a situation where BOTH parties are giving us Seniors the shaft. All in the name of "saving 'entitlements'" of course.

As I have pointed out (http://www.sawyer2012.com/PAUL-RYAN-SLEPT-HERE.html) and (http://www.sawyer2012.com/SOLUTIONS.html) , Social Security, Medicare, and Veteran’s Benefits, ARE ‘ENTITLEMENTS,’ just like any other pre-paid insurance policies. We paid for these programs, and there are no excuses for our representatives to renege on their promises to us backed by the “full faith and credit” of the United States government. We should receive our full benefits - and the Congressional members who looted these funds, should be bunking with Bernie Madoff.

On the other hand, Medicaid IS NOT AN ‘ENTITLEMENT.’ Medicaid recipients receive benefits paid for by others. If our bloated government can’t afford certain wasteful programs, it needs to cut THOSE programs - not Social Security and Medicare.

When it comes to interests, it’s party first, getting re-elected second, (Seniors, AARP, never). You backed these nags and your horse came in last. It’s time AARP showed some backbone, and stood up to those Congressmen, and supported a candidate who has OUR interests at heart. Like me.

When a vacancy came up on AARP’s Board of Directors, I applied. You selected (yet another) safe, credentialed candidate instead. But this attack on Seniors and Ex-Military, by Republicans AND Democrats alike, has created a battle for your members, and it’s time to back a wartime candidate who can do something about it.. I am he.

An excellent extemporaneous and informed speaker (on any subject), with myriad business, government, and entrepreneurial experience (http://www.sawyer2012.com/ABOUT-JOHN.html ) if I can become known, I would make a big difference. Perhaps I might speak before one of your larger meetings. The sooner the better.

Unlike all but four Republican lawmakers, who quickly voted in favor of the Ryan Bill, and Barack Obama, who endorses the principle of cutting ‘entitlements,‘ I think cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits is a bad and totally unnecessary idea.

?

But, by all means, continue to ignore my letters. At your peril.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

?

John W. Sawyer III

jwsawyer88@gmail.com

Comments (0)

MITT WHO . . . . ?

by john sawyer on 07/10/11

If someone should ask what I would do to keep from getting soaked in the rain, my response might be, “take my umbrella with me,” or “practice my backstroke.” Simple solutions to simple problems. I would expect any of the candidates for President to reply, “I would turn on the Weather Channel.” Which is just kind of answer these folks would provide if only the media interviewer would actually deign to ask.

Which brings me to the inane, and predictable softball interview of Mitt Romney this past week by Sean Hannity (rhymes with inanity) on the Fox Network (paraphrased):

Softball 1. Hannity: Do you think that the Obama Administration is totally off its rocker?

Inanity 1. Romney: We can’t put up with four more years of this administration. Unemployment is high; the housing market is in ruins; we ‘needta’ bring back American values. We ‘needta’ make this country strong again - to provide an atmosphere to get American business goin’ again, etc. etc.

And so it goes. Hannity tosses the questions underhand, and Romney responds to the non-question with a non-answer. The next day the pundits on Fox tell us that Romney “looks presidential;” that “he hit it out of the park.” (Screened) callers to Hannity’s (rhymes with ‘inanity’) radio show tell us how much they liked his answers, and, by gosh (strong language for Romney fans) they intend to vote for him.

Ask any twenty of these callers what Romney’s plan is to bring down unemployment, stop Iran from developing the bomb; or end illegal immigration and you would get twenty different answers - “I have no idea” not being one of them. They thought they heard solutions (by gosh) from candidate deer-in-the-headlights, but no one can pinpoint exactly what he would do.

It’s that way after every interview; and after every ‘debate.’ The moderator asks simple questions; the candidate expounds in general terms about what is wrong here; what a great country this was under Ronald Reagan; and what ‘needsta’ change. At least the debates only allow thirty seconds for the candidates to try and fool us - and maybe that’s their intention. What Mitt Romney and the rest DO NOT tell you is what Mitt Romney and the rest plan to do to fix those problems. Why not?

Maybe, as we have experienced particularly during the Carter and Obama administrations, the candidates have no clue. Perhaps their arrogance tells them they don’t have to answer the question at all. Of course when a politician, like Paul Ryan does summon the courage to step forward with real solutions, he gets crucified (check out:

http://www.sawyer2012.com/PAUL-RYAN-SLEPT-HERE.html).

In the time of the Roman Republic and early Roman Empire, Caesar’s job required him to be responsive to the people. A few, notably Gaius (Caligula), surrounded themselves with assistants and kept their distance, but most (Augustus, Tiberius, Antonius Pius, Trajan) handled affairs of state and most citizen requests personally - it was their duty. The biographer, Suetonius, wrote that a woman once accosted Hadrian with a petition when he was touring the Empire. When he told her he was busy, she shouted after him ‘Well stop being Emperor in that case!’ At that, Hadrian returned and granted her a hearing.

Can you imagine Barack Obama conducting his cabinet meetings, and then going directly to the public forum to announce his decisions to the people, as Julius Caesar did? Ever try to get a response from an officeholder? Or from a media personality? Sean Hannity? Bill O’Reilly? Glenn Beck (but, oh he cares)?

I Digress.

Which doesn’t answer the question as to why the media never ask the tough questions. Actually, they sometimes do. When Hannity interviews Anthony Weiner or Pat Buchanan, it’s no holds barred. But Sarah Palin? Karl Rove (here’s the architect; the genius . . . barf, barf)? Or when Bret Baier interviews ANY Republican candidate, it’s softball time, but he tears into Juan Williams (can you blame him?). The same with MSNBC, or CNN. Liberals get soft questions; Conservatives get the toughies. Which explains why serious conservative candidates avoid establishment media interviews and liberal politicians stay away from Fox.

Who loses here? We do. Come election time, we don’t have any idea how Candidate Dynamic will improve things and we wind up with clueless leaders like Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and Gaius.

Comments (0)