The Case for Obama - Part 5: Election Minutiae

Part 1: On Election Mythology
Part 2: On Trajectories and Private Sector Jobs
Part 3: On Deficits, Taxes, and The Figment of Our Collective Imagination
Part 4: On Tax Cuts for "Job Creators"

For our final entry, I'm going to throw out a bunch of bullet points. Whereas I tried my hardest to stick ONLY to facts in the first four, most of these are my own opinions, and I'm not trying to pass things off as anything other than that. These are primarily observations I've made over the past six months of campaign season.

• Mitt Romney said at the second debate that "government doesn't create jobs." Begs the question, then: why is he running for president if he believes that being in government won't create jobs?
• Mitt Romney's dad George ran for president. He released 12 years of tax returns when he was asked for just one. His reasoning? One or two years could be a "fluke" instead of the full trend. Mitt Romney released more than 20 years of tax returns to John McCain's campaign in 2008, and McCain picked Sarah Palin. That should tell you something about what's in those tax returns, people.
• Mitt Romney has a commercial out with five reasons not to vote for Obama. Two of the five reasons are outright lies, one is conjecture, and two are reasons that will not change under a Romney presidency. Lie: Under Obama, taxes on the middle class will go up $4000. The truth: "The ads cite a conservative group’s study, but even the group itself doesn’t say Obama will raise taxes on middle-income taxpayers. It says his budget could result in a “potentially higher tax burden” over the next 10 years." Lie: Obama cut $716 billion from Medicare. The truth: "Medicare’s money isn’t being taken away. The Affordable Care Act calls for slowing the growth in spending, a move that — if successful — would keep the hospital insurance trust fund solvent for longer than if the reductions didn’t happen." Of note, Paul Ryan took that same $716 billion out of Medicare in his own budget. Conjecture: 20 million could lose their employer based health insurance coverage. The truth: "The truth is that might happen under a very pessimistic scenario, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the agency said it is more likely that about 3 million to 5 million fewer people, on net, would obtain health insurance from their employer under the law. The CBO said it’s also possible more people would be covered by employers, not fewer (which is what the CBO said actually happened in Massachusetts)." More on that one below. Same: Our debt will increase to $20 trillion. True, but Romney's proposals would increase the debt to $19 trillion by the same standards. Same: Energy costs will continue to go up. No president affects gas prices. They just don't. Neither candidate's energy plan will affect gas prices. If these five things are the core of Romney's argument, well, it isn't much of an argument.
• Some say regulations kill jobs. I say dirty air and dirty water kill people.
• Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal. To my right-wing friends, please explain to me how you can argue that making guns illegal won't get rid of guns and gun violence, but that making abortion illegal will suddenly get rid of abortions. Further, please explain how limiting or removing affordable access to birth control will lower the number of unwanted pregnancies and, by extension, abortions.
• To that end, please explain to me why any woman can support Mitt Romney, who cut an ad in Indiana supporting Richard Mourdock, who thinks it's God's Will when a women gets pregnant from rape. Romney distanced himself from Mourdock's comments, but won't pull the ad. Let's not forget that Todd Akin thinks a woman's body will shut down a pregnancy because it knows it's conceived of rape. Or that Paul Ryan was one of the guys who tried to write the law change to delineate some rapes as "forcible," and recently noted that rape was really just another method of conception. THESE ARE THE GUYS DRIVING YOUR BUS, REPUBLICAN LADIES.
• Please cite specific examples of voter fraud that necessitate all of these states--coincidentally swing states that Romney needs to win in which Republicans are in control of state government, hmm--creating laws that make it harder for people to vote. Go ahead. I'll wait. Maybe if you had good ideas, Republicans, you wouldn't have to try to suppress voter turnout.
• Just want to reiterate that tax cuts don't create jobs, but they DO create giant deficits.
• Republican policies over the past 10-15 years have completely favored the rich at the expense of the poor. I don’t like to ascribe religious leanings into politics. I hate the national myth that the religious and moral high ground belongs solely to Republican policy makers. I don’t think God is on anyone’s “side” when it comes to purely political issues. But I also don’t remember Jesus--in what I’ve read--ever talking about rewarding the rich at the expense of the poor or of minorities, and that’s ultimately what these policies of tax cuts for the wealthy and off-setting that by cutting things like education and Medicaid while destroying Medicare and Social Security do. Are there some magical benefits that we’re all missing that make it OK to do this, from a purely moral perspective? Or have I been misinterpreting the Gospels all this time?
• As we noted above, Republicans argue that Obamacare might (AGAIN: MIGHT) cause 20,000,000 people to lose their employer-based health insurance, though there are plenty of sources that call that claim false. In addition, the nature of Obamacare means that people that lose employer coverage can still get insurance through state exchanges. However, repealing Obamacare will increase the deficit, per the CBO. It will also DEFINITELY mean that people who couldn't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions STILL WON'T BE ABLE TO GET INSURANCE. Whether you like the machinations of the bill or not, IT EXPANDS INSURANCE COVERAGE TO 30 MILLION PEOPLE. So, if you're scoring at home, that's 30 million more insured people (not to mention easier access to preventative care) vs. 20 million people who might lose the coverage they have now but will still have the option to buy other coverage. Again, I hate to inject "morals" into politics, but which one is more moral, purely from a "love your neighbor" standpoint?
• If Paul Ryan's Medicare plan is so freaking great, why can't current retirees have it? Oh, that's right, because if you mess with their Medicare, they won't vote for you. Food for thought.
• Likewise, if we had privatized Social Security in 2005, how many people would have lost their entire life savings in 2008?
• Finally, they're called "entitlements" because we've been paying into them our entire lives. Thus, we're "ENTITLED" to that money.
• The current Supreme Court--at least a majority of it--thinks corporations should have the same rights as people. Mitt Romney thinks corporations are people. Corporations are not people, because as Elizabeth Warren correctly said: "People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance. They live, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matters because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people. And that’s why we need Barack Obama." And, I would add, people can go to jail when they break the law.
• Along those lines, the next president will get to appoint two Supreme Court Justices.
• This president has been treated with less respect than any other president sitting in my lifetime. He has had his citizenship questioned (can't remember ANY other presidential CANDIDATE being asked to produce a birth certificate), he has been shouted at and called a liar by a sitting Congressman DURING the State of the Union, he has had a sitting governor stick her finger in his face while admonishing him, he has endured the mantle of being the first non-white president, and he has handled it all with a calm and cool we have not seen from nigh any other president. That, in my book, is the kind of leader I want: a leader that can ignore all of the noise and focus on his job. You need thick skin to be president, and this campaign has showed me that Obama has it, and Mitt Romney does not.

I thank those of you who've read this entire series of posts. It has helped me tremendously to write everything out, to organize what I think are both strong arguments for Barack Obama AND against Mitt Romney. Whatever you do, make sure that you vote. Not just for President, but for your leaders at every level of government.

Cheers. Obama 2012!

The Case for Obama - Part 4: On Tax Cuts for "Job Creators"

Part 1: On Election Mythology
Part 2: On Trajectories and Private Sector Jobs
Part 3: On Deficits, Taxes, and The Figment of Our Collective Imagination

First and foremost, let's call a spade a spade. "Job Creators" is nothing more than political-spin-speak for "rich people." To that end, we’ve had massive tax cuts on “job creators” for the past 11 years. Obama has tried to end those specific cuts while keeping tax cuts for the middle class, but he has admittedly had no success in the GOP-led House.

The heavy lifting, though, in terms of cutting taxes on the very tippy top was done in 2001 and 2003 under George W. Bush. What have those tax cuts to “job creators” given us?

Before we get to the numbers, let's talk about the rationale and some of the myths. The theory on tax cuts, as summarized by David Leonhardt in the New York Times, is this:

The main economic argument for tax cuts is simple enough. In the short term, they put money in people’s pockets. Longer term, people will presumably work harder if they keep more of the next dollar they earn. They will work more hours or expand their small business. This argument dominates the political debate.

But tax cuts have other effects that receive less attention — and that can slow economic growth. Somebody who cares about hitting a specific income target, like $1 million, might work less hard after receiving a tax cut. And all else equal, tax cuts increase the deficit, as Mr. Bush’s did, which creates other economic problems.

There's no doubt that having some extra capital in the hands of startup businesses and other small operations would help. However, in researching, I stumbled across an interesting piece from 2010 by Peter Cohan of Forbes. In it, he interviewed 17 startup CEOs, and slipped in this nugget:

One other thing -- with a single exception -- none of the Job Creators I talked with plan to hire people solely because of the tax incentives being discussed in Washington. Since many of them have been losing money during their startup stage, they don't need the tax breaks. And even if they did, they say such incentives wouldn't be an important factor in their decision to create new jobs.

So, while extra capital can certainly help small businesses, from Cohan's (albeit small) sample size, most people are more concerned with growing their businesses regardless of the tax policies enacted. Or, to put it another way, they're not going to hire people ONLY because of tax cuts, which throws the notion that we NEED tax cuts on "job creators" out the window. It should also be pointed out that most startups lose money during their initial years, these are hardly the wealthy incomes that are going to see a tax increase under Obama. We'll have more on this below.

Much like Bush's early agenda, tax cuts--skewed toward the wealthy, no matter what Romney may say to the contrary--are the cornerstone of Romney's recovery plan. So, is there any evidence that tax cuts really drive growth in the employment market? Let's look at some raw employment numbers.

When Bush came in in 2001, the U6 unemployment rate was 7.3%. Bush inherited a budget surplus and an economy not yet in recession, immediately cut taxes, and saw that rate jump to a peak of 10.4% in 2003 before settling back to 9.3% by the end of his first term. When Bush left in 01/2009, the U6 was 14.2%. The private sector lost a total of 646,000 jobs over Bush's eight years in office, though it must be pointed out that private sector jobs dropped from 2001 through 2003, rose from 2004 through 2007, and then fell off a cliff in 2008.

Obviously, there are many factors that affect job creation in this context. But, is there evidence that sustained tax cuts created jobs at a better rate than without them? It wouldn't appear so. It would appear that tax cuts passed by Bush in 2001 and 2003 had mixed results, based purely on the numbers above. So, let's ask a rhetorical question: do tax cuts create jobs?

One of the better articles I've read on the subject is by Rick Ungar, who writes for Forbes (though he is admittedly their "token lefty" in his own words). He reviews two different measuring sticks to determine whether George W. Bush's massive tax cut package for the very wealthy spurred job growth, as compared to the job growth rates under other two-term presidents over the last half-century. And, to give Bush the best possible outcome, he even didn't factor in the last year of Bush's presidency in which the economy was bleeding jobs. What were the results of his study?

So, should we argue over which measuring stick is the better judge of success?

No need. Let’s use them both because, whether we use one tool or the other, the growth in jobs following the Bush tax cuts remains surprisingly small in comparison to the job growth achieved by two-term presidents without the benefit of the mega-tax cuts for the wealthiest among us as delivered by President Bush.

Using the CES survey, employment during the period measured grew 4.5 percent. Using the CPS approach, employment grew 7 percent—both numbers producing a large yawn for Gary Burtless, a senior policy analysts with the centrist Brookings Institute, because neither number is very impressive, particularly if one is seeking to make the case that cutting taxes on the so called ‘job creators’ equals job growth.

By Mr. Burtless’ calculations, the Reagan years produced double-digit job growth. Same goes for the Clinton era, the 8 years of the combined Nixon and Ford administrations, and the 8 years of the combined Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy terms (both Ford and Johnson finished the terms of their predecessors.) Indeed, the only two-term president in modern history to experience job growth as sluggish as that experienced during the President George W. Bush years used in this analysis, even before the recession set in, was Dwight D. Eisenhower.

...

So what does this data tell us?

For starters, given that all of these two-term presidents experienced better job growth without the assistance of the massive tax cuts for the wealthy provided by President George W. Bush, it certainly seems fair to note that a certain amount of job growth would have come during the years George W. was president—whether he had given us the tax cuts or not.

And if one feels the need to argue that tax cuts are the great driver of employment, the comparative numbers presented make it shockingly clear that these tax benefits to the wealthy do little to nothing to even keep up with the employment increases under all of the other two term presidents of the modern era, with the exception of poor old Ike.

So, in Ungar's summaries, we see that, even without counting the dreadful last year of Bush's presidency, his rate of job growth was much lower than any other two term president this side of Eisenhower. And, his last note is important. As I noted in previous posts, the rate of growth that Romney's campaign numbers cite is SLOWER than the current job growth trajectory of Obama's recovery.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for tax cuts, eh?

In addition, two other snippets come from the NYT article I linked to above. First, a September report from the Congressional Research Service found that over a 65 year span changes to the top tax rate “do not appear correlated with economic growth.” CRS is a part of the legislative branch within the Library of Congress, and confidentially works primarily and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff. They are non-partisan.

For the second item, we'll give the final word to Donald Marron, who was quoted in the NYT article to which I linked above: “At the level of taxes we’ve been at the last couple decades and the magnitude of the changes we’ve had, it’s hard to make the argument that tax rates have a big effect on economic growth.”

Donald Marron is the director of the Tax Policy Center, and was a former member of the Bush administration.

Romney would be inheriting a less stable economy than Bush did, but one at least heading in a positive direction over the previous three years. Bush's job rates grew more slowly than any other two-term president in 50 years. And if you factor in Bush's entire legacy, where is the evidence that his tax cuts did ANYTHING to help the economy? Further, is there ANY precedent that we should do the exact same thing on a much larger scale now?

But what about Obama's plans, you might ask? The first issue: many small business owners complain that raising their taxes will stop their growth, because higher taxes on higher income levels remove the incentive to grow to that point. Some argue that small businesses might even lay people off to get under that threshold. Some even argue that a tax increase might force them out of business. Very scary stuff, indeed.

However, as Matthew Yglesias points out in Slate, it doesn't really work that way at all. In order to see ANY tax increase, a small business owner must be making AT LEAST $250,000 in profit each year. That means that, after ALL of their expenses and overheard, they're making $250,000. And, per Yglesias (emphasis mine),

The way U.S. income tax brackets work is that taxes are levied on marginal income. In other words, the rate applied to income earned over the $250,000 threshold is irrelevant to the first $250,000 worth of taxable income. If you have $250,010 of taxable earnings then only that last $10 is taxed at the higher rate. In all cases, higher pre-tax earnings lead to higher after-tax income.

Similarly, a curiously large number of the small business owners surveyed by House Republicans don’t seem to understand the difference between profits and revenues. The issue here is that some (but not all) small firms are organized as what are called “pass-through entities” for tax purposes. ... A pass-through entity... pays no taxes. Instead its profits are distributed to its owners (typically a small group of people) and they pay income—but not payroll—taxes on the proceeds.

So, it would seem that all these doomsday scenarios about what will be happening to small business if taxes are raised on the rich are either intentionally misleading, or are due to a lack of understanding of how the tax code actually works. I'll admit, I had to look it up myself.

Most importantly, even John Boehner has admitted that only 3% of people classified as "small businesses" will face any tax increase at all. The scare tactic that "half of small business income will see higher taxes" is because that top 3% makes HALF OF THE SMALL BUSINESS INCOME. Think about that for a second. 97% of "small businesses" make less than $250,000 a year, and therefore will see NO TAX INCREASE.

Second, does raising those taxes on the top earners stunt overall job growth? Recent history would actually suggest that it might have the opposite effect and spur MORE job growth. In fact, raising taxes to help combat rising deficits has happened twice in the past 20+ years: despite his campaign promises, George H. W. Bush raised taxes in his 1990 budget at the behest of the Democratic Congress, and Bill Clinton raised them again in 1993.

There was a recession in 1991, but from January 1990 through December of 2000, the economy added 23.672 million jobs, of which 20.943 million were private sector jobs. Obviously, there was a tech boom during that period of time, but it doesn't appear that the "job creators" were too strapped for cash because of higher taxes to invest in those jobs.

This isn't to say that Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy will create 20 million jobs. After all, it's not intellectually honest to quote someone who says that the tax rate of the top 1% doesn't directly affect the economy and then turn around and say raising taxes will create jobs. I'm not saying that. But, consider: the CBO has already predicted that the economy would create 9 million jobs:

The Congressional Budget Office is required to consider the effects of the so-called “fiscal cliff” if a year-end budget deal is not reached, which many experts believe would push the country into a recession. But even with that caveat, the nonpartisan agency assumes 9.06 million jobs will be created between 2013 and 2017. (This is a revision downward; CBO had estimated 11 million in January.)

The biggest caveat is that the result of Bush 41's and Clinton's tax increases is that, by the end of the decade, the federal budget deficit was gone. After eight years of Bush 43 and tax cuts, the budget deficit was back to $1.3 trillion.

So, whose tax plan is better? History tells us it's Obama's, by a HUGE margin. A decade of higher taxes, during which the economy was NOT stalled and created almost 21 million private sector jobs and erased deficits in the budget, or eight years of tax cuts that produced no net job gains in the private sector and blew a hole of over a trillion dollars in the yearly budget deficit?

This shouldn't be hard to figure out.

Tomorrow, we'll attempt to wrap this up with Part 5: Election Minutiae.

The Case for Obama - Part 3: On Deficits, Taxes, and The Figment of Our Collective Imagination

Part 1: On Election Mythology
Part 2: On Trajectories and Private Sector Jobs

We've looked at some myths about Obama's first term, as well as some of the more important trends in the labor market. Today, we're going to (try to) tackle the issues of deficits, debt reduction as a campaign tool, and taxes--more specifically, tax cuts--as they relate to the current deficit situation.

(As a note, there are two words used a bunch below, but they are not used interchangeably. For reference, when I use the word "deficit" I'm talking about the yearly fiscal budget deficit. When I use the word "debt" I'm talking about the national debt. Big difference, and important in many of these contexts.)

One of the big campaign points of the Romney campaign is the issue of the national debt, and tangentially the federal budget deficit. I looked at the deficit in very small part on Monday as one of the four myths. Today, we're going to look at Romney and his political party, since they of late have been driving this "deficit and debt" bus.

I take serious issue with the notion that Romney will be better on the deficit. As high as the deficit is, it hasn’t grown under Obama (yes, the national debt as a whole has, but it has been growing steadily since 1957 and yet here we all still are...). I take issue with this notion that Republican politicians are somehow misers when it comes to deficit spending; it’s just not true, even though in 2010 they started trying to sell the idea that it is.

For 20 years, under Reagan and the Bushes, the national debt increased compared to GDP every single year. Dick Cheney himself said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." When Reagan’s first fiscal year started, the debt was $998 billion. He increased it by over 186% in eight years, or 23.3% for each year. George W. Bush increased his national debt by 89% in eight years, or 11.1% for each year. George H.W. Bush and Clinton grew it by 54% and 32% respectively. So, yeah, the national debt has grown under Obama by 36%, only slightly higher in relation to his predecessor, and ahead of two other Republican presidents over the past 30 years.

Most damning in terms of evidence of where we are right now comes from the CBO, which releases a 10-year forecast every year. Then, each year, they take a look at the past 10 years as compared to their forecast from 10 years ago. If we're seriously going to look at deficits and national debt, this is a damn good place to start. From the CBO, revised in June of 2012:

In January 2001, CBO's baseline projections showed a cumulative [budget] surplus of $5.6 trillion for the 2002–2011 period. The actual results have differed from those projections because of subsequent policy changes, economic developments that differed from CBO's forecast, and other factors. As a result, the federal government ran deficits from 2002 through 2011. The cumulative deficit over the 10-year period amounted to $6.1 trillion—a swing of $11.7 trillion from the January 2001 projections.

Funny, we're $16 trillion in debt. CBO says we could have only been $4.3 trillion in debt. And, though the Republicans are so quick to blame Obama for this, remember this: George W. Bush inherited a budget SURPLUS of roughly $127.3 billion in 2001, which followed three other surpluses under Clinton: $69.2 billion in 1998, $125.6 billion in 1999, and $236.4 billion in 2000.

This was not that long ago. That national debt was still substantial when Bush was sworn in: around $5.7 trillion, and that coming even after four straight years of a budget surplus. However, Bush IMMEDIATELY said that the budget surplus meant we were all paying too much tax! Tax cuts for everyone! And so, it is with great non-objectivity that I state that anyone that voted for Bush even once has no right to complain about the national debt under Obama. Why not, you ask?

The 2002 budget deficit, which was Bush's first budget? $157.8 billion deficit. Total budget deficits under George W. Bush, from 2002-2009: $3.5474 TRILLION.

So, when Republicans--especially ones serving in government currently--claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, the numbers don’t lie: we know better. The truth is that EVERYBODY in government since Bill Clinton and the teeth-gritting bipartisan work of the late 90's--when they weren't trying to impeach him for getting a hummer--are the last people that can lay any claim to any kind of fiscal responsibility.

Check VP candidate Paul Ryan’s voting record when it comes to deficit spending. And he's supposed to be the "budget hawk"!! Check Ryan's budget proposals, which Romney has said he would sign into law were they to land on his desk as president. Per FactCheck.org back in 2011:

Ryan says his plan would not increase the debt. In fact, under his plan the public debt would increase from $10 trillion in 2011 to $16 trillion in 2021, by his own figures. That’s a slower increase than under President Barack Obama’s budget, but the debt would still rise substantially.

I think almost everyone can agree that deficit spending needs to be curbed. However, the notion that it’s ALL on Obama right now just isn’t accurate. And, there’s no data that Romney would somehow slow deficit spending. In fact, it seems like he’ll increase it. THIS is the figment of our collective imagination: that we can just keep on cutting and cutting taxes, and still somehow balance our budget. The only president to balance a budget since Richard Nixon was Bill Clinton, and he did it by raising some taxes. Republicans have all signed a pledge to Grover Norquist--a non-elected official, mind you--that they won't even CONSIDER any tax increases. So, if it is your policy belief that taxes need to be cut to stimulate the economy, then you have to take the issue of debt and deficits off the table. Those two ideas cancel each other out.

Romney STILL hasn’t told us how his tax cuts--which, as we discussed previously, will create jobs at a slower rate than our current job gains--will even be revenue-neutral and won't heavily favor the rich. The Tax Policy Center has said it’s mathematically not possible (source), and the big reason why is that his tax cuts do away with the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is put in place to keep the super-rich from taking enough deductions to reduce their amount paid below a certain threshold. He's also cutting the capital gains rate and the estate tax, both of which heavily favor the very wealthy.

And, despite the claims that the cuts will somehow broaden the base enough to create enough revenue to balance everything out, Romney’s claim is just 7 million jobs over 10 years. 700,000 additional tax payers per year isn’t enough to offset the $500 billion-per-year deficit the tax cuts would create, unless each of those new taxpayers forks over $714,285.71 a year.

I know, I know, it's not really that simple. More taxpayers would imply lower unemployment, which in turn means fewer monies paid out by government support agencies. But, look at that number. And, consider that, here in Ohio, if you made ZERO income in wages for a calendar year from June 2011-June 2012, your MAX unemployment benefit is $2678.00. 700,000 people at that rate would only account for $1.875 billion in savings over a year. The tax cuts cost $500 billion over a year. It still doesn't add up, unless everyone starts paying a ton more sales tax and we jack up payroll taxes. But that won't happen, because the Republicans all signed a pledge for NO NEW TAXES!

The ironic thing is that, in a way, Romney is potentially proposing a Trojan Horse tax increase. The original notion was that removal of deductions would cover the revenue needed to pay for the tax cuts (which begs the question, aren't you just robbing Peter to pay Paul by paying a lower rate but still somehow owing the same amount of money?), though he won’t say specifically which deductions are on the table.

All I can say is: if the mortgage and charitable donations deductions go away, my tax obligation WILL GO UP even if my "rate" is lower; you'll have to take my word for it that I'm squarely in the middle class. It doesn't take a slide rule to figure this stuff out.

And this is Romney's sleight-of-hand. He can say that he's not raising taxes on anyone, because he's cutting the rate for everyone. However, we all lower our amount of money owed (hence, tax refunds) by deductions. And, it's just simple math: for people of very modest incomes, giving up deductions definitely has a very large impact in the percentage of money owed. So, Romney can "cut middle-class taxes" while still causing members of the middle class to either owe more money come tax time, or get smaller refunds. And that, by every definition, is not a "tax cut" for the middle class.

Conversely, by removing the AMT, cutting capital gains, and gutting the estate tax, there's no "floor" for the super wealthy anymore. How all of THAT doesn't add up to a huge drop in revenue--and therefore a huge increase in the federal budget deficit--is a feat of mathematical genius we've not seen on this planet before. Except that it isn't, because Romney STILL hasn't explained how it will work.

The "broadening the base" argument doesn't add up, as we showed above. Romney's latest tack has been this notion of capping deductions, which I'm sure sounds like a great idea in theory. But, until we hear specific numbers (Romney just made one up on the spot in the town hall debate), there’s no way to know if it will work. But, I'm a subscriber to the principle that all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one, combined with the notion of "following the money" when it comes to deciding what's true.

Romney took a deduction for his wife's dressage horse that was more than I've made in any one year of my now-14-year professional life. Am I to believe that Romney is now suddenly going to cap deductions in such a way that he’d forfeit enough of his to balance out this tax rate cut? Follow the money.

Further, if you believe him, Romney believes the government has little to no role in the lives of every-day people (unless you're gay or are putting something into/taking something out of your uterus). Why, then, would I believe that he’s suddenly going to change the deduction policy to give up MORE of his own money to an institution he doesn’t believe in? He didn’t become a gajillionare by giving away more of his money. The simplest explanations tend to be the correct ones. Follow the money.

But, to be fair, those last two paragraphs are pure editorializing on my part, mainly because Romney simply won't tell us how it's going to work. He skirts this notion of the math by saying that "the rich will still pay the same share of the taxes that they do now." Well, sure. But the devil's in the details: If the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes, then (as an example) they'd be paying $700 million of a $1 billion pie. Romney wants a 20% rate cut across the board, which would imply that the new pie would be $800 million. The top 10% can still pay 70% of that pie, but that slice drops from $700 million to $560 million. So, just in this tiny example, the top 10% have gotten out from under $140 million in taxes while "still paying the same share" of the taxes.

This is just math, people. Maybe this is why Obama is pushing so hard for more math teachers. Romney just wants us to trust him that it will work. Vote for me! We'll sort the whole thing out after the election! I, for one, don't trust him, and neither should the average middle class person. Romney can say he's concerned about the middle class all he wants, but there's no real evidence that his policies somehow don't favor his super-rich buddies.

On top of that, Romney wants to increase military spending. The $2 trillion number is a bit of a reach by Obama; what Romney has said is that it shouldn't drop below 4% of GDP. However, in a fact-check of the argument, Glenn Kessler had this to say:

To sum up, the $2 trillion figure is not adjusted for inflation, is based on predictions of the size of the economy 10 years from now and makes assumptions about Romney’s policy that his campaign says are not correct.

Still, Romney is proposing a significant boost in defense spending. By the campaign’s own account, the budget increase is as high as nearly $1.6 trillion over the president’s current path — or at a minimum almost $1 trillion more than Obama’s budget two years ago.

So, regardless of what figure you use, Romney is essentially proposing at least $160 billion a year in additional military spending. And, regardless of whether or not you think that spending is necessary, it's STILL SPENDING that is not accounted for by increased revenues.

What I’m trying to argue today is that, if we truly want to cut the deficit and national debt--for which both parties bear plenty of responsibility--who’s being more realistic in 2012? Obama, who is willing to admit that we’ll have to raise revenues while also cutting spending, and has proposed raising taxes on wealthy people to help do it? Or Romney and Ryan, who are proposing a spending package so massive that it ALONE will cover almost HALF of our current budget deficit EVERY YEAR FOR TEN YEARS? Without any provable means of offsetting that increase? And no discernable boost in job growth according to their own numbers?

It just doesn't add up. And, NO ONE on the Republican side should talk about the debt and deficit reduction as a reason to sack Obama, because math is not on their side.

Romney claims the president's proposals will raise taxes on the middle class. Factcheck.org says that's not true on its face, and is based on a partisan report that offers no definitive answer as to what will happen.

And, with Romney as a whole, the spending collateral damage of his tax policies elsewhere is, in my opinion, catastrophic. Is Romney’s tax cut proposal so good that we have to sacrifice Medicaid for it, for instance? That we need to make it legal again for insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (even though, as the CBO pointed out this summer, repealing "Obamacare" would actually RAISE the budget deficit by almost $2 billion per year)? That we need to cut women’s access to birth control and cancer screenings via Planned Parenthood because they use 3% of their money nationwide for abortion services? And on that issue, that we need to force a woman who’s been raped to have a baby she doesn’t want? (Romney's tried changing positions on that last one, but look in the Republican platform and listen to Paul Ryan; it's still there. Also don't forget that when Romney ran for Senate in Massachusetts in the 1990's, he was firmly pro-choice.) Giving student loans back to big banks so they can soak fees off of the money loaned? Raising interest rates on those student loans? Cutting pell grants?

Do we need to go to fucking war with Iran?

All of that shit--and much, much more, some of which has no bearing on jobs but instead comes from antiquated religious and social fears--is what comes along with Romney’s tax plan by virtue of the wingnuts on the far right of his party that are driving the bus. Is it really worth it? Is it so good that we have to take all the other junk with it, just to give some super-rich people a huge tax cut?

Barack Obama says that we don't. And I agree with him.

Beyond that, unless Romney pulls some magical data about his enormous tax cuts and their stimulative impact out of his ass, his use of deficits and the national debt as a campaign tool is nothing more than an obfuscating tactic meant to stir up anger at incumbents. Nothing more. And if Romney truly wants to blame all of the people responsible for free-wheeling spending, he need look no further than his own running mate.

Tomorrow, we'll look at whether Romney's tax plan really stimulates the economy in Part 4: On Tax Cuts for "Job Creators".

The Case for Obama - Part 2: On Trajectories and Private Sector Jobs

(Read Part 1: On Election Mythology)

Yesterday, we covered some of the more pervasive myths about Obama's first term. But, what this is really all about is the next four years. So, let’s look at where we’re heading, with the context of where we've been in our minds. This is where you have to put on those critical thinking caps that your teachers tried so hard to get you to use back in school.

You can look at a snapshot of the economy devoid of any context and say, “It’s bad.” And no one can really argue. But, when you look at trends and trajectories, there’s a lot more going on. The economy isn’t “great” right now, but in the standard electoral question of “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” the answer is pretty clear. First, here's the overall private sector job trend from Obama's first term (all graphs created at BLS.gov):

Obama has recovered all of the jobs lost from his end of the recession. However, I think it's important to look at the way the economy was going before he took office. From January of 2008 to January of 2009, the economy LOST 4.662 MILLION JOBS. In terms of trajectory, that’s an average of 388,500 job losses every month, and the peak was that January of 2009 just before Obama took office, when the economy lost 839,000 IN JUST ONE MONTH! Here's the 2007-2008 private sector job graph:

So, that downward slope is what was happening--for a full year--before president Obama took office. And, as it got closer and closer to him taking over, the trend was heading steeper and steeper downhill.

So then what happened? The economy’s rate of job losses decreased to 734,000 in February, and continued to decrease until the economy lost just 35,000 in February of 2010. From then on, it’s done nothing but gain jobs.

Compare the trend and trajectory from 2008 to 2009: in 2008, it was going downhill like a snowball picking up steam as it went. Obama took office. The snowball started slowing down. Within a year it was stopped, and the economy began to go back in the right direction. Here's the 2009-2010 trend. Notice how it levels off and starts back up again:

Now, let’s look at another trend. From February of 2010 until now, the private sector has gained jobs every month, to the tune of a monthly average increase of 152,452 jobs for 31 straight months. Here's the graph from 2010-2012:

So, which trend is better? -388,500 jobs per month for a year, or +152,452 for almost three years? ARE WE BETTER OFF THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO? YOU BET!

Now, let’s talk some more trajectory. The economy is recovering, but some say (cough—Romney—cough) that it’s not recovering fast enough. If we just stay at our current average of job gains for the next 52 months—i.e., October-January, plus 48 more months under Obama’s current trajectory—the economy adds 7.928 MILLION private sector jobs.

Romney says that’s not fast enough. I wrote extensively about this earlier on Facebook (and my number there of 7,317,696 jobs is based soley on a comparison of the second term of Obama), but here is the big hiccup in Romney’s jobs plan: he claims his tax and spending policies will create 7 million jobs alone. However, the source he cites is a TEN year projection, not a FOUR year projection. I don’t have to tell you that that’s only 2.8 million jobs over four years, not 7 million. If you read the whole breakdown, his “12 million jobs” over four years is actually 6.3 millions jobs. Obama’s current tractory is more than 1 million jobs MORE than that. So, who’s really too slow?

The point of all of this is not to say everything's great with the economy. I don't feel like Obama has ever tried to say that it is. The point here is to say that the economy was in total free-fall when Obama took office. He stopped that trend, reversed it in just one year, and has us headed in a sustained, positive direction. And beyond that, Mitt Romney's ENTIRE jobs plan--if we're to believe the numbers he cites--would actually slow the private sector job growth.

So, you may not like President Obama. But, if you really feel like Mitt Romney will be better on the economy and jobs, you'll need to find some new data that says so. All that we have now points to Obama handling the economy more strongly in a second term. Oh, and lest you think we’re done with Romney’s tax plans and his claims, we’re just getting started. Tomorrow, we'll move on to Part 3: On Deficits, Taxes, and The Figment of Our Collective Imagination

The Case for Obama - Part 1: On Election Mythology

The 2012 presidential election has become one of the more polarizing in recent memory (right up there with 2004). What this election is most likely going to come down to is the economy. The choice is whether we keep on the same track of progress we’ve been making, or change direction. As anyone who follows me on Facebook knows, I’m pro-Obama. I’ve reconstituted this blog after four years--for only a couple of weeks--to lay out the case for why I'm pro-Obama.

I'm going to try to explain why I think he will be better for the economy over the next four years, and I’m going to lay out a pretty broad picture over several entries. First up: let's do some myth-busting on the economy.

Myth 1 – Barack Obama caused the recession and is solely responsible for the economy.

The Truth: the economy went into recession in December of 2007, and the bottom fell out in September of 2008. Beginning in April of 2007, the U6 unemployment rate—which some will argue is one of the better measures of the state of employment and jobs in the economy—began rising from 8.0% in March of 2007 to 14.2 at the end of January of 2009, which is when Obama was sworn in. That was 22 months of that rate increasing, and that was all BEFORE OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT. The private sector lost 4.038 MILLION jobs during that stretch.

President Obama took office right in the midst of this horrible stretch.

Myth 2 – Barack Obama’s stimulus “failed,” and the economy is not recovering under Barack Obama’s leadership.

The Truth: Inheriting the downward trends outlined above, Obama enacted policies that put the brakes on that recession. His stimulus bill passed in the spring of 2009, and, “The truth is that the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with what employment would have been otherwise.“ (source)

Job losses steadily decreased (more on this tomorrow) until February 2010, and from that point on, the economy has done nothing but grow jobs. 4.256 million TOTAL jobs have been added to the economy since February of 2010. And, incredibly, 4.726 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs have been created in that period. (source)

Wait, there are more private sector jobs than total jobs? What?? This leads us to...

Myth 3 – Barack Obama has grown the size of government.

The Truth: Again using the BLS website, we see that government jobs under Obama have DECREASED by 575,000 throughout his entire first term.

Myth 4 – Barack Obama DOUBLED the budget deficit in his first year.

The Truth: the widely-accepted notion that Obama doubled the deficit is not correct, and based on a false attribution that Bush’s fiscal-year-2009 budget is “Obama’s spending”. On Jan. 8, 2009, the C.B.O. projected a deficit for the year of $1.3 trillion that didn’t include any Obama policies (source).

The budget deficit has hovered slightly above or slightly below that number in subsequent years. The budget Obama submitted in February of this year for fiscal year 2013 requested just $900 billion in deficit spending. Federal spending has grown more slowly under Obama than under any president since Eisenhower. (source)

Those are four pretty big myths busted, no? To my eyes, it appears that Barack Obama inherited a shit-storm of an economy, put the brakes on a huge slide, and he turned the ship around and got it moving in the right direction. And it has continued moving in a positive direction for almost three full years.

Stay tuned for tomorrow's Part 2: On Trajectories and Private Sector Jobs

Closing Time

Well, I've come to a realization:

I'm not good at keeping up my blog.

It's no secret that I've been less than on top of updating this blog. And, it's also no secret that I really only write about two things: politics and my love affair with all things sports (Cleveland, Blue Jackets, etc.).

Well, I've basically become enamored with two much more established blogs for each of those things:
Sports: Waiting For Next Year
Politics: Political Inaction

I've been known to comment a bunch at both, and I'm working on potentially doing a weekly Blue Jackets column at WFNY.

So, it is with all of this on the table that I announce my retirement from the world of Welcome to the Monkey House. You can catch me at one/both of those sites... see you around the bend!

Catching Up and Getting Ready

Just got back from vacation to the Caribbean with my wife, and I realized I hadn't updated this in a long, long time. There will be more updates to come, hopefully, but with my favorite season of the year starting while we were gone (that would be Browns training camp...), I thought I'd scour YouTube and/or hand out some awards to get me (and hopefully anyone else) pumped up:

"We Are Not Worthy" Award: My Favorite Play Ever


"We Are Not Worthy" Award Part 2: Because I Wanted The Steelers Return To Get Its Own Heading (bonus because they used Jim Donovan's calls instead of the TV calls)


Toyota Prius "I Still Got Some In The Tank" Award: Can He Do It Again?


Jack Johnson "Staple It Together" Award: Winslow's Right Leg is Basically Held Together with Duct Tape and Still...


The "Did We Use Up All Of Our Lucky Breaks?" Award: To the Man Who Should Have That Center Bar Named After Him Someday:


"Realized Potential" Award: Mr. Pro Bowl Himself


Bonus Clip: The Day Braylon Edwards Would Become My Favorite Football Player, Supplanted Only By When My Favorite Pro Team Drafted Him


Notice there are no defensive clips. Hopefully that will change in 2008.

I'm just sayin'...

Not sayin' they're gonna win the series... just sayin'...


That's the Defensive Player of the Year. Ouch.

[edit]
And, not to short-change Asdrubal Cabrera, since he did produce some baseball history last night...

Op-Ed from Joe Borowski

I had nothing. I was stuck in one gear.

Hi, my name is Joe. I currently am the "closer" for the Cleveland Indians. I use the quotes, because currently I am unable to close any games. As most Indians fans know by now, watching me "close" is not dissimilar to suffering a minor coronary. I like to mix it up from time to time. Last night (April 14th), for example, I would liken watching my "performance" to having a mafia surgeon removing your testicles in a mob safe house with no anesthetic and only a rusty spatula for tools.

I met with Tribe manager Eric Wedge, General Manager Mark Shapiro and the team's medical staff after the game to discuss the condition of my right arm and shoulder. I told the papers: I hope we can pinpoint something. Right now, it's driving me crazy. I'm grasping at straws. Maybe it's something. Maybe it's nothing.

Don't be confused, Tribe fans. It clearly is something. It's the big bag of SUCK I've been carrying around off and on for my entire Tribe tenure. Sure, I saved 45 games last year, but every Tribe fan received an additional 6% coronary artery blockage and an average of 14 additional grey hairs. I'm the gift that keeps on giving!

Did you see the pitch I threw to Manny Ramirez last night? "It seemed like a fastball," Manny said. "It was something like 80 mph. Maybe it was change-up. It was right there."

I never guessed that arguably THE BEST RIGHT HANDED HITTER IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL would be able to catch up to my 80-mph heat, right down the middle, belt high, in a tie game with two outs and a SLOW runner on. Whereas most pitchers probably wouldn't give him anything to hit, I'm a crafty veteran. I went against the trend of "don't let their best fucking hitter beat you, asshole!" and decided he'd never see it coming if I challenged him. Sadly, I didn't realize that, since he's arguably THE BEST RIGHT HANDED HITTER IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL he'd be able to recognize my 80-mph grapefruit, calibrate his then-492-career-home-runs bat, and neuter the ball into the left-field bleachers. It was almost like he was waiting for it. My bad. I'll get him next time.

To sum up, Tribe fans, sorry about that. Fuck me in the beard.

Random LOLCuteness

moar funny pictures

Bonus: I Hate Duke Haiku

Coach K. shouts, helpless
someone punch Greg Paulus hard
box out Nelson, please

Things Overheard/Shouted In My Living Room Last Night:

• Reverand Wright? Let it go! McCain got an endoresment from ROD FUCKING PARSLEY!!
  
• Really, Hillary? NOW Michigan and Florida's voices should be heard? Change your mind much?


• More cold/snow? Sure glad we decided against Tribe opening day tickets!


• More cold/snow? Sure can't wait to go to North Carolina next weekend. Hopefully my golf swing gets thawed out in time!


• FUCK YOU, DUKE!


• Why the hell can't I hit the ball straight in Tiger Woods 2007? It says my driver should go 274 yards, but it never does!!


• UCLA looks really, really good. Or, MSVU is really, really, not good.


• Mmm, I love me some Guinness.

Best of Times, Worst of Times

If only Hillary Clinton could take a page from Dickens' classic self-less character Sydney Carton, the self-centered man with his eye on a prize he would never win who ultimately sacrifices himself so that others can live on and be happy.

Obama has won two more (albeit not delegate-rich) states since last Tuesday's shake-up-that-really-wasn't-a-shake-up, and his delegate lead is back up to 129 (and one could argue 155, since I can't see John Edwards giving his delegates to HER now). The writing could not be more legible on the wall; it's over, but rather than get out of the way for the good of her own party she'd rather scorch the earth in the hopes that someday she might still get to be President. She would rather have McCain win (he who wants 100 more years of Iraq war and who will most likely attack Iran to carry Bush's water/flag a little further) because she thinks he'd be a one-term president and she could run again in 2012 than to have someone who shares similar ideals with her win in 2008 and help to turn the country around. WOW. Wow. Wow. Wow. WOW.

She's getting to the point where she's as bad or worse than the Republicans have been. She's trying to "steal" the delegates from Michigan and Florida (they had agreed BEFORE those votes that the delegates wouldn't count, though now that she needs them, she thinks they should; Obama WASN'T EVEN ON THE BALLOT in Michigan! Yeah, that's fair).

As we've documented, she played the Muslim/fear/terrorist card.

Geraldine Ferraro (who appears to have gone certifiably BATSHIT CRAZY) played the race card on her behalf, and THEN tried the reverse-race-card trick. She had the loony-balls to say:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

That would be comical if it wasn't so completely assinine (because, you know, being a Brotha in America is generally a road paved with gold and privilege). When blasted, her reply was:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, 'Let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world,' you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," she told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

If you can make it through that quote without blacking out, you're doing better than I am. Honkies have had such a tough road of dominance and opportunity since the late 1700's. It's amazing we can even get up in the morning!

For the love of God, Hillary. It's time. I believe it was the wise man Ludicrus who once posited:
"Move bitch, get out the way / Get out the way bitch, get out the way / Move bitch, get out the way / Get out the way bitch, get out the way"

Oops, by Ferraro's logic, now I'm a bigot.

I'm LOST

(spoilers)

So, what's going on with Lost? We're finally finding some important shit out about our island and the "rescue boat" team.

#1 - I totally called that it was Mr. Widmore's boat long before the reveal, though that was a pretty easy one. I'm about 1 for 250 on Lost secrets, so far, though.

#2 - We found out that Mr. Widmore's crew--while creepy and sinister at times--clearly are the Anti-Bens. Why is Mr. Widmore so anti-Ben? And what does he want with the Island? We know Ben's a manipulator whose primary goal will always be self-presevation--and that he loves to fuck with Locke--so we can't necessarily assume that it's purely commercial. And if Ben is "evil" as we're being led to believe, The Fightin' Widmores' presence has to be good for the Losties, no? Is that why only "6" survive/elect to be rescued and go back to the States?

#3 - But, why, then, would Kate go back if the Island was good, since she knew she'd have to stand trial?

#4 - But, why, then, would Jack want to go BACK to the Island if there had been some kind of apocalypse?

#5 - Who is on the boat?? My guess: Michael.

#6 - Who is the 6th of the Oceanic 6? More importantly, have we already nailed down who the first 5 are? Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Aaron? Ben? (Can Ben be a member since he wasn't on the flight?) Is the 6th person to be revealed the person in the coffin from last season's finale? My guess for the 6th: I have no guess.

Discuss.

Updates, again

Well, so many of the things touched on have developed further since last I wrote. Let's recap:

Politics

Our Ohio primary was yesterday. I voted Dem (obviously) and chose Barack. I don't necessarily think Hillary would be a bad President, but I am SO OVER her method of choice to try and get there. I disagree with my pal Steve when he says that: "She's got Rhode Island wrapped up, and she really needs to at worst split with Obama today, so why not help deliver her Ohio and keep this very exciting (and young-voter-energizing) primary going for a bit longer?"

I think it's time to move on, unite the party, and focus on mopping the floor with Gramps McCain. All of the in-fighting does more harm than good, in my opinion, and both candidates have already shown they excel at getting people out/interested/participating. That's well and good, but at some point, the proverbial Greater Good has to be considered.

It is my opinion that Hillary--despite her good showing yesterday in winning both Ohio and Texas, though the latter by an insignificant margin (see Jonathan Alter's math for reference)--can't win the nomination outright without some seriously shady doings (see: superdelegates, for example, from the Plain Dealer: Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Cleveland, a national co-chair of Clinton's campaign, is a super delegate. Asked Tuesday night whether she would back Obama even if he won in her home district, as appeared likely, Tubbs Jones emphatically said no. "As I've said over and over again, I am committed to Hillary Clinton." [emphasis mine] - yep, sounds about right) and without going super-de-duper negative the rest of the way against Barack. What good does that do?

She's insinuating he is and/or has been a Muslim (he's not, and never has been).

She's insinuating that she somehow demonstrably has the experience to be the one answering the "3 AM phone call" about the terrorists coming for our children. Based on what? Living in the White House for 8 years and knowing where the phone is? She VOTED FOR A POINTLESS WAR, and he has been opposed to it from the start. How does that make her more qualified?

Then, of course, there's the whole Texas Caucus thing (Barack has continually done very well in the caucus setting, and 33% of the Texas Delegates were up for the grabbing in those post-primary caucuses). So, what's Hillary to do? Well, nothing like--after 8 years of screaming about the GOP [possibly] rigging elections--trying to rig the caucuses in your favor, just in case you lose the primary:

Hillary Clinton and her campaign is pushing for precinct captains for Texas' 8,000 Democratic polling places. They need to train folks to lead the caucus sessions that will determine more than 60 delegates after the primary voting is over.In training materials being handed out by the Clinton campaign, it is clear that they want to control those caucus sessions.The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serves as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness."The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."
http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/archives/2008/03/caucus-strategy.html

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080043115&ch=3/5/2008%2010:13:00%20AM

They were crying "FOUL!" when it looked like they were losing, all while trying to stack the caucuses with their own people. It smacks of Republican tactics so much that it makes me want to puke. She wants the nomination so badly that she's willing to employ the Joseph Stalin "scorching of one's own earth" tactics to get it. She's becoming the Larry Hughes of the democratic party (see below).

It's time for that shit to stop. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is a great way to win a general election. To wit, Lars says: I'm really not voting for HRC if she keeps going negative. I can't. If she had won the nomination without the insinuation of barack being a weak canadian muslim, then fine... but forget that. Bah. I'm just going to write in Terry Schiavo in the GE if Clinton is the nominee." Good job, Hillary.


Sports

Wow!

The Browns and Cavs have both been busy since I last wrote. Let's recap/address:

My musings in italics:

The Browns have some issues going into the 2008 draft and season:
1) Their defense was HORRIBLE. They won 10 games in spite of it. They are in dire need of defensive linemen.
Wow. The Browns traded their second round pick to Green Bay for Corey Williams, and their third round pick and Leigh Bodden to Detroit for Shaun Rogers. Some reactions:

Williams, 6-4 and 320 pounds, would probably play left end in the Browns' 3-4 defense. He played tackle in Green Bay's 4-3 alignment and was known for his quickness in getting to the quarterback. He had 14 sacks the last two years.
Cleveland Plain Dealer

Rogers no doubt will take over as the Browns' nose tackle. Williams, 6-4 and 313 pounds, joins Robaire Smith and Shaun Smith in a three-man rotation at the two defensive end spots. Shaun Smith also would spell Rogers at nose.
In dealing Bodden, the Browns give up on a rags-to-riches player who some in the organization felt slipped measurably last season. The move secures one starting cornerback job for Eric Wright and sets up a battle for the other one between Daven Holly and Brandon McDonald.
"I think [Williams will] be a really valuable addition to us, not only because of his rush ability on the inside but also his ability to play the run," Savage said. "We think he'll give us some legitimacy on the defensive front."
Cleveland Plain Dealer

2) They have no first round pick, having traded it for Quinn last year. However...
3) They have a restricted free agent quarterback in Derek Anderson, who may be worth a first round pick. They are actively trying to sign him to a three year deal, and possibly then work a sign-and-trade for someone willing to part with a first round pick.
Well, the Browns re-signed Derek Anderson for three years, and as we noted above, the Browns NOW no longer have their first, second, OR third round picks. DA doesn't appear to be going anywhere now. But, as Phil Savage notes:

Prior to completing the deal for Rogers, Savage said there was no defensive lineman in the draft worthy of selecting with the second-round pick, No. 56 overall.
"I knew there was going to be some sacrifice involved in trying to obtain a player we wanted, but in my mind, in our estimation, a legitimate veteran defensive lineman who's still got a lot of upside potential seemed to be a good fit for us," Savage said.
Cleveland Plain Dealer

Trading for defensive tackles Corey Williams of Green Bay and Shaun Rogers of Detroit left the Browns without a pick in the first three rounds of the April 26-27 draft.
Cleveland surrendered its No. 1 to Dallas last year on draft day to select quarterback Brady Quinn. Then Friday it gave up a second-rounder for Williams and a third-rounder for Rogers.
But general manager Phil Savage and coach Romeo Crennel didn't seem concerned.
"Brady Quinn is the first-round draft choice, Corey Williams is the second-round draft choice and Shaun Rogers is the third-round draft choice. We've jumped out in front and had our draft early," Crennel said. "As a result of having an early draft we were able to get experienced players who have been productive in the NFL."
Akron Beacon Journal

Free agency starts next Saturday. It will be interesting.
The Browns also signed New England's Donte' Stallworth to be their #2 receiver, a decent move that opens up more of the field, as the defenses aren't going to be able to double everybody. They've also had visits from some linebackers as well, which would only help a here-to-fore lousy defense.

Most importantly, the Browns (according to most pundits) got noticeably better, while no one else in the division has really done anything of note. The Browns tied the Steelers in record at 10-6, losing the head-to-head matchups and thus the division as well. One would hope these moves help to close that now infinitesimal gap even more.

***

Half of the Cavs players have been hurt at some point this year. They're hovering around 4th in the East, and there are rumors of a trade in the works. My hunch is that nothing will happen. Like usual. The Cavs will make the playoffs and lose in the second round to either Boston or Detroit.

Wow again! The Cavs pulled off a certified BLOCKBUSTER trade just before the deadline. I'll let Brian Windhorst break it down for y'all:

The deal is done. The details are here. Basically, Cavs get Ben Wallace, Joe Smith, Wally Szczerbiak, Delonte West and a second-round draft pick for Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden, Ira Newble, Donyell Marshall, Shannon Brown, and Cedric Simmons. Pretty crazy. And, I think, qualifies as the blockbuster. In full disclosure, the deal I was talking about last night was Hughes for Wallace and then the Cavs would be able to move Gooden for a shooting guard. It obviously got a lot more complex today.
Here is the instant reaction, one of the things being talked about within the Cavs front office over the last few days was the need to get someone in here to deal with potential matchups with the Celtics in the playoffs. Wallace could be that guy. He also gives them an edge in dealing with the Pistons as well. Szczerbiak is guy who is the type of player that works well with LeBron, he’s a shooter, although he’s had injury problems. Cavs are taking on some huge salary here, but they are not really extending their commitments. Wallace is signed for two more years (like Hughes) and Smith and Szczerbiak will have expiring contracts next season. West will be a restricted free agent.
To me the key here is just what Wallace brings. He’s not the player he was in Detroit, I think most people agree with that. But can he be a major defensive presence, especially come the playoffs. To me that will define this deal. Maybe he will, maybe he won’t. Lots of people are down on him and he’s not having a good year. He is the key in my mind.
ohio.com

ESPN's Bill Simmons--who is harder on most NBA teams and GMs than any sportswriter I know of--praised the deal:

As for the other big trade this week, kudos to Danny Ferry for somehow getting four of the best five players in an 11-player trade. That has to be some sort of record, right? I already made the case for Wally Szczerbiak and Delonte West helping the Cavs in my Trade Machine piece Wednesday (scroll down to trade 4A), but the Chicago guys pushed the deal over the top for me. First, Drew Gooden needed to go--he was too inconsistent and too much of a bonehead, and we neared the point when a fed-up LeBron might punch him in the face during a game about three months ago--and Joe Smith gives the Cavs steadier minutes and reliable production with those minutes. (Maybe Smith's ceiling isn't as high as Gooden's from game to game, but when you have LeBron you need consistency from the rest of the guys more than anything else.) Second, the fact Ferry was able to trade an overpaid guard who actually drove a frustrated Cavs fan to create a site called http://www.heylarryhughespleasestoptakingsomanybadshots.com/ and update it every day ... I mean, even if you got back a dead body for Larry Hughes, it would have been a moral victory.
Instead, the Cavs got back the Artist Formerly Known As Ben Wallace, someone who stopped being an elite rebounder and shot-blocker about three years ago, but someone with playoff experience and the ability to defend bigger guys like KG, Shaq or Duncan. He certainly makes more sense for the 2008 Cavs than Larry Hughes did. Anyway, I thought the Cavs could win the East before this trade, simply because none of the Eastern teams have someone who can match baskets with LeBron in a close game. Now? They're the favorites. Look, I love the Celtics, I watch them every game, it has been the most enjoyable season in 15 years. ... But a playoff series almost always comes down to one question as long as both sides are relatively equal:
Which team has the best guy?
Well, LeBron is better than anyone else in the East. So if you were beating Cleveland this spring, it was happening because your supporting cast was significantly better than LeBron's supporting cast. That's why this trade was so dangerous for Boston and Detroit; it shortened the sizable gap between guys 2 through 12 on Cleveland and guys 2 through 12 on Boston and Detroit. Now LeBron has four shooters who have shot 40-plus from 3-point range at least once in their career (Wally, Delonte, Boobie Gibson and Sasha Pavlovic), three seasoned rebounders (Wallace, Smith and Anderson Varejao), a scoring center (Zydrunas Ilgauskas) and, best of all, no Larry Hughes screwing up everything. LeBron is in a much better place than he was last year, and what's even more frightening is that he has been playing out of his mind since last April. I know the Celtics are 41-11, and I know the Pistons have been there a million times ... but still, how could you bet against LeBron in the East when he's playing like this?
espn.com

And finally, to hammer the Larry Hughes point home--as well as close the loop I opened above when I called Hillary Clinton the "Larry Hughes of the Democratic Party," let's check with Larry and with Patrick McManamon:

You remember Hughes. He's the former Cavs player who signed for a boatload of money a few years ago and then was unhappy playing on the same team as LeBron James, a team that a year ago played in the NBA Finals. Which is bizarre enough in itself.
Anyway, Hughes was traded to the Chicago Bulls recently for Ben Wallace and Joe Smith, and on Sunday, Hughes revealed why he plays the game. ''I play to enjoy myself,'' he said. Note the word ''myself.''
''Some people take this the wrong way, but winning a championship is not what I base everything on,'' he said. Sure hate to take that the wrong way.
''I was given an opportunity to play basketball, travel around and have fun doing it, and that's what I want to do,'' he said. ''I wouldn't take being unhappy and not being myself and winning. I would rather enjoy myself with 18,000 to 20,000 people watching the game and the people sending fan mail and those things, and be happy.''
There are times when a direct question is required. So it is here. And that question would be: Is this guy nuts? Are we to understand that personal fan mail is more important than winning, that it would be ideal to score 25 points every game and lose? At this point, it might be wise to smack yourself on the side of the head with the bottom of the palm to try to make this clear. And, of course, not take these words the wrong way.
Hughes couldn't stop there. He said he did not come to Cleveland to play point guard, that he came to run the wing a la James. ''I was asked to sacrifice for the team to win and for everybody, I guess, (to) get paid,'' he said. ''That is what was told to me, and I wasn't happy with that.'' Well, we'd sure hate to take that the wrong way.
But let's make this clear: In one fell swoop, Hughes made clear why the Cavs made all those last-second, trade-deadline moves. Hughes was simply not going to try to make things work with the Cavs, never mind the $12 million he was earning this year, and never mind the $4 million he made in bonuses the past two years because the team won, and never mind the fact that he was playing with the BEST PLAYER ON THE PLANET.
Rest assured, though, Hughes' ''issues'' go well beyond playing point guard. They might actually go to some kind of childhood trauma. Hughes was not happy, period, and he made his feelings known to the team all the way back to last season — when the Cavs went to the NBA Finals. Which apparently wasn't good for Hughes, because he thinks people sacrifice to ''get paid'' rather than to win.
The Cavs had to do what they could with Hughes, though. He was an unhappy player, but he was their unhappy player. So they put a lot of energy and work into trying to get what they could from him, given the difficulties of trading his contract. At some points this season, they actually got good minutes from him.
But it came to a point where things simply were not going to work. Now we know why.
Hughes' words are almost so mind-boggling as to be inexplicable. His assessments mean that he liked the loss Sunday because he got 23 points, even if he was shut down by James in the fourth quarter. Gotta love going 21-61 if you average 22, right? This sounds like a guy who would appreciate his own hemorrhoids.
Yes, it's easy to take shots at a guy who's leaving town, and the Cavs, to their credit, have only said thanks and best of luck. But it's near impossible not to notice Hughes revealing to the world what he's all about.
Whether he wanted to or not, Hughes has portrayed himself as a selfish doofus who doesn't care whether the team wins as long as he's getting his.
[emphasis mine]
ohio.com

Wow, what a couple of weeks it has been!

And here we are...

Another couple of months, another period of blogger neglect. For that, I apologize. Let's update where were are, now that we're toward the end of February:

WttMH Political Ticker

Wow, after all of the political whining I did here in 2006, it's hard to believe that we've gone this far through the Presidential primary season without so much as a comment!

Both races appear to be close to a final decision, as John McCain has all but locked up the GOP nomination, and Barack Obama is riding an insane wave of momentum, including 10 straight caucus/primary wins. There are some huge primaries coming up in Ohio and Texas on March 4th (hey, it's great that our primary actually counts!). If Clinton doesn't win them both, she's all but done. If she does win both, the water gets pretty muddy. There is an issue with "superdelegates" (those delegates who have no obligation to vote along the lines of the primary/caucus results) and whether they will vote in line with the election results or strike out on their own. It would seem to me that if Obama's momentum continues and he wins Ohio and Texas, they have little choice as the writing will be completely legible on the wall at that point.

So, let's break down the (most likely to win) candidates through my own lens of bias:

Dems:
Clinton: Meh. I voted for her husband once (since I wasn't old enough to vote for him in 1992), and despite the best efforts of the "moral" majority in the late 90's I thought he was a good president. Yeah, he got his dick sucked by an intern and lied about it (or, tried to spin himself out of the way, at least). But, the country's economy was strong and we didn't have any stupid pointless wars. As for his wife, I vowed to give her a chance this primary season, as I wanted to form an opinion other than what the media has had to say (or the GOP has had to say). As time has gone on in her campaign and Obama has gained the momentum, she's tried about everything she and her husband could think of to knock him down. It hasn't worked. If anything, it's backfired. The whole "plagiarism" thing was a farce, and they couldn't get away from it fast enough after everyone realized that it was a farce.

The more I hear her campaign, the less and less I like her. The most telling evening for me was back in January during the New Hampshire debate, in which she all but pounded the table to get people to pay attention to her "campaign on her 35 years of experience" and seemed very pissed off when no one seemed to care. Her every move seems calculated, and as for her "35 years of experience" I find myself scoffing; Universal Health Care Cards, anyone?

Bottom Line: She tried to make herself the proverbial "last one standing"--not by setting herself apart, but by destroying her rivals to the point where despite not being that great a candidate she's somehow set herself "above" the others. Obama has not only weathered that storm, but has turned it on its head. This country IS ready for a woman president; just not THIS woman. Pass.

Obama: I want to rally around this guy. I really do. He's young, he really connects with people, he says all the right things, he seems honest enough (admitting to drug use is a refreshing stance, since those jackals on the other side hate gays and abortions but are busy molesting male pages and getting their mistresses abortions when nobody's looking). But, he doesn't have a lot of experience. I love that he's been a civil rights champion, and by God it's about time this country has a minority president. (Sadly, however, I believe I could name several acquaintances that wouldn't vote for him *just* because of his skin color, which is maddening.) And, the repeated promise to close off the Oval Office to special interests and lobbyists would be insanely great for this country and its policy.

But, beyond that, what foreign policy or economic experience does he have? He's campaigning on the "Change!" platform, which--believe me--sounds amazing to my ears. But, color me cynical: how's he going to make change with so little experience? If he were to be elected, I would take a great interest in the makeup of his cabinet, as a President with less experience is going to need to be surrounded by *good* people (as opposed to sycophantic yes-men who support pointless invasions and campaigns of making people afraid of everything, thus allowing them to erode civil liberties in the name of patriotism and corporate greed).

He has the momentum; 10 straight state wins, and the power to get the vote out in the key states coming up. The best thing about his campaign that I can cite is that he has gotten SO many people involved in the process of democracy. The voter turnout in the primaries and caucuses this year has been simply mind-blowing, and for that he deserves credit. He may not be able to run the tight ship (no lobbyists, no special interests) that he promises to, but he's gotten people's attention, and gotten them off of their collective ass to get involved in the process of selecting a leader and being involved in government. If nothing else, that's a HUGE step in the right direction for America.

Bottom Line: He's got a bright, bright future. I think in a vacuum he'd be the perfect Vice President, but as we've discussed above, that would imply that there's someone who's more ready to be President. Can this country afford a learn-on-the-job guy? The best part is he's getting people involved, he's a breath of fresh air, and THAT'S a great start. As a registered Dem, he's probably going to be my guy on 3/4/08.

GOP:
Skeletor: Of course, I mean John McCain. John McCain is about 8 years too late. He wants us to stay in Iraq, which is a deal-breaker for me. The phrase "100 years" was used. To be honest, I would have given McCain a very fair shot back in 2000, but I lost all of my respect for him in the aftermath of that campaign. The Bush campaign put him through the wringer; they were just awful to him, and he basically rolled over and took it. And then, in 2004, he basically sold out. It seemed to me that the Bush camp basically went to him and said, "if you ever want a chance to be President in 2008, get in line NOW." And he did.

The biggest issue I have with McCain at this point is that he's basically now focused his campaign on Barack Obama, as it's looking more and more like that will be the match-up in November. Obama's message is: Hope, Change, Yes We Can! McCain has basically implied that that approach just won't work. No Hope, No Change, NO WE CAN'T!

Bottom Line: McCain is selling "more of the same" for this country, and there can't possibly be a scenario where that's what we need.

Squirrely McGee: Of course, I mean Mike Huckabee. Holy shit, am I even giving this guy the time of day? No. He used to eat fried squirrel, for God's sake! Really, he said they should amend the Constitution to make it jibe more with Biblical Law. Wowzers. How this guy won *any* states is beyond me.

Bottom Line: Pencil him in for Secretary of Varment Eating if McCain wins the general election in November. Hi-yooo!!


WttMH Sports Ticker

Browns Finish at 10-6, Still Manage to Miss Playoffs!
The Browns exceeded everyone's wildest expectations from the beginning of the year, winning 10 games after the opening weekend debacle. They sent six offensive players to the Pro Bowl, including Joe Thomas (man, I'm going to puff my chest about being right on that one!!).

The Browns have some issues going into the 2008 draft and season:
1) Their defense was HORRIBLE. They won 10 games in spite of it. They are in dire need of defensive linemen.
2) They have no first round pick, having traded it for Quinn last year. However...
3) They have a restricted free agent quarterback in Derek Anderson, who may be worth a first round pick. They are actively trying to sign him to a three year deal, and possibly then work a sign-and-trade for someone willing to part with a first round pick.

Free agency starts next Saturday. It will be interesting.

Indians Head to Spring Training Trying to Repeat and Get Over That Shitty Hump
The Tribe was 1 game from the World Series. They then lost 3 in a row and went home. C.C. Sabathia is going to be a Free Agent. Detroit has gotten better (trading for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis) and the Tribe has basically stood pat (signed a Japanese Reliever, and some spare parts).

These are some of the issues facing the Tribe as Spring Training begins.

The Blue Jackets Suck
No surprises here. Tied for 8th place in the West at the All-Star break, they have gone 2-6-3 since the break. Nice work, guys. See you next fall.

Cavs Infirmiry Unit Hanging Around
Half of the Cavs players have been hurt at some point this year. They're hovering around 4th in the East, and there are rumors of a trade in the works. My hunch is that nothing will happen. Like usual. The Cavs will make the playoffs and lose in the second round to either Boston or Detroit.


Let's See... What Else?

Not much. This would be why it's been two-plus months since I updated my blog. I'll try to do better!

My heart breaks...

As I look out the west-facing window of my 9th floor office at the snow-swept landscape, my mind wanders out west to Omaha, Nebraska.

Earlier this year, I wrote some quickly-formulated thoughts in response to the Virigian Tech shootings, which also referenced earlier thoughts on an Amish school shooting/tragedy and some root causes relative to people not getting the help they need. In part:

• I attempted to take a stab at exploring the issues surrounding something like this once before, but it brings no resolution any closer to me.


• I'm going to fumble/punt here, so please bear with me... I understand the media has a duty to inform the public, and that this is the hugest story of the year by far. But, at what point does the media need to just back the fuck up? Whether they mean to or not, their need to get ratings and eyes glues to TV sets involuntarily adds a degree of celebrity to the people who commit these acts (bear with me, here; I use the term "celebrity" in the most macabre sense of the word). I think back to the movie "The Frighteners" where Jake Busey's character carved numbers into the foreheads of his victims because he was counting... and trying to outdo the serial killers before him. I don't like the need to label things like this the "Virginia Tech Massacre" or the "worst" school shooting in history (to me, this implies that we can assign a degree of evil or "badness" to something that really can't/shouldn't be quantified).


• To carry this a little further and dredge up something again from above, if this country doesn't wake the fuck up and take a good hard look at itself, this IS going to happen again. Whether we like it or not, there are bad people out there. I don't like giving them inadvertant goals or targets to strive for.

I re-read those thoughts, and then I read about the Omaha mall shooter being emotionally damaged throughout a portion of his life, and then telling his landlord moments before killing eight people and wounding five more that it would make him famous:

"He basically said how sorry he was for everything," Maruca Kovac said of the note. "He didn't want to be a burden to people and that he was a piece of shit all of his life and that now he'd be famous."

It turns my stomach. It makes me angry. But, most of all, it breaks my heart. Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

Lest we forget...

I know it's been awhile, and I'm planning a more comprehensive update at some point in time, as I've been bad about keeping my blog moving.

But, with the retirement of the coach of the college football team I follow most, I wanted to take a moment to tip my cap to Lloyd Carr. Though I'm sure I will continue to be mocked by my Columbus/OSU friends and family for his recent failings against OSU (even as they continue to forget or not acknowledge that he, much like Tressel is doing now, simply FUCKING DOMINATED OSU for the first six years as Michigan's head coach), I think it's important to reflect back on the career of one of the true "good guys" of sports.


Yes, his sideline interviews were the stuff of legend when it came to his outward crotchetyness, but when one studies Lloyd Carr the man as well as Lloyd Carr the coach it becomes apparent that he truly is one of the great people of the sport. And, lest we forget, it's still just a game, and college athletics are still about the kids themselves.

Here's the perfect article about Lloyd's career, as told by The Wolverine's John Borton:

The best portion of a good man’s life,
His little, nameless, unremembered acts
Of kindness and of love.
— William Wordsworth

Lloyd Carr owns 13 Big Ten championship rings, dating all the way back to 1980, the year he joined Bo Schembechler’s staff as an assistant coach. He can flash five as Michigan’s head man, or haul out the diamond-studded national championship ring from 1997, representing a pinnacle few college coaches ever reach.

His football numbers speak for themselves — a 121-40 record, the seventh-best winning percentage (.752) among active college coaches, and the thirdmost victories in Michigan football history, behind only Schembechler (194) and Fielding Yost (165).

Carr led Michigan to the top of the mountain in 1997, a climb no U-M coach had completed since 1948. He kept the Wolverines competitive and clean, a rare combination in today’s college football world.

He also made a high-profile impact off the field, becoming the first coach in the history of Michigan’s athletic department to endow a scholarship. His efforts to raise funds for a new C.S. Mott Children’s and Women’s Hospital are widely recognized.

Everyone knows the headline-grabbers. But the behind-the-scenes Carr — the one who always somehow made time for little, nameless, unremembered acts — proved better than anything on ESPN.

Just ask Tim Baker, head coach at Constantine High School, tucked away in the southwest corner of Michigan. Baker’s football team won the Division VI state championship in 2004, running the Wing-T offense. His squad racked up huge rushing numbers, catching the attention of a man who loved to run the football.

Baker received a message one day after school and immediately knew it had to be a prank.

"The secretary came down and laid the note on my desk, and it said 'Call Lloyd Carr,'" Baker recalled. "Now the first thing I’m thinking is, 'Okay, which one of my buddies is pulling one on me here?' But I call the number back.

"A secretary answers the phone: 'Michigan football.' I’m going, 'Wow — these guys are good. They’re really setting me up here.' I’m still not buying into this. Then she puts me on hold and a Michigan broadcast of a game comes on.

"All of a sudden I hear, 'Coach Carr.' He has a voice that you just recognize. I just about came out of my chair."

After establishing just where tiny Constantine was, Carr supplied the sort of lift the locals will never draw from SportsCenter.

"He just congratulated us on our championship, said he enjoyed watching the game, and just complimented us up and down," Baker said. "It was quite a thrill for me to have a Big Ten coach of that caliber call.

"But the one thing I was really impressed with was that he was preparing for Texas in the Rose Bowl that year. And he had as much time as I wanted to have with him on the phone... I said this guy took time out for a little Division VI coach, to just call up and congratulate him. I just thought that was cool."

Michigan fans across the nation thought it was cool when Academy Award-winner Russell Crowe rolled into town for the Notre Dame game. Carr’s welcoming of his big-screen buddy drew nationwide attention, but the coach also put his efforts into lesser-known gladiators.

Nick Gasperoni, a senior trombone player in the Michigan Marching Band, collapsed on the football field in a Monday rehearsal following that victory. He’d suffered a potentially fatal heart arrhythmia, requiring CPR from band members and a shocking by a defibrillator to save his life and prevent brain damage.

Stabilized at the hospital, Gasperoni soon received a get-well card from the team, signed by Carr, Mike Hart, Jake Long and Shawn Crable. That act alone lifted the senior’s spirits, but he soon received a bigger boost.

Carr himself popped in on Friday afternoon of that week, a day prior to taking on Penn State.

"Remember, that at this point in the season, Michigan was only 1-2, thus it was a huge game to prove that this season wasn’t going to be a failure," Gasperoni noted. "Despite the looming game, there was Lloyd Carr, willing to give his time for a band member. I think it speaks volumes for his character, the character of Michigan athletics and the Michigan family in general."

U-M fan Brad Forney understands. His grandfather once coached former Michigan assistant Terry Malone in Detroit. When cancer began to engulf the grandfather, he received extensive treatment at the University of Michigan hospital to slow the dreaded disease.

During one hospital stay, Malone surprised him with a visit, spending several hours discussing life and Michigan football. Once the grandfather could walk again, Malone took him for a visit down to Schembechler Hall.

"Immediately Lloyd welcomed him in and referred to him as Coach Williams," Forney noted. "You wouldn’t believe the impact that had on my grandfather. He was so excited that someone as high up in the coaching ranks would call him by the name 'Coach.' Lloyd talked to him for about 30 minutes. They discussed football and strategies, and finally they went out to take in a practice.

"Grandpa met with the team before finally having to leave because his body just couldn’t take the standing anymore. Coach Carr told him that he was welcome anytime and that he was considered part of the Michigan family.

"My grandfather never got that chance — he passed away this past October. It seems like such a simple story, but this day helped my grandfather forget about his pain for a while, and it stuck with all of us. A man who fought in World War II, played minor league baseball, worked in the auto industry for 40 years, and coached for 30 years would look back on this as being the most exciting day he has ever had."

Forney wrote a simple thank-you note to Carr a week after his grandfather’s passing. He received in return a personal letter, Carr noting that he remembered the day and "Coach Williams" very well.

"This really made me realize how lucky we are to have someone like Coach Carr," Forney said. "It just amazes me what a standup person he is. No matter the time or situation, he holds up the values of a Michigan Man. Too often we get wrapped up in wins and losses, but this event in my life made me realize how great a leader he really is."

Kim Bergsma knows. This diehard Michigan fan and attendee at several of Carr’s women’s football academies wrote to the head coach on a number of occasions.

Just after the Wolverines reached the summit in ’97, she tumbled into a crevasse of a personal health crisis. She happened to mention it in one of her missives to the man in the big office.

"Less than one week later I got a large package from UPS from Schembechler Hall," Bergsma recalled. "In the box was a pick — the very same picks that were hung up in the locker room during the 1997 season for the Into Thin Air motivation — and on the pick are written the words: 'Kim: For your mountain. You will do it. Lloyd Carr.' I treasure that ice pick. It proudly sits on a shelf in our family room, and I see it every day, and remember. I will never forget sitting on the floor of my living room and weeping, not quite believing that this man had done this for me, and then writing to him to thank him and for the letter he wrote back to me. He is a special person."

Carr deserved better, football-wise, in his last days as Michigan’s head football coach. A team that could never get healthy clawed to the brink of a championship, only to suffer a numbing disappointment.

But that’s not how the man will be remembered, in 10, 20 or 30 years. For the football fixated, he’ll be the one who brought a national championship back to Ann Arbor after a half-century hiatus.

For many more, he’ll be the man who took the time to lift others up in times of great need.

Those acts gleam like no crystal football ever will.

I know that I, myself, have tended to get caught up in the wins and losses... I'm aware that not too long ago I advocated him leaving the program in this very space.

But, after an 8-game winning streak and a near-run at a Big 10 title all while battling injuries to the two most important players on the team, not to mention a complete snap-shot of the man's career, it's important to remember that one should be careful what one wishes for.

Lloyd's decision to step down probably came at the right time, both for him and for the program. And, with all of the Les Miles hullabaloo, who knows if the program will be super-competitive anytime in the near future.

But, while Michigan's football team might not have won too many of the "big ones" the past few years--and, while there's no such thing as a "perfectly clean" program in college sports these days--there's something to be said for having a coach who not only keeps your team mostly competitive but also never loses his convictions or his ethics. People like Pete Carroll would be wise to take a page from that book.

Thanks, Lloyd. Godspeed on whatever journey you take next.