why don't they get it?

or maybe they do, and just don't care. via say anything, which i hadn't visited in awhile, i learned that congress is looking at capping ATM fees. which sounds nice... but as far as i'm concerned, that's none of congress' business. i worked in the banking industry for about four and a half years, and while ATM fees are annoying, they're not generally big money makers. the bank i worked for charged $2.00 for non-customers (it was free if you were using one of our debit cards), which in my experience is right about mid-range as far as fees go, and we actually ended up pulling one of our ATMs out of a local community because the cost of keeping it stocked and maintained wasn't worth it. as far as i'm concerned, a bank can charge whatever the hell they want for a fee; if people don't like it, they can go elsewhere. it's not as if there's a shortage of banks out there. even the little podunk town i live in (population ~1100) has two banks to choose from, and if you're willing to drive half an hour into a larger city (which most people have to do for groceries, medical appointments, and entertainment anyways, as well as work for quite a few) you've got more than a dozen different banks and credit unions to choose from.

note to congress: businesses exist to make money. if you take that ability away from them, why should they bother to continue their existence?

Something Useful

As some of you may already know, I'm about to become a statistic. To the best of my knowledge, my job with North Cascades National Bank will be coming to an end at the same time that this month does. Back in October they closed my office down in Orondo, but asked me to stay on for awhile to help out with a retention project. While I was working on that I accepted a slightly less temporary position (through the end of February), providing coverage through the holiday season... I haven't heard anything else since then. In some ways, I'm a bit disappointed: I really like the group of people I work with, and will be sad to see them less often. On the other hand, I'm definitely ready to move on to something different. Regardless of what you may have seen in the media, banking was already a fairly heavily regulated industry, and with all the new rules Congress keeps pumping out it's getting more and more stressful to try and help people, worrying that you may inadvertently break some law or other.

I'm not looking forward to being unemployment, but I do plan on taking a bit of time off before going into job hunting mode. I've got a bit of money saved up, and along with my final paycheck and (hopefully) some severance pay, I'll be able to get by for awhile.

Obviously I'll have a bit more free time on my hands, although based on conversations with former coworkers, it sounds like unemployment is much busier than I would have expected. I think a certain amount of vegging is justified, but I really don't want to get into a habit of that. I do hope to get back into my writing (which I haven't done seriously in several years, so it could take awhile to get back up to speed), but when I'm doing something I like, I can only keep at it for so long at a stretch before it's time to take a break. So, with that in mind, I'm soliciting suggestions for something (or multiple things) useful to do with my time while unemployed. I prefer things that can be done with a minimum of monetary commitment, but have no problem donating my time to a worthy cause. Any input would be much appreciated.

i'll take what's behind door #2

door #1: obamacare, which would cost roughly $1 Trillion over the next 10 years

door #2: the republican plan (yes, they actually came up with one), which would cost roughly $61 Billion over the next 10 years, cut the federal budget deficit by $68 Billion over that same time period, and reduce insurance premiums as well.

decisions, decisions....

see here for more info.

h/t AoS/HA

what is wrong with these people?

headline: Rich Germans demand higher taxes. they seem to think that donating their money is not enough, the government has to take it from them and use it for programs to help with the financial recession. my reaction? they obviously have no idea what they're doing. any businessman worth his salt would be able to do more with his own money, with less overhead and more control over how it's spent, than the government could. and at least 99 times out of 100, any charity you pick (or form, even... these are rich folk we're talking about after all) would spend your money more efficiently than government. government is where money goes to die.

more on the bailout

which i was actually planning to write a few weeks back, but got lazy. go figure. in my defense, my original link broke, and i had to track down a new one... all the .pdf versions are coming up no good.

my favorite section, which i hope i'm reading/interpreting wrong, is 112, which states (emphasis mine):

The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 101.

that same section 101 that tells us the treasury secretary can purchase troubled assets "from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary."

so on top of wasting money to cover the stupid financial institutions in our own country, we're going to be covering for the mistakes made by other countries as well? i think we should focus on our own problems first and foremost.

speaking of focusing... president bush's original proposal was 3 pages long. the finished bill was 451 pages, and roughly 330 of those (i think it was actually a few more, but don't remember the exact page number) had absolutely nothing to do with the economic crisis. 75% of this bill was just addons to get enough of the senators to abandon any common sense they might have had and vote yes. to make it "good" enough for people to go along with, they had to turn it into a very bad bill indeed.

so, there are my two cents. i may have a bit more later... at work i get a copy of the banc investment daily; most of it is way over my head (or "above my pay grade"), but they've had some good things to say about the bailout.

the good, the bad, and the ugly

the good
senator cantwell (D)
rep. hastings (R)
rep. inslee (D)
rep. mcdermott (D)
rep. mcmorris (R)
rep. reichert (R)

the bad
senator murray (D)
rep. baird (D)
rep. larsen (D)
rep. smith (D)
rep. dicks (D)

the ugly
h.r. 1424, on which i'll have more to say later

boo

looks like the senate overwhelmingly passed a new version of the bailout package. they also managed to tack even more spending onto it--apparently to make it palatable to the majority of senators--in the form of what appears to be a rather odd set of earmarks, including funds for (or tax cuts for... it's hard to tell) virgin island and peurto rican rum, race tracks, and wool research. wtf do those have to do with credit problems, mate?

it sounds like the house will be voting on this (and probably tacking more crap onto it) on friday... hopefully they've got the good sense to shoot it down again.

who knew?

to paraphrase hillary clinton, it's like the middle class squeeze, only without the squeeze.

h/t say anything

my thoughts exactly

finally, someone with the balls to tell it like it is when it comes to the poor people and money. of course, compared to him i'm poor people as well, but i'm working my way up the economic scale instead of bitching and moaning about how other people have more money than me.

also, this gives me a chance to bring up one of my favorite benjamin franklin quotes. it's going to be a longer version than I normally use, because some of it seems to fit perfectly with the article
i linked above:

I am for doing good to the poor; but I differ in opinion about the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor is, not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. … I observed in different countries that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and, of course, became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them…. Under all these obligations are our poor modest, humble, and thankful? And do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder, that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.

available here, on pages 347-348. (you may need a google account to view the original)

amen, brother

i never thought i'd see this day, but i find myself agreeing with steve jobs over michael dell. dell seems to believe that unions are for the protection of employees from their employers (which seems an odd stance, given his position as company CEO). jobs, on the other hand, realizes that unions--at least in the case of teacher's unions (not sure what he thinks about the rest of them, though i'd assume it would be similar)--are bad for education.

and the economy seems to agree, at least according to this LA Times article. somehow, even though union membership has shrunk drastically, workers are better off than they were before. this doesn't mean lower union membership leads to the workers being better off, but it does mean that we can get by just fine without them.

h/t say anything for both stories