Ravengate
Partners - Stock market, economic and political commentary by Patricia Chadwick

Leaving aside the issue of influence via political contributions and lobbyists (as they are as yet unproven) the moral of the Solyndra debacle seems simple to me. The Federal Government should stay out of the investment business.

Solyndra was an accident waiting to happen. The company couldn’t get funding from the private sector. A hoped for public offering had been cancelled. It was apparently obvious to analysts and lenders that the company was, at a minimum, not an attractive investment and possibly not even viable. They chose to avoid providing either equity or debt capital to the company. The macro factors were compelling – in an industry where the competitors’ raw material costs were falling, Solyndra was a classic case of a company with variable costs that were simply too high.

One has to assume that the Federal Government employees responsible for doing the research on Solyndra simply lacked the technical skills to do a thorough analysis of the company’s long term (or even short term as it turns out) viability. That is the most charitable thing that can be said.

It is hard to imagine that they were so dimwitted that they were willing to risk the embarrassment of a default on a loan of over $500 million. So it is fair to say that they didn’t really believe the company would go into bankruptcy. Common sense tells me that the powers that be who were making the final decision about which ‘green’ company would receive Federal Government backing most assuredly wanted it to be a success story.

Of course, it is possible that Solyndra’s management lied to the Government. That is not uncommon in the investment world, and that is what tried and true analysts are paid to figure out. The Government was in over its head. If an analyst in the private sector had recommended a loan or an investment in Solyndra and within two years the company had gone kaput, you can be assured that the yearend bonus for that analyst would also have gone kaput. In the investment world, there is a real incentive to be hardnosed, to get the facts right and to make a decision that creates a positive return. There is no such incentive system in the Federal Government. I doubt that anyone will lose his/her job over the annihilation of $535 million of taxpayers’ hard earned money being lent to Solyndra.

So assuming that there was no sinister under-story here, the problem must lie in the fact that the Federal Government employees charged with researching the case were simply not up to the task.

And therein lies the true moral of the story. Let the Federal Government stick to its appointed knitting, and for the benefit of all the people it serves, let it stay out of the sophisticated and specialized business of investing in and lending to corporations in the private sector.

The volatility in the markets this past week may be reminiscent of what took place in August and September of 2008, but this summer of our discontent is a far cry from what the world faced three years ago. Thank goodness!

That is not to say that the issues roiling the markets today are insignificant or of little consequence. To the contrary, the recent sharp decline in equity markets around the world reflects the host of global challenges that face economies and governments. And the equity market will likely continue to be volatile for a number of reasons.

For one thing, the banks remain under stress. The good news is that the entire banking system is not as leveraged as it was in 2007/2008. However, the largest banks still have far too many distressed loans on their balance sheets. That puts them in the unenviable position of being a reluctant lender, preferring to hoard cash.

Perhaps most important, consumers, the driving force for growth in our economy, are both underemployed and over-indebted. Such a condition severely crimps discretionary spending. Consumers, like the banks, are being forced to reduce their own debt and downsize their balance sheets. This process takes a long time and is the reason that economic growth is likely to remain sub-par for a number of years into the future. And lest we blame the young for profligate spending, it should be noted that it is the 40 and 50 and 60 somethings who have perpetrated this overindulgence. It is refreshing to see how many of the 20 and 30 somethings are choosing to live within their means, utilizing debit cards rather than the potentially bottomless pit of credit cards. And they seem to understand the need to save for their own retirement.

What they are entitled to expect is credible, prudent leadership from Washington. Our political system is choking on rhetoric – all talk and no action, or maybe better put – all shouting and irresponsible, self-centered brinksmanship. I wonder sometimes if the shrillest of the voices in our national legislature don’t reflect the views of but a small percentage of the population. Where is the representation for the nearly silent vast majority that is centrist in its politics and its values? Where is the leadership that can bring both sides together as President Reagan, working with Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neil, was able to do? I am willing to wager that, come the next election, the most secure seats in Congress will be held by those who have been willing to meet in the center over major issues.

Our challenges are daunting but not insurmountable. They will require major restructuring of long term retirement programs currently provided by the Government. Social Security must and will be means tested – the sooner the better. We will also need to overhaul our tax system. A good start is the elimination of all loopholes, those secretly agreed upon ‘deals’ that get slipped into legislation in the dead of night. (I sometimes wonder if the only way to get rid of tax loopholes is to outlaw lobbyists. The only bad news from that would be that the unemployment rate would likely sky-rocket – at least in Washington, D.C.)

The stock market reflects the outlook for corporations to generate profits and pay dividends. Profit growth in the U.S. has been excellent since the recession bottomed out in 2008. Today, nearly 40% of the stocks in the S&P 500 yield more than the current 10-year Treasury rate. The list includes such household names as PepsiCo, Merck, Kimberly Clark, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, Staples, Sysco, McDonalds – all companies that are sound, growing and most likely will be raising their dividends for years to come. Of course corporate earnings are not immune from economic activity, but today’s valuation of the S&P500 seems attractive, particularly when compared to the returns available on fixed income securities.

Three years ago, our economy as well as those of much of the rest of the world came close to hurtling over a precipice. The invaluable and too much maligned support from the Government did in fact save the day. We went through a serious recession and are still clawing our way back to prosperity. The challenges facing us today are long term structural issues. They must be confronted and resolved before they mushroom out of control. But they do not compare in urgency or magnitude to the events in the summer of 2008.

The markets around the world are rattled silly this morning by the first ever downgrade of the U.S. Government’s debt by Standard & Poors. That is understandable but not, in my mind, rational.

There is no way the U.S. Government is going to default on its debt obligations. Its debts are no less safe this morning than they were on Friday or one year ago or ten years ago. It is true that our country’s balance sheet is less healthy than it was a decade ago, but look what we have been through – a recession the depth of which had not been experienced since the 1930’s while simultaneously engaging in two wars. Debt buildup and fiscal deficits were inevitable.

At the end of World War II, our debt as a percent of GDP was far higher than it is today. The Government spent huge amounts of money subsidizing mortgages and providing education through the GI Bill. The country emerged from that era into a sustained period of growth and prosperity which allowed the balance sheet to right itself.

Today we face more than a few challenging issues but they are not insurmountable if only our elected officials would work for the good of the people. There is a need first and foremost to get the economy revitalized. The reason that is proving so difficult to achieve is because the balance sheet of the consumer is still going through a downsizing. In addition, the banks are also continuing to downsize their own balance sheets. It is difficult to spend when you are trying to pay off debt.

Corporations are becoming the easy whipping boy for not hiring more of the unemployed. But they are not the culprit. They came through the recession in solid financial shape and they would like nothing more than to see good demand that would allow them to increase employment.

One thing is for sure – a massive tax increase will NOT be productive for the economy or as a means of reducing the debt levels of the Government. Such a strategy would be counterproductive. However, eliminating tax loopholes –the unfair tax treatments that allow large and profitable companies to pay nearly NO taxes – is an essential step in moving towards reducing the fiscal deficit. The same is true regarding individual taxes – the wealthiest individuals should not be able to take advantage of tax loopholes that allow them to pay the lowest tax rates. It is appalling that Congress cannot agree in a bipartisan way to eliminate tax loopholes – genuine loopholes, NOT the very legitimate deduction of mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Longer term there is no doubt that the issues of Social Security and retirement health care must be addressed. At least they are now being discussed. Only a decade ago, they were referred to as “the third rail of politics”. So progress has been made. At some point in the not too distant future, Social Security will be means tested – as it should have been all along. And individuals will be required to work longer before receiving their benefit. This is simple arithmetic that goes hand in glove with the increase in life expectancy. A better solution would be to allow – no, to force – individuals to save for their own retirement. The money would be their own, not the Government’s, and they would be able to pass it on to future generations if not consumed in retirement. Admittedly, such a program would need to provide supplemental support for those who could not save sufficiently during their working life. That would be the Social Security part, but it would be necessary for the few not the entire population.
I admit that none of these issues is really simple but what is disheartening, or perhaps better said, infuriating is to watch our lawmakers on both sides of the aisle engage in brinksmanship rather than productive dialogue and action.

Congress spared no words demonizing ‘Wall Street’ for the recession of 2007 and the precipitous decline in the markets, never admitting their own culpability in the debacle. Today the turmoil in the markets can be laid right at the feet of Congress. Let’s hope they understand the seriousness of their criminally inept behavior.

The markets around the world are rattled silly this morning by the first ever downgrade of the U.S. Government’s debt by Standard & Poors. That is understandable but not, in my mind, rational.
There is no way the U.S. Government is going to default on its debt obligations. Its debts are no less safe this morning than they were on Friday or one year ago or ten years ago. It is true that our country’s balance sheet is less healthy than it was a decade ago, but look what we have been through – a recession the depth of which had not been experienced since the 1930’s while simultaneously engaging in two wars. Debt buildup and fiscal deficits were inevitable.
At the end of World War II, our debt as a percent of GDP was far higher than it is today. The Government spent huge amounts of money subsidizing mortgages and providing education through the GI Bill. The country emerged from that era into a sustained period of growth and prosperity which allowed the balance sheet to right itself.
Today we face more than a few challenging issues but they are not insurmountable if only our elected officials would work for the good of the people. There is a need first and foremost to get the economy revitalized. The reason that is proving so difficult to achieve is because the balance sheet of the consumer is still going through a downsizing. In addition, the banks are also continuing to downsize their own balance sheets. It is difficult to spend when you are trying to pay off debt.
Corporations are becoming the easy whipping boy for not hiring more of the unemployed. But they are not the culprit. They came through the recession in solid financial shape and they would like nothing more than to see good demand that would allow them to increase employment.
One thing is for sure – a massive tax increase will NOT be productive for the economy or as a means of reducing the debt levels of the Government. Such a strategy would be counterproductive. However, eliminating tax loopholes –the unfair tax treatments that allow large and profitable companies to pay nearly NO taxes – is an essential step in moving towards reducing the fiscal deficit. The same is true regarding individual taxes – the wealthiest individuals should not be able to take advantage of tax loopholes that allow them to pay the lowest tax rates. It is appalling that Congress cannot agree in a bipartisan way to eliminate tax loopholes – genuine loopholes, NOT the very legitimate deduction of mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
Longer term there is no doubt that the issues of Social Security and retirement health care must be addressed. At least they are now being discussed. Only a decade ago, they were referred to as “the third rail of politics”. So progress has been made. At some point in the not too distant future, Social Security will be means tested – as it should have been all along. And individuals will be required to work longer before receiving their benefit. This is simple arithmetic that goes hand in glove with the increase in life expectancy. A better solution would be to allow – no, to force – individuals to save for their own retirement. The money would be their own, not the Government’s, and they would be able to pass it on to future generations if not consumed in retirement. Admittedly, such a program would need to provide supplemental support for those who could not save sufficiently during their working life. That would be the Social Security part, but it would be necessary for the few not the entire population.
I admit that none of these issues is really simple but what is disheartening, or perhaps better said, infuriating is to watch our lawmakers on both sides of the aisle engage in brinksmanship rather than productive dialogue and action.
Congress spared no words demonizing ‘Wall Street’ for the recession of 2007 and the precipitous decline in the markets, never admitting their own culpability in the debacle. Today the turmoil in the markets can be laid right at the feet of Congress. Let’s hope they understand the seriousness of their criminally inept behavior.

As a Republican, I respect the concept of fiscal conservatism. However, fiscal conservatism must not be embraced at the expense of fiscal pragmatism.
For Republicans, whose track record of raising the debt limit over the last three decades belies any sense of fiscal constraint, to adopt a holier –than-thou attitude on the subject is blatant posturing and offers nothing towards resolving the current economic stress. The debt ceiling must be raised and it must be raised now; there are no two ways about it. Both Republicans and Democrats need to accept the responsibility for doing so. Issues of cutting spending and tax reform are of critical importance, but they cannot at this eleventh hour be used to hold hostage the debt ceiling crisis.
The U.S. economy today is not in good shape. This is primarily because the housing sector is in a state of morbidity. Talk to almost anyone in the homebuilding industry and they will tell you that business is non-existent. That situation will not turn around until the banks start to lend to individuals who want to buy homes. With all the delinquent mortgages they currently hold, it is difficult to see light at the end of that tunnel. Admittedly, it is not all the fault of the banks. Individuals who took on too much debt are now in a long and slow process of right-sizing their own balance sheets. This means an extended period of under-spending as they pay off their debt.
Another major sector of our economy that is faring poorly in 2011 is Government. The reason the employment numbers so far this year look poor is because of lay-offs at all levels of government – Federal, State and local. The private sector has actually added jobs, even if the numbers are not awe-inspiring. Public sector employment is being downsized as Governments struggle to bring their wage costs, retirement promises and medical expenses in line with declining revenues. Over the long haul, that is good. The smaller the public sector relative to the entire economic pie, the greater the opportunity for growth, profits and prosperity. That is a truism of capitalism.
But another economic truism is that government deficits act as a stimulus to the economy. That does not mean that they are not a matter for concern. Over time, no government, company or individual can endlessly run deficits. But to force gargantuan Federal spending cuts during a period of economic hardship can have the perverse impact of worsening unemployment and prolonging economic stagnation.
Fortunately for the economy, much of the private corporate sector is vibrant. Many public corporations have strong balance sheets, good earnings growth and are globally competitive. In large measure this is because they were aggressive in cutting costs and conserving cash during the recession – a process that continues. Now is the time to eliminate corporate tax loopholes. That does not mean doing away with sensible, legitimate business costs (such as the R&D tax credit and the very valid use of corporate jets). Rather it means leveling the playing field for all corporations by undoing the myriad special deals that corporate lobbying by the most powerful companies has achieved.
Another tax loophole that must be addressed relates to the taxation of dividends. The logic behind reducing the high tax on dividends was economically sound and President Clinton signed the bill into law. But the unintended consequences of that event have been hugely detrimental to the coffers of the Federal Government, as billionaires have been able to shelter what is de facto earned income through corporate structures that treat their gargantuan incomes as dividends. No less a beneficiary than Warren Buffett has admitted as much, and he says that the system needs to be fixed. That should be easy to do. It would be far more powerful than eliminating the deductions for (1) mortgage interest which middle class Americans use to their benefit and (2) charitable deductions which help to serve the needs of so many of disadvantaged.
With the issue of a potential default just two weeks away, Congress is now trapped. Republicans and Democrats must not put the national interest at risk. The patriotic stance is to do what is right for the country and raise the debt ceiling. Once that is done, Congress must then go to work on restoring a sense of fairness in our tax code by eliminating loopholes and making the wealthy pay their fair share.
Patricia W Chadwick
President
Ravengate Partners LLC
July 18, 2011

In the last presidential campaign, then Senator Barack Obama declared his candidacy in early February, 2007, a full year and three quarters before the polls opened on Election Day.
This season, the Republicans seem to be timid – dancing around the arena but not throwing their hats in the ring. Only Mitt Romney has been bold enough to ‘test the waters’ with an ‘exploratory committee’.
Pundits opine that Mitt Romney’s leadership in signing into law a universal health care bill for Massachusetts residents will be his albatross. I think quite the contrary. The mandated health care system in Massachusetts has now been in place for nearly five years and while it is probably far from perfect, it has achieved its multiple objectives. I would argue that Massachusetts has all but proven that the thorny issue of health care should be the responsibility of the State Governments, where it can be managed on a reasonable scale, as opposed to being one more giant bureaucracy of the Federal Government. If Mitt Romney were willing to have an open debate on the issues of State vs. Federal management of health care, I think he could help his candidacy immensely. He has so much going for him as a Presidential candidate – he has been a successful CEO, both in the private sector, at Bain & Company, and in the public sector, as governor of Massachusetts. In the last forty years, five of the seven elected U.S. Presidents had prior experience as State Governors. Romney most assuredly does not lack credentials. The question is: Does he lack inspiration?
But why are the myriad other potential candidates so timid? Could it be “The Donald” factor? You have to give Donald Trump credit for chutzpah, but I wonder if that chutzpah might not come to be his albatross? No one can doubt for a moment that Donald Trump would love nothing more than to be President of the United States, the ne plus ultra CEO role. He likes being Mr. Big. And for the last thirty years, he has mouthed off as Mr. Big on a torrent of issues, all of which are part of recorded history. If his popularity continues to rise and he starts to seem like the inevitable Republican candidate, that’s when the trouble will start. Trump reminds me of Howard Dean – articulate, different, interesting, but a loose cannon that eventually back-fired, ruining his political career.
It will soon be deposition time, so to speak, as the media home in on Trump’s record. So many questions to answer: Why do Trump companies go into bankruptcy, but the Donald remains unscathed? Is that good business leadership? Do good CEO’s let their companies fail? What about the equity owners in those businesses who have lost their investment? Trump boasts of great wealth – since when was that a sign of leadership, or inspiration or wisdom?
Trump’s most recent foray into the ‘birther’ issue will do him no good – the vast majority of Republicans think it’s a diversion for the ‘lunatic fringe’. I expect that Trump will drop it soon, if he is truly serious about being a presidential candidate. Trump has been on both sides of so many issues – or so it seems when one is presented with his countless statements, remarks, asides and expostulations. Of course he can claim to have changed his mind – but at what point is ‘changing your mind’ simply flip flopping for expediency’s sake? Leaders don’t flip flop. Leaders have vision; they are able to cut through the debris and forge ahead. The media will have a field day – there will be no kid gloves – let’s see how the Donald handles it.
In the meantime, the rest of the field of Republican potential candidates reminds me of the Kentucky Derby – all that milling around behind the starting gate, with horses being led, and horses rearing up, and horses wearing blind-folds to calm them down – masses of churning, kinetic energy that seems a necessary precursor to the start of the race. Well, this year there are enough Republican candidates to field a full derby. The unanswered question: who will be the winner? I will hazard a guess, but without a name: it will be a present or past Governor. Somehow I can’t be any bolder than that.
Patricia W Chadwick
President
Ravengate Partners LLC
April 25, 2011

With their newly won power, Republicans in Congress have the opportunity to exert pressure and hopefully exact cooperation from Democrats. But they must keep in mind that the voting public is watching with a distrusting eye, and can withdraw that power in two years if it is not exercised to the advantage of their own wellbeing. Mostly that means to them more jobs, more prosperity and lower unemployment, all of which are very definable.
The factious Congress can and must pull together and reach bipartisan resolutions regarding critical issues facing the economy. The Democrats are not in the driver’s seat any more and they will be best advantaged by finding common ground with Republicans over these last few weeks of the year before they lose their majority in the House.
Newly elected Republicans seem, in many cases, to be persuaded by their victory that they have a moral obligation to carry out every detail of the ideology they believe put them in power. They are wrong. Approval ratings for Republican legislators are no higher than their Democrat colleagues, and if they assume power with an air of hubris, they do so at their own peril. There will be another accounting in just two years’ time.
President Obama made a smart political move by jumping the gun and proposing a Federal wage freeze for two years. Good politics; good economics. Republicans in Congress should reciprocate and agree to extend (yes, once again) unemployment benefits, without requiring the Government to ‘find the funding’ for it. We are still in a serious employment drought, and the vast majority of people who are unemployed do not wish to be so. Cutting off their weekly pay check is both unethical and unhelpful for the economic growth. Republicans, when they are bashing the ‘unsuccessful stimulus plan’, are hasty to point out that the ‘real’ unemployment rate is somewhere above 15% , but they seem to forget or minimize that fact when they are dealing with extending unemployment benefits. The benefits to society and the economy far outweigh the costs associated with those relatively few malingerers who want to subsist on the dole.
It somehow seems misguided to rail on about the economic evil of a tax hike for people actually employed but to ignore the economic fallout of depriving those without a wage the essential minimum level of income until they can find employment.
Which brings me to the tax hike/freeze issue. Republicans would be wise to work with the President and the Democrats in Congress to find a solution, even if that involves compromise. The other side has as much as indicated it is willing to delay any tax increases on incomes below $250,000. Republicans want more, and they are right in that regard because raising taxes will undoubtedly impede economic growth. But Republicans could well end up doing more harm than good if they are not willing to engage in some compromise on this issue. They can make the politically astute move by negotiating a higher floor than $250,000 – more like $500,000, which would incorporate the vast majority of income earners in the country. The optics matter here. It is difficult to argue that those making more than half a million dollars are not somehow in the middle class. If that is too unpalatable for Republicans, they could go one step further and raise the level to $1,000,000 before applying an incremental tax. That would benefit all but the tiniest percentage of earners.
Republicans have the opportunity to display true leadership, to engage in genuine compromise for the greater good. More than that, they have the obligation to achieve the economic results they decried their Democrat counterparts for failing to achieve. The burden is on their shoulders. They won the victory they sought and now I repeat, “Caveat victor”.

In Today’s Wall Street Journal (Saturday, June 5, 2010) there is a must-read op-ed by Bari Weiss entitled Storming the School Barricades.   Using Dragnet’s Joe Friday comment, it is “just the facts, ma’am”.  Here is the link

In his Op-Ed piece in Tuesday’s (March 2) New York Times, Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. opined that the reason he was unwilling to run for U.S. Senate in New York was that “a brutal and highly negative Democratic primary…….[would end up] where the winner emerges weakened and the Republican strengthened.”

I think the Congressman is wrong. Harold Ford, Jr. is a leader among the truly centrist and independent political figures today, and I think he would be surprised at the bipartisan support he would receive from voters in New York.

I say this not as a resident of the State of New York (which I am not) but as a registered Republican in the state of Connecticut. Were the Congressman running in my state, I would find him an attractive candidate most worthy of my serious consideration.

As he wrote in his article, Congressman Ford is an independent Democrat. He is also a pragmatist, a thoughtful leader, a man who listens before he speaks. And when he speaks, he makes eminent common sense – something that seems virtually impossible to find today in politics.

Harold Ford, Jr. is different from so many of today’s politicians. He is not a demagogue. His ability to rise above vitriolic rhetoric makes him a better man. Our Congress is chock full of blowhards on both sides of the aisle. The election in November will (hopefully) get rid of a host of them.

We need more legislators who are pragmatists and centrists to take the helm and provide true leadership. We need legislators who can find solutions and not hide behind obstructionist rhetoric. The fringe elements of both parties today have wrested control from the silent majority. The squeaky wheels are getting all the grease, while the axle is falling apart.

Congressman Ford criticizes his own party for “having spent too much time supporting a national partisan political agenda.” The same criticism must be made of the Republican Party as well. The hidden political payoffs embedded in thousands of pages of legislative bills defy any sense of honor or standard of ethics in the legislative process in Washington D.C. Americans are being hoodwinked by their elected representatives and they have had enough of it. Members of Congress have come to realize that the day of reckoning is at hand. That is why so many of them are dropping out of the race this year.

Fortunately, there are still some honorable politicians (or is that the ultimate oxymoron). Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. has consistently been a voice of reason both in Congress and since he left the House. It is tragic that the elective process is so distasteful and destructive that it drives a good candidate from even entering the race.

One day shy of his first year as President, Barack Obama faces the biggest threat to his incumbency and possibly to his power.

The voters in Massachusetts will determine today whether the Democrats’ filibuster-proof hold on the U.S. Senate is broken or maintained.

It appears that the expected ‘easy win’ by a Democrat in Massachusetts was a serious miscalculation. With the moniker for the Commonwealth of “The People’s Republic of Massachusetts” tossed so freely about, the misguided assumption by many was that the state was a shoe-in for a Democrat candidate for the U.S. Senate.

But what seems to have been forgotten was the first rule of politics that the Massachusetts Congressman and Speaker of the House, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill so often reiterated. “All politics is local.” In Massachusetts as in any state a loved politician may be the only secure seat. Senator Ted Kennedy was overwhelmingly loved by the people of Massachusetts, from 1962 till his death in 2009. He brought home the bacon and he was there for his constituents. And when he stomped for Democrat Presidents, the people voted for “Ted Kennedy’s” president.

But now the beloved Senator is gone and the hard facts are on the table. As of the 2006 census, there were 4,098,634 registered voters in Massachusetts, of whom 37% were Democrats, 13% were Republicans and a whopping 50% declared themselves as Independents. Fifty percent of the voters in Massachusetts declare that they are unaffiliated with a party. WOW!!

Massachusetts has a long history of electing a Republican as Governor. In fact, in recent history (defined as my lifespan for this piece, i.e. since the middle of the last century) there have been nine Republican and six Democrat governors, and that is counting Michael Dukakis twice (as a Democrat, of course).

Admittedly, the last time a Republican was elected to the Senate was in 1967. That was Senator Ed Brooke, who lasted two terms. In fact, I voted for him, in my very first time at the polls. To be fair, though, with the seat occupied by Senator Kennedy hardly ever in doubt, there hasn’t been much of a Senatorial race for over half a century.

Now it is a different story. The Independents in Massachusetts are free to vote with their heads not their hearts. Massachusetts is actually a hotbed for independent thinking and acting. Remember they created the first tea party.

Polls can be misleading and deceiving as we have seen on too many occasions to count. But a statistic that is worth noting is that the absentee ballots cast for this Senate race are running far higher than is usual. That means there are voters with passion.

It will be fascinating to watch the news this evening. I am making no predictions, but regardless of the outcome of today’s election, a message is being sent to President Obama. If Scott Brown should win big, a big message will have been sent.

The week after Christmas is always my favorite time to go to the movies. Shopped out, and with no more appetite for food, the indulgence of sitting (popcorn free) for two hours in the cinema is sublime. I choose my movies carefully. I am not a “special affects” person; blood and guts disgust me. So my list of possible movies to attend is always far shorter than most people’s.

This past week, I saw four movies and did not regret going to one. In case that sounds a bit like damning with faint praise, I should clarify by saying that of the four, one movie stood out from all the rest. It was Invictus. The combination of brilliant acting by Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon as well as the deep message was a moving experience. At times I actually forgot that Morgan Freeman was on the screen – I thought I was looking at Nelson Mandela.

The movie seemed so perfectly timed, so relevant and so needed right now. It depicted national leadership at its best – the ability of a man, despised by so many, to rally his country together against all odds and to find the best in each other. It actually brought tears to my eyes on several occasions.

The economic and social problems of South Africa in the mid-1990s were far graver than those we face here in the U.S. today. The political divisions among its citizens were far deeper than those existing in our country now. But as elected President, Nelson Mandela led his country and his countrymen and women by his own example. He did more than just cross the aisle, to use American parlance. He forced people who hated each other to come together, to work together and to achieve greatness through that bonding.

In this country today, we have serious issues that need to be resolved – health care, national security and recession are but the largest. Unfortunately, partisanship appears to be of greater importance to our Congressional representatives than reaching mutual agreement on solutions. What we need now is a Nelson Mandela, a leader who can bring together the warring factions within the Government and make Government work for, not against, the common interests of all of us. Let’s hope President Obama can wear that mantle in the second year of his presidency.

Oh, by the way, the three other movies I saw and enjoyed – in varying degrees of enjoyment – were An Education, It’s Complicated, and Up in the Air. Meryl Streep (It’s Complicated) is simply the finest actress today.