Izzy Blogging

[rememberingrabbiwhite]

THE Rabbi

Rabbi Harold White was THE Rabbi for so many of us who attended Georgetown, prayed with him at the High Holy day services, or took part in interfaith activities in Washington, DC. I first met the rabbi in high school, before I even applied to Georgetown. He was a big part of the reason this Jewish kid from New Jersey ended up at a Jesuit college in DC. We spent the holiest days of the year listening to his prayers and sermons, we attended his classes during the semester, and constantly sought his advise, counsel and wisdom.

After graduation, we’d remain in touch - we’d attend Rosh hashana or Yom Kippur services, he’d officiate our wedding and then the baby namings, and he’d come over for Sunday brunch. He’d ask about the whole family and our mutual friends. And then he’d tell us how eveyone else was doing - clearly having talked to them in the last few days or weeks.

The Rabbi’s second Bar Mitzvah in May was the pluperfect form of celebration for him. It was filled with songs that he handpicked, Christian and Jewish prayers, and most of all, a plethora of people- hundreds of all ages crammed into the synagogue. It was moving and contemplative, entertaining and joyous. Just like The Rabbi. The lengthy ceremony ended with a spectacular rendition of Adon Olam - sung by the gospel choir, cantor, and everyone in the room.

A few months since that celebration, a handful of people were able to visit The Rabbi in the brief window between his stroke and hospice care. He spent his last days in a beautiful hospice facility on the Long Island Sound in Connecticut. He was surrounded by friends and family and natural beauty, all of which he loved. The little island and a few yards off shore was appropriately named, Lover’s Island. While we sat next to Rabbi in his bed outside on the dock, We played him the video I recorded of his second bar mitzvah’s Adon Olam. Despite being paralyzed on his right side, he gently tapped his left hand on his side to the beat as he rested.

Emerson said “It is not length of life, but depth of life" –the Rabbi had both. He’s a person we were blessed to know and love and he will be deeply missed by me and my family. - Israel “Izzy” Klein, College 99.

[izzyklein]

Confused about #bitcoin or DC response to #bitcoin? Read this @Republic3_0: Can #Bitcoin go mainstream?

[izzyklein]

Some musings on Bitcoin, derivatives, and taxes

[izzyklein]

9-11, 12 years later.

Twelve years ago today, right around this time, dozens of Hill staffers and I were walking quickly out of the Rayburn building towards a safer location. We had just watched the replay of the first plane strike the tower and then watched the second plane, in real time, repeat the action. We believed that the US Capitol was probably a likely target if this was a coordinated attack. We then saw smoke rise from across the river near the Pentagon. Many of us couldn't go home because the bridges were closed. I remember the day and all the people I was with. And all the phone calls I tried to make to people in NYC, NJ and Boston. And I remember the weight of working for an amazing Member of Congress during this incredibly trying time. That day twelve years ago has shaped our world, this country, and thousand of public servants and their staffs in countless ways. And 9-11 has redefined and reemphasized what the US role and responsibilities are in these changing and uncertain times. Today's discussion about whether or not to strike Syria for Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people, American troop extraction from Afghanistan, immigration reform, and so many other domestic and international challenges are due to the actions and reactions on 9-11. The one important value we seem to have lost from the days following 9-11 is simply working together again for a common purpose- civil discourse and bipartisanship have been largely sidelined. The unity our government exhibited post 9-11 is something we should be striving for once again. Our challenges are still great and Democrats or Republicans can't overcome them without each other. May we never forget those who lost their lives on 9-11, the families they left behind, and the many who came to their rescue (and ours). We owe them more than some of the ugly debates we've seen recently... Off the soapbox.

[izzyklein]

[izzyklein]

Tucson to Newtown - lives destroyed, but guns live

This blog began in response to the horrendous shooting in Tucson, AZ almost two years ago.  While there have been some political ramblings, I haven't written much.  

It is the day after the Newtown, CT elementary school shooting, which took the lives of 20 children only a year or two older than our twins and seven adults.  Our hearts go out to the families of this unspeakable tragedy.  We cannot imagine the pain and suffering they must be going through right now.  We hugged our children extra tight the last two nights. I woke up this morning in a cold sweat from a nightmare -- replaying the shooting as if it occurred when I was a child in school.  I ran away and then woke up to read the papers this morning.  

We still don't know much about the shooter's intent or circumstances, nor do we have a full understanding of how he got access to the guns and why.  

Understanding the mind and motives of the shooter might make some feel better, but there is little chance that knowledge can prevent future shootings.  We cannot get into the minds of 300+ million American citizens to  stop them from committing potentially heinous crimes- whether on impulse or after weeks or months of planning.  

We can't throw up our arms, but it seems like we have over the last two years.  After nearly a dozen "random" shootings - there have been virtually no public policy solutions proposed.  Whether out of fear for the political repercussions brought on by the NRA, or laziness, or lack of imagination,  we are nowhere.  

What can we do to stop these killings?  I'm not sure yet.  

Closing gun show loopholes?  Good idea, but probably wouldn't have saved these children.  

Re-instating the federal assault weapons ban?  One step that could have taken one of the guns out of the shooter's hands.  

Limit the number of firearms a citizen can keep at one time?  Certainly could have forced the shooter's mom to reduce her arsenal sitting at home with an unstable 20 year old.  

Mandatory trigger locks or fingerprint IDs for weapons to the registered user?  That could have rendered these guns unusable by this killer. 

National gun licensing?  Perhaps that could have allowed for a cross check of the gun owner living with an emotionally unstable son.  

There must be other public policy solutions.  Let's discuss them.  Let's find a way to prevent these outrageous acts of violence.  Let's protect the second amendment, but not at the expense of our children and other innocents. And let's do this before our families are threatened again.  

Below is a brief post from my better half tonight on Facebook.  She is far more eloquent than I am (always, not just on this subject).  I hope you take a moment to read it -- she's right, as usual.  

"Can we please abandon the fiction that the answer to bad guys with guys is more good guys with guns? Some have suggested that arming teachers could have reduced the carnage. Sure, if the teachers happened to be ex-military sharpshooters, trained to fire accurately and stay calm under insane conditions. Sure, if the teachers were Batman. Likewise the theatergoers in Aurora—if only one had been armed with a gun (and night-vision goggles) to shoot the devil who appeared in the dark. The idea of arming good guys is ridiculous—that’s a fantasy for comic book movies, not for schools and theaters and malls and real life. In real life, when good guys get shot at, they scream and cry and run and hide and shove babies into closets to save them. In real life, good guys dive on top of their girlfriends and duck behind movie seats. In real life, they cradle their husband who was already shot. In real life, they dial 911 with trembling hands. In real life, good guys whimper and moan and vomit in fear. They are heroic in their humanity… in their vulnerability. They are heroic because they bear witness. To ask them—as their world turns to hell around them—to do otherwise… to ask them to morph instantly into a comic book avenger… it’s not just ridiculous. It’s dehumanizing."

[izzyklein]

some belated commentary on the fiscal cliff discussions, which is still relevant since there's no deal...

[izzyklein]

Great rundown of the key political players in NY state - including longtime friend and former colleague, Josh Vlasto now with Gov. Cuomo.

[izzyklein]

Great, instant reporting by Jess... but here are the political questions: 

Does a surprise positive ruling from Supremes deflate Democratic turnout in November? 

Would Democrats been more angry, agitated, activated in the face of an activist Supreme Court knocking down the President's signature health care law? 

Will the ruling today excite GOP voters to our detriment? 

Perhaps more on this later today...

[izzyklein]

Your Guide to the New Senate in 2013, Same as the Old Senate?

Of the many pieces of sage advice my dad gave me when I was young, a frequent piece was: “Don’t assume anything – when you assume, you make an a$$ out of you and me.” With apologies to my dad as we head into the Father’s Day weekend, I hope to shed some light on the future makeup of the United States Senate, particularly the Democratic leadership and committee structure. In doing this, I will be making a number of assumptions. Without getting into a Charlie Cook-like analysis about the Senate seats in play this cycle, or what Sen. Richard Lugar’s (R-IN) primary defeat or Sen. Olympia Snowe’s (R-ME) retirement mean for the GOP in its quest for 51 seats, let’s ASSUME that neither Democrats nor Republicans are able to fundamentally change the Senate’s balance of power. That means Republicans won’t pick up more than three Senate seats and Democrats won’t either. If Republicans did pick up three seats, Vice President Joe Biden would be the tie-breaking, 51st vote, giving Democrats control of the chamber even with a 50-50 split. If the Democrats were to pick up Senate seats, that may affect the committee membership ratios, leaving fewer seats for Republicans on key committees.

Therefore, it is a safe prediction that the members of the core Senate Democratic leadership team – Sens. Harry Reid (NV), Dick Durbin (IL), Chuck Schumer (NY) and Patty Murray (WA) – remain intact for the 113th Congress. One big change would be political, not legislative: who would chair the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC)? Insiders believe Sens. Amy Klobuchar (MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Michael Bennet (CO) are strong candidates for that important position given their fundraising prowess and political smarts. Here’s a small insight into the importance of running the DSCC: Sens. Murray and Schumer have both chaired the DSCC twice in the last decade and both are in the Democratic leadership AND sit on the key Appropriations and Finance Committees, respectively.

The retirements of long-serving senators will leave a number of vacancies on powerful committees, particularly the Finance and Appropriations panels. Sens. Kent Conrad (ND) and Jeff Bingaman (NM) are leaving their full committee chairmanships (Budget and Energy and Natural Resources, respectively) and both are leaving their subcommittee chairmanships on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee. Those will be huge voids for moderate Senate seats in New Mexico and North Dakota (both of which I believe will remain in the Democratic column with candidates such as Martin Heinrich and Heidi Heitkamp). On the Budget Committee, the most likely choice for chairman will be Sen. Patty Murray, who has been in leadership and also chairs the DSCC. On the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the next senior member is Sen. Ron Wyden (OR) and he is a lock to become chairman. Unfortunately for Senate hopefuls Mr. Heinrich and Ms. Heitkamp, if they win they will not be in line for those two Finance Committee vacancies, which will most likely go to the most senior Democrats not currently serving on the Finance or Appropriations panels.

The retirements of Sens. Herb Kohl (WI) and Ben Nelson (NE) will also leave big voids in the other top tier committee – Appropriations. Sen. Kohl chairs the agriculture subcommittee and Sen. Nelson chairs the legislative branch subcommittee on Appropriations. That committee will also have to choose new subcommittee chairs AND fill those vacancies with two of the four members who are next in line based on seniority.

The Democratic senators who are next in line (i.e., most senior and don’t have full committee chairmanships or spots on Finance or Appropriations) in order of seniority are – Bob Casey (PA), Claire McCaskill (MO), Amy Klobuchar (MN) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI). In the event there are any Democratic losses among the aforementioned seats or any defeats of incumbents sitting on those two committees, the next four Democratic senators by seniority are Mark Udall (CO), Tom Udall (NM), Jeanne Shaheen (NH) and Mark Warner (VA). All eight of these members are well liked; have identified or taken the lead on various issues important to the Democratic Caucus; and have reached across party lines to tackle issues such as the debt ceiling, military readiness, energy, and government waste.

The other important committee chairmen who are leaving the Senate are: Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Dan Akaka (HI) on Indian Affairs, Herb Kohl (WI) on Aging. Those chairmanships will likely be filled respectively by Tom Carper (DE), Maria Cantwell (WA),and Bill Nelson (FL). With Patty Murray moving to Budget, her current post as chairman of the Veteran’s Affairs Committee would need to be filled as well. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) or Sherrod Brown (OH) would be the most likely candidates for that post.

Since many senators serve on four committees, the retirements I’ve highlighted also impact some other committees. Below is a quick reference for all the Senate Committees, the potential new Chair, and key vacancies of senior members. While this provides some window into the future, I won’t assume that it answers every question.

RISING DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN/RANKING MEMBERS

COMMITTEE: CURRENT CHAIR, NEXT CHAIR, KEY VACANCIES

Agriculture: Stabenow, Stabenow, Conrad and Nelson

Appropriations: Inouye, Inouye, Kohl (Ag) and Nelson (Leg) Armed Services: Levin, Levin, Akaka; Webb; Nelson and Lieberman Banking: Johnson, Johnson, Akaka and Kohl Budget: Conrad (retiring), Murray Commerce Rockefeller, Rockefeller Energy: Bingaman (retiring), Wyden EPW: Boxer. Boxer Finance: Baucus, Baucus, Conrad (Tax) and Bingaman (Energy) Foreign Relations: Kerry, Kerry, Webb HELP: Harkin, Harkin, Bingaman Homeland (HSGAC): Lieberman (retiring), Carper, Akaka Judiciary: Leahy, Leahy, Kohl (Antitrust) Rules: Schumer, Schumer, Nelson Small Business: Landrieu, Landrieu, Lieberman Veterans: Murray, Sanders/S. Brown ?, Akaka and Webb Indian Affairs: Akaka (retiring), Cantwell, Conrad Intelligence: Feinstein, Feinstein, Conrad Aging: Kohl (retiring), Nelson

[izzyklein]

Sen. Schumer and I did the first press conference on the unsafe practices of the so-called Chinatown buses 6 years ago in NY's Chinatown... After repeated accidents and deaths, some of the companies we called out are being put out of biz today

[izzyklein]

Great piece by Rob Schmidt and Phil Mattingly at Bloomberg News looking at the bigger story behind passage of the JOBS Act.

[izzyklein]

An update – How Washington Helped Businesses and Entrepreneurs Succeed--- in an Election Year!

A brief update to my December blog post...

When the House and Senate broke for their two week April work period, they achieved something that few thought possible – a Rose Garden signing by President Obama of a major piece of bipartisan legislation – the JOBS Act (see picture below).  Last week the President was flanked by Democrats, Republicans, and entrepreneurs, and in his remarks he called the new law a “game changer.”  He’s right. 

  Allowing better access to capital for entrepreneurs and growing companies is a critical part of getting America’s businesses and economy back on track.  The JOBS Act has something for everyone, as the link here illustrates. 

  The new law sets some good rules of the road for a popular new way for entrepreneurs with few if any employees to find dollars through crowdfunding.  Under the law, startups can raise up to $1 million per year from thousands of small-dollar investors through SEC-registered, web-based platforms.  Upon passage of the law, a group of crowdfunding companies have agreed to work with regulators to create an “Investors’ Bill of Rights.” The JOBS Act also adjusts some legacy regulations to allow more established businesses to solicit funds broadly, although it insures that only sophisticated investors can make those riskier investments. 

  The new law also allows both new startups and well-established companies to better manage employee hiring and compensation structures.  This adjustment to the SEC’s 500 shareholder threshold means that a company doesn’t have to count employees against its shareholder cap – which could force a company to “go public” well before it is ready to.  It also increases the overall shareholder cap to 2,000 (with a maximum of 500 un-accredited investors). 

  It will allow smaller companies to better utilize the SEC’s “Regulation A” exemption by raising the capital raising threshold to $50 million from $5 million.  And it will provide the much-talked about, “IPO On-Ramp,” giving newer companies a more gradual introduction to the public markets.  Qualified companies would have to contend with less red tape and would be able to delay compliance (up to five years) with some IPO requirements for disclosure and auditing. 

  For growing companies, going public shouldn’t be like turning on a light switch.  There should be a process to acclimate employees, entrepreneurs, and investors to the many benefits and costs of the public markets.  Companies that have grown quickly, whether they are high tech or Main Street (or both) should not be punished or hamstrung because of outdated rules and regulations.  The JOBS Act should help to maintain investor protections while allowing companies to innovate, thrive, and create JOBS. 

  #          #          #

[izzyklein]

The top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, Preet Bharara, announced some big mortgage fraud charges in New York on Wednesday, accusing three former high-level employees of Credit Suisse with jacking up the book value of bundled housing loans they were selling. In one quarter alone, Bharara charges, they overstated the value by $540 million, boosting a top [...]

[izzyklein]

The 2012 GOP Iowa Caucus, through "blue-colored" glasses...

This year’s presidential primary season is much more like 2004 than 2000 or 2008.  Some of you (Democrats and Independents particularly) may need to find some way to relate to the current media frenzy in advance of tonight’s Republican Caucus in Iowa.  So here’s a little look back that might help handicap the 2012 GOP primary race and look at the candidates through “blue-colored” glasses, circa 2004. 

No one saw Sen. John Kerry coming in Iowa when he scored a huge victory based largely on electability.  Gov. Mitt Romney no longer has the same element of surprise going for him, but if there was a Twitter-verse or Facebook in 2004, maybe Kerry’s big win would have been obvious too. They were both elected by the progressive, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, both have amazing heads of hair, and both shared MANY of the same policy positions until recently.  Look for Mitt to score a solid win in the first Caucus and continue to roll in New Hampshire. 

The next best and closest comparison for candidates, but perhaps not order of finish is Rep. Newt Gingrich and Sen. John Edwards.  Both men can be exciting orators, policy wonks, and have Southern appeal, but both have also had some marital troubles and ego issues.  Gingrich has recently slipped in polls, but could still score a second or third place finish, which would be a coup for a campaign that imploded in early 2011.  While Gingrich may not be a willing number two on a GOP ticket, he, like Edwards (pre-scandal) would probably make a strong choice. 

Gov. Howard Dean captivated so many, so early, with meet-ups and an intense email operation – but finished a distant third place in the Iowa caucus.  Rep. Ron Paul may be a very apt pairing here for those reasons and more – grassroots organization, broad fundraising base, etc.  We’ll see if the Dean Scream turns into the Paul’s Bawl tonight…

Rep. Dick Gephardt, for whom I worked in the late 90’s, spent more time in Iowa over the course of his life than most pols in the 2004 matchup, but finished a very disappointing fourth in 2004.  Even though most picked him early as the frontrunner in the Iowa matchup because of his strong showing in 1988.  Also a member of the House from neighboring Minnesota, Rep. Michele Bachman, an Iowa native, is in a similar boat and probably peaked way too soon to finish in the top three. 

Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Sen. Rick Santorum – not many obvious similarities here. However, both really revved up the fringe bases in their respective parties and fell short on the fundraising. Santorum seems to have the advantage going into tonight -- look for him to do far better than Kucinich, but he still might not crack the top three. 

Finally, General Wes Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander, was a godsend for Democrats who were perceived as weak on foreign policy and national security issues.  His campaign stumbled early and didn’t take off in time to make the impact it could have.  Similarly, Gov. Rick Perry and Gov. Jon Huntsman are most like the General and will also be bringing up the rear of tonight’s caucus.  While both could have the cash and qualifications to compete in New Hampshire and beyond, it will be an uphill climb.

So enjoy tonight!  If history and this Caucus mash-up hold up, we’ll be watching an Obama-Romney matchup this fall (results from 2004 Democratic Caucus and my predictions for this year’s GOP Iowa Caucus are below). 

Results from the Iowa Democratic caucuses in 2004 (Candidate - Percentage):

John Kerry                        37.6%

John Edwards                   31.8%

Howard Dean                   18.0%

Richard Gephardt              10.6%

Dennis Kucinich                1.3%

Wesley Clark                    0.0%

Predictions for the Iowa Republican Caucus in 2012 (Candidate – Percentage):

Mitt Romney                     25%

Ron Paul                        21%

Newt Gingrich                 20%

Rick Santorum                19%

Michele Bachman             8%

Rick Perry                      6%

Jon Huntsman                 0%

[izzyklein]

What Dodd-Frank Forgot and Washington Can Still Do in an Election Year: Help American Businesses and Entrepreneurs Succeed

Few overhauls of our nation’s financial regulatory system have been bigger and more comprehensive than the Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in the summer of 2010. While stakeholders may disagree over the details, few could argue that federal regulations have been adequately updated to keep pace with technological and financial innovations. From online stock trading to new kinds of mortgages to financing a home, the financial services world is not your grandfather’s community bank anymore. 

But much like the childhood story of Goldilocks and the three bears, there are differing views on whether this new set of laws and regulations is too hot or too cold for financial markets and consumers.  Some are not as concerned about the temperature of the Dodd-Frank porridge as they are about its lack of sweeteners for Main Street businesses and entrepreneurs.  The brown sugar and raisins that many American businesses have been looking for come in the form of updating regulations that crimp hiring at fast-growing and well-established firms alike; constricting capital formation for technology startups; and saddling many companies with a one-size-fits-all regulatory regime.  

The changes in our economy have been massive since 1933 or 1964 — years when many of these laws and regulations were implemented.  Private companies are taking much longer to “go public,” small public companies can languish in the public markets without stock research reports, stock brokers no longer identify diamonds in the rough for retail investors, and investors hold stocks for far less time than they once did.  As a result of these and many other changes in the public markets, only the very largest companies are able to go public and thrive. Weighty studies and papers by Grant Thornton, the Progressive Policy Institute and the President’s IPO Task Force have examined some of the causes of and suggested fixes for the problems that exist in the capital.  

Along those lines, there a lot of good reasons for entrepreneurs, well-established private companies, and other technology and financial innovators to find a seat at Washington’s policy-making table in 2012. There are a number of bipartisan measures that are being considered by both the House and the Senate, and are being championed by the White House. These measures would address the challenges that American businesses may be facing due to existing law as well as  in the capital markets. They would also cut through some of the regulatory red tape at the Securities and Exchange Commission.  While some problems in the capital markets are clearly systemic – far fewer initial public offerings this decade than the previous decades, because of reduced access to capital for startups –  there are others born out of obsolete or burdensome regulations.  

One of the obsolete regulations routinely cited is the 500 shareholder rule.  It was enacted by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1964 – the same year that President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and Major League Baseball first experimented with a free agent draft. The SEC implemented this rule, which requires companies that have exceeded the shareholder count to essentially become publicly-reporting entities, in order to protect investors.  A bipartisan bill recently passed the House Financial Services Committee that would exempt current and former employees from the shareholder count and allow the increase of the overall count. This would give small companies more flexibility in hiring and attracting broader bases of institutional and accredited investors (a similar bill was introduced in the Senate recently, as well).  The bills have received tremendous support from some of the oldest private companies and newest high tech startups in America, the stock exchanges, and venture and angel investors.  

Another bipartisan bill, which intends to make it easier for smaller companies to launch initial public offerings by easing certain securities regulations, was introduced in both the House and Senate this month. The bill seeks to exempt certain smaller companies that are planning initial public offerings from burdensome securities regulations.  It would loosen auditing requirements, potentially increase independent analyst research, expand the range of pre-IPO communications with institutional investors, and exempt repeated “say on pay” votes for shareholders.  The bill defines a new class of issuers, emerging growth companies, which have less than $1 billion in annual revenue at the time of SEC registration and less than $700 million in public shares.  The bill has significant support from the White House, venture capitalists and other important stakeholders.  

We have only scratched the surface of the issues and bills in the capital formation space.  These issues are complicated. However, they’re not impossible for policymakers to wrap their heads around as we have seen from the slew of bipartisan bills that have been introduced — and in some cases, passed —  by the House this year and the number of hearings and markups ongoing in both chambers.  Many experts consider presidential election years a dead zone for legislating or getting anything substantial done in Washington.  But if the stars align on these capital formation and job creation bills, President Obama could be signing some bills in 2012 with congressional Democrats and Republicans looking over his shoulder. 

[izzyklein]

the giffords shooting... an opportunity to provide better safety and security for members of Congress

In the wake of the tragic Gabby Giffords shooting in Arizona, why can't the US Capitol Police train local police to provide security to Representatives across US?

Should Representatives be walled off from their constituents?  Absolutely not.  Should they and their staffs be forced to defend themselves from lunatics with guns at a town hall meeting or Congress on your Corner?  Absolutely not. 

It is unrealistic to expect the USCP or the Secret Service (or even the US Marshals) to provide security to 435 members of Congress.  However, local police forces could take turns committing one or two officers a weekend or week to protect their district's elected US Representative.  Most members represent a number of local police departments (some represent dozens), so the resources and time required of any one department to carry out this new assignment would not be unbearable.  Many departments send their officers for special training in a variety of law enforcement areas (terrorism/homeland security among the highest priorities for special training).  A high level program to protect US Representatives could provide training for selected local law enforcement jointly by the very best - the US Secret Service and the Capitol Police force. 

This tragic shooting in Arizona should be treated as an opportunity to provide better safety and security for members of Congress and their staffs while they are doing their jobs back home.