Merv Adelson, former chairman...

...of Lorimar, the once-prolific independent producer of television and movies, (and one-time spouse of Barbara Walters) died at age 85.

I probably wouldn't have mentioned his death, except for this line in his New York Times obit:

Lorimar produced some successful films, including “Being There” — the 1979 adaptation of Jerzy Kosinski’s deadpan satire about a dimwitted gardener, played by Peter Sellers, who becomes an adviser to the president...

If you haven't seen Being There watch it this weekend. It's a classic!

Dennis Greene, a founding member...

...of Sha Na Na, died at age 66. (He's the black guy in the video above.) From his obit in the Times (my emphasis):

Sha Na Na, which started as an a cappella group while Mr. Greene was an undergraduate at Columbia University, drew a large following after playing at the Woodstock music festival in 1969. Mr. Greene often performed wearing a gold lamé suit and sang lead on a number of the group’s songs.

Mr. Greene left Sha Na Na after 15 years to get a master’s degree at Harvard and a law degree at Yale. He told an interviewer in 1998 that he did not regret the decision.

“Being a rock star was never something that was particularly interesting to me,” he said. “It was a great job. I loved the singing part. The byproducts, unfortunately, were exhausting travel and the ongoing-forever politics of being in a business controlled by young adults.”

Frederick Dennis Greene was born in Manhattan on Jan. 11, 1949, and grew up in the Bronx. He attended a Roman Catholic high school before receiving a scholarship to the Hotchkiss School in Connecticut, and from there went to Columbia, where he joined a group called the Columbia Kingsmen. Since there was already a band called the Kingsmen (known for their hit version of “Louie Louie”) they changed their name to Sha Na Na, inspired by nonsense syllables in the Silhouettes’ 1958 hit “Get a Job.”

Mr. Greene went on to become a vice president of Columbia Pictures and then a law professor, most recently at the University of Dayton.

___

By the way, I know I'm behind in my obits. Dean Jones, Martin Milner and Judy Carne also died recently.

When I wrote yesterday...

...that Jeb Bush's tax plan was a "breathtaking wet kiss to the rich" I thought about going back and changing it. I try to avoid hyperbole; I really do. While professional writers can get away with it, I'm just a blogger in a bathrobe. (Literally; it's seersucker. I haven't changed back to flannel just yet.)

But then I read a piece this morning by no less a conservative than Ramesh Ponnuru who writes in Bloomberg (which isn't exactly Mother Jones), "The Problem With Republican Tax Plans" (my emphasis):

All of them would also ensure that the top 1 percent comes out way ahead. Paul's plan, because it would abolish taxes on capital and also lower the top income-tax rate from 43.4 percent to 26.9 percent, would offer them the largest cut. But a rich person whose income comes mostly from investment would pay almost nothing in taxes under Rubio's plan. The Tax Foundation estimates that Bush's plan, leaving aside its possible effects on economic growth, would raise incomes for people in the middle of the spectrum by about 3 percent. For taxpayers in the top 1 percent, though, incomes would go up by 11.6 percent.

Okay, so maybe it isn't so "breathtaking." But it's a wet kiss nonetheless. 

Do you remember...

...the recession of 1937-1938? You don't? (Seems like only yesterday to me.) Well, you're in luck -- you may be about to experience it again.

To refresh your memory (all emphasis mine):

In 1937, after five years of sustained economic growth and a steadily declining unemployment rate, the Roosevelt Administration began to worry more about possible inflation and the size of the federal deficit than the ability of the economy to sustain the recovery. 

Sound familiar?

As a consequence, in the fall of 1937, FDR supported those in his administration who advocated a reduction in federal expenditures (i.e. stimulus spending) and a balanced budget. The results — which included a massive reduction in the number of people employed by such programs as the WPA — were catastrophic. From the fall of 1937 to the summer of 1938, industrial production declined by 33 percent; wages by 35 percent; national income by 13 percent; and not surprisingly, the unemployment rate rose by roughly 5 percentage points, with an estimated 4 million workers losing their jobs.

What really caused the recession? No one knows for sure, of course, but according to Wikipedia:

Monetarists, such as Milton Friedman, assign blame to the Federal Reserve's tightening of the money supply in 1936 and 1937.

Everyone is talking about a rate hike next week, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. (The more I read, the more confused I get.)

Is it because the economy is overheating? No. Has the threat of inflation returned? No; it hasn't even reached the Fed's target. (And have you seen the price of oil lately?) What about unemployment? Sure it's down, but wage pressures are nowhere to be seen. (A nation of minimum-wage workers doesn't full employment make.) Are the financial markets too "frothy"? Not any more. What about the dollar; do we need to prop it up? Hardly -- just the opposite.

So what gives? Why the drumbeat for a rate hike? I have yet to read any reason, much less a good reason. What's really motivating the tight-money crowd? I honestly don't know.

Are they savers who want a higher return on their investments? Doesn't sound like a quarter-point increase would make much difference, does it?

Are they traders, who want volatility above all else? Could be -- even traders need to make a living. But that doesn't argue for a rate hike for the rest of us.

Is it nutty inflation hawks? Maybe, but -- again -- where's the inflation? Are we at the mercy of a bunch of people who see goblins behind every tree?

Or is it Republicans who want to see a recession in the year before the election? Even I'm not that cynical.

So, really, what is it? Someone please tell me.

Now that I've opined...

...on the Democratic race for president, let's look at the current state of the Republican field.

Right now it looks like a two-man contest between Jeb Bush, the establishment choice, and Donald Trump, the wildest Wild Card of All Time.

How does the Donald's Excellent Adventure end? I'm convinced no one knows, least of all Mr. Trump himself. But I still think it's a safe bet that he won't be at the top of the GOP ticket in 2016. In the immortal words of the first Mayor Daley, "We don't want nobody nobody sent." And nobody in the Republican Party sent for Mr. Trump.

So is that it, then, Jeb wins the nomination? (Only to lose the general to Hillary?) That's what the betting markets are saying.

But just to reassure the top .01 percent of Americans who may be getting nervous about their $100 million "investment" in Jeb's campaign, the candidate released a tax plan yesterday that is the most breathtaking wet kiss to the rich since the days of Marie Antoinette. (I think even Dick Cheney would blush.)

From an article in the Times titled -- seriously! -- "Jeb Bush Tax Plan Makes Forays Into Populism" (my emphasis):

But the effect of Mr. Bush’s proposals on the wealthy would be muted by his proposal to cut the number of individual tax brackets from seven to three, taxing income at 28 percent, 25 percent and 10 percent. Currently, the top marginal income tax rate is 39.6 percent.

His proposals would double the standard tax deduction that most filers take, end what Republicans call the “death tax” on estates of the deceased and seek to make marriage more beneficial for tax purposes.

Mr. Bush also proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent and giving incentives to invest domestically as he seeks to spur economic growth to 4 percent annually, an objective that has been met with skepticism by economists.

Mr. Bush also said he wanted to discourage “corporate inversions” in which American companies use cross-border mergers to take advantage of lower tax rates abroad; he would do so by ending the practice of taxing the corporations’ international profits. He would also assess a one-time tax on corporate money stashed overseas and eliminate the interest deductions companies take when they borrow, in addition to setting his sights on the issue of carried interest.

Why not just cut to the chase and lower taxes on the rich to zero? Sheesh!

But the latest Bush scion hasn't proven he can translate all those campaign "donations" into votes. So if Jeb falters, the GOP elders still have Marco Rubio and John Kasich warming up in the bullpen.

And that's pretty much it. Seriously. Oh, sure, Ted Cruz is still around in case Trump gets bored and drops out, but that's looking more and more unlikely. In fact, I'd wager that Cruz leaves the scene long before the Donald.

Ben Carson? The conservative kook du jour. (Think Michele Bachmann with a medical degree.)  

Carly Fiorina? Running hard for vice president. (Are Republicans stupid enough to think if they just put someone on the ticket with two X chromosomes they'll attract women voters? Yes -- yes they are.)

As for the others: Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki and Jim Gilmore? They might all just as well fold their tents and go home. It's over for these guys. (Their names aren't even worth putting in bold.)

Stop the bedwetting!

In this morning's Times, Patrick Healy writes, "Democrats Concerned About Clinton's Swoon Consider a Big-Name Plan B":

If Hillary Rodham Clinton’s new apology for her private email server fails to reassure jittery supporters, it could amplify the chatter among some Democrats who have been casting about for a potential white knight to rescue the party from a beleaguered Clinton candidacy.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Secretary of State John Kerry, Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Al Gore: Each has been discussed among party officials in recent weeks as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton if she does not regain her once-dominant standing in the 2016 presidential field and instead remains mired in the long-running email controversy, with its attendant investigations.

All right, let's take each of those individuals one at a time.

Joe Biden has run for president twice before, and, to my knowledge, never won a single state's primary or caucus. The best thing that can be said about the vice president is that he's a good senator -- hardly a recommendation for chief executive. (More than one term in the upper chamber should pretty much disqualify anyone. Think of John McCain, who's become little more than a professional Sunday morning talk show pontificator.) 

John Kerry is another career legislator who lost his race for the White House to the worst president in modern times. Next!

Elizabeth Warren, I have to admit, would make an attractive candidate. But the freshman senator from Massachusetts seems focused solely on banking and finance. Where is she on social issues? Foreign policy? Who knows? Does she even care about those things? A nominee can't be one-dimensional.

Then there's Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000 only to lose the Electoral College to Bush. But, really, should it even have been close? How do you squander eight years of peace and prosperity and come in second to a mediocrity like W?

The article goes on to quote a guy who had a hand in losing twice to Bush:

“You have Democrats beginning to panic about the one thing that a lot of them never worried about, which was Clinton’s electability in the general election,” said Robert Shrum, a veteran strategist who was a senior adviser to Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry during their presidential runs. “You still have to think of her as the odds-on favorite for the Democratic nomination. But the challenge she faces in the general election is both the trust problem and the likability problem.”

Now, I'll grant you that Ms. Clinton has a "likability problem"; there's no doubt about that. (I don't even like her that much.) And it's probably what gave Obama an opening in 2008 in the first place. But ask yourself: Who on the Republican side is "likable"? Donald Trump? Jeb? Ted Cruz? Something tells me the election of 2016 won't come down to "likability."

Let's get real here, folks. Ms. Clinton's email "scandal" is a tempest in a teapot. Did she even do anything wrong? And do Republicans really think anyone cares? (Although I will concede that they'll be talking about it -- and Benghazi! -- well into her second term.)

Just look at the polls. According to the Huffington Post, which tracks 127 polls from 22 pollsters, Ms. Clinton has a commanding lead:

Clinton, 45.2 percent

Bernie Sanders, 23.3

Biden, 17

And that's before Ol' Joe gets in the race! Do you have any doubt that his numbers would come down once he threw his hat in the ring?

Not convinced? Then check out the betting markets. According to Paddy Power:

Clinton, 1/3 odds

Biden, 5/1

Sanders, 6/1

And as for the general:

Clinton, 11/10

Bush, 4/1

In other words, Hillary still beats Jeb.

Next: Whither the Republican race?

Lake Park defeated...

...Wheaton Warrenville South last weekend, 17-13. Did anyone else notice that?

Last year the Roselle squad only lost to Wheaton South, 14-7, in overtime. But the year before that they were shut out by the Tigers, 28-0.

Lake Park moved over to the DuPage Valley Conference in 2013 and went 3-6. Last year they improved to 5-5. In the previous nine years (which is all I have data for), the Lancers went a mediocre 40-44 in the Upstate Eight Conference, which isn't considered nearly as strong as the DVC.

Suddenly, though, Lake Park is beating a school that appeared in the 7A final as recently as 2011 and won the crown in 2010. Are the Lancers coming up in the world? Or is something else going on?

I'm not sure, but I did have a "text conversation" with a friend of mine yesterday after he read my post which touched on declining numbers in high school football. To refresh your memory, on Friday I spoke with three coaches from a Central Suburban Conference school who said:

...they are just not getting the numbers they need partly due to fear of head trauma. The freshman teams, for example, are really suffering. Maine East and Niles North, I believe they told me, no longer have freshman teams. And schools that used to have an "A" and a "B" team are having difficulty just filling up an "A" team.

It made me wonder if the Central Suburban Conference, which produced the winner of the 8A title, Maine South, in three consecutive years, 2008-10, was actually in decline.

Am I overreacting? My buddy didn't seem to think so. The mighty DVC (which is usually mentioned in the same breath with the Catholic League Blue as the best in the state) "is down to some degree. Naperville North continues to struggle while the Wheaton teams are not as powerful as before."

(He even wondered if Larry McKeon, who coached the Huskies to an 8A crown in 2007 but left after the 2009 season, "almost knew something.")

Neuqua Valley, the school with which my friend is most familiar, "used to have an occasional C game as recently as 2009 and sophomore B games from time to time as well on Saturday mornings. And Neuqua is a massive school."

(The IHSA website lists the Naperville school as the seventh-largest in the state.)

But, "I hear Neuqua freshman numbers are in the 60-70 range, down from a peak of 120 or so."

Why is that? I asked him. "Head trauma big, big reason."

But that's not all. As for Wheaton Warrenville South, their numbers may be down for other reasons.

"My aunt teaches at a middle school in Wheaton that feeds into Wheaton South. She saw this coming a few years ago; said the makeup of students has shifted more to Hispanic and Asian. This is a middle school that's traditionally fed WWS great athletes. She said (head coach) Ron Muhitch actually came to the school to talk to teachers to learn what was going on. He'd noticed fewer and fewer football players from that school."

So is this just a problem in the DVC and the Central Suburban Conference? Or is it a harbinger of things to come?

"Something is going to happen with football, between the profit machine that is the NFL and these colleges spending millions on facilities and numbers being down at the high school levels -- this can't be sustained."

He made an interesting observation about auto racing:

"NASCAR grew quickly and huge in a relatively short period of time in the mid-1990s to early 2000s. But popularity leveled off and growth did too. Tracks kept building more and more stands, which at one point were always filled and TV money flowing into the sport was huge. But a combination of the product on the track and just a general leveling-off of interest and then declining TV ratings -- it all started to deflate. So much so that tracks are now removing as much as 40 percent of their seating capacity. The analogy being if the on-field product falls off because numbers are down, you could see big colleges make similar decisions to downsize (football)."

Is high school football in decline? Is a "tipping point" in the not-too-distant future? In my dad's day boxing and horse racing were two of the biggest sports in America. Do you know any high school kid today that boxes? Me neither. And when was the last time you "went out to the track?"

For an example "closer to home," just look at the Chicago Public League. The Prep Bowl used to draw literally tens of thousands to Soldier Field for the showdown with the Catholic League champion. Nowadays, after Simeon, Phillips and a few others, the pickings get mighty slim mighty fast. Many CPS schools, in fact, have trouble fielding any team at all.

Things do change, you know.