New Donald Trump LE Six-Shooter boasts a groundbreaking windage adjustment technology.

In further support of GOP nominee Donald Trump’s candidacy for the presidency, and in particular his positions on the Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association has commissioned a new Limited Edition Trump Six-Shooter. In addition to regular iron sights, the accuracy of the handgun is enhanced by long orange fibers attached to the barrel that, when unfurled, indicate both wind speed and direction, as pictured above. The fibers can be combed over and tucked behind the ejection rod on the cylinder when not in use.

Though revolutionary in concept, the design follows in the traditional footsteps of the finest Colts and Remingtons that removed so many Bad Hombres from the Old West. But by far the most unique feature of the new LE Trump Six-Shooter is that, no matter where you point it, you wind up shooting yourself in the foot. It’s expected to be available on November 9.

The Phony War on Coal

Coal mine, early 20th century

Coal mine, early 20th century.

There are mines and there are trenches, but they’re not the same. The so-called war on coal is a great story, but it’s a complete fiction. If there’s a war on steam coal, then there has to be a war on nuclear generation as well because they’re both in the same wholesale electricity market. You don’t have to look far to see Exelon and other nuke operators begging their state legislatures for additional subsidies for their plants. When wholesale electricity market prices are favorable, then coal mines and coal-fired plants (and nukes) extol the survival of the fittest in the Free Market, where only the most efficient competitors survive. But when that market turns on them, all of a sudden “the market is flawed,” and customers are no longer just customers; they’re “stakeholders.”

Be very afraid when anyone in the energy business starts calling you a “stakeholder.” It’s code for “we need you to pay us more money, but our reasons are really bad, so we have to fool you into believing that we’re all in this together.”

Coal mines are not being shuttered by the EPA or Hillary Clinton. The straight-up fact is that shale play natural gas has brought power prices down to levels not seen in years. Allied to this is the continued weak demand in what the feds tell us is our country’s longest (and slowest) economic recovery. The consequence is that low market electricity prices have persisted for an extremely long time.

The mines are being closed, and coal companies are declaring bankruptcy, not because politicians are waging some sort of trench warfare, but simply because of the price of coal, which varies directly with the price of natural gas.

Without doubt, new environmental rules have played a part in reducing coal-fired generation. But if you kick in the door on a house that’s in the process of falling down, don’t expect to be paid for the demolition job. A small decrease in the price of natural gas has a disproportionately large impact on demand for steam coal, and thus on the question of whether to shut a coal-fired station.

There’s no war on coal, and Don Blankenship, contrary to his claim, is not a political prisoner.

Coal-fired Power

Coal-fired Power

While the Hillary v. Donald Rumble on Monday night garnered all the media attention, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard a far more substantive discussion the following morning. An en banc panel of ten federal appellate judges heard oral argument on the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan.

It was a “hot bench,” with lots of questions from the judges. And while Hillary and The Donald put down their swords after 90 minutes, the oral argument on the CPP went on for more than seven hours.

West Virginia’s Solicitor General opened with an artillery barrage in the putative war on coal. The CPP sets target emission rates for fossil fuel generators such as coal, and prohibits them from operating if they exceed those limits unless they purchase carbon credits from generators whose emissions are below their assigned limits. He argued that the CPP thus forces coal plant owners into an impossible choice: they either subsidize their renewable energy competitors or shut down prematurely. In his view, that would affect not just West Virginia but the nation as a whole. W. Va. and other opponents argued that the Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA to require plant owners to invest in different generation resources.

The question of the scope of the EPA’s authority got a lot of attention. The EPA and other proponents of the plan countered that this type of regulation is already commonplace in the power industry. They argued that the emissions trading contemplated by the CPP would be the least expensive method of pollution control, especially when compared to setting emissions caps for each plant. EPA argued that the Clean Air Act mandates that it devise the best system of reductions for any particular pollution type, and that’s what the CPP does. They pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which mandates that the agency act to regulate carbon. And, they continued, the high court’s 2011 ruling in AEP v. Connecticut affirmed the EPA’s regulation of carbon, declaring that because climate change damages were within the EPA’s jurisdiciton, individual states could not sue power companies for climate change harms.

Their opponents argued that other language in AEP casts doubt on the scope of that holding.

Other CPP opponents claimed that because CPP requires major changes to the power grid, that the EPA is infringing on states’ rights because each state is responsible for the reliability of its own electric power system. Numerous shut-downs of coal-fired plants that would follow implementation of the CPP would adversely affect grid reliability.

Once again, it comes down to the Third Branch Default Setting that we’ve seen before in litigation interpreting laws that are both complex and unclear. The almost endless adventures of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, now forgotten like some long-ago war over an equally forgotten issue, comes to mind. Yet the problem is essentially the same. Congress enacts a law, but because of its own inability to agree on what that law should really say, it gets passed with provisions that don’t add up, or are even contradictory. But those problems are down the road, and it’s more important for legislators to get some earned media at the signing ceremony and have some accomplishment to write home to constituents about. Thus it falls the judiciary, sooner or later, to sort things out. C’est la vie, c’est la guerre.

"Morning Joe" Scarborough

“Morning Joe” Scarborough

As far as TV talking heads go, Joe Scarborough is not the best, but he’s far from the worst. Still, every once in a while Joe makes a comment, apparently off-the-cuff, that makes no sense at all, as he did during his discussion of the Devolution of the GOP in his August 29, 2016 broadcast.

Scarborough’s jumping off point was a comparison between the demeanor of Bush the Elder (a/k/a, Bush 41, a/k/a George H.W.) and that of the GOP’s current presidential nominee, Prima Donald Trump.

Scarborough discussed his visit to the Bush compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, which retains its beauty as a quaint New England coastal town, so long as you can forget who the current Maine governor is. Of Bush 41 Scarborough said:

They make others around them feel special despite the fact that they have lived the most remarkable of lives, serving in Congress, running the Republican National Committee, heading up the CIA, being the U.N. Ambassador as well as the U.S. Ambassador to China, serving as Ronald Reagan’s vice president and then leading America as the 41st president of the United States.

But good luck getting George or Barbara Bush talking about themselves. They just don’t do it and they never will. First of all, their parents didn’t allow it. And besides, that kind of thing wasn’t done in the world from which they came. It is just one small way that the ethos of Walker’s Point is so radically different from the mindset that infects Donald Trump’s garish corner office high above 5th Avenue in Trump Towers.

As [Jon] Meacham and I walked down the driveway after saying goodbye to the Bushes, Jon lamented the fact that the same Republican Party that nominated a man like Bush, who rarely spoke about himself, would a quarter century later select a reality TV showman who obsessively talked about little else. Meacham paraphrased Henry Adams in saying that the historical devolvement from Bush to Trump proves that Darwin’s theory of evolution was less compelling when applied to American politics.

Bush the Elder has a lot to be proud of. He served his country both in uniform and in government. He was a fighter pilot in WWII and was shot down in combat with Japanese forces. (As Trump might say,  he only likes fighter pilots who weren’t shot down, he’s gotta tellya.). I don’t take any of that away from Bush 41.

But Scarborough’s notion that not talking about yourself, or not tooting your own horn to say it more directly, is a virtue in and of itself that we all should strive for is absolute nonsense.

Of course Bush 41 never talked about himself. He never had to. He is a walking, breathing pillar of the Republican Establishment, and when the word “establishment” is used in connection with anyone in Clan Bush it is always spelled with a capital “E.”

Bush 41’s father was Prescott S. Bush, a former U.S. Senator for Connecticut, who was a Skull & Bones guy at Yale undergrad (as were Bush 41 and Bush 43), the secret frat where the scions of the Elite of the most elite Elites quaff alcoholic beverages prior to attaining a legal, if not responsible, drinking age and perform pranks that would look very different in 2016 than when they were supposedly performed (e.g., in 1918, when Prescott Bush allegedly led a nocturnal mission to exhume Geronimo’s skull).

(Oh, those kids!)

H.W.’s Wikipedia entry states that he started his business career as a sales clerk with Dresser Industries. Sounds like a humble beginning. But the entry goes on to state that Dresser was a subsidiary of Brown Brothers Harriman, where his father, Prescott Bush, had served as a director for 22 years.

So, Joe Scarborough, please think about that for a minute. I’ll bet H.W. didn’t need to talk much about himself when he got that sales clerk job at Dresser. Suppose, Joe, that you were the supervisor of this new young sales clerk from the Northeast who likes to go by his dual middle initials “H.W.” What are the odds that you’d treat him a bit differently than some other poor schmoe sales clerk? Would you give H.W. a bad performance review, even if he deserved it?

Not if you wanted to keep your job.

Mind, I’m not saying H.W. didn’t do a terrific job as sales clerk. But when your pop sits on the Board of Directors of your employer’s corporate parent,  the reality of who’s the boss and who’s the new hire undergoes a fundamental alteration.

Prescott Bush, Bush 41 and Bush 43 all lived in a rarefied world of great oil wealth and Republican Establishment connections. Bush 43 is a case history all by himself, so I’ll leave that alone, but it’s obvious that, political campaigns aside, not one of them ever had to sell his abilities or his name to anyone to land a job.

I agree that Prima Donald Trump never stops running his mouth, and that’s bad for him and for anyone who’s forced to listen. But for ordinary mortals who have to hustle their butts to make a living, you’d better toot your own horn if you want to eat and keep a roof over your head.


Samuel Prescott Bush (1863-1948), grandfather of Bush 41

So Joe, before you go off on another tilt about praising modesty and silence as saintly virtues, maybe you should look into Samuel Prescott Bush’s life. He’s the guy who started the Bush family bankroll rolling. I’ll bet old Samuel P. Bush had substantial “book smarts” (he had an engineering degree from Stevens Institute) as well as “street smarts,” some business acumen (given where he started and where he wound up), plus a bit of luck.

I’m sure old Sam P. Bush had to brag a little bit about himself to get hired for his first job, and maybe for a few others.


Artist’s conception of a traditional annual performance review at a French investment bank

Even Willie Mays missed a fly ball every once in a while.

Reuters reports that investment banking firm Lazard Ltd, which advised SolarCity on its $2.6 billion sale to Tesla Motors Inc, made an error in its calculations that discounted the value of Solar City by $400 million.

But the headline is worse than the actual story, so one might question whether there’s some “clickbait” sensationalism involved. There was a miscalculation according to a regulatory filing made by Solar City, but the miscalculation related to a range of minimum-maximum share prices, rather than to a definite acquisition price.

Using its discounted cash flow model, Lazard came up with an equity value range of between $14.75 and $34.00 per share for Solar City. After closing, Lazard realized that it had double-counted some of Solar City’s projected debt. After corrections to the DCF calculations, the valuation range was adjusted to $18.75 to $37.75 per share.

The $400 million figure sounds bad, and of course it is. But the purchase price the parties ultimately agreed to, which was paid in Tesla stock, came out to $25.37 per share. So regardless of the error, the price paid was still within the range originally provided by Lazard.

I’m sure there are lawyers out there who would, if asked, take the case and file against Lazard, but I would not count myself among them. Lazard and Tesla will probably dust themselves off and move on. No harm, no foul.

What’s really interesting about this case is not that an error was made, but rather how Lazard might handle its repercussions internally. Who made the error? Who checked the figures? While I wouldn’t take the suit, I would certainly place money on heads rolling across the office floors at Lazard’s headquarters.

[Attention carpet cleaning companies: send your brochures to Lazard now.]

Lazard, originally a French merchant company that grew into a major investment banking house in the New World via New Orleans, might just keep an old Rasoir National (see artist’s conception, above) in storage somewhere in a New Jersey warehouse for just this type of occasion.

When the Great Recession occurred, the Wall Street chorus was that it was nobody’s fault, they never saw it coming, and nobody could have seen it coming.


The rapidity with which Wall Street bankers transitioned from omniscient Masters of the Universe to a collection of Sargent Schultz clones was the closest mankind has yet come to attaining the speed of light. Despite precipitating the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and imposing on the U.S. taxpayer bailout costs rivaling those of a world war, no one was held accountable. Wall Street was grateful for Bernie Madoff because his Ponzi scheme story was simpler and took the spotlight off them.

But if you are the unfortunate person at Lazard on the Solar City-Tesla deal who’s tagged with responsibility for this DCF error, whether you’re a first-year analyst or a managing director, you can expect a career ending scene such as that depicted above.

Soft-diamond Specials waiting to move out

Soft-diamond Specials waiting to move out.

Argument is scheduled for today in bankruptcy court in St. Louis over Peabody Energy’s request for approval of $16,200,000 in executive bonuses for six top executives (In re Peabody Energy Corp., Bankrtcy., E. Dist. Mo.). Peabody, one of a series of coal company insolvencies over the past few years, filed bankruptcy this past April, attributing its difficulties to declining demand overseas, particularly from China, low market prices for coal, and the loss of electricity generation demand to cheaper shale gas. These factors allegedly rendered the company unable to service its $10.1 billion debt load.

The United Mine Workers pension and benefit funds oppose the plan, saying it’s both inappropriate and unfair to pay bonuses to senior executives when employees are losing their jobs.

Peabody Energy counters that the bonuses are essential to turn the world’s largest private-sector coal company around and offer stakeholders the best possible recovery. The company claims that the bonuses are tied to its achievement of certain performance benchmarks through the end of 2017. Reuters reports that the debtor’s unsecured creditors’ committee supports the bonus plan and that the U.S. trustee has not objected.

Though unseen, the ghosts of AIG retention-bonuses-past usually attend these hearings. A debtor proposing such a plan must show that it is based on pay-for-performance and not just an executive retention program.

Former Speaker of the House John Boehner (R., Ohio)

Former Speaker of the House John Boehner (R., Ohio)


August 15, 2016
To:   The Board of the Chicago-Midwest Chapter of the Turnaround Management Association
Re: John Boehner and the TMA Chicago-Midwest Chapter’s (the “Chapter”) 2016 Executive Speakers Forum

Dear Chapter Board Members:

This year’s choice of former Speaker of the House John Boehner as the special guest and principal speaker for the Chapter’s 2016 Executive Speakers Forum compels me to write to you for two reasons: first, to tell you that I will not be attending (granted, a matter of no importance), and second, and more importantly, to let you know the reasons that inform my decision.

At the outset, I am sure you’ll agree that our constitutional form of government, with its various checks and balances, rests on the core idea that our elected representatives, regardless of diametrically opposed political philosophies and positions, will ultimately reach some resolution of their differences in a compromise that will advance the best interests of our nation.

That, at least, is the hope. The last few years reveal Mr. Boehner as one of the chief engineers of the destruction of that hope, and he, along with others whose records are beyond the scope of this letter, ranks among those most responsible for bringing our national politics to its present lamentable state.

To the extent that during his speakership Mr. Boehner exercised any leadership, he led a blatantly political decennial congressional redistricting that followed the Republican recapture of Congress in the 2010 election. This redistricting was done in conjunction with Republican Party leaders at the state level in order to safeguard and perpetuate Republican seats in Congress. In 2012 the result was Republican over-representation in Congress due to that party’s control of redistricting in 26 states. Through the efforts of Mr. Boehner and others in his party using the “REDMAP” program, the House became decidedly unrepresentative. Exhibit A in proof of the effects of Mr. Boehner’s efforts is the fate of those elected officials who were once known as moderate Republicans. Through their REDMAP redistricting campaign, John Boehner, Karl Rove and their partisan colleagues hunted Republican moderates to extinction. REDMAP apartheid, once imposed on a congressional district, eliminates any Democratic constituency large enough to persuade a Republican congressman to moderate his or her political positions in order to retain his or her seat.

Mr. Boehner’s redistricting activities were integral parts of Karl Rove’s grand strategy to deny voting rights to persons more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. This strategy was expressly intended to, and did, and continues to primarily disadvantage African-Americans, Hispanics, recent immigrants, students and the elderly in their rights to vote. Only recently have these manifestly partisan statutes begun to fall under federal court rulings. He furthered redistricting both nationally and in Ohio in order to make districts increasingly Republican and increasingly safe for his party. This Republican ethnic cleansing encouraged Republican congressmen to turn ever more rightward to avoid being “primaried” by a candidate from the even more extreme right (see, e.g., Eric Cantor, R., formerly Va. 7th Cong. Dist.).

But the crowning irony for Mr. Boehner is that he was hoist with his own petard. Following his redistricting efforts, the far-right Freedom Caucus challenged his position as Speaker and brought him down last year. These extreme-right Republicans owed nothing to Mr. Boehner, and they made quite sure he knew it. This, incidentally, is why Mr. Boehner now has his evenings free to address gatherings such as the Chapter’s 2016 Executive Speakers Forum.

We are today confronted with the aftermath of Mr. Boehner’s efforts. For example, in February 2016 President Obama requested an emergency appropriation of funds to deal with the Zika virus threat. The Congress engineered by Mr. Boehner and his colleagues can adopt any number of quixotic bills to repeal Obamacare, but it proved incapable of passing an emergency appropriation bill to fight Zika before it left for its July 4 recess. Zika subsequently broke out in Florida. Our country now confronts an epidemic of a disease that causes tragic birth defects. Although this occurred after his resignation as Speaker, it is a direct consequence of Mr. Boehner’s efforts to undermine the principles of our democracy. He must shoulder his ample share of responsibility.

Likewise, in early 2013, after 2012’s Superstorm Sandy tore through New York and New Jersey, taking more than 230 human lives and causing an estimated $75 billion dollars in damage, the U.S. Senate approved a $60.4 billion aid package. But the Boehner-designed House of Representatives refused to take up a bill for emergency aid for these states. Politicians from New York and New Jersey unleashed a wave of sanguinary fury. Staunchly conservative Republican Peter King of New York said:

These Republicans have no problem finding New York when they’re out raising millions of dollars,. They’re in New York all the time filling their pockets with money from New Yorkers. I’m saying right now, anyone from New York or New Jersey who contributes one penny to Congressional Republicans is out of their minds. Because what they did last night was put a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans. It was an absolute disgrace.

Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, a recent contender for his party’s Presidential nomination, loosed his own Jovian, if not elephantine, thunder:

There is only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims [of Superstorm Sandy]: the House majority and their speaker, John Boehner….

Last night, the House of Representatives failed that most basic test of public service and they did so with callous indifference to the suffering of the people of my state.

Mr. Boehner’s record of shame does not end there. On January 6, 2011, his first day as Speaker, Mr. Boehner was interviewed by NBC’s Brian Williams regarding a bill co-sponsored by twelve of Mr. Boehner’s House Republicans challenging President Barack Obama’s status as a United States citizen. This is how Mr. Boehner exercised leadership:

Williams: I’m curious as to how much responsibility you feel, specifically because of something that happened this morning. During the reading of the Constitution by Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey, was reading a portion of the document, interrupted by someone who heckled from within the chamber. It was to express doubt over the President’s American citizenship – provided you believe that the President is an American citizen. You’ve got twelve members co-sponsoring legislation that does about the same thing. It expresses doubt [about Obama’s citizenship]. Would you be willing to say: “this is a distraction. I’ve looked at it to my satisfaction. Let’s move on”?

Boehner: The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That’s good enough for me.

Williams: Would you be willing to say that message to the twelve members in your caucus who seem to either believe otherwise, or are willing to express doubt and have co-sponsored legislation?

Boehner: Brian, when you come to, to the Congress of the United States, there are 435 of us. We’re nothing more than a slice of America. People come regardless of party labels. They come with all kinds of beliefs and ideas. It’s the melting pot of America. It’s not up to me to tell them what to think.

(Emphasis added.) In other words, as far as Mr. Boehner was concerned, the President’s status as a citizen of the United States was not a matter of objectively determinable fact, but was rather a matter of subjective opinion akin to a preference for vanilla over chocolate ice cream.

Mr. Boehner’s non-leadership with regard to the President’s faith and citizenship was on display again a few weeks later. During the February 13, 2011 edition of Meet the Press, host David Gregory afforded Mr. Boehner a second chance to act like a leader regarding Republican claims that Obama not only was not a U.S. citizen, but also was a secret Muslim. Gregory ran a clip of a Fox News focus group in which Iowa Republican caucus-goers said Obama was a Muslim and that his policies as President were guided by his Muslim faith:

Gregory: As the Speaker, as a leader, do you not think it’s your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?

Boehner: David, it’s not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people. Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me. The president says he’s a Christian. I accept him at his word.

Gregory: But isn’t that a little bit fast and loose? I mean, you are the leader in Congress and you are not standing up to obvious facts and saying these are facts, and if you don’t believe that it’s nonsense?

Boehner: I just outlined the facts as I understand them. I believe that the president is a citizen. I believe the president is a Christian, I’ll take him at his word.

Gregory: But that kind of ignorance over whether he’s a Muslim doesn’t concern you?

Boehner: Listen, the American people have the right to think what they want to think. I can’t — it’s not my job to tell them.

(Emphasis added.) Like other Republican so-called leaders, Mr. Boehner abdicated his responsibility to condemn the spreading of lies and falsehoods about the faith and citizenship of the President of the United States.

I submit to the Chapter’s Board that this is not leadership. It’s cowardice.

An understanding of Mr. Boehner’s character gains greatly from the juxtaposition of (i) his colloquies with Williams and Gregory in early 2011, to (ii) the enthusiasm and alacrity with which he came to the defense of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R., La.) in December 2014.

As you may recall, towards the end of 2014 it came to light that in 2002 Rep. Scalise had given the keynote address to a convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO). EURO is a white supremacist/neo-Nazi hate group founded by former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke. When this scandal broke, Mr. Boehner wasted no time releasing a statement supporting Mr. Scalise, terming his address to EURO an “error in judgment,” and retaining him as Republican Majority Whip. Of Scalise Mr. Boehner said “I know what’s in his heart.”

Mr. Boehner thus put the finishing strokes on his own tableau vivant of a Republican white-supremacist dog-whistling to his party’s base. With regard to our country’s first African-American President, Mr. Boehner vehemently denied any responsibility to disabuse members of his own political caucus, much less the nation at large, of self-evident falsehoods about Barack Obama’s faith and citizenship. But when a colleague was caught trying to garner votes and political support at a neo-Nazi/ Ku Klux Klan convention, Mr. Boehner stood proudly before the cameras of the national broadcast networks and told the American people what they should think because he knew what was in Mr. Scalise’s heart.

Stated somewhat differently, Mr. Boehner always has his [white] man’s back.

Mr. Boehner’s record would be egregious enough if it ended there. But there’s also the matter of his intervention in the case of U.S. v. Windsor to support the Defense of Marriage Act. Then there’s the December 15, 2010 full page ad signed by Mr. Boehner and 21 other members of Congress in support of the Family Research Council, an organization listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its dissemination of false and demonizing propaganda about gays and lesbians (e.g., the FRC’s assertion that all gay men are pedophiles). Let’s not forget Mr. Boehner’s personal distribution of cash (yes, real greenbacks) from lobbyists to Congress members on the very floor of the United States House of Representatives, an act so heinous and depraved that even Mr. Boehner himself later came to regret it. For good measure, we should toss in the former Speaker’s failure to support and deliver on legislation securing equal pay for women. In short, Mr. Boehner embodies almost every aspect of the rot afflicting our nation’s politics. His record is an egregious one. He can’t simply walk away from it. This Chapter should not ignore it.

Should Mr. Boehner ultimately address this years 2016 TMA Forum, I’m confident that our Chapter’s members will give him a respectful hearing consistent with the high standards of decorum characteristic of all this Chapter’s events. But by affording an appearance of concord and dignity at this year’s event, this Chapter will benefit a politician who, while in office, bent every sinew of his will denying that same concord and dignity to women, people of color and the LGBTQ community. In its choice of Mr. Boehner as speaker, this Chapter risks being seen as condoning his record and indelibly imbruing its own character with the racist and sexist stain of Mr. Boehner.

Finally, allow me to say that I very much appreciate the work done by this Board in making this TMA Chapter both a worthwhile and enjoyable enterprise. I know that you contribute your time as volunteers, and all of you are to be commended for the hard work you perform on the Chapter’s behalf. Section ES1.4 of the TMA’s Code of Ethics calls on TMA members to uphold human rights in all their professional endeavors. That obligation cannot be reconciled with Mr. Boehner’s record, and so I trust the Board will reconsider, and rescind, its invitation to him.

/s/ Paul G. Neilan

cc: The Sparkspread Blog