"I feel that Ronald Reagan led the country in the wrong direction, sensing and playing into its worst impulses at a moment in history that called desperately for a higher vision. The term 'government' was degraded into a working synonym for 'ineptitude' or even 'hostile entity.'"
Makes me feel not quite so alone in my reaction to Reagan. Kennedy is much kinder to Reagan that I have ever been, but this quote sums up the harm he has done to my country. Harm that is still repeated by his conservative followers every day. I don't want to pull a Glenn Beck crying act, but it breaks my heart that the Reagan ideology has is so strong even today. It undermines the good instincts of people who know their duly elected government can do good things.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
Dumbass Economics
Here's a piece of a little argument I had on a comment section of a podunk newspaper site recently:
Me: "Reagan was a great marketing device, creating debt through tax cuts and huge military spending were the reality. Creating TARP, bailing out AIG and Leaman were Reaganomics in action - engineered by supplysiders, Greenspan lovers and other conservatives."
Some conservative dumbass said: "Tax cuts don't create debt, they increase tax revenue but stimulating the economy. How do you think Bush had the money to spend too much. It was actual real money. Not Obama bucks that keeps flying off the presses. Do some research on the tax revenue, not the tax cut."
The views expressed by the dumbass in question are very stubborn. The idea that tax cuts create tax revenue is just stupid. Plainly illogical, historically inaccurate, mathematically impossible, but believed as fact by American Conservative ideologues. What a shameful state of affairs this is.
Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, stimulated economic demand, spurred economic growth and exploded the national debt. GW Bush did the same thing, Obama is trying to do the same thing but is coming up against the old Reagan (and Jack Kemp) supply side argument that tax cuts increase tax revenue.
Did I mention that is stupid?
Me: "Reagan was a great marketing device, creating debt through tax cuts and huge military spending were the reality. Creating TARP, bailing out AIG and Leaman were Reaganomics in action - engineered by supplysiders, Greenspan lovers and other conservatives."
Some conservative dumbass said: "Tax cuts don't create debt, they increase tax revenue but stimulating the economy. How do you think Bush had the money to spend too much. It was actual real money. Not Obama bucks that keeps flying off the presses. Do some research on the tax revenue, not the tax cut."
The views expressed by the dumbass in question are very stubborn. The idea that tax cuts create tax revenue is just stupid. Plainly illogical, historically inaccurate, mathematically impossible, but believed as fact by American Conservative ideologues. What a shameful state of affairs this is.
Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, stimulated economic demand, spurred economic growth and exploded the national debt. GW Bush did the same thing, Obama is trying to do the same thing but is coming up against the old Reagan (and Jack Kemp) supply side argument that tax cuts increase tax revenue.
Did I mention that is stupid?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
TedObamaCare
A few days ago we donated a few bucks to St. Jude's Hospitals via a campaign at a chain restaurant. We had a little family discussion about sick children, charity, cancer, and death over a nice basket of warm chips and cool salsa. Our 7-year-old son gave this some thought for a few days.
As he was considering the discussion, Ted Kennedy was being buried and I have been toying with how come up with a large co-payment I need to make to have my gallbladder removed in the face of so many other bills and our recession-battered income.
That's the context of a little discussion from last night:
- Dad, what is cancer?
- It is a serious disease that can get into almost any part of a person's body and has to be treated by doctors. Adults and children can get it, and it can kill them.
- Does it cost money to see doctors?
- Yes
- So, it costs money to save your life?
- Yes
- (Sarcastically) Um, that's kind of stupid.
- Yes
I shared a little tidbit of this on my Facebook status, which prompts an unexpected discussion about health care. The fact that this surprised me is a bit of a testament to my stupidity. The Conservative responses were about 'responsibility' of the individual, rights of providers to be paid and other things that seemed to have little to nothing to do with the central point that my son was making.
Conservatives also made the argument that 'government will screw it up worse' with great confidence. Libertarians and Reagan lovers recite the mantra as if it were true and anyone who thinks otherwise is either stupid, misinformed or just naive. There's a physical fact that these people do not accept as even possible, it is the economic concept of public goods. Their existence run the gamut from national defense, to societal safety nets like publicly sponsored health care. I'm at a loss as to how to make this argument because arguing that public goods exist is like trying to argue that the earth is round. It just is.
That point my son was making is this: He is a child. He has no money. Lack of money should have nothing whatsoever to do with life or death decisions people make to seek and receive life and health. He is kind of making the point Senator Kennedy made over and over throughout his 47 years in the Senate: Health care should be a right. How can anyone disagree with such a simple concept? Only government (as much as you might hate this fact) can guarantee a right.
As he was considering the discussion, Ted Kennedy was being buried and I have been toying with how come up with a large co-payment I need to make to have my gallbladder removed in the face of so many other bills and our recession-battered income.
That's the context of a little discussion from last night:
- Dad, what is cancer?
- It is a serious disease that can get into almost any part of a person's body and has to be treated by doctors. Adults and children can get it, and it can kill them.
- Does it cost money to see doctors?
- Yes
- So, it costs money to save your life?
- Yes
- (Sarcastically) Um, that's kind of stupid.
- Yes
I shared a little tidbit of this on my Facebook status, which prompts an unexpected discussion about health care. The fact that this surprised me is a bit of a testament to my stupidity. The Conservative responses were about 'responsibility' of the individual, rights of providers to be paid and other things that seemed to have little to nothing to do with the central point that my son was making.
Conservatives also made the argument that 'government will screw it up worse' with great confidence. Libertarians and Reagan lovers recite the mantra as if it were true and anyone who thinks otherwise is either stupid, misinformed or just naive. There's a physical fact that these people do not accept as even possible, it is the economic concept of public goods. Their existence run the gamut from national defense, to societal safety nets like publicly sponsored health care. I'm at a loss as to how to make this argument because arguing that public goods exist is like trying to argue that the earth is round. It just is.
That point my son was making is this: He is a child. He has no money. Lack of money should have nothing whatsoever to do with life or death decisions people make to seek and receive life and health. He is kind of making the point Senator Kennedy made over and over throughout his 47 years in the Senate: Health care should be a right. How can anyone disagree with such a simple concept? Only government (as much as you might hate this fact) can guarantee a right.
Mike Huckabee - Republican Asshole of the Week
“Proponents deny that the bill would devalue older people’s lives, or encourage them to accept less care to save money. But it was President Obama himself who suggested that seniors who don’t have as long to live might want to just consider taking a pain pill instead of getting an expensive operation to cure them,” Huckabee said.
“Yet when Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at 77, did he give up on life and go home to take pain pills and die, of course not,” the former Republican governor said. “He freely did what most of us would do. He chose an expensive operation and painful follow up treatments.”
From: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26554.html#ixzz0PbNZGHmk
I would have gone with John McCain for snubbing Vicky Kennedy after speaking at Ted's wake, but I'm not sure what motivated him. If he was hiding his tears from the camera, his a bit less of an asshole than he would be if he was pointedly turning away from her.
Whatever the case, Huckabee's comments are horrible on two levels. He misstates Obama's position, then he uses his mistaken premise to claim that Senator Kennedy would disagreed with Obama. Shameful.
“Yet when Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at 77, did he give up on life and go home to take pain pills and die, of course not,” the former Republican governor said. “He freely did what most of us would do. He chose an expensive operation and painful follow up treatments.”
From: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26554.html#ixzz0PbNZGHmk
I would have gone with John McCain for snubbing Vicky Kennedy after speaking at Ted's wake, but I'm not sure what motivated him. If he was hiding his tears from the camera, his a bit less of an asshole than he would be if he was pointedly turning away from her.
Whatever the case, Huckabee's comments are horrible on two levels. He misstates Obama's position, then he uses his mistaken premise to claim that Senator Kennedy would disagreed with Obama. Shameful.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
What's wrong with this person?
This chick looks very confident and passionate. I wonder if she is a lousy speller or if she really has issues with pubes.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Karl Marx's "Capital"
This summer I'm slogging through Karl Marx's masterpiece (aka "Das Capital"). I borrowed it from the library, and it seems that I have a first American printing from 1911. All the name calling and stupidity from the right wing over the first few months of the Obama Administration made it an attractive thing to do. I am about half way through.
The pages of the copy are thin and fragile. There is at least one section of pages that are missing. Some of the print is spotty, maybe due to age or poor quality of printing in the first place. I feel like I have something beautiful and original in my hands and am eagerly trying to take it into my brain. All this made more fun by the idea that nearly 150 years after it was written, this book is a bit naughty. Marx is a man who is especially vilified by the American right wing; so much so that the left can barely speak his name.
This is some early, crude economic thought and sophisticated political thought that was (like every intellectual pursuit) a product of the time it was conceived and written. Lifting the ideas and placing them into a different historical context twists the beauty of its originality. This is especially true of Marx. I'm trying to keep in mind that it was written in the middle of the 19th century.
It was a time of early industrialism and international trade. It was marked by slave trading, child exploitation, racism, sexism, pollution, dangerous working conditions and near feudal politics in much of Europe. Given that context, it was entirely sensible to make labor vs capital the central antagonism is his economic model.
The pages of the copy are thin and fragile. There is at least one section of pages that are missing. Some of the print is spotty, maybe due to age or poor quality of printing in the first place. I feel like I have something beautiful and original in my hands and am eagerly trying to take it into my brain. All this made more fun by the idea that nearly 150 years after it was written, this book is a bit naughty. Marx is a man who is especially vilified by the American right wing; so much so that the left can barely speak his name.
This is some early, crude economic thought and sophisticated political thought that was (like every intellectual pursuit) a product of the time it was conceived and written. Lifting the ideas and placing them into a different historical context twists the beauty of its originality. This is especially true of Marx. I'm trying to keep in mind that it was written in the middle of the 19th century.
It was a time of early industrialism and international trade. It was marked by slave trading, child exploitation, racism, sexism, pollution, dangerous working conditions and near feudal politics in much of Europe. Given that context, it was entirely sensible to make labor vs capital the central antagonism is his economic model.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
God supports abortion
Let's assume for a minute that God really did create all that surrounds us. That would mean God created the scheme that women carry babies inside their bodies during the nine months from conception to delivery. God is effectively giving the control of that supposed person (also called children and life by pro-lifers) over to the woman who is carrying them. That implies a tacit approval of abortion (the choice made to end that "life"). Hence, God's scheme of creation is an approval of abortion.
Maybe God didn't create the system I've described and a fundamentalist reading of the manmade scriptures in his supposedly holy books should override the natural laws implied in said creations.
Or maybe we are just a bunch of imperfect human beings with no special insights into God's plans or the ultimate black and white ideas of right and wrong that we often espouse. This being the case, we should allow the Mom to make the decisions her heart tells her to make and not judge her when she does so.
Maybe God didn't create the system I've described and a fundamentalist reading of the manmade scriptures in his supposedly holy books should override the natural laws implied in said creations.
Or maybe we are just a bunch of imperfect human beings with no special insights into God's plans or the ultimate black and white ideas of right and wrong that we often espouse. This being the case, we should allow the Mom to make the decisions her heart tells her to make and not judge her when she does so.
Friday, July 03, 2009
July 4 Semantics
This was the day that the elites in Congress declared themselves independent of The King of England. It was a political step toward the violent means they used to found my country. The word 'freedom' was not the preferred sound bite at the time: 'liberty' was.
Today, 'freedom' is the word that is most often used in connection with 'patriotism' and the July4th-iness of this holiday. It is a word used in politically-minded rhetoric to claim self-righteousness, innocence, and moral superiority. Unfortunately, the general American usage of this word has rendered it nearly meaningless. For a word to be useful, there must be universally (or at least commonly) accepted definition. No such definition currently exists.
All is not lost, however. I like to keep in mind that 'freedom' is just a word. There are many others. I will try to use them in the future.
Today, 'freedom' is the word that is most often used in connection with 'patriotism' and the July4th-iness of this holiday. It is a word used in politically-minded rhetoric to claim self-righteousness, innocence, and moral superiority. Unfortunately, the general American usage of this word has rendered it nearly meaningless. For a word to be useful, there must be universally (or at least commonly) accepted definition. No such definition currently exists.
All is not lost, however. I like to keep in mind that 'freedom' is just a word. There are many others. I will try to use them in the future.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Milton Friedman's supporters
Milton Friedman is dead, but his ideology is very much alive. This is from Stephen Moore, a right-wing economic writer for the Wall Street Journal late last week:
That was an easy refutation because it does not defend against the best finger pointed from left to right. My left finger does not point to the fiscal habits or the personality of GW Bush. The finger points to lack of regulation of financial markets. Something that Friedman LOVED with all his cold, 'enlighted self interest'ed heart. I have seen no refutation of this finger by any of the Friedman/Reagan/Jack Kemp lovers of the world.
I have seen some of these defenders attempt a defense by pointing at de-regulators like Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and Jimmy Carter. That's a lame defense because the named Democrats were wrong as well. Friedman's ideas were still bad, and worst of all they harmed the world. Another lame right wing defense of their principles is the claim that the real culprit is Bush's "liberal" spending binge. I cry 'bullshit' to both these arguments.
And yeah, I mentioned Jack Kemp who was the last of these three to pass into the great beyond of freedom, God and selfishness. Friedmanite Alan Greenspan has come out and admitted that capital markets were under-regulated, I like to imagine that Friedman would be genius enough to see that the facts now refute some of his principles. I'm certain that the vast majority of his followers are not genius enough. They will hold onto his ideas, wait for the next opportunity to put them into action, damage the world economy again, and blame others in turn.
The myth that the stock-market collapse was due to a failure of Friedman's principles could hardly be more easily refuted. No one was more critical of the Bush spending and debt binge than Friedman. The massive run up in money and easy credit that facilitated the housing and credit bubbles was precisely the foolishness that Friedman spent a lifetime warning against.
That was an easy refutation because it does not defend against the best finger pointed from left to right. My left finger does not point to the fiscal habits or the personality of GW Bush. The finger points to lack of regulation of financial markets. Something that Friedman LOVED with all his cold, 'enlighted self interest'ed heart. I have seen no refutation of this finger by any of the Friedman/Reagan/Jack Kemp lovers of the world.
I have seen some of these defenders attempt a defense by pointing at de-regulators like Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and Jimmy Carter. That's a lame defense because the named Democrats were wrong as well. Friedman's ideas were still bad, and worst of all they harmed the world. Another lame right wing defense of their principles is the claim that the real culprit is Bush's "liberal" spending binge. I cry 'bullshit' to both these arguments.
And yeah, I mentioned Jack Kemp who was the last of these three to pass into the great beyond of freedom, God and selfishness. Friedmanite Alan Greenspan has come out and admitted that capital markets were under-regulated, I like to imagine that Friedman would be genius enough to see that the facts now refute some of his principles. I'm certain that the vast majority of his followers are not genius enough. They will hold onto his ideas, wait for the next opportunity to put them into action, damage the world economy again, and blame others in turn.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Bush's principles, popularity and pragmatism
Last night, GW Bush spoke for a few minutes and answered some questions in front of the Economic Club of Southern Michigan.
Bush said his 2nd most troubling time was the near economic collapse last year. Told inaction would lead to a crisis worse than the Great Depression, Bush said he decided he had to intervene to prevent widespread stock market collapse and bank failure.
"That's a sobering moment," he said. "I thought about it, and I didn't really want to be that president. So I abandoned free-market principles."
Later in the Q&A portion he was asked how he wanted his 'legacy' to read in the history books. "I hope it is this," Bush said. "'The man showed up in the office with a set of principles and he was unwilling to sacrifice his principles for the sake of popularity.'"
Hmmm....He was will to sacrifice them in the face of facts and practicality over the nation's finances. I think that's a great thing that he should be lauded for. Pity he wasn't willing to give up his principles in the face of facts earlier or on other policy matters.
Oh, and he also said the words "freedom" and "God" countless times. I guess that would be the extent of his principles.
Bush said his 2nd most troubling time was the near economic collapse last year. Told inaction would lead to a crisis worse than the Great Depression, Bush said he decided he had to intervene to prevent widespread stock market collapse and bank failure.
"That's a sobering moment," he said. "I thought about it, and I didn't really want to be that president. So I abandoned free-market principles."
Later in the Q&A portion he was asked how he wanted his 'legacy' to read in the history books. "I hope it is this," Bush said. "'The man showed up in the office with a set of principles and he was unwilling to sacrifice his principles for the sake of popularity.'"
Hmmm....He was will to sacrifice them in the face of facts and practicality over the nation's finances. I think that's a great thing that he should be lauded for. Pity he wasn't willing to give up his principles in the face of facts earlier or on other policy matters.
Oh, and he also said the words "freedom" and "God" countless times. I guess that would be the extent of his principles.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Memorial Day
Strictly speaking, this American holiday is supposed to be about paying tribute to the people who have died in wars in the uniform of the USofA. But nothing is so cut and dried. It never is.
Should we honor those who died fighting against the Union in the US Civil War? Native Americans who died for their nations, against the Federal government? People who served, but didn't die? People who served and died as Americans on the Tory side of the Revolution?
Memorial Day also seems to have something to do with buying mattresses, riding motorcycles and grilling meat over an open flame. It is a day when some Americans make an extra effort to remember a particular loved one who has died (though not necessarily a veteran).
I just watched a baseball game and thought about stuff like this. That's patriotic enough for me. The Minnesota Twins are better than I thought, and I did like the red, white and blue caps that both teams wore. America, I think I'll keep her.
Should we honor those who died fighting against the Union in the US Civil War? Native Americans who died for their nations, against the Federal government? People who served, but didn't die? People who served and died as Americans on the Tory side of the Revolution?
Memorial Day also seems to have something to do with buying mattresses, riding motorcycles and grilling meat over an open flame. It is a day when some Americans make an extra effort to remember a particular loved one who has died (though not necessarily a veteran).
I just watched a baseball game and thought about stuff like this. That's patriotic enough for me. The Minnesota Twins are better than I thought, and I did like the red, white and blue caps that both teams wore. America, I think I'll keep her.
World Government is happening
Yeah, that's right - I'm for increased centralization of world governance. First I came out of the closet as an avowed liberal, then an admitted socialist, and now this. No, this doesn't make me anti-freedom or unpatriotic. And I don't hate God either. It is just more of my confrontational pragmatism that is at work.
This has been a long, slow evolution since men first came together to divide up the fish and game they killed, and the women they mated with. It is seen in the origins of the United States of America. All the big world trends point toward a smaller world, and a necessarily more global form of government.
There are many among us who hate this. From anti-globalisation lefties, anti-UN and pro-StatesRights righties, to '9-11 Truthers' the falling barriers to world cooperation and order are demonized and fought. But this trend is unstoppable. It can be resisted and slowed but the world is getting smaller. Little by little, day by day we are linked by technology into a more interdependent world. This makes more interdependent nation-states inevitable.
Better to roll with it, and make it work than to resist it completely.
This has been a long, slow evolution since men first came together to divide up the fish and game they killed, and the women they mated with. It is seen in the origins of the United States of America. All the big world trends point toward a smaller world, and a necessarily more global form of government.
There are many among us who hate this. From anti-globalisation lefties, anti-UN and pro-StatesRights righties, to '9-11 Truthers' the falling barriers to world cooperation and order are demonized and fought. But this trend is unstoppable. It can be resisted and slowed but the world is getting smaller. Little by little, day by day we are linked by technology into a more interdependent world. This makes more interdependent nation-states inevitable.
Better to roll with it, and make it work than to resist it completely.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Patriots and Socialists
American right-wingers are working hard to frame current political thought and issues around these two words. They want us to think that Democrat = Socialist and Republican = Patriot. I've been bumping up against it quite a lot lately. The debate around buzzwords is so stupid, I find it hard to wrap my mind around it. I want to go on more about this silliness soon, but in the meantime Bill Maher wrote a nice rant about it, quoted here:
There's a name for people who do the right thing for their country, even if it involves sacrifice. And no, it's not "socialists." It's "patriots." We all know the modern definition of a patriot: It's the person who pays the least taxes and listens to the most A.M. radio. But that wasn't what it always meant.
Patriots want their fellow citizens to be able to go to the hospital. They want to make sure no one sells them bread made out of Chinese skulls. They want a country where the deer and the antelope can still play - and not just so Sarah Palin can shoot them from a helicopter. Patriots want to burn less coal and buy less oil. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House roof and Ronald Reagan had them removed. You've heard of "opposite marriage"? This is "opposite patriotism."
Rush Limbaugh celebrated this Earth Day by praising coal-fired power plants and the plastic bag, while Glenn Beck cheered a man on while he cut down trees.
During the campaign, Obama suggested that one simple thing Americans could do to help with fuel-efficiency was check their car's tire pressure. And Republicans freaked, because to them, every suggestion for the common good is a direct attack on their personal liberty, and it's unpatriotic to interfere with anyone's God-given right to be big, dumb and selfish.
When the President suggests things that will help the greater good, that's not a slight against your fragile manhood. I know, you're a rugged individualist. But you're not - you're just a schmuck.
Going back to Reagan, all of our leaders have predictably and reliably told us that government is always the problem, never you my precious, perfect American citizen. You are always perfect just the way you are, like a precious little snowflake. A beautiful, precious, 350-pound, pig-ignorant snowflake.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/05/08/2009-05-08_americans_please_wash_hands_before_criticizing_obama.html#ixzz0F3lV9XPh&B
Sunday, May 03, 2009
The Lying Liberal
I supported John Edwards' primary run for President. His positions on issues of governmental policy were the most similar to my own. He did not seem a particularly down to earth guy. As it turned out, he was treating his wife and family very badly during this time. I make no excuse or have no regret for supporting his candidacy.
You see, as a thinking person I see a difference between government policies that best serve my country and private behaviour that serves or dis serves individuals. I find these sorts of private scandals entertaining, but I'm not looking for proof of hypocrisy in my politicians. I'm looking for government policies that are good for my country.
So, the next time the headlines are full of a public offical taking drugs, cheating on their spouse, nailing a prostitute, reaching between stalls in a public toilet, etc. I will laugh and enjoy the spectacle. It doesn't color my liberal ideals one little bit. For me, liberalism's core principle is pragmatism in public policy. Hypocrisy between public and private behavior does not matter.
You see, as a thinking person I see a difference between government policies that best serve my country and private behaviour that serves or dis serves individuals. I find these sorts of private scandals entertaining, but I'm not looking for proof of hypocrisy in my politicians. I'm looking for government policies that are good for my country.
So, the next time the headlines are full of a public offical taking drugs, cheating on their spouse, nailing a prostitute, reaching between stalls in a public toilet, etc. I will laugh and enjoy the spectacle. It doesn't color my liberal ideals one little bit. For me, liberalism's core principle is pragmatism in public policy. Hypocrisy between public and private behavior does not matter.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Guns
Amendment II: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The wording of this amendment is the best explanation I can give as to why the US is politically unable to institute stricter, more rational gun control laws. When taken in the context of the political and cultural realities of today, this amendement can most certainly be interpreted to give great freedom of the citizenry to pack heat and be ready to kill anything that moves to protect said personal space.
In this day and age, the primary philosophical basis for arguments of freedom and rights is "the state" vs the individual. This is not the context that existed in the US during the drafting, debate and ratification of this Bill. In those days, the primary philosophical question was what rights the States had over the central national government. Hence, the context of the Second Amendment was referring to the armies maintained by individual States (aka "the people").
The looser Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution had a very weak national governemnt, which was completely secondary to the State governments.
The legal rights of people to pack weapons giving the the power to kill each other with the flick of a finger is an accident of history. It is an accident of history that will not be corrected in my lifetime. That's a bummer.
The wording of this amendment is the best explanation I can give as to why the US is politically unable to institute stricter, more rational gun control laws. When taken in the context of the political and cultural realities of today, this amendement can most certainly be interpreted to give great freedom of the citizenry to pack heat and be ready to kill anything that moves to protect said personal space.
In this day and age, the primary philosophical basis for arguments of freedom and rights is "the state" vs the individual. This is not the context that existed in the US during the drafting, debate and ratification of this Bill. In those days, the primary philosophical question was what rights the States had over the central national government. Hence, the context of the Second Amendment was referring to the armies maintained by individual States (aka "the people").
The looser Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution had a very weak national governemnt, which was completely secondary to the State governments.
The legal rights of people to pack weapons giving the the power to kill each other with the flick of a finger is an accident of history. It is an accident of history that will not be corrected in my lifetime. That's a bummer.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Glenn Beck demonstrates what is wrong with American politics
Here we see an entertainer overacting his way through a performance about my country. This guy is promoting his product. He looks and sounds like a charlatan preacher ala Ernest Angley or Jimmy Swaggart riffing on politics rather than Jesus. I am amazed that there are people who think there is substance to his message. There is substance, but the substance is promoting himself with cheap dramatic performances on serious issues that have real consequences. Oh, and he's a crybaby:
Friday, March 20, 2009
AIG bonus flap
What the fuck are we talking about here? $165 million? A flap over a mere $165 million in cash is bringing our executive and legislative branches of government to a halt while the people of the USofA are losing their jobs, homes and hope. What a shame that this AIG triviality has become issue one. A crying shame.
As I understand it the series of events goes something like this:
Last year the Bush Treasury Department and Federal Reserve, with the very active participation of Tim Geithner acted to prop up AIG with TARP money requested by Bush and approved by Congress. There were virtually no strings attached to this cash by Congress, the Fed or the Treasury at that time. The billions 'bailout' cash was paid out in exchange for a large stake in the company but with no specific directives on how that cash must be spent/invested. AIG management (which was left almost entirely in place) decided to pay themselves some hefty bonuses.
After the inauguration the Obama Administration and the Congress considered putting some restrictions on bonuses in the 'stimulus' bill, later dubbed the American Recovery Act (or something like that). This act is separate from the TARP legislation signed by Bush. Geithner (together with Senate leaders) agreed to take the restrictions out for expediency and because it would likely be challenged in court as an illegal override of TARP.
Now that the press echo chamber has made these bonuses the dramatic storyline of this week, the Congress and the Administration stopped nearly all other action to express indignation and pass some likely illegal legislation to tax the bonuses and recoup the few million dollars.
Enough already! This money is peanuts. The money is gone. Say goodbye to it and move on, please. Secretary Geithener and President Obama ought to be focusing on reforming, re-regulating and re-capitalizing our crumbling financial system. Republicans are shameless but they should be ashamed of themselves for making an mountain of this molehill. The press and the American public shouldn't be expected to know better, because....well....they are sheep.
As I understand it the series of events goes something like this:
Last year the Bush Treasury Department and Federal Reserve, with the very active participation of Tim Geithner acted to prop up AIG with TARP money requested by Bush and approved by Congress. There were virtually no strings attached to this cash by Congress, the Fed or the Treasury at that time. The billions 'bailout' cash was paid out in exchange for a large stake in the company but with no specific directives on how that cash must be spent/invested. AIG management (which was left almost entirely in place) decided to pay themselves some hefty bonuses.
After the inauguration the Obama Administration and the Congress considered putting some restrictions on bonuses in the 'stimulus' bill, later dubbed the American Recovery Act (or something like that). This act is separate from the TARP legislation signed by Bush. Geithner (together with Senate leaders) agreed to take the restrictions out for expediency and because it would likely be challenged in court as an illegal override of TARP.
Now that the press echo chamber has made these bonuses the dramatic storyline of this week, the Congress and the Administration stopped nearly all other action to express indignation and pass some likely illegal legislation to tax the bonuses and recoup the few million dollars.
Enough already! This money is peanuts. The money is gone. Say goodbye to it and move on, please. Secretary Geithener and President Obama ought to be focusing on reforming, re-regulating and re-capitalizing our crumbling financial system. Republicans are shameless but they should be ashamed of themselves for making an mountain of this molehill. The press and the American public shouldn't be expected to know better, because....well....they are sheep.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
TalkingpointBuzzwordKeyword Free Association
spending pork
stimulus sex pork
internet Al Gore 'internets'
regulation socialism
opposition partisan obstructionist
hope Obama
taxes bad
taxcuts alwaysgood
Reagan God
Clinton sex lie blow bubble
GeorgeW conservative notconservative
history rewrite
deficit theirfault
government us them
stimulus sex pork
internet Al Gore 'internets'
regulation socialism
opposition partisan obstructionist
hope Obama
taxes bad
taxcuts alwaysgood
Reagan God
Clinton sex lie blow bubble
GeorgeW conservative notconservative
history rewrite
deficit theirfault
government us them
Friday, March 06, 2009
Galbraith vs the Administration
James K Galbraith's testimony from last week
Professor Galbraith spoke last week about the chances of success of the policies of the current Administration. I tend to agree with Galbraith, as I think he is the rightful carrier of the genius that came from his father. In this testimony (which should be read for context) he says that the 'stimulus' is too small, the bank plan will not work, and the home loan rescue plan will work. He's so cool, but this does put Galbraith in the position of disagreeing with my new boyfriend Tim Geithner. I must rationalize this because I admire these two guys.
Geithner's plan is not ideal but it appears to be politically possible. Galbraith's ideas are rational and sound, but politically unattractive. Galbraith advocates an FDR-style federal takeover of troubled banks and the bad assets they hold. That's a great idea that will not happen any time soon because the American public is not yet ready to consider such a radical idea. Hell, the conservative thinkers (and the public who follow them) think the current plan is somewhat Marxist already. Maybe things need to get worse before a sensible plan like Galbraith's has any chance of receiving due consideration.
Meanwhile, Geither has to deal with the political realities as well as economic ones. That's a very harsh couple of realities to work within. I wish Tim the hottie all the balls and wood he will need to do his good works.
Professor Galbraith spoke last week about the chances of success of the policies of the current Administration. I tend to agree with Galbraith, as I think he is the rightful carrier of the genius that came from his father. In this testimony (which should be read for context) he says that the 'stimulus' is too small, the bank plan will not work, and the home loan rescue plan will work. He's so cool, but this does put Galbraith in the position of disagreeing with my new boyfriend Tim Geithner. I must rationalize this because I admire these two guys.
Geithner's plan is not ideal but it appears to be politically possible. Galbraith's ideas are rational and sound, but politically unattractive. Galbraith advocates an FDR-style federal takeover of troubled banks and the bad assets they hold. That's a great idea that will not happen any time soon because the American public is not yet ready to consider such a radical idea. Hell, the conservative thinkers (and the public who follow them) think the current plan is somewhat Marxist already. Maybe things need to get worse before a sensible plan like Galbraith's has any chance of receiving due consideration.
Meanwhile, Geither has to deal with the political realities as well as economic ones. That's a very harsh couple of realities to work within. I wish Tim the hottie all the balls and wood he will need to do his good works.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Geithner the hottie
I watched a bit of Tim Geithner's testimony yesterday. I had to stop when they got to the portion where Republicans speak at him without the benefit of a response from the Secretary. Damn, he's hot! So very smart. The man is impressive in this setting, and some of the Republicans filled the room with their disdain for his "articulate testimony". They were showing their jealousy for the power held by the new Administration and their disrespect for someone with brains and the ability to express himself. What a shame.
It is a shame because Tim Geithner is on very solid ground with his understanding of macroeconomics policy and financial markets. It is a shame because we are pretty fucked, and Republicans threw their philosphies at the pragmatist before them rather than engage him in real discussion. I hope they are simply posturing for the cameras and will endeavor to speak and listen when the cameras are off. It seems that listening and considering the ideas of the new Administration is a tough pill for them to swallow.
It is a shame because Tim Geithner is on very solid ground with his understanding of macroeconomics policy and financial markets. It is a shame because we are pretty fucked, and Republicans threw their philosphies at the pragmatist before them rather than engage him in real discussion. I hope they are simply posturing for the cameras and will endeavor to speak and listen when the cameras are off. It seems that listening and considering the ideas of the new Administration is a tough pill for them to swallow.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
jealousy
It was obvious that many righties are feeling jealous of President Obama. They bemoan the admiration he is receiving as 'worship'. A cute way of doing this is to say something along the lines of "I have a savior and his name is Jee-sus, not Obama".
I can remember feeling that way at the height of Reagan's popularity. I can vividly remember feeling that way about W Bush's popularity. The strange thing is I can't remember how very obnoxious I must have been about it. I felt VERY angry about the adulation they were receiving given the damage I knew they were doing to my country.
One thing I'm sure of is that I didn't invoke Jesus, the right wing owns that icon.
I can remember feeling that way at the height of Reagan's popularity. I can vividly remember feeling that way about W Bush's popularity. The strange thing is I can't remember how very obnoxious I must have been about it. I felt VERY angry about the adulation they were receiving given the damage I knew they were doing to my country.
One thing I'm sure of is that I didn't invoke Jesus, the right wing owns that icon.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
If...and only if...reasonable prospect that...
“If actions taken by the administration, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve are successful in restoring some measure of financial stability — and only if that is the case, in my view — there is a reasonable prospect that the current recession will end in 2009 and that 2010 will be a year of recovery.” Nice quote from Ben Bernanke today. Like a good chair should.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
This stimulus ain't very stimulative
Heh heh. This is a great word for a punch line. Boy, how we love those. No matter how serious a problem, no matter how complex an issue, all of them can be reduced to a one-liner. The downward spiral of the international economy may be one of the best examples ever. This is an incredibly complicated set of circumstances that have created equally complicated government policy choices for our politicians. Fortunately, the mass of voters can reduce the whole thing down to a "stimulus" comment that hints at boners and orgasms.
Strictly speaking, this current bill is necessary but it is not very stimulative in the economic sense. The US economy is GDP or Gross Domestic Product, a measure of total spending. Stimulative policies are those that add to GDP or spending.
Conservatives like to say ('think' is not the right word here) that tax cuts are stimulative because they stimulate consumers to invest and spend. This is bullshit, especially in a deflationary spiral like we find ourselves in right now. In economic conditions such as we face now, most rational consumers (Conservatives are the opposite of rational) either put any extra cash in reserve or they use it to pay down debt. Very little of it is spent, creating very little stimulation to the economy. Also, precious little is invested in anything that might create spending or jobs.
In the real world, the best way to create spending (add to GDP) is to SPEND!!!! This would seem obvious to anyone who is thinking, but conservatives do not habitate the thinking side of the universe. Political reality being what it is, the moderate Democrats and Republicans who negotiated the 'stimulus' package had to dedicate a fair portion of the total dollar figure to tax breaks. Regardless of how good or bad the tax breaks are, they are not stimulative.
The spending that was included in the package is mostly dedicated to aid to unemployed (and other people directly impacted by the downward spiral) and cash paid out to the states to help make up their revenue losses. This spending is good, but not particularly stimulative. The purpose and result of this is mostly to prevent further erosion of spending rather than increase it. It should help stop the bleeding, but is unlikely to bring about healing.
I think the bill signed into law by Obama this week is good, but I think more will be needed. We have strengthened the floor so that the economy will (hopefully) not fall much further. To really get us up off the floor will require another infusion of government debt to be spent on job creation. I hope the Democratic leaders will forget this 'bi-partisan' nonsense and do what is wise. Republicans are wrong, their opinions should be completely ignored.
Strictly speaking, this current bill is necessary but it is not very stimulative in the economic sense. The US economy is GDP or Gross Domestic Product, a measure of total spending. Stimulative policies are those that add to GDP or spending.
Conservatives like to say ('think' is not the right word here) that tax cuts are stimulative because they stimulate consumers to invest and spend. This is bullshit, especially in a deflationary spiral like we find ourselves in right now. In economic conditions such as we face now, most rational consumers (Conservatives are the opposite of rational) either put any extra cash in reserve or they use it to pay down debt. Very little of it is spent, creating very little stimulation to the economy. Also, precious little is invested in anything that might create spending or jobs.
In the real world, the best way to create spending (add to GDP) is to SPEND!!!! This would seem obvious to anyone who is thinking, but conservatives do not habitate the thinking side of the universe. Political reality being what it is, the moderate Democrats and Republicans who negotiated the 'stimulus' package had to dedicate a fair portion of the total dollar figure to tax breaks. Regardless of how good or bad the tax breaks are, they are not stimulative.
The spending that was included in the package is mostly dedicated to aid to unemployed (and other people directly impacted by the downward spiral) and cash paid out to the states to help make up their revenue losses. This spending is good, but not particularly stimulative. The purpose and result of this is mostly to prevent further erosion of spending rather than increase it. It should help stop the bleeding, but is unlikely to bring about healing.
I think the bill signed into law by Obama this week is good, but I think more will be needed. We have strengthened the floor so that the economy will (hopefully) not fall much further. To really get us up off the floor will require another infusion of government debt to be spent on job creation. I hope the Democratic leaders will forget this 'bi-partisan' nonsense and do what is wise. Republicans are wrong, their opinions should be completely ignored.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Dramatic Financial Meltdown - Frontline
PBS is currently broadcasting a great dramatic one-hour summary of the financial events of 2008:
Frontline - Inside the Meltdown
This has been my obsession for the last six months, and it kept me awake last night worrying about the rest of this year for the world financial system. The events are edited down to a compelling hour, but it could have easily been two hours. Perhaps they will do a second part of this after the pragmatic Obama Administration has had an opportunity to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
This series of market failures has radicalized me. My left-leaning philosophy has become clearer and even more leftward than it has ever been. The corporate financial structure of the United States is becoming more government controlled by osmosis and the course of events. This is not something that has happened because people wish it to be so, but because it must be so. The conversion of Henry Paulson from free market fundamentalist to interventionist has been astounding, and the Frontline presentation of this is stark and accurate.
A wise person I know recently compared the human mind to underwear, changing it is necessary from time to time. He also intimated that information and the application of logic should be catalysts for mind changing. In the case of Henry Paulson, events played a bigger part. Shit happened and the only rational, pragmatic response was socialistic. Paulson's first instinct was to let his philosophy of free market fundamentalism guide his actions. These actions failed and he learned from this.
I hope the thinking American voters will learn some of the lessons Paulson learned, but I doubt the 'independent' voters and Republican base can do this. That is what kept me from sleeping soundly last night
Frontline - Inside the Meltdown
This has been my obsession for the last six months, and it kept me awake last night worrying about the rest of this year for the world financial system. The events are edited down to a compelling hour, but it could have easily been two hours. Perhaps they will do a second part of this after the pragmatic Obama Administration has had an opportunity to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
This series of market failures has radicalized me. My left-leaning philosophy has become clearer and even more leftward than it has ever been. The corporate financial structure of the United States is becoming more government controlled by osmosis and the course of events. This is not something that has happened because people wish it to be so, but because it must be so. The conversion of Henry Paulson from free market fundamentalist to interventionist has been astounding, and the Frontline presentation of this is stark and accurate.
A wise person I know recently compared the human mind to underwear, changing it is necessary from time to time. He also intimated that information and the application of logic should be catalysts for mind changing. In the case of Henry Paulson, events played a bigger part. Shit happened and the only rational, pragmatic response was socialistic. Paulson's first instinct was to let his philosophy of free market fundamentalism guide his actions. These actions failed and he learned from this.
I hope the thinking American voters will learn some of the lessons Paulson learned, but I doubt the 'independent' voters and Republican base can do this. That is what kept me from sleeping soundly last night
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Fair Tax
A few senior members of my extended family have recently stated their support for this idea on Facebook. Since I'm always looking for a fight, here goes. Please feel free to shred my ideas or correct my misperceptions of the Fair Tax.
First, the good news. "Fair Tax" is a great name. Hard to argue with the word "fair", but really hard to define the concept of fairness especially in the context of the vast generalisations needed in terms of federal tax policy. Wiping away the current system is a very attractive idea because the current system was not designed, but evolved. People of all political stripes can find many things about the current tax code to hate, I'm no exception.
I'm basing my rebuttal on my ideally fair (but totally unworkable) federal tax system, and a brief review of the fairtax.org website. My ideally (but unworkable) fair federal tax system would be an annual tax bill, collected by the IRS, as a percentage of average personal wealth over the tax year. Taxes are fair when the are maximally progressive; from each according to means, to each according to needs. This framework of fairness puts my plan right on the same individual philosophical ground as the Fair Tax. Of course, measuring average average wealth over a year is impossible but a nice theoretical model. More generally, I think taxes should be more federal and less local, and more progressive based on wealth rather than income. It would essentially be a property taxed based on total holdings including real estate. Every tax payer would file a quarterly balance sheet and would be taxed an amount based on a graduated scale. Again, unworkable but a nice dream.
My understanding is that the Fair Tax is essentially a national retail sales tax (as most states now have), administered by the states and paid to the federal government. This is progressive at the bottom of the wealth scale with a 'prebate' (cool word) to poor people that is intended to keep them from paying federal taxes. It is regressive at the high end of the wealth scale because rich people consume a smaller percentage of their wealth than everyone else, so they pay a smaller percentage of their wealth than those in the middle. This means that the bulk of the burden rests with the middle class, just where it is now. I would prefer to see the burden pushed up the wealth scale.
Philosophically this is federalist in the current usage of that word, meaning driven by the states. I'm opposed to that, as I prefer the federalist philosophy pushed by Alexander Hamilton which wanted a very strong central government both politically and financially.
First, the good news. "Fair Tax" is a great name. Hard to argue with the word "fair", but really hard to define the concept of fairness especially in the context of the vast generalisations needed in terms of federal tax policy. Wiping away the current system is a very attractive idea because the current system was not designed, but evolved. People of all political stripes can find many things about the current tax code to hate, I'm no exception.
I'm basing my rebuttal on my ideally fair (but totally unworkable) federal tax system, and a brief review of the fairtax.org website. My ideally (but unworkable) fair federal tax system would be an annual tax bill, collected by the IRS, as a percentage of average personal wealth over the tax year. Taxes are fair when the are maximally progressive; from each according to means, to each according to needs. This framework of fairness puts my plan right on the same individual philosophical ground as the Fair Tax. Of course, measuring average average wealth over a year is impossible but a nice theoretical model. More generally, I think taxes should be more federal and less local, and more progressive based on wealth rather than income. It would essentially be a property taxed based on total holdings including real estate. Every tax payer would file a quarterly balance sheet and would be taxed an amount based on a graduated scale. Again, unworkable but a nice dream.
My understanding is that the Fair Tax is essentially a national retail sales tax (as most states now have), administered by the states and paid to the federal government. This is progressive at the bottom of the wealth scale with a 'prebate' (cool word) to poor people that is intended to keep them from paying federal taxes. It is regressive at the high end of the wealth scale because rich people consume a smaller percentage of their wealth than everyone else, so they pay a smaller percentage of their wealth than those in the middle. This means that the bulk of the burden rests with the middle class, just where it is now. I would prefer to see the burden pushed up the wealth scale.
Philosophically this is federalist in the current usage of that word, meaning driven by the states. I'm opposed to that, as I prefer the federalist philosophy pushed by Alexander Hamilton which wanted a very strong central government both politically and financially.
Geithner's balls and brains, part 2
I really feel for this guy. He looked and sounded so very scared in his appearances this week. The text of his testimony and interviews sound tentative and afraid. That's with good reason. There is a massive multi-trillion dollar monkey on his back that is called 'toxic assets' in the current vernacular. Everyone from the President of the United States, through the leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress, to every economist with an opinion (which is all of them) is willing to let Timothy Geithner be the lone soul responsible for this nearly impossible problem. The burden is heavier than any in the world right now, and I greatly admire the balls it took for him to accept this challenge.
I don't blame him for looking tentative. The political reality is that the US is not willing or able to consider bank nationalization yet. The toxic assets are still little understood, little discussed in the general public, and are a far way from the 'transparency' the President talks about incessantly. I don't think he has a chance of succeeding, but am watching with very interested eyes and brain cells.
Geithner is trying to simultaneously reassure Congressional leaders, the street, the President, foreign investors and himself that these assets have value, that private buyers will want them, that taxpayers will get off without spending much more, and that FDIC examiners will confirm the health of the banks' balance sheets. I am sure that one or more of these items will not meet expectations. I'm not Limbaughian enough to wish him failure, but I'm not entirely optimistic. Godspeed to you, Secretary Geithner. We need this to work in some way.
I don't blame him for looking tentative. The political reality is that the US is not willing or able to consider bank nationalization yet. The toxic assets are still little understood, little discussed in the general public, and are a far way from the 'transparency' the President talks about incessantly. I don't think he has a chance of succeeding, but am watching with very interested eyes and brain cells.
Geithner is trying to simultaneously reassure Congressional leaders, the street, the President, foreign investors and himself that these assets have value, that private buyers will want them, that taxpayers will get off without spending much more, and that FDIC examiners will confirm the health of the banks' balance sheets. I am sure that one or more of these items will not meet expectations. I'm not Limbaughian enough to wish him failure, but I'm not entirely optimistic. Godspeed to you, Secretary Geithner. We need this to work in some way.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Bow just about tied
...on the 'stimulus' bill. Bits and pieces of information are leaking out. It looks like Obama gave a little bit on his 'signature' taxbreak to all workers. I didn't like the idea of it from the beginning, but understand that he was a big vote producer and his is obliged to follow through. It seems like some of the stupid tax breaks were cut back or eliminated. The ones allowing giving consumers a kickback for buying a car or a house seems nearly as foolish as the corporate tax refund provision. They kept the refund provision in for smaller businesses, that's good. They slashed the aid to states by a fair amount, which kinda sucks. I would have liked to have seen more cash for them and for education spending.
I still don't know what the hell Republicans are talking about with their standard line bitching about 'Washington spending'. Most of the cash spent is going into tax breaks that they love and to the states. You know the states, the ones that aren't in Washington. My guess is that they are simply posturing for the next round of complaints they will make regardless of the good or evil that is done by this bill. The bitching will be exactly the same regardless of the situation. "Big gubment", "spending as far as the eye can see", "typical Washington insider deals"...blah blah blah blah puke ralph.
In the end, I think this will do some good to the economy. The downward spiral caused by Republicans will be slowed considerably.
I still don't know what the hell Republicans are talking about with their standard line bitching about 'Washington spending'. Most of the cash spent is going into tax breaks that they love and to the states. You know the states, the ones that aren't in Washington. My guess is that they are simply posturing for the next round of complaints they will make regardless of the good or evil that is done by this bill. The bitching will be exactly the same regardless of the situation. "Big gubment", "spending as far as the eye can see", "typical Washington insider deals"...blah blah blah blah puke ralph.
In the end, I think this will do some good to the economy. The downward spiral caused by Republicans will be slowed considerably.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Geithner's big brain and balls
I'm seriously crushing on this guy. Barack Obama's task is simple in comparison to his. Tim Geithner made a long-promised brief speech this morning where he was asked to lay out a comprehensive plan to reform the US financial markets. That's a big, big gulp. This is a task that has more complicated constituencies and shifting sands than the big idea platitudes that President Obama deals in.
Tim Geithner has a vision of saving the guts of our private banking system, while pumping massive amounts of government cash into the machinery. His plan for removing 'toxic assets' from the books of the country's banks is breathtaking in its courage and optimism. He must cajole Congress and private financiers into believing in a very complicated, techincal idea that is absent of the types of philosophical ideals that leaders always rely upon to gain applause, win votes and sell product.
The 'bad bank' idea and the consumer lending pool are not exactly sexy, but getting these things up and running are the big big bet that we all need to pay off. There's no other horse in our race.
Tim Geithner has a vision of saving the guts of our private banking system, while pumping massive amounts of government cash into the machinery. His plan for removing 'toxic assets' from the books of the country's banks is breathtaking in its courage and optimism. He must cajole Congress and private financiers into believing in a very complicated, techincal idea that is absent of the types of philosophical ideals that leaders always rely upon to gain applause, win votes and sell product.
The 'bad bank' idea and the consumer lending pool are not exactly sexy, but getting these things up and running are the big big bet that we all need to pay off. There's no other horse in our race.
Monday, February 09, 2009
I might blow Obama
As I write this, the President is conducting a press conference to discuss the status of the stimulus package or 'reinvestment and recovery act' or whatever we are calling this huge spending bill. I am terribly impressed with this man. He understands what is going on in the economy. He has been listening and he's able to explain things simply and clearly. We could not have a better guy in charge at this point. Even bigger, he is a Democrat.
Democrats are the party of pragmatism now. Throw free market fundamentalist philosphic priciples out the window, roll up your sleeves, think, and take government action that will help the citizens of the country. This is fresh and I love it.
It will work. Not quickly, because the hole dug by the fundamentalists is deep. But it will work. I expect the downward spiral to bottom out by the end of the summer.
Democrats are the party of pragmatism now. Throw free market fundamentalist philosphic priciples out the window, roll up your sleeves, think, and take government action that will help the citizens of the country. This is fresh and I love it.
It will work. Not quickly, because the hole dug by the fundamentalists is deep. But it will work. I expect the downward spiral to bottom out by the end of the summer.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Bipartisan this
I've been watching the speeches from the Senate floor this evening. The deal has been cut for 2 or 3 Republicans to vote for the stimulus package. The Republican leaders who spoke in opposition to the bill are violently opposed. They believe the sky is falling. I am gratified that President Obama's words of bipartisan compromise have not come to fruition. Republicans are wrong about economics. They should be relegated to whining and complaining when matters are serious. Massive spending is needed because we are in a nasty downward spiral. This is not a normal cyclical slowdown or recession that will right itself.
This spending in this bill is small in relation to what is needed. But Congress will have a chance to increase it via the normal budgeting process in the late spring. I hope the Democrats realize that the Republicans as a whole are not going to cooperate in anything that is put forth. Bipartisanship is not how the US government works. It never was and with any luck, it never will be.
This spending in this bill is small in relation to what is needed. But Congress will have a chance to increase it via the normal budgeting process in the late spring. I hope the Democrats realize that the Republicans as a whole are not going to cooperate in anything that is put forth. Bipartisanship is not how the US government works. It never was and with any luck, it never will be.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Stimulus debate continues with more stupid ideas
Part 2 from my previous entry. A very smart friend suggest that the government should just pay employers outright to hire people - $20,000 for each new hire. This is foolish, because employers are likely to react to this by hiring people to do little or nothing. For the government spending to get the economy going, it needs to be spent on something productive.
The same intelligent friend also said that all the stimulus spending would go 'straight to the Chinese' because we buy all our stuff from them. He was drunk, so I will cut some slack but still...this is just stupid.
Senate Republicans (supported by all Democrats) passed an amendment to the bill yesterday to 'fix housing first'. This would provide a $15,000 tax credit to anyone who purchases a home. It is estimated to cost $20 Billion. While this would certainly move some houses in the near term, it has little foresight. Homeowners whose jobs are in peril are not good risks. Too many homebuyers with too many incentives to buy is largely what caused the problems. This amendment came from the same Republican group who thought the House bill was too expensive, so they decided that adding $20 Billion more to it was just the right prescription. Afterall, tax credits are good spending is bad...or some such stupidity.
What's needed is just what the President proposed just after the election. Build up the safety net by extending and increasing Unemployment Insurance benefits. Prop up state budgets with free cash so they don't have to slash to the bone. Spend on infrastructure as soon as possible. I hope he sticks to his guns and the Congress goes along with it.
The same intelligent friend also said that all the stimulus spending would go 'straight to the Chinese' because we buy all our stuff from them. He was drunk, so I will cut some slack but still...this is just stupid.
Senate Republicans (supported by all Democrats) passed an amendment to the bill yesterday to 'fix housing first'. This would provide a $15,000 tax credit to anyone who purchases a home. It is estimated to cost $20 Billion. While this would certainly move some houses in the near term, it has little foresight. Homeowners whose jobs are in peril are not good risks. Too many homebuyers with too many incentives to buy is largely what caused the problems. This amendment came from the same Republican group who thought the House bill was too expensive, so they decided that adding $20 Billion more to it was just the right prescription. Afterall, tax credits are good spending is bad...or some such stupidity.
What's needed is just what the President proposed just after the election. Build up the safety net by extending and increasing Unemployment Insurance benefits. Prop up state budgets with free cash so they don't have to slash to the bone. Spend on infrastructure as soon as possible. I hope he sticks to his guns and the Congress goes along with it.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
'the end of capitalism?'
Last week I had two intelligent people engage me on the current economic/political stew. I didn't answer either one of them fully, because to do sound would surely make me seem pompous. Since this blog is the perfect outlet for pomposity, here goes...
'Some people say this is the end of capitalism'. Yeah, I've heard some people say this as well. This is the same idea from the right wing that says that Obama is a socialist/communist. I'm a liberal leaning toward socialist, and not entirely comfortable with the newly fashionable label of progressive. This is an accusation that is tossed out as if one-word name-calling is really worth the Scott's tissue it is printed on. You cannot boil down complex historical events, sociological and economic philosophy, and government policy into one-word accusations. Well, actually you can but it is an oversimplification. In the not-too-distant past when Democrats resisted Republican efforts to pass legislation they were accused of being 'obstructionist', 'partisan' and other such simplistic words. Again, this is an oversimplification. The late Spiro Agnew coined the cute phrase 'nattering nabobs of negativism' to throw at those who opposed Nixon, and it largely worked.
Now we have the Congressional Democrats and President Obama trying to put some policies in place to repair the damage done by the 'free market' philosophy of the Republican Party. This philosophy has led to nearly unfettered speculation in the financial markets over the last 15 years plus. Yes, Clinton was partly at fault as was Carter. They were both 'free market' guys who strongly believed in deregulation of financial markets. This deregulation led to all kinds of loose loans that blew up in our collective face in 2008. The GW Bush Administration had plenty of warning about this, but as it was the most hardcore right wing 'free market' fundamentalist group in the White House since Reagan they could or would not do anything to regulate the markets.
When things blew up on them, they were forced by the reality of the situation to ask Congress for the $750 Billion TARP "bailout" in the fall. This was against their ideology, but they held their nose because reality trumped ideology. Congress approved the cash and the Bushies stuck to part of the ideological guns by giving the 1st half of the cash to financially strapped corporations with no strings attached. Collapse was averted, but the money is mostly unaccounted for. The Bushies stuck to their ideological roots in that they think oversight of the institutions who receive the taxpayer cash would be too 'big gubment' or just 'free market' enough for their blood.
Now the Obama Administration is suggesting that the 2nd half of the cash should have some strings attached to it when the corporations receive taxpayer money. This idea is more socialist than the Bush actions because it means that the 'big gubment' would have a say in what the corporations do with the money.
On the Stimulus Bill (currently being debated), the Democratic ideas are also more socialist and less capitalist than the Republican ideas. The Dems prefer to spend taxpayer money on improving schools, roads, transportation, etc. while Repubs prefer to eliminate all taxes that they can get away with. Socialism implies that the society work together to solve common problems, while capitalism implies that society is useless and that only individual hard work and greed can solve anything. I'm exaggerating, but not much.
Remembering that I'm a leftie, the Democratic ideas are far more practical in this case. What the Stimulus Bill should do is provide a floor or saftey net so people don't fall into deeper personal financial problems, and pump some cash into the economy to get people spending again. The credit and capital (Wall Street) problems should be addressed by the TARP money via the Federal Reserve and the Treasury.
The reason that tax cuts alone are not practical is because the way the Repubs want this to happen is that companies would get tax breaks to hire people and buy equipment, and individuals who have income from their work or riches would pay less in taxes. The business tax breaks would get companies to hire and buy, but they would likely do so in a way that would not be terribly productive. Kickbacks for hiring people (if they are too large) would lead to jobs being created where people do little work or 'busy work'. Kickbacks for purchases would lead companies to buy stuff they really don't need. Tax cuts to individuals who are making a decent living already would generate a little consumer spending, but much of it would go into savings - that's not very helpful for getting things moving.
The Dem options are better not because of capitalism vs socialism ideology, but because they are more practical. Adding to the saftey net for people out of work and otherwise hurting at the bottom of the income scale does have a feel good element, but this cash is more likely to get spent than the Republican tax cuts. It would also help prevent further problems like foreclosures and evictions which ripple through the economy in a very nasty way.
The spending of infrastructure is practical because it creates jobs that make the entire economy work better. Schools, roads, more efficient energy production just makes obvious sense. The tricky part here is getting the projects going quickly, and unfortunately this will lead to some waste. You know, haste being what it is.
There are also some big differences between Dems and Repubs on how they want to help the states. The Dems want to simply give money to them, while Repubs want to loan states the money. That's not so much a capitalism vs socialism thing, and my fingers are cramping up. So I'll stop here.
'Some people say this is the end of capitalism'. Yeah, I've heard some people say this as well. This is the same idea from the right wing that says that Obama is a socialist/communist. I'm a liberal leaning toward socialist, and not entirely comfortable with the newly fashionable label of progressive. This is an accusation that is tossed out as if one-word name-calling is really worth the Scott's tissue it is printed on. You cannot boil down complex historical events, sociological and economic philosophy, and government policy into one-word accusations. Well, actually you can but it is an oversimplification. In the not-too-distant past when Democrats resisted Republican efforts to pass legislation they were accused of being 'obstructionist', 'partisan' and other such simplistic words. Again, this is an oversimplification. The late Spiro Agnew coined the cute phrase 'nattering nabobs of negativism' to throw at those who opposed Nixon, and it largely worked.
Now we have the Congressional Democrats and President Obama trying to put some policies in place to repair the damage done by the 'free market' philosophy of the Republican Party. This philosophy has led to nearly unfettered speculation in the financial markets over the last 15 years plus. Yes, Clinton was partly at fault as was Carter. They were both 'free market' guys who strongly believed in deregulation of financial markets. This deregulation led to all kinds of loose loans that blew up in our collective face in 2008. The GW Bush Administration had plenty of warning about this, but as it was the most hardcore right wing 'free market' fundamentalist group in the White House since Reagan they could or would not do anything to regulate the markets.
When things blew up on them, they were forced by the reality of the situation to ask Congress for the $750 Billion TARP "bailout" in the fall. This was against their ideology, but they held their nose because reality trumped ideology. Congress approved the cash and the Bushies stuck to part of the ideological guns by giving the 1st half of the cash to financially strapped corporations with no strings attached. Collapse was averted, but the money is mostly unaccounted for. The Bushies stuck to their ideological roots in that they think oversight of the institutions who receive the taxpayer cash would be too 'big gubment' or just 'free market' enough for their blood.
Now the Obama Administration is suggesting that the 2nd half of the cash should have some strings attached to it when the corporations receive taxpayer money. This idea is more socialist than the Bush actions because it means that the 'big gubment' would have a say in what the corporations do with the money.
On the Stimulus Bill (currently being debated), the Democratic ideas are also more socialist and less capitalist than the Republican ideas. The Dems prefer to spend taxpayer money on improving schools, roads, transportation, etc. while Repubs prefer to eliminate all taxes that they can get away with. Socialism implies that the society work together to solve common problems, while capitalism implies that society is useless and that only individual hard work and greed can solve anything. I'm exaggerating, but not much.
Remembering that I'm a leftie, the Democratic ideas are far more practical in this case. What the Stimulus Bill should do is provide a floor or saftey net so people don't fall into deeper personal financial problems, and pump some cash into the economy to get people spending again. The credit and capital (Wall Street) problems should be addressed by the TARP money via the Federal Reserve and the Treasury.
The reason that tax cuts alone are not practical is because the way the Repubs want this to happen is that companies would get tax breaks to hire people and buy equipment, and individuals who have income from their work or riches would pay less in taxes. The business tax breaks would get companies to hire and buy, but they would likely do so in a way that would not be terribly productive. Kickbacks for hiring people (if they are too large) would lead to jobs being created where people do little work or 'busy work'. Kickbacks for purchases would lead companies to buy stuff they really don't need. Tax cuts to individuals who are making a decent living already would generate a little consumer spending, but much of it would go into savings - that's not very helpful for getting things moving.
The Dem options are better not because of capitalism vs socialism ideology, but because they are more practical. Adding to the saftey net for people out of work and otherwise hurting at the bottom of the income scale does have a feel good element, but this cash is more likely to get spent than the Republican tax cuts. It would also help prevent further problems like foreclosures and evictions which ripple through the economy in a very nasty way.
The spending of infrastructure is practical because it creates jobs that make the entire economy work better. Schools, roads, more efficient energy production just makes obvious sense. The tricky part here is getting the projects going quickly, and unfortunately this will lead to some waste. You know, haste being what it is.
There are also some big differences between Dems and Repubs on how they want to help the states. The Dems want to simply give money to them, while Repubs want to loan states the money. That's not so much a capitalism vs socialism thing, and my fingers are cramping up. So I'll stop here.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Limbaughconomics
In the interest of making a snarky attempt at bi-partisan balance and fairness, I offer a link to Rush Limbaugh's prescription for the 'stimulus' bill http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html and a compliment. Rush Limbaugh has a very deep speaking voice.
But seriously, folks. Ew...I just used Limbaugh-type language. I feel dirty. I didn't mean to call anyone a folk. That's just too...yuck. What I find fascinating about Rushie is that his ideas and rap (especially this one) is so full of stupid, unworkable policy ideas that I think he is not being serious. He has always seemed like a comedian to me. A comedian who's words are believed and repeated by the majority of radio talk show hosts, and repeated again as serious by countless Americans who listen to talk radio for some daily entertainment.
But seriously, folks. Ew...I just used Limbaugh-type language. I feel dirty. I didn't mean to call anyone a folk. That's just too...yuck. What I find fascinating about Rushie is that his ideas and rap (especially this one) is so full of stupid, unworkable policy ideas that I think he is not being serious. He has always seemed like a comedian to me. A comedian who's words are believed and repeated by the majority of radio talk show hosts, and repeated again as serious by countless Americans who listen to talk radio for some daily entertainment.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Best economic news yet
On the heels of Tim Geithner's confirmation as Treasury Secretary, and Obama's attempts to work out a stimulus deal with two visits to Capitol Hill thus far; comes the news that the Federal Reserve will renegotiate mortgages in its possession from the Bear Stearns and AIG rescues. This is a great precedent, although it is outside of the understanding of the average Republican voter and radio talk show listener, it means that they Fed will renegotiate troubled individual mortgages to mitigate (or 'prevent' for the average Limbaugh listener) foreclosure.
I expect this is just another step in the right direction; a step that can be taken with the Bush assholes out of the way. Even better, the Fed intends to make this the beginning of a program to slow the foreclosure landside observed by the Bush Administration with little or no action. This is from the end of an article from Reuters this evening:
I expect this is just another step in the right direction; a step that can be taken with the Bush assholes out of the way. Even better, the Fed intends to make this the beginning of a program to slow the foreclosure landside observed by the Bush Administration with little or no action. This is from the end of an article from Reuters this evening:
The Fed has said it will purchase up to $500 billion of mortgage-backed securities by the end of June to make home loans more affordable to boost demand for houses.
Mortgage-backed securities pool many different mortgages, which makes them extremely tricky to separate in a loan modification designed to prevent foreclosure.
The Fed said it would consider reducing the interest rate paid on mortgages at risk of default, extending the term of the loan, and accepting "a deferral or reduction of the outstanding principal balance of the loan," according to the Fed document.
There's a political context to this photo, but I'm not sure what it is
Big elephant shits on little elephant
Friday, January 23, 2009
Republican Congressional leaders on ending the Bush recession
This morning, House Minority Leader John Boehner said the following stupid thing:
"At the end of the day, the government can't solve this problem. The American people have to solve it. And the way they can solve it is if we allow them to keep more of the money that they earn."
The good news is that he is the MINORITY Leader. The bad news is that this foolishness continues to cross the lips of a person who appears to be educated, intelligent and has some political power. As his own logic points out, government must be involved in solving this problem. Who (or what) but government is going to enact these tax cuts that will solve all our problems? Not only is it illogical, but the economics of the theory are all wrong. Then there's the stupidity of the fallacy that government is against people. So much foolishness in just a few choice words.
In other economic news, incoming Treasury Secretary Geithner (who has a fucking clue) said:
"We are going to need sweeping changes, in regulatory policy, the oversight structure and in our tools for crisis management. There may be a number of ways to achieve this, but steps to be taken in the short-term include bringing standardized products within centralized clearing mechanisms and setting an effective statutory and regulatory framework for regulating all derivatives."
--and--
"I support the goal of having a registration regime for hedge funds because we need greater information and better disclosure in the marketplace. I believe that we should also establish an effective regulatory framework for derivatives dealers."
The good news is that he at least has some understanding of the regulatory shortcomings of the outgoing Bushies. The slightly bad news is that this testimony came in the midst of answering questions about his personal tax screw-up. The man understands the big picture, which is why the country needs him. He was also one of the few government officals who saw this mess coming and spoke out about in far in advance of the destruction only to be ignored by Bush appointees who were wearing rose-colored glasses.
"At the end of the day, the government can't solve this problem. The American people have to solve it. And the way they can solve it is if we allow them to keep more of the money that they earn."
The good news is that he is the MINORITY Leader. The bad news is that this foolishness continues to cross the lips of a person who appears to be educated, intelligent and has some political power. As his own logic points out, government must be involved in solving this problem. Who (or what) but government is going to enact these tax cuts that will solve all our problems? Not only is it illogical, but the economics of the theory are all wrong. Then there's the stupidity of the fallacy that government is against people. So much foolishness in just a few choice words.
In other economic news, incoming Treasury Secretary Geithner (who has a fucking clue) said:
"We are going to need sweeping changes, in regulatory policy, the oversight structure and in our tools for crisis management. There may be a number of ways to achieve this, but steps to be taken in the short-term include bringing standardized products within centralized clearing mechanisms and setting an effective statutory and regulatory framework for regulating all derivatives."
--and--
"I support the goal of having a registration regime for hedge funds because we need greater information and better disclosure in the marketplace. I believe that we should also establish an effective regulatory framework for derivatives dealers."
The good news is that he at least has some understanding of the regulatory shortcomings of the outgoing Bushies. The slightly bad news is that this testimony came in the midst of answering questions about his personal tax screw-up. The man understands the big picture, which is why the country needs him. He was also one of the few government officals who saw this mess coming and spoke out about in far in advance of the destruction only to be ignored by Bush appointees who were wearing rose-colored glasses.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Pro-Death, Pro-Choice Obama
"On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters," said the president. "I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose."
Sweet. I remain committed to using bad language and both sides of spun words to express my views. On this I want to be very clear. Babies are conceived, are grown in, and are born out of the bodies of individual mothers. The laws should respect this natural fact and give them the individual right to choose an abortion.
Sweet. I remain committed to using bad language and both sides of spun words to express my views. On this I want to be very clear. Babies are conceived, are grown in, and are born out of the bodies of individual mothers. The laws should respect this natural fact and give them the individual right to choose an abortion.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
My favorite part of the inaugural speech
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."
Friday, January 16, 2009
This and that
GREAT article here by the great James Galbraith on what a good economic policy would look like:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2009/01/stimulus-is-for-suckers.html
I watched W's farewell speech last night. I could stomach him in this setting, a short scripted speech. Still...I felt some cramps in my stomach. The guy really believed (and still believes) that his childhood Sunday school lessons of good vs evil are applicable to international diplomacy and war. Goodbye, asshole.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2009/01/stimulus-is-for-suckers.html
I watched W's farewell speech last night. I could stomach him in this setting, a short scripted speech. Still...I felt some cramps in my stomach. The guy really believed (and still believes) that his childhood Sunday school lessons of good vs evil are applicable to international diplomacy and war. Goodbye, asshole.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Words killed by partisan rhetoric
My choices of words that have been worn out, and that I wish to go away from political discussion: markets, elite and freedom.
I'm sure I could add to this, this will do for now. These words have been used as weaponry for so long that their meaning is gone.
I'm sure I could add to this, this will do for now. These words have been used as weaponry for so long that their meaning is gone.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
TARP rock and roll
This really is getting exciting.
As Barney Frank issues his draft legislation, the Bush Administration is preparing their formal request for the balance of the $700Billion. If Congress votes their request down, Bush (or Obama) can veto their turndown and the cash will flow into the Treasury. Very dramatic stuff, with HUGE stakes.
We have the clashing of right, left, inside, outside all with high ideals and goals. The health of the US financial system (and consequently the global system), the future political careers of Barney Frank, Tim Geithner, President Obama, and others is also at stake. Its almost like the clashing of musical instruments than could produce anything from total destruction to sublime beauty.
Rock on.
As Barney Frank issues his draft legislation, the Bush Administration is preparing their formal request for the balance of the $700Billion. If Congress votes their request down, Bush (or Obama) can veto their turndown and the cash will flow into the Treasury. Very dramatic stuff, with HUGE stakes.
We have the clashing of right, left, inside, outside all with high ideals and goals. The health of the US financial system (and consequently the global system), the future political careers of Barney Frank, Tim Geithner, President Obama, and others is also at stake. Its almost like the clashing of musical instruments than could produce anything from total destruction to sublime beauty.
Rock on.
Friday, January 09, 2009
I am enjoying this too much
Now THIS is what American political discourse should be about. I am not joking. I love this. The economic debates are mostly substantive, very important, and mostly rational. All the real talk I hear from Washington is about philosophical and practical differences of opinion. Sure, there's some marginally necessary noise about who's to blame for the mess (Barney Frank, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, etc.) and some stupidity about what good and bad buzzwords can be hurled (socialism, facism, eitism, etc.). But personally, the current action is thrilling my heart and mind.
Next week the House will start committee debate on what oversight will occur with the 2nd installment of the TARP funds. Incoming Treasury Secretary Geithner will face the Senate confirmation people by the end of the week. Geithner will likely release his thoughts on how the TARP funds should be monitored.
This really is almost too much fun.
Next week the House will start committee debate on what oversight will occur with the 2nd installment of the TARP funds. Incoming Treasury Secretary Geithner will face the Senate confirmation people by the end of the week. Geithner will likely release his thoughts on how the TARP funds should be monitored.
This really is almost too much fun.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Before the new TV season starts
I watched a bunch of fun stuff yesterday. The best of it was a 1-on-1 interview on CNBC with Pres Obama mostly discussing the economy. The man is speaking plainly and giving it up very straight. That's his best feature at this point. He is playing the moderate executive very well. He is probably a bit too conservative for my partisan blood, but I appreciate the fact that he's an executive not a legislator. And most importantly for your average 'independent' voter, he was embarrassed about the paparazzi shots of his naked chest from Hawaii.
President Obama did address the issue of most interest to me, which is probably the key to my pleasure with the interview. He said that he understood the need for foreclosure prevention to be part of the coming big bill, and has heard some good thoughts from Chris Dodd and Barney Frank on putting the next $350Billion in TARP funds to work on that.
I spent a few minutes watching Sean Hannity trying whine his way past the conservative economists provided by his network for our entertainment. The economists were talking about the tax breaks for poor and middle class people in Obama's plan and while they could not come up with any objections to these ideas, Hannity threw a few keywords out to scoff at the notions. The keywords were redistribution, freedom, big gubment...you get the idea.
I also saw a replay of Ann Coulter's interview with Harry Smith from a few days ago. She's a trip. Trying to be funny and then turning the humor on a dime into nasty, nasty anger is quite a personna. I understand some people like that in a real way. I find her to be compelling like a car wreck.
Obama's speech this morning should be very high level and general. Trying to whip up some excitement for the coming big bill. I don't think excitement is necessary, his hand seems to be very strong. But, what the hell do I know?
President Obama did address the issue of most interest to me, which is probably the key to my pleasure with the interview. He said that he understood the need for foreclosure prevention to be part of the coming big bill, and has heard some good thoughts from Chris Dodd and Barney Frank on putting the next $350Billion in TARP funds to work on that.
I spent a few minutes watching Sean Hannity trying whine his way past the conservative economists provided by his network for our entertainment. The economists were talking about the tax breaks for poor and middle class people in Obama's plan and while they could not come up with any objections to these ideas, Hannity threw a few keywords out to scoff at the notions. The keywords were redistribution, freedom, big gubment...you get the idea.
I also saw a replay of Ann Coulter's interview with Harry Smith from a few days ago. She's a trip. Trying to be funny and then turning the humor on a dime into nasty, nasty anger is quite a personna. I understand some people like that in a real way. I find her to be compelling like a car wreck.
Obama's speech this morning should be very high level and general. Trying to whip up some excitement for the coming big bill. I don't think excitement is necessary, his hand seems to be very strong. But, what the hell do I know?
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Here's the talking points I've been waiting for!
January 7, 2009, 5:31 pm
Barney Frank Lays Out Plan on TARP Limits
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) sent a memo to other lawmakers Wednesday laying out his plan to place limits any future use of money from the Treasury Department’s Trouble Asset Relief Program, known as TARP.
Rep. Frank acknowledged in the memo that many members were frustrated at the way the Bush administration handled the program and promised major changes if the second half of the $700 billion is requested. (he said he thinks it would be useful for the Obama administration to have access to the money). He also said there must be new limits on the money even though he “personally” has “confidence that President Obama would spend the money more wisely and in line with Congressional wishes than it has previously been the case.”
Mr. Frank said he has – with the blessing of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi – proposed to the Obama administration that a new set of “conditions” be placed on the remaining $350 billion. He said the “following elements” were necessary for any future spending:
1) Substantial efforts to reduce foreclosures, including a version of a proposal pushed by Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair to give incentives to lenders to make loans more affordable.
2) Require banks to tell Congress how money received from the government is being used.
3) Strict requirements that any money given to banks would have to be used to “promote systemic stability and increased lending,” including limits on executive bonuses. Also, there would be limits on how the money is used for acquisitions.
4) Use funds to offer mortgages at low and affordable rates.
5) Assist cities and other tax-exempt issuers who are having a hard time finding investors for their general obligation bonds.
6) Explicit authority to make sure funding is available for automobiles.
The House could vote on a version of the plan as soon as next week. – Damian Paletta
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/07/barney-frank-lays-out-plan-on-tarp-limits/trackback/
I'm a bit disappointed, but perhaps the details will be juicier. What's the teeth in th first item above?
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Barney Frank and mortgages
I found a few tidbits in the news about efforts to get at the main cause of our current economic woes.
and
He had to reschedule the TARP discussion so they could take up the Madoff scheme and the regulatory failures the let it happen. They'll get to it. Deep cleansing breath, Buck.
U.S. House Meeting On Financial Rescue Rescheduled
Monday January 5th, 2009 / 21h52
By Jessica Holzer Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- A Wednesday meeting of a U.S. House panel on the $700 billion financial rescue has been postponed indefinitely.
A statement from the House Financial Services Committee did not specify a new date for the meeting but indicated that it would be rescheduled. The panel chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., had called the meeting to discuss the incoming Obama administration's use of the remaining funds authorized under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair were expected to appear before the panel, Dow Jones Newswires reported Friday.
The current Treasury Department has committed $358.4 billion of the $700 billion of TARP funds. However, only slightly more than $200 billion has been spent.
Treasury must receive approval from Congress to spend the remaining $350 billion, and it cannot release the entire $358.4 billion it has committed without Congress' consent.
and
WASHINGTON, Jan 5 (Reuters) - U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, in a CNBC television interview:
* Says the Democrats' economic stimulus package 'will help improve the quality of life' with better bridges, mass transit, environment in addition to creating jobs.
* Says he has been focusing on Treasury Dept's $700 billion TARP program, not on potential changes in U.S. business tax rates at this time.
* Says TARP program must be used to help reduce mortgage foreclosures and that other non-financial industries' potential use of TARP money 'depends on what the purpose would be'.
* Says 'getting the credit loosened up' should be No. 2 priority after reducing U.S. mortgage foreclosures.
He had to reschedule the TARP discussion so they could take up the Madoff scheme and the regulatory failures the let it happen. They'll get to it. Deep cleansing breath, Buck.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Buck's testimony before the joint finance committee
Mr Frank: Good morning, Buck. Thank you for taking the time to be with us today. We know how busy you are, so it is indeed an honor. My colleagues and I, from both houses of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, and up to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue are waiting to hear your ideas on how this government should react to the current financial crisis. You have the floor.
Buck: Thank you, Barney. As I said to you over doughnuts and coffee this morning, we aren't completely fucked. I intend to enlighten the country on my plan for disentangling our banking system from all its problems. By the way, you might want to wipe the jelly off of your shirt. Please excuse me if I have to vacate during the testimony as coffee and doughnuts often leads to cramps. And cramps can lead to...but I digress.
Yeah, you guys seem to have the easy stuff in hand - Unemployment benefits, aid to states and municipalities, a new pool of cash for capital projects, the inevitable cash payments to all made standard by the Bush Administration. But you still haven't tackled the "troubled assets" that started this tumble and represented the "TA" in the TARP fund.
Mr Frank: You're so clever, Buck. Please get to the point or I will hold you in contempt.
Buck: I urge the federal government to create a short-term program to convert near-foreclosure and upside-down home mortgages into fixed rate, long-term, federally guaranteed mortgages. But the first step in this process would be to declare a 90 day moratorium on residential foreclosures, as has already been wisely proposed by several esteemed leaders at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr Frank: Spare us the flattery, boy. Get back to your proposal.
Buck: During this 90-day moratorium the White House, Capitol Hill committee members and leading bankers should sit down to negotiate a deal. The framework of these talks would be to set up guidelines to payoff the troubled mortgages at a discounted rate, and write new mortgages to the estimated 12 million American households who find themselves in this situation. A new, nationalized mortgage agency (BNMA) would be created....
Mr Frank: BNMA?
Buck: Yes, Buck National Mortgage Association or Barney National Mortgage Association if you prefer the flattery. (heh heh)
Mr Frank: I'm intrigued, my colleagues are intrigued, the nation is intrigued. (heh heh) Please continue.
Buck: The BNMA would be set up much like Freddie Mac is right now, only it would be completely nationalized and strictly controlled by a charter written by this committee and enforced by an adminstrator named by the White House.
A key component of this new batch of mortgages is that they would be written without an appraisal. The principal amount of the new mortgage and the payoff percentage to the prior loan servicer would be a calculation based on outstanding principal, overdue interest and the other factors such as credit scores or items the committee deems wise.
Mortgage brokers would be paid either a flat fee, percentage, or combination as determined by the committee to bring these loans to settlement. Removing the appraisal requirement and having a narrowly defined set of calculations should made the process relatively fast. It will need to be fast, because we have 10 million plus mortgages to write while the financial markets are held in a flat or bear state.
Mr Frank: Sounds good. Any questions from my esteemed colleagues?
(silence)
Mr Frank: Thank you for your time this morning, as we know how busy you are.
Buck: Thank you, Barney. As I said to you over doughnuts and coffee this morning, we aren't completely fucked. I intend to enlighten the country on my plan for disentangling our banking system from all its problems. By the way, you might want to wipe the jelly off of your shirt. Please excuse me if I have to vacate during the testimony as coffee and doughnuts often leads to cramps. And cramps can lead to...but I digress.
Yeah, you guys seem to have the easy stuff in hand - Unemployment benefits, aid to states and municipalities, a new pool of cash for capital projects, the inevitable cash payments to all made standard by the Bush Administration. But you still haven't tackled the "troubled assets" that started this tumble and represented the "TA" in the TARP fund.
Mr Frank: You're so clever, Buck. Please get to the point or I will hold you in contempt.
Buck: I urge the federal government to create a short-term program to convert near-foreclosure and upside-down home mortgages into fixed rate, long-term, federally guaranteed mortgages. But the first step in this process would be to declare a 90 day moratorium on residential foreclosures, as has already been wisely proposed by several esteemed leaders at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr Frank: Spare us the flattery, boy. Get back to your proposal.
Buck: During this 90-day moratorium the White House, Capitol Hill committee members and leading bankers should sit down to negotiate a deal. The framework of these talks would be to set up guidelines to payoff the troubled mortgages at a discounted rate, and write new mortgages to the estimated 12 million American households who find themselves in this situation. A new, nationalized mortgage agency (BNMA) would be created....
Mr Frank: BNMA?
Buck: Yes, Buck National Mortgage Association or Barney National Mortgage Association if you prefer the flattery. (heh heh)
Mr Frank: I'm intrigued, my colleagues are intrigued, the nation is intrigued. (heh heh) Please continue.
Buck: The BNMA would be set up much like Freddie Mac is right now, only it would be completely nationalized and strictly controlled by a charter written by this committee and enforced by an adminstrator named by the White House.
A key component of this new batch of mortgages is that they would be written without an appraisal. The principal amount of the new mortgage and the payoff percentage to the prior loan servicer would be a calculation based on outstanding principal, overdue interest and the other factors such as credit scores or items the committee deems wise.
Mortgage brokers would be paid either a flat fee, percentage, or combination as determined by the committee to bring these loans to settlement. Removing the appraisal requirement and having a narrowly defined set of calculations should made the process relatively fast. It will need to be fast, because we have 10 million plus mortgages to write while the financial markets are held in a flat or bear state.
Mr Frank: Sounds good. Any questions from my esteemed colleagues?
(silence)
Mr Frank: Thank you for your time this morning, as we know how busy you are.
What to do, what to do???
Republicans want some time to review the yet-to-be-unveiled bill. I think that's fair. You've got a week.
Dems want to spend on 'infrastructure'. That's a good rhetorical angle, but there are more pressing needs. Like stabilizing the mortgage market and propping up state and local budgets. More foreclosures and further erosion of housing prices = bad. Big layoffs in schools, police and fire departments = bad. A delay in the next big road improvement projects = not so bad.
Best idea I haven't seen spoken of explicitly for the residential finance market: Nationalize Fannie and Freddie. Order them to refinance upside-down mortgages without appraisals for long terms at cheap rates. The debt would be held by homeowners but the risk would be shared with the Feds. One way or another this situation is going to hit the entire world economy. It is much better to deal with it in this way than any other. If there are other ideas, I would love to hear them.
Dems want to spend on 'infrastructure'. That's a good rhetorical angle, but there are more pressing needs. Like stabilizing the mortgage market and propping up state and local budgets. More foreclosures and further erosion of housing prices = bad. Big layoffs in schools, police and fire departments = bad. A delay in the next big road improvement projects = not so bad.
Best idea I haven't seen spoken of explicitly for the residential finance market: Nationalize Fannie and Freddie. Order them to refinance upside-down mortgages without appraisals for long terms at cheap rates. The debt would be held by homeowners but the risk would be shared with the Feds. One way or another this situation is going to hit the entire world economy. It is much better to deal with it in this way than any other. If there are other ideas, I would love to hear them.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Validation of pessimism
Like turd blossoms from heaven, this morning I read an op-ed from one of my heroes that I find to be very very wrong. In this piece
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/opinion/02krugman.html?ref=opinion
Paul Krugman argues that the ideology of Republican divisiveness is dead and will not come back. His concluding point follows:
Krugman has a lot more faith in the American voters than I do. The American public of my imagination doesn't know or care a bit about economic theories, nor has its diversity killed its love of bigotry. The Repulicans just need to find the right slogans and characters to hit that vein again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/opinion/02krugman.html?ref=opinion
Paul Krugman argues that the ideology of Republican divisiveness is dead and will not come back. His concluding point follows:
Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.
Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy.
Krugman has a lot more faith in the American voters than I do. The American public of my imagination doesn't know or care a bit about economic theories, nor has its diversity killed its love of bigotry. The Repulicans just need to find the right slogans and characters to hit that vein again.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Hopeful and Happy New Year
The Obamas are finishing up their vacation and arrive in Washington this weekend. Congress starts hearings on Monday over the next actions they will take to try and heal some of the economic mess. I hope that liberals have enough political capital to spend that they can get some great stuff passed quickly. I hope that the great liberal economists of our time become the heroes that they should be. Hope does not come easy to me, but I'm trying.
I know the American public is impatient and that any power held by my team right now will be very short-lived. Keynes is back in style, but only for about the next 30 to 60 days. After that, the right-wing will begin to climb out of the hole they have dug for themselves using the ideological bullshit and lies that always work for them. But my cynicism and pessimism is getting ahead of me. At this moment the liberals have the country by the balls.
I have hope that this amazing moment in US history yields some very large, socialist bills that President Obama will sign into law quickly and powerfully. It could be a great morning for America.
I read the following on Bloomberg AFTER I wrote the above:
I know the American public is impatient and that any power held by my team right now will be very short-lived. Keynes is back in style, but only for about the next 30 to 60 days. After that, the right-wing will begin to climb out of the hole they have dug for themselves using the ideological bullshit and lies that always work for them. But my cynicism and pessimism is getting ahead of me. At this moment the liberals have the country by the balls.
I have hope that this amazing moment in US history yields some very large, socialist bills that President Obama will sign into law quickly and powerfully. It could be a great morning for America.
I read the following on Bloomberg AFTER I wrote the above:
James K. Galbraith Says Predator State Hit Wall: Year in Review
Commentary by James K. Galbraith
Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- This is the first full-fledged credit collapse and debt deflation since 1930, bringing with it a violent economic decline and a surge of unemployment.
How did it happen? For half a decade, a toxic stew of abusive and explosive mortgages, subprime securitization and complicit ratings companies was allowed to simmer, piling leverage on leverage, while credit default swaps spread risk until risk no longer could be traced.
This was market failure. But it happened because of a deep failure of the state. The government has the power to prevent such things. But the state abandoned its post. Marching under the banner of free markets, the government turned regulation over to agents of a predator class. Thus the unchecked growth of derivatives, tax havens, regulatory arbitrage and the carry trades. Thus Bernard Madoff, undetected by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In August 2007, the banks peered into their books, where each saw the mirror of the others. None could know what they were worth. Trust and clarity and interbank lending broke down. It took a year, via Northern Rock Plc and Bear Stearns Cos., for the larger world to understand. When it did, panic ensued. And panic is deadly to finance.
Paulson’s Gambit
Government responded, but we discovered then how badly economic ideas now failed us. Action was needed. Ideology got in the way. The Treasury and Federal Reserve sought to minimize “intervention,” to preserve “market discipline.” Thus, the decision to let Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. fail. The result was suspicions of cronyism and more panic.
Henry Paulson now demanded $700 billion from Congress to purchase “troubled assets.” This too was ideology: a price mechanism for assets whose core characteristic, from the beginning, was that they were too opaque and corrupt to be priced.
Congress ultimately took charge. It was necessary to create a zone of safety in banks and money-market funds, by extending deposit insurance and guaranteeing commercial paper. This was done. Banks were also stabilized by partial nationalization. The financial panic subsided -- but now the economic crisis deepened. With housing in collapse, industry, insurance, and state and local governments all threatened to follow.
Two-Part Challenge
The Great Crisis thus transcends market failure. It is system failure, failure at the heart of the mechanism that makes the economy run. We are witnessing the financial and the physical consequences of the end of a governing creed.
The challenge facing the American government now comes in two parts. The first is to maintain spending in an economy that cannot, for the duration, draw spending power from the poisoned wells of private finance. The second part must be to reconstruct the necessary economic functions of government -- beginning with effective global financial regulation -- for our own sake and as a model for the world.
The inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama offers hope that these matters have been understood. Yet it wouldn’t be wise to assume this. The American public, whose common sense and good judgment rejected the predator state in the elections of 2008, needs to remain engaged, informed and active on all fronts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
