text:
Thinking Clearly During An Election Year
February 6th, 2012 Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Thinking Clearly During An Election Year
The non-stop bombardment of inane, partisan yammering which assaults us during an election year, makes it even more refreshing when a level-headed, clear thinker catches our attention. One popular subject of debate during the current election cycle has been the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the 2009 stimulus bill). In stark contrast with the propaganda you have been hearing about the 2009 stimulus (from both political parties), a new book by Mike Grabell of ProPublica entitled, Money Well Spent? brought us a rare, objective analysis of what the stimulus did – and did not – accomplish.
Matt Steinglass of The Economist recently wrote a great essay on the "stimulus vs. austerity" debate, which included a discussion of Mike Grabell's new book:
The debate we had about the stimulus probably should have been a lot like the book Mr Grabell has written: a detailed investigation of what does and doesn't work in stimulus spending and whether the government really can jump-start a promising industry through investments, tax breaks and industrial policy. But that wasn't the debate we had. Instead we had a debate about the very concept of whether the government ought to spend money counter-cyclically during a recession in order to keep the economy from collapsing, or whether it should tighten its belt along with consumers and businesses in order to generate confidence in the financial markets and allow markets to clear. We had a debate about whether governments should respond to recessions with deficit spending or austerity.
The ProPublica website gave us a peek at Mike Grabell's book by publishing a passage concerning how the stimulus helped America maintain its status as a competitor in the electric car industry. Nevertheless, America's failure to support the new technology with the same zeal as its Asian competitors could push domestic manufacturers completely out of the market:
A report by congressional researchers last year concluded that the cost of batteries, anxiety over mileage range and more efficient internal combustion engines could make it difficult to achieve Obama's goal of a million electric vehicles by 2015. Even many in the industry say the target is unreachable.
While the $2.4 billion in stimulus money has increased battery manufacturing, the congressional report noted that United States might not be able to keep up in the long run. South Korea and China have announced plans to invest more than five times that amount over the next decade.
As Matt Steinglass concluded in his essay for The Economist, current economic circumstances (as well as the changed opinions of economists John Cochrane and Niall Ferguson) indicate that the proponents of economic stimulus have won the "stimulus vs. austerity" debate:
The 2010 elections took place at a moment when people seemed to have lost faith in Keynesianism. The 2012 elections are taking place at a moment when people have lost faith in expansionary austerity.
Although the oil industry has done a successful job of convincing the public that jobs will be lost if the Keystone Pipeline is not approved, big oil has done a better job of distracting the public from understanding how many jobs will be lost if America fails to earn a niche in the electric vehicle market.
The politicization of the debate over how to address the ongoing unemployment crisis was the subject of a February 2 Washington Post commentary by Mohamed El-Erian (co-CEO of PIMCO). El-Erian lamented that – despite the slight progress achieved in reducing unemployment – the situation remains at a crisis level, demanding immediate efforts toward resolution:
The longer that corrective measures are delayed, the harder the task at hand will be and the greater the eventual costs to society.
In fact, our current unemployment crisis is a force for broad and disruptive economic, political and social dislocations.
Mr. El-Erian noted that there is a faction – among the opposing forces in the debate over how to address unemployment – seeking a "killer app" which would effectuate dramatic and immediate progress. He explained why those people aren't being realistic:
There is no killer app. Instead, Congress and the administration need to move simultaneously on three fronts that incorporate multiple measures: those that address the immediate impediments to job creation, including a better mix of demand stimulus and medium-term fiscal reform involving both federal spending and revenue, as well as stronger remedies for housing and housing finance; those that deal with the longer-term enablers of productive employment, such as education, retraining and retooling; and those that strengthen the social safety nets to appropriately protect citizens in the interim.
Have no doubt, this is a complex, multiyear effort that involves several government agencies acting in a delicate, coordinated effort. It will not happen unless our political leaders come together to address what constitutes America's biggest national challenge. And sustained implementation will not be possible nor effective without much clearer personal accountability.
One would think that, given all this, it has become more than paramount for Washington to elevate – not just in rhetoric but, critically, through sustained actions – the urgency of today's unemployment crisis to the same level that it placed the financial crisis three years ago. But watching the actions in the nation's capital, I and many others are worried that our politicians will wait at least until the November elections before dealing more seriously with the unemployment crisis.
In other words, while the election year lunacy continues, the unemployment crisis continues to act as "a force for broad and disruptive economic, political and social dislocations". Worse yet, the expectation that our political leaders could "come together to address what constitutes America's biggest national challenge" seems nearly as unrealistic as waiting for that "killer app". This is yet another reason why Peter Schweizer's cause – as expressed in his book, Throw Them All Out, should be on everyone's front burner during the 2012 election year.
2009 stimulus bill, 2010 elections, 2012 election year, 2012 elections, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Asian competitors, austerity, batteries, big oil, businesses, China, Congress, congressional researchers, consumers, coordinated effort, deficit spending, demand stimulus, domestic manufacturers, economists, economy, electric car industry, electric vehicles, EV battery manufacturing, expansionary austerity, federal spending, financial crisis, financial markets, fiscal reform, government agencies, housing, housing finance, internal combustion engines, job creation, jobs, John Cochrane, John T Burke Jr, Keynesianism, Keystone Pipeline, killer app, Matt Steinglass, Mike Grabell, Mohamed El-Erian, Money Well Spent, Niall Ferguson, November elections, Obama Administration, oil industry, Peter Schweizer, Pimco, political leaders, politicians, President Obama, productive employment, propaganda, ProPublica, recession, revenue, social safety net, South Korea, stimulus, The Economist, Throw Them All Out, unemployment crisis, Washington, Washington Post
Charade Ends For Pseudo-Populists
October 6th, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Charade Ends For Pseudo-Populists
The Occupy Wall Street protest has exposed the politicians – who have always claimed to be populists – for what they really are: tools of the plutocracy. Conspicuously absent from the Wall Street occupation have been nearly all Democrats – despite their party's efforts to portray itself as the champion of Main Street in its battle against the tyranny of the megabanks. As has always been the case, the Democrats won't really do anything that could disrupt the flow of bribes campaign contributions they receive from our nation's financial elites.
The "no show" Democrats reminded me of an article which appeared at Truthdig, written by Chris Hedges, author of the book, Death of the Liberal Class. In his Truthdig essay, Chris Hedges emphasized how the liberal class "abandoned the human values that should have remained at the core of its activism":
The liberal class, despite becoming an object of widespread public scorn, prefers the choreographed charade. It will decry the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or call for universal health care, but continue to defend and support a Democratic Party that has no intention of disrupting the corporate machine. As long as the charade is played, the liberal class can hold itself up as the conscience of the nation without having to act. It can maintain its privileged economic status. It can continue to live in an imaginary world where democratic reform and responsible government exist. It can pretend it has a voice and influence in the corridors of power. But the uselessness and irrelevancy of the liberal class are not lost on the tens of millions of Americans who suffer the indignities of the corporate state. And this is why liberals are rightly despised by the working class and the poor.
If it had not been obvious before the 2010 elections, it should be obvious now. Back in July of 2010, I was busy harping about how the Obama administration had sabotaged the financial "reform" bill:
As I pointed out on July 12, Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute documented the extent to which Obama's Treasury Department undermined the financial reform bill at every step. On the following day, Rich Miller of Bloomberg News examined the results of a Bloomberg National Poll, which measured the public's reaction to the financial reform bill. Almost eighty percent of those who responded were of the opinion that the new bill would do little or nothing to prevent or mitigate another financial crisis. Beyond that, 47 percent shared the view that the bill would do more to protect the financial industry than consumers.
Both healthcare and financial "reform" legislation turned out to be "bait and switch" scams used by the Obama administration against its own supporters. After that double-double-cross, the liberal blogosphere was being told to "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".
In an earlier posting, I discussed the sordid efforts of the Democratic-controlled Senate to sabotage the financial reform bill:
Since the Occupy Wall Street demonstration has gained momentum, a number of commentators have analyzed the complicity of hypocritical Democrats in ceding more unregulated power to the very culprits responsible for causing the financial crisis. The most important of these essays was an article written by Matt Stoller for Politico. Stoller began the piece by debunking the myth that the cancer known as "financial deregulation" was introduced to the American system by the Reagan administration:
Like President Bill Clinton before him, Obama and his team believe in deregulation and are continuing a "let them eat cake"-style social contract that solidified during Ronald Reagan's presidency. As this contract has fallen apart, so has the strong coalition behind Obama's presidency.
We haven't seen a challenge to the bank-friendly Democratic orthodoxy for 40 years. The progenitor of this modern Democratic Party was Jimmy Carter. Though Reagan and Clinton helped finish the job, it was Carter who began wholesale deregulation of the banking industry – as Jeff Madrick details in his new book, "The Age of Greed."
In signing the landmark Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, which lifted usury caps, Carter said, "Our banks and savings institutions are hampered by a wide range of outdated, unfair and unworkable regulations."
Stoller provided some hope for disillusioned former supporters of the Democratic Party by focusing on three Democratic state attorneys general, who have been investigating possible fraud in the securitization of trillions of dollars of mortgages. Matt Stoller referred to these officials – Eric Schneiderman of New York, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Beau Biden of Delaware – as the "Justice Democrats". As Stoller observed, a number of other officials have been influenced by the noble efforts of these Justice Democrats:
There are other politicians following this path. Jefferson Smith, an Oregon state representative now running for mayor of Portland, successfully fought legislation to make foreclosures easier in that state. Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen in North Carolina took on banking interests by fighting foreclosure fraud. Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings has been dogged in his investigations of mortgage servicers.
It should not be surprising that these officials have been getting quite a bit of pushback from their fellow Democrats – including Delaware Governor Jack Markell as well as a number of high-ranking officials from the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless.
When the Occupy Wall Street protest began on September 17, what little coverage it received from the mainstream media was based on the "giggle factor". With the passing of time, it becomes increasingly obvious that the news media and our venal political leaders are seriously underestimating the ability of the "little people" to fight back against the kleptocracy.
2010 elections, Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless, banking industry, Beau Biden, Bill Clinton, Bloomberg National Poll, Bloomberg news, campaign contributions, Catherine Cortez Masto, Chris Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class, Democratic state attorneys general, Democrats, Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, Elijah Cummings, Eric Holder, Eric Schneiderman, financial crisis, financial deregulation, financial elites, financial reform bill, fraud, Governor Jack Markell, investigations, Jeff Madrick, Jeff Thigpen, Jefferson Smith, Jimmy Carter, John T Burke Jr, Justice Democrats, Justice Department, kleptocracy, little people, Main Street, Matt Stoller, Mike Konczal, mortgage servicers, North Carolina, Obama Administration, Occupy Wall Street, Oregon, plutocracy, Politico, populists, President Obama, Reagan Administration, Rich Miller, Roosevelt Institute, securitization of mortgages, Senate, The Age of Greed, Treasury Department, Truthdig, Wall Street
Obama Presidency Continues To Self-Destruct
August 18th, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Obama Presidency Continues To Self-Destruct
It's been almost a year since the "Velma Moment". On September 20, 2010, President Obama appeared at a CNBC town hall meeting in Washington. One of the audience members, Velma Hart, posed a question to the President, which was emblematic of the plight experienced by many 2008 Obama supporters. Peggy Noonan had some fun with the event in her article, "The Enraged vs. The Exhausted" which characterized the 2010 elections as a battle between those two emotional factions. The "Velma Moment" exposed Obama's political vulnerability as an aloof leader, lacking the ability to emotionally connect with his supporters:
The president looked relieved when she stood. Perhaps he thought she might lob a sympathetic question that would allow him to hit a reply out of the park. Instead, and in the nicest possible way, Velma Hart lobbed a hand grenade.
"I'm a mother. I'm a wife. I'm an American veteran, and I'm one of your middle-class Americans. And quite frankly I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are." She said, "The financial recession has taken an enormous toll on my family." She said, "My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot-dogs-and-beans era of our lives. But, quite frankly, it is starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we are headed."
The President experienced another "Velma Moment" on Monday. This time, it was Maureen Dowd who had some fun describing the confrontation:
After assuring Obama that she was a supporter, an Iowa mother named Emily asked the president at a town hall at the Seed Savers Exchange in Decorah what had gone wrong.
"So when you ran for office you built a tremendous amount of trust with the American people, that you seemed like someone who wouldn't move the bar on us," she said. "And it seems, especially in the last year, as if your negotiating tactics have sort of cut away at that trust by compromising some key principles that we believed in, like repealing the tax cut, not fighting harder for single-payer. Even Social Security and Medicare seemed on the line when we were dealing with the debt ceiling. So I'm just curious, moving forward, what prevents you from taking a harder negotiating stance, being that it seems that the Republicans are taking a really hard stance?"
President Obama can no longer blame the Republicans and Fox News for his poor approval ratings. He has become his own worst enemy. As for what Obama has been doing wrong – the title of Andrew Malcolm's recent piece for the Los Angeles Times summed it up quite well: "On Day 938 of his presidency, Obama says he'll have a jobs plan in a month or so".
Lydia Saad of the Gallup Organization provided this report on the President's most recent approval ratings:
A new low of 26% of Americans approve of President Barack Obama's handling of the economy, down 11 percentage points since Gallup last measured it in mid-May and well below his previous low of 35% in November 2010.
Obama earns similarly low approval for his handling of the federal budget deficit (24%) and creating jobs (29%).
President Obama's approval rating has dwindled in recent weeks to the point that it is barely hugging the 40% line. Three months earlier, it approached or exceeded 50%.
The voters have finally caught on to the fact that Barack Obama's foremost mission is to serve as a tool for Wall Street. In Monday's edition of The Washington Post, Zachary Goldfarb gave us a peek at Obama's latest gift to the banksters: a plan to provide a government guarantee of mortgage backed securities:
President Obama has directed a small team of advisers to develop a proposal that would keep the government playing a major role in the nation's mortgage market, extending a federal loan subsidy for most home buyers, according to people familiar with the matter.
The administration's reaction to curiosity about the plan was a tip-off that the whole thing stinks. Mr. Goldfarb's article included the official White House retort, which was based on the contention that the controversial proposal is just one of three options outlined earlier this year in an administration white paper concerning reform of the housing finance system:
"It is simply false that there has been a decision to move forward with any particular option," said Matt Vogel, a White House spokesman. "All three options remain under active consideration and we are deepening our analysis around how each would potentially be implemented. No recommendation has been made to the president by his economic advisers."
And if you believe that, you might be interested in buying some real estate located in . . .
Zachary Goldfarb explained the plan:
Fannie, Freddie or other successor firms would charge a fee to mortgage lenders and banks and use the money to create an insurance pool to cover losses on mortgage securities caused by defaults on the underlying loans. The government would be the last line of defense in case of another housing market meltdown, using taxpayer money to cover losses only if the insurance pool ran dry.
The Washington Post report inspired economist Dean Baker to expose the ugly truth about this scheme:
It would be difficult to find an economic rationale for this policy other than subsidizing the financial industry. The government can and does directly subsidize the purchase of homes through the mortgage interest deduction. This can be made more generous and better targeted toward low and moderate income families by capping it and converting it into a tax credit (e.g. all homeowners can deduct 15 percent of the interest paid on mortgages of $300,000 or less from their taxes).
There is no obvious reason to have an additional subsidy through the system of mortgage finance. Analysis by Mark Zandi showed that the subsidy provided by a government guarantee would largely translate into higher home prices. This would leave monthly mortgage payments virtually unaffected. The diversion of capital from elsewhere in the economy would mean slower economic growth and would kill jobs for auto workers, steel workers and other workers in the manufacturing sector.
For these reasons, if President Obama was really against big government and job killing measures, he would oppose this new scheme to subsidize mortgage securitization. On the other hand, if the goal is to ensure high profits and big salaries for top executives in the financial sector, then a government subsidy for mortgage securitization is good policy.
Frustration with the inevitability that the 2012 Presidential Election will ultimately become a choice between two corporatists has inspired a movement to encourage a Democratic Primary challenge to Obama. The organization – StopHoping.org – is based on this simple objective:
The majority of U.S. citizens favor protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; taxing the rich; cutting military spending; and protecting the environment. We don't have a candidate . . . yet. Potential candidates supported on this site will be notified and encouraged to run.
I hope they succeed!
2008 Obama supporters, 2010 elections, 2012 Presidential election, Andrew Malcolm, approval ratings, banksters, Barack Obama, big government, Bush tax cut, change, CNBC, compromise, corporatists, Dean Baker, debt ceiling, Decorah, Democratic primary, economic growth, economic recession, economist, economy, Emily, Fannie Mae, federal budget deficit, federal loan subsidy, financial industry, Fox News, Freddie Mac, Gallup Organization, government guarantee, housing finance system, insurance pool, Iowa, job creation, job killing measures, jobs plan, John T Burke Jr, Los Angeles Times, Lydia Saad, Mark Zandi, market meltdown, Matt Vogel, Maureen Dowd, Medicaid, Medicare, middle-class Americans, military spending, mortgage interest deduction, mortgage market, mortgage securitization, mortgage-backed securities, Obama Presidency Continues To Self-Destruct, Peggy Noonan, President Obama, Republicans, Seed Savers Exchange, single-payer, Social Security, StopHoping org, tax credit, taxing the rich, The Enraged vs The Exhausted, The Washington Post, town hall meeting, Velma Hart, Velma Moment, voters, Wall Street, Washington, White House, Zachary Goldfarb
Congress Could Be Quite Different After 2012 Elections
Comments Off on Congress Could Be Quite Different After 2012 Elections
They come up for re-election every two years. Each of the 435 members of the House of Representatives is in a constant "campaign mode" because the term of office is so short. Lee White of the American Historical Association summed-up the impact of the 2010 elections this way:
On Tuesday, November 2, 2010, U.S. voters dramatically changed the landscape in Washington. Republicans gained control of the House and, although the Democrats retained control of the Senate their margin in that body has been reduced to 53-47.
Clearly the most dramatic change will be in the House with new Republican committee and subcommittee chairs taking over.
Voter discontent was revealed by the fact that just before the 2010 elections, the Congressional approval rating was at 17 percent. More recently, according to a Gallup poll, taken during April 7-11 of 2011, Congressional job approval is now back down to 17 percent, after a bump up to 23 percent in February. Of particular interest were the conclusions drawn by the pollsters at Gallup concerning the implications of the latest polling results:
Congress' approval rating in Gallup's April 7-11 survey is just four points above its all-time low. The probability of a significant improvement in congressional approval in the months ahead is not high. Congress is now engaged in a highly contentious battle over the federal budget, with a controversial vote on the federal debt ceiling forthcoming in the next several months. The Republican-controlled House often appears to be battling with itself, as conservative newly elected House members hold out for substantial cuts in government spending. Additionally, Americans' economic confidence is as low as it has been since last summer, and satisfaction with the way things are going in the U.S. is at 19%.
At this point, it appears as though we could be looking at an even larger crop of freshmen in the 2013 Congress than we saw in January, 2011. (According to polling guru, Nate Silver, the fate of the 33 Senate incumbents is still an open question.)
One poster child for voter ire could be Republican Congressman Spencer Bachus of Alabama. You might recall that at approximately this time last year, Matt Taibbi wrote another one of his great exposés for Rolling Stone entitled, "Looting Main Street". In his exceptional style, Taibbi explained how JPMorgan Chase bribed the local crooked politicians into replacing Jefferson County's bonds, issued to finance an expensive sewer project, with variable interest rate swaps (also known as synthetic rate swaps). Then came the financial crisis. As a result, the rate Jefferson County had to pay on the bonds went up while the rates paid by banks to the county went down. It didn't take long for the bond rating companies to downgrade those sewer bonds to "junk" status.
JPMorgan Chase unsuccessfully attempted to dismiss a lawsuit arising from this snafu. Law 360 reported on April 15 that the Alabama Supreme Court recently affirmed the denial of JPMorgan's attempt to dismiss the case, which was based on these facts:
Jefferson County accuses JPMorgan of paying bribes to county officials in exchange for an appointment as lead underwriter for what turned out to be a highly risky refinancing of the county's sewer debt, which caused Jefferson County billions of dollars in losses. According to the complaint, JPMorgan, JPMorgan Chase and underwriting firm Blount Parrish & Co. handed out bribes, kickbacks and payoffs to swindle the county out of millions in inflated fees.
JPMorgan claimed that only the Governor of Alabama had authority to bring such a suit. I wonder why former Alabama Governor Bob Riley didn't bother to join Jefferson County as a party plaintiff, making the issue moot and saving Jefferson County some legal fees, before the case found its way to the state Supreme Court?
Joe Nocera of The New York Times recently put the spotlight on another character from Alabama politics:
Has Spencer Bachus, as the local congressman, decried this debacle? Of course – what local congressman wouldn't? In a letter last year to Mary Schapiro, the chairwoman of the S.E.C., he said that the county's financing schemes "magnified the inherent risks of the municipal finance market."
Bachus is not just your garden variety local congressman, though. As chairman of the Financial Services Committee, he is uniquely positioned to help make sure that similar disasters never happen again – not just in Jefferson County but anywhere. After all, the new Dodd-Frank financial reform law will, at long last, regulate derivatives. And the implementation of that law is being overseen by Bachus and his committee.
Among its many provisions related to derivatives – all designed to lessen their systemic risk – is a series of rules that would make it close to impossible for the likes of JPMorgan to pawn risky derivatives off on municipalities. Dodd-Frank requires sellers of derivatives to take a near-fiduciary interest in the well-being of a municipality.
You would think Bachus would want these regulations in place as quickly as possible, given the pain his constituents are suffering. Yet, last week, along with a handful of other House Republican bigwigs, he introduced legislation that would do just the opposite: It would delay derivative regulation until January 2013.
As Joe Nocera suggested, this might be more than simply a delaying tactic, to keep derivatives trading unregulated for another two years. Bachus could be counting on Republican takeovers of the Senate and the White House after the 2012 election cycle. At that point, Bachus and his fellow Tools of Wall Street could finally drive a stake through the heart of the nearly-stillborn baby known as "financial reform".
On the other hand, the people vested with the authority to cast those votes that keep Spencer Bachus in office, could realize that he is betraying them in favor of the Wall Street banksters. The "public memory" may be short but – fortunately – the term of office for a Congressman is equally brief.
2010 elections, Alabama, Alabama Supreme Court, American Historical Association, banksters, Blount Parrish, Bob Riley, bond rating companies, bonds, bribes, Congress Could Be Quite Different After 2012 Elections, Congressional approval rating, Congressional job approval, crooked politicians, debt ceiling, Democrats, derivatives, derivatives trading, Dodd-Frank, Dodd-Frank financial reform law, federal budget, fiduciary duty, finance, financial crisis, financial reform, Financial Services Committee, Gallup Poll, government spending, Governor of Alabama, House of Representatives, inflated fees, January 2013, Jefferson County, Joe Nocera, John T Burke Jr, JPMorgan Chase, junk bonds, kickbacks, Law 360, lawsuit, Lee White, legislation, Looting Main Street, Mary Schapiro, Matt Taibbi, Nate Silver, New York Times, pollsters, public memory, regulations, Republican Congressman, Republicans, Rolling Stone, SEC, Senate, sewer project, Spencer Bachus, synthetic rate swaps, systemic risk, Tools of Wall Street, variable interest rate swaps, voter discontent
Crazy Like Fox
Donald Trump has enjoyed a good deal of publicity during the past few weeks, since he jumped on the "birther" bandwagon, voicing skepticism as to whether Barack Obama was really born in the United States. Many of Trump's critics insist that The Donald is not a serious Presidential candidate and that his newfound "birther" agenda demonstrates that his Presidential campaign is nothing more than a flimflam publicity stunt.
I have a different theory. I believe that Trump is running a "decoy" campaign. Keep in mind that Trump is currently the #2 contender for the Republican nomination. Remember also that the Republican Presidential primaries for 11 states (and the District of Columbia) are conducted on a "winner-take-all" basis – meaning that when a candidate wins a state primary, that candidate wins all of the delegates who will represent that state at the Republican National Convention. If Trump can win a few of those states, he could amass an impressive amount of "pledged" delegates. I suspect that Trump's goal is to win the support from the extreme right wing of the Republican Party and "hijack" those delegates who would have been otherwise pledged to candidates acceptable to the Tea Party. Bill O'Reilly's intervention to defuse the "birther" controversy (at which point he insisted that Trump has not been seriously seeking the nomination) was apparently motivated by the fact that the candidates most likely to be eliminated from contention because of Trump's presence – Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin – are both darlings of Fox News. In fact, Palin is a Fox News contributor.
At the 2012 Republican Convention in Tampa, Trump could step aside and support Willard Romney, who is despised my many Tea Party activists for having created what is now known as "Obamacare". Trump's elimination of the Tea Party favorites before the convention would solve Romney's problem with that voting bloc. Romney can be expected to have an equally difficult time winning the support of dog lovers, as a result of his decision to strap the family dog, Seamus, to the car roof for a 12-hour family vacation drive to Ontario. Despite his "Presidential" appearance, this Homer Simpson-esque episode from Romney's life has already impaired efforts to portray him as a potentially effective Commander-In-Chief.
Meanwhile, President Obama is busy trumpeting his newly-minted, false campaign promises. Gallup reported that on April 15, Obama's approval rating had tied its all-time low of 41%. More interestingly, his approval rating among African-American and Hispanic voters is beginning to slip from its enormously-high levels:
Though majorities of blacks (85%) and Hispanics (54%) continue to approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, his ratings among these groups slipped in March and have set or tied new lows.
Obama, elected to office with strong support from minority voters, has averaged better than 90% approval among blacks, and 65% among Hispanics, during his term. Prior to March, Obama's lowest monthly average among blacks was 88% in July 2010 and December 2010. The president's 54% March job approval rating among Hispanics ties the low from July and August 2010.
Despite the efforts of Republican commentators, such as Peggy Noonan, to create a narrative to the effect that Obama's waning popularity – as well as the losses sustained by the Democrats in the 2010 elections – resulted from voter concern about government spending and the deficit, I suspect that Americans have simply become alienated by the failure of Obama and his party to deliver on their 2008 promises. Worse yet, the capitulation to the interests of Wall Street by Democrats who promised "reform" has reinforced voter apathy – the real factor in the 2010 Democratic setbacks.
Cord Jefferson of Good provided this graphic of what Congress would look like if it truly represented America. The failure of Democrats to win the support of Independent and centrist voters is readily apparent. You can blame gerrymandering all you want, but as long as the Democrats fail to provide alternatives to Republican policies, they will continue to lose. I believe it was William Black who said:
Under America's two-party system, we have one party that is owned by big business and another party that sells out to big business.
I was pleased to see my own sentiments shared and articulated quite well by Mike Kimel of the Presimetrics Blog, in his recent posting entitled, "Why I Will Not be Voting for Obama in 2012". Although Mr. Kimel doesn't have an alternative candidate in mind, the very reason for his disillusionment with Obama is that – with respect to the nation's most significant problems – our current President has proposed no alternative policies to those of his predecessor:
And yes, there are a handful of things Obama did that GW might not do, but let's be realistic – this has looked from the very beginning like GW's third term.
Which leaves just one question – if the policies of the Republicans are even worse than Obama's – and they tend to support anti-growth tax policies (calling them pro-growth doesn't change the data), what should a rational person do? I don't know. But I think if I'm going to see Republican policies enacted, I'd prefer to see them run under a Republican label. See, Democratic policies may not be very good, but historically they have tended to produce better results than Republican policies. (BTW – Michael Kanell and I have an entire book called Presimetrics looking at how Presidents performed on a wide range of topics.) Another four years spent bringing the feeble Democratic brand down to the levels of the even more feeble Republican brand will cause lasting damage.
Obama will never re-ignite the enthusiasm of 2008 by presenting himself to the voters as "the devil you know" or "the lesser of two evils". What America's middle class really needs is an honest, Independent candidate to make a run for The White House in 2012.
2008 promises, 2010 elections, 2012 Republican Convention, African-American voters, Americans, anti-growth tax policies, approval rating, Barack Obama, big business, Bill O'Reilly, birther, birther controversy, centrist voters, Commander-In-Chief, Congress, Cord Jefferson, Crazy Like Fox, decoy, decoy campaign, deficit, delegates, Democrats, District of Columbia, dog lovers, Donald Trump, extreme right wing, false campaign promises, family dog, Fox News, Fox News contributor, Gallup, George W Bush, gerrymandering, Good website, government spending, Hispanic voters, Homer Simpson-esque, Independent candidate, independent voters, Michael Kanell, Michele Bachmann, middle class, Mike Kimel, Mitt Romney, Obamacare, Peggy Noonan, pledged delegates, President Obama, Presidential campaign, Presimetrics, Presimetrics Blog, publicity stunt, reform, Republican commentators, Republican National Convention, Republican nomination, Republican Party, Republican Presidential primaries, Sarah Palin, Seamus, serious Presidential candidate, Tampa, Tea Party, two-party system, United States, voter apathy, Wall Street, Why I Will Not be Voting for Obama in 2012, Willard Romney, William Black, winner-take-all
No Justice For The Wicked
Comments Off on No Justice For The Wicked
Although the drumbeat continues, I remain skeptical as to whether any of the criminals responsible for causing the financial crisis will ever be brought to justice. In the weeks before President Obama's Inauguration, the foremost question on my mind was whether the new administration would take the necessary steps to change the culture of corruption on Wall Street:
As we approach the eve of the Obama Administration's first day, across America the new President's supporters have visions of "change we can believe in" dancing in their heads. For some, this change means the long overdue realization of health care reform. For those active in the Democratic campaigns of 2006, "change" means an end to the Iraq war. Many Americans are hoping that the new administration will crack down on the unregulated activities on Wall Street that helped bring about the current economic crisis.
On December 15, Stephen Labaton wrote an article for the New York Times, examining the recent failures of the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as the environment at the SEC that facilitates such breakdowns.
At that time, I also focused on the point made in a commentary by Michael Lewis and David Einhorn, which appeared in the January 3 New York Times:
It's not hard to see why the S.E.C. behaves as it does. If you work for the enforcement division of the S.E.C. you probably know in the back of your mind, and in the front too, that if you maintain good relations with Wall Street you might soon be paid huge sums of money to be employed by it.
I concluded that piece with a rhetorical question:
Let's hope our new President, the Congress and others pay serious attention to what Lewis and Einhorn have said. Cleaning up Wall Street is going to be a dirty job. Will those responsible for accomplishing this task be up to doing it?
By March 23, 2009, it had become obvious that our new President was more concerned about the "welfare" (pun intended) of the Wall Street banks than the well-being of the American economy. I began my posting of that date with this statement:
We the people, who voted for Barack Obama, are about to get ripped off by our favorite Hope dealer.
On August 27 of that year, I wrote another piece expressing my disappointment with how things had (not) progressed. My October 1, 2009 posting focused on the fact that H. David Kotz, Inspector General of the Securities and Exchange Commission, issued two reports, recommending 58 changes to improve the way the agency investigates and enforces violations of securities laws, as a result of the SEC's failure to investigate the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. The reports exposed a shocking degree of ineptitude at the SEC.
After the release of the report by bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas, pinpointing the causes of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, I lamented the fact that the mainstream media hadn't shown much concern about the matter, despite the terrible fraud exposed in the report. Nevertheless, by the next day, I was able to highlight some great commentaries on the Valukas Report and I felt optimistic enough to conclude the piece with this thought:
We can only hope that a continued investigation into the Lehman scandal will result in a very bright light directed on those privileged plutocrats who consider themselves above the law.
By the eve of the mid-term elections, I had an answer to the question I had posed on January 5, 2009 as to whether our new President and Congress would be up to the task of cleaning up Wall Street:
One common theme voiced by many critics of the Obama administration has been its lack of interest in prosecuting those responsible for causing the financial crisis. Don't hold your breath waiting for Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless to initiate any criminal proceedings against such noteworthy individuals as Countrywide's Angelo Mozilo or Dick Fuld of Lehman Brothers. On October 23, Frank Rich of The New York Times mentioned both of those individuals while lamenting the administration's failure to prosecute the "financial crimes that devastated the nation":
The Obama administration seems not to have a prosecutorial gene. It's shy about calling a fraud a fraud when it occurs in high finance.
Since Obama has neither aggressively pursued the crash's con men nor compellingly explained how they gamed the system, he sometimes looks as if he's fronting for the industry even if he's not.
The special treatment afforded to the perpetrators of the frauds that helped create the financial crisis wasn't the only gift to Wall Street from the Democratically-controlled White House, Senate and Congress. The financial "reform" bill was so badly compromised (by the Administration and Senate Democrats, themselves) as it worked its way through the legislative process, that it is now commonly regarded as nothing more than a hoax.
By the close of 2010, I noted that an expanding number of commentators shared my outrage over the likelihood that we would never see any prosecutions result from the crimes that brought about the financial crisis:
A recent article written by former New York Mayor Ed Koch began with the grim observation that no criminal charges have been brought against any of the malefactors responsible for causing the financial crisis:
Looking back on 2010 and the Great Recession, I continue to be enraged by the lack of accountability for those who wrecked our economy and brought the U.S. to its knees. The shocking truth is that those who did the damage are still in charge. Many who ran Wall Street before and during the debacle are either still there making millions, if not billions, of dollars, or are in charge of our country's economic policies which led to the debacle.
Most recently, Matt Taibbi has written another great article for Rolling Stone entitled, "Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?". It's nice to know that the drumbeat for justice continues. Taibbi's essay provided a great history of the crisis, with a particular emphasis on how whistleblowers were ignored, just as Harry Markopolos was ignored when (in May of 2000) he tried to alert the SEC to the fact that Bernie Madoff's hedge fund was a multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Here is a great passage from Matt Taibbi's essay:
In the past few years, the administration has allocated massive amounts of federal resources to catching wrongdoers — of a certain type. Last year, the government deported 393,000 people, at a cost of $5 billion. Since 2007, felony immigration prosecutions along the Mexican border have surged 77 percent; nonfelony prosecutions by 259 percent. In Ohio last month, a single mother was caught lying about where she lived to put her kids into a better school district; the judge in the case tried to sentence her to 10 days in jail for fraud, declaring that letting her go free would "demean the seriousness" of the offenses.
So there you have it. Illegal immigrants: 393,000. Lying moms: one. Bankers: zero. The math makes sense only because the politics are so obvious. You want to win elections, you bang on the jailable class. You build prisons and fill them with people for selling dime bags and stealing CD players. But for stealing a billion dollars? For fraud that puts a million people into foreclosure? Pass. It's not a crime. Prison is too harsh. Get them to say they're sorry, and move on. Oh, wait — let's not even make them say they're sorry. That's too mean; let's just give them a piece of paper with a government stamp on it, officially clearing them of the need to apologize, and make them pay a fine instead. But don't make them pay it out of their own pockets, and don't ask them to give back the money they stole. In fact, let them profit from their collective crimes, to the tune of a record $135 billion in pay and benefits last year. What's next? Taxpayer-funded massages for every Wall Street executive guilty of fraud?
Wouldn't it be nice if public opinion meant more to the Obama administration than campaign contributions from Wall Street banksters?
2010, 2010 elections, American economy, Angelo Mozilo, Anton Valukas, Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless, bankers, Barack Obama, Bernie Madoff, Change We Can Believe In, Commentary, con men, Congress, corporate welfare, Countrywide, crime, criminal charges, criminal proceedings, criminals, David Einhorn, Democratic campaign, Dick Fuld, drumbeat for justice, economic crisis, economic policy, Ed Koch, elections, Eric Hold-harmless, Eric Holder, federal resources, financial crimes, financial crisis, financial reform bill, fines, foreclosure, Frank Rich, fraud, great recession, H David Kotz, Harry Markopolos, hedge fund, hoax, Hope dealer, ineptitude, Inspector General, jailable class, justice, lack of accountability, Lehman bankruptcy examiner, Lehman Brothers, Lehman collapse, Lehman scandal, Lewis and Einhorn, mainstream media, Matt Taibbi, Mayor Ed Koch, Michael Lewis, mid-term elections, New York, New York Times, no criminal charges, No Justice For The Wicked, Obama Administration, Obama Inauguration, plutocrats, Politics, Ponzi Scheme, prison, prisons, prosecutions, public opinion, Rolling Stone, SEC, SEC enforcement division, SEC failures, Securities and Exchange Commission, securities laws, Senate Democrats, Stephen Labaton, unregulated Wall Street activities, Valukas report, Wall Street, Wall Street Banks, Wall Street banksters, Wall Street clean-up, Wall Street executive, Well Street culture of corruption, whistleblowers, Why Isnt Wall Street in Jail
Jeremy Grantham And Ike
Comments Off on Jeremy Grantham And Ike
As an avid reader of Jeremy Grantham's Quarterly Letter, I was surprised when he posted a Special Topic report on January 14 — so close to release of his Fourth Quarter 2010 Letter, which is due in a couple of weeks. At a time when many commentators are focused on the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's historic Inaugural Address, Jeremy Grantham has taken the opportunity to focus on President Dwight Eisenhower's Farwell Address of January 17, 1961. (Grantham included the full text of Ike's Farwell Address at the conclusion of the Special Topic essay.)
One passage from Ike's Farwell Address seemed particularly prescient in the wake of the TARP bailout (which was not a success) and the "backdoor bailouts" including the Maiden Lanes (which were never to be repaid) as well as the cost of approximately $350 billion per year to investors and savers, resulting from the Federal Reserve's zero-interest-rate-policy (often referred to as "ZIRP"). Keep those Wall Street bailouts in mind while reading this passage from Ike's speech:
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
In his Special Topic report, Jeremy Grantham focused on the disappointing changes that caused Ike's America to become 21st Century America. After quoting Ike's now-famous admonition about the power of the military-industrial complex (for which the speech is frequently quoted) Grantham pointed out that the unrestricted influence of corporate power over our government has become a greater menace:
Unfortunately, the political-economic power problem has mutated away from the military, although it has left important vestiges there, toward a broader problem: the undue influence of corporate America on the government, and hence the laws, taxes, and social policies of the country. This has occurred to such a degree that there seems little real independence in Congress, with most Congressmen answering first to the desire to be reelected and the consequent need to obtain funding from, shall we say, sponsors, and the need to avoid making powerful enemies.
The financial resources of the carbon-based energy companies are particularly terrifying, and their effective management of propaganda goes back decades. They established and funded "independent" think tanks and even non-profit organizations that have mysteriously always come out in favor of policies favorable to maintaining or increasing the profits of their financial supporters. The campaign was well-organized and has been terrifyingly effective.
The financial industry, with its incestuous relationships with government agencies, runs a close second to the energy industry. In the last 10 years or so, their machine, led by the famously failed economic consultant Alan Greenspan – one of the few businessmen ever to be laughed out of business – seemed perhaps the most effective. It lacks, though, the multi-decadal attitude-changing propaganda of the oil industry. Still, in finance they had the "regulators," deregulating up a storm, to the enormous profit of their industry.
Grantham concluded his report with a suggestion for the greatest tribute we could give Eisenhower after America ignored Ike's warnings about the vulnerability of our government to unrestricted influences. Grantham's proposed tribute to Ike would be our refusal to "take this 50-year slide lying down".
To steal a slogan from the Tea Party, I suggest the voters need to "take America back" from the corporations which bought off the government. Our government has every intention of maintaining the status quo.
In the 2010 elections, voters were led to believe that they could bring about governmental reform by voting for candidates who will eventually prove themselves as protectors of the wealthy at the expense of the disappearing middle class. In the 2008 elections, Barack Obama convinced voters that he was the candidate of change they could believe in. In the real world of 2011, economist Simon Johnson explained what sort of "change" those voters received, as exemplified by the President's appointment of his new Chief of Staff:
Let's be honest. With the appointment of Bill Daley, the big banks have won completely this round of boom-bust-bailout. The risk inherent to our financial system is now higher than it was in the early/mid-2000s. We are set up for another illusory financial expansion and another debilitating crisis.
Bill Daley will get it done.
Just as Jeremy Grantham explained how Eisenhower's concerns about the military-industrial complex were materialized in the form of a corporate-controlled government, another unholy alliance was discussed by Charles Ferguson, director of the documentary film, Inside Job. Ferguson recently offered an analysis of the milieu that resulted in President Obama's appointment of Larry Summers as Director of the National Economic Council. As Larry Summers announced plans to move on from that position, Ferguson explained how Summers had been granted the opportunity to inflict his painful legacy upon us:
Summers is unique but not alone. By now we are all familiar with the role of lobbying and campaign contributions, and with the revolving door between industry and government. What few Americans realize is that the revolving door is now a three-way intersection. Summers' career is the result of an extraordinary and underappreciated scandal in American society: the convergence of academic economics, Wall Street, and political power.
America needs new leaders who refuse to capitulate to the army of lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Where are they?
2008 elections, 2010 elections, 21st Century America, 50-year slide, academic economics, backdoor bailouts, bank bailouts, Barack Obama, Bill Daley, boom-bust-bailout, campaign, campaign contributions, Capitol Hill, carbon-based energy companies, change, change they could believe in, Charles Ferguson, Chief of Staff, Congress, Congressmen, corporate influence on government, disappearing middle class, Dwight Eisenhower, economist Simon Johnson, failed economic consultant Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial industry, financial system, GMO Quarterly Letter, government agencies, governmental reform, imbalance, Inside Job, January 14, January 17 1961 Farwell Address, Jeremy Grantham, Jeremy Grantham And Ike, JFK Inaugural Address, Larry Summers, lobbying, Maiden Lane, military-industrial complex, National Economic Council, oil industry propaganda, political-economic power, private economy, protectors of the wealthy, public economy, regulators who deregulate, revolving door, Special Topic report, sponsors, status quo, systemic risk, take America back, take America back from corporations, TARP, Tea Party, think tanks, unrealistic programs, voters, Wall Street, zero-interest-rate policy, ZIRP
Well-Deserved Scrutiny For The Fed
November 8th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Well-Deserved Scrutiny For The Fed
In the wake of the 2010 elections, it's difficult to find a pundit who doesn't mention the Tea Party at least once while discussing the results. This got me thinking about whether the man referred to as "The Godfather" of the Tea Party movement, Congressman Ron Paul (father of Tea Party candidate, Senator-elect Rand Paul) will become more influential in the next Congress. More important is the question of whether Ron Paul's book, End The Fed will be taken more seriously – particularly in the aftermath of the Fed's most recent decision to create $600 billion out of thin air in order to purchase even more treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities by way of the recently-announced, second round of quantitative easing (referred to as QE2).
The announcement by the Federal Open Market Committee to proceed with QE2 drew immediate criticism. The best rebuke against QE 2 came from economist John Hussman, whose Weekly Market Comment – entitled, "Bubble, Crash, Bubble, Crash, Bubble …" was based on this theme:
We will continue this cycle until we catch on. The problem isn't only that the Fed is treating the symptoms instead of the disease. Rather, by irresponsibly promoting reckless speculation, misallocation of capital, moral hazard (careless lending without repercussions), and illusory "wealth effects," the Fed has become the disease.
One issue raised by Mr. Hussman – which should resonate well with supporters of the Tea Party – concerns the fact that the Fed is undertaking an unconstitutional exercise of fiscal policy (rather than monetary policy) most notably by its purchase of mortgage-backed securities:
In this example, the central bank is not engaging in monetary policy, but fiscal policy. Creating government liabilities to acquire goods and assets, unless those assets are other government liabilities, is fiscal policy, pure and simple.
Hussman's analysis of how the "the economic impact of QE2 is likely to be weak or even counterproductive" was best expressed in this passage:
We are betting on the wrong horse. When the Fed acts outside of the role of liquidity provision, it does more harm than good. Worse, we have somehow accepted a situation where the Fed's actions are increasingly independent of our democratically elected government. Bernanke's unsound leadership has placed the nation's economic stability on two pillars: inflated asset prices, and actions that – in Bernanke's own words – should be "correctly viewed as an end run around the authority of the legislature" (see below).
The right horse is ourselves, and the ability of our elected representatives to create an economic environment that encourages productive investment, research, development, infrastructure, and education, while avoiding policies that promote speculation, discourage work, or defend reckless lenders from experiencing losses on bad investments.
On November 6, another brilliant critique of the Fed came from Ashvin Pandurangi (a/k/a "Ash") of the Simple Planet website. His essay began with a reminder of what the Fed really is:
The most powerful, influential economic policy-making institution in the country, the Federal Reserve ("Fed"), is an unelected body that is completely unaccountable to the people.
The Fed, by its own admission, is an independent entity within the government "having both public purposes, and private aspects". By "private aspects", they mean the entire operation is wholly-owned by private member banks, who are paid dividends of 6% each year on their stock. Furthermore, the Fed's decisions "do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government" and the Fed "does not receive funding appropriated by Congress". In 1982, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed this view when it held that "federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities … but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations".
As we all know: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". At the end of his essay, Ash connected the dots for those either unable to do so or unwilling to face an ugly reality:
In the last two years, the almighty Fed has printed trillions of dollars in our name to buy worthless mortgage assets from "too big to fail" banks. It has lent these banks our hard-earned money at about 0% interest, so they could lend our own money back to us at 3%+. These banks also used our free money to ramp equity and commodity markets, which mostly benefited the top 1% of our population who owns 43% of financial wealth [2], and conveniently, also owns the Fed. The latter has kept interest rates at next to nothing to punish savers and encourage speculation, making everything less affordable for average Americans who have seen their wages stay the same, decrease or disappear. What's left standing is the perniciously powerful, highly secretive and entirely unaccountable Fed, who now epitomizes the state of American democracy.
At least we still have freedom of speech! As part of the Fed's roll-out of QE2, Chairman Ben Bernanke found it necessary to write a public relations piece for The Washington Post – perhaps as an apology. Stock market commentator Bill Fleckenstein had no trouble ripping Bernanke's article to shreds:
Bernanke goes on to say: "Although low inflation is generally good, inflation that is too low can pose risks to the economy — especially when the economy is struggling. In the most extreme case, very low inflation can morph into deflation."
Oh, yeah? Says who? I have not seen any instance where a "too low" inflation rate led to deflation. When deflation is caused by new inventions or increased productivity (or in the old days, bumper crops), which we might term "good" deflation, it was not a consequence of too little inflation; it was due to progress. Similarly, the "bad" deflation isn't created via inflation that is too low; it tends to come from burst bubbles. In other words, misguided policies, not low inflation, are the cause of deflation.
Because the timing of the Fed's controversial move to proceed with QE2 dovetails so well with the "energizing" of the Tea Party movement, it will be interesting to observe whether life will become more uncomfortable for Chairman Bernanke. A recent article by Joshua Zumbrun of Bloomberg News gave us this hint:
Six out of 10 self-identified Tea Party supporters who said they were likely to vote supported overhauling or abolishing the Fed, according to a Bloomberg News national poll conducted Oct. 7-10.
The article made note of the fact that Ron Paul's ill-fated effort to Audit the Fed (HR 1207) received bipartisan support:
"You had a really strange alliance last year that supported the audit of the Fed and that may come back into play," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.
Here's to bipartisanship!
2010 elections, 600 billion dollars, Ashvin Pandurangi, Audit the Fed, Ben Bernanke, Bill Fleckenstein, Bloomberg news, Bloomberg News national poll, Bubble Crash Bubble Crash Bubble, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Congress, Dean Baker, deflation, economy, End The Fed, Federal Open Market Committee, fiscal policy, FOMC, Godfather of the Tea Party movement, HR 1207, inflated asset prices, inflation, John Hussman, Joshua Zumbrun, liquidity provision, monetary policy, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, President, QE2, quantitative easing, Rand Paul, reckless speculation, Ron Paul, Simple Planet, speculation, Tea Party, The Washington Post, too-big-to-fail banks, Treasury securities, unconstitutional exercise, wealth effect, Weekly Market Comment, Well-Deserved Scrutiny For The Fed, worthless mortgage assets
Maria Cantwell For President
Comments Off on Maria Cantwell For President
I was going to hold off on this and give President Obama the benefit of a doubt – at least for a few months. Nevertheless, after reading the magnificent piece by Barry Ritholtz, entitled: "The Tragedy of the Obama Administration", I decided that it was time to start discussing leadership alternatives for the next Presidential term.
On October 30, the Associated Press published the results of a poll it conducted with Knowledge Networks. Forty-seven percent of the Democrats surveyed expressed the opinion that Obama should be challenged for the 2012 Democratic Presidential nomination. In the wake of the mid-term election massacre, I expect that more Democrats will be anxious to find a new standard-bearer for their party in 2012. The AP article concerning the AP-KN poll, mentioned the theory that the public's opinion of Obama could change if the economy improves. Unfortunately, most American consumers will not observe any significant improvement in the economy during the next two years. There is a greater likelihood that the Chicago Cubs will win next year's World Series.
We currently find ourselves bombarded with a wide spectrum of opinions, which purport to explain what the results of the 2010 elections really mean. The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from this event is that the voters resent being taken for chumps. Obama's supporters were promised change they could believe in by a President and a party that sold its soul to the Wall Street megabanks at the cost of America's future economic health. When he had the opportunity to do so in early 2009, Obama refused to put those too-big-to-fail, zombie banks through temporary receivership. As a result, we are now approaching a situation which – according to financial risk management expert Chris Whalen – will necessitate another round of bank bailouts. When President Obama had the opportunity and the public support (not to mention Democratic control over both houses of Congress) to enact an adequate stimulus program to save the economy from a decade(s) – long, Japanese-style recession, he refused to so. If an extra $600 billion had been added to the $787 billion in 2009 (as part of a better-thought-out, infrastructure-based stimulus program) we would be experiencing significant economic growth and a recovering job market right now. Australia keeps reminding us of this. (Oops! Australia just did it again!) Instead, America finds itself in a situation wherein the Fed is now appropriating that $600 billion toward another round of quantitative easing, which will serve no other purpose than to push investors into the stock market. According to economist Andy Xie, those stock investors will have an unpleasant experience when Chairman Bernanke's latest asset bubble pops in 2012.
While many Senate Democrats (along with operatives from the Treasury Department) were busy removing all of the teeth from the financial reform bill, Maria Cantwell was fighting those efforts as one of the few advocates for the American taxpayers. Back on May 19, Arthur Delaney and Ryan Grim of The Huffington Post described how Senator Cantwell stood up to the efforts of Harry Reid to use cloture to push the financial reform bill to a vote before any further amendments could have been added to strengthen the bill. Notice how "the usual suspects" – Reid, Chuck Schumer and "Countrywide Chris" Dodd tried to close in on Cantwell and force her capitulation to the will of the kleptocracy:
There were some unusually Johnsonian moments of wrangling on the floor during the nearly hour-long vote. Reid pressed his case hard on Snowe, the lone holdout vote present, with Bob Corker and Mitch McConnell at her side. After finding Brown, he put his arm around him and shook his head, then found Cantwell seated alone at the opposite end of the floor. He and New York's Chuck Schumer encircled her, Reid leaning over her with his right arm on the back of her chair and Schumer leaning in with his left hand on her desk. Cantwell stared straight ahead, not looking at the men even as she spoke. Schumer called in Chris Dodd, who was unable to sway her. Feingold hadn't stuck around. Cantwell, according to a spokesman, wanted a guarantee on an amendment that would fix a gaping hole in the derivatives section of the bill, which requires the trades to be cleared, but applies no penalty to trades that aren't, making Blanche Lincoln's reform package little better than a list of suggestions.
"I don't think it's a good idea to cut off good consumer amendments because of cloture," said Cantwell on Tuesday night.
Senator Cantwell has proven herself worthy of our trust. Her nomination as the 2012 Democratic Presidential candidate will revive the excitement and voter enthusiasm witnessed during the 2008 campaign. On the other hand, if President Obama decides to seek a second term and wins the nomination, we will likely find a greater enthusiasm gap than the example of November 2. As a result, by January of 2013 we could have a new administration in the White House, espousing what economist Nouriel Roubini describes as "the economic equivalent of creationism".
Here's to a bright future!
2008 campaign, 2009, 2010 elections, 2012 Democratic Presidential candidate, 2012 election, 600 billion dollars, 787 billion dollars, American consumers, American economy, American taxpayers, Andy Xie, AP-KN poll, Arthur Delaney, asset bubble, Associated Press, Australia, bank bailouts, Barack Obama, Barry Ritholtz, Ben Bernanke, Blanche Lincoln, Chicago Cubs, Chris Dodd, Chris Whalen, Chuck Schumer, cloture, Congress, Countrywide Chris Dodd, Democratic Presidential nomination, Democrats, derivatives, economic equivalent of creationism, economic growth, economic stimulus program, economists, enthusiasm gap, Fed, Federal Reserve, financial reform bill, FOMC, Harry Reid, infrastructure, January of 2013, Japanese-style recession, job market, kleptocracy, Maria Cantwell For President, mid-term election massacre, Nouriel Roubini, President Obama, quantitative easing, recession, recovery, Robert Reich, Ryan Grim, Senate, Senate Democrats, Senator Cantwell, stock investors, stock market, temporary receivership, The Huffington Post, too-big-to-fail banks, Tragedy of the Obama Administration, Treasury Department, voter enthusiasm, voters, Wall Street megabanks, White House, World Series, zombie banks
Bad Report Card Haunts Democrats At Mid-Terms
October 25th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Bad Report Card Haunts Democrats At Mid-Terms
It doesn't take much time or effort to find out how or why the Democrats have alienated so many independent voters (and so much of their own base) during the 2010 election cycle. You don't need to look to the Fox News or Andrew Breitbart for an explanation. Reading through the opinion pages of The New York Times should provide you with a good understanding of what the Democrats have been doing wrong.
The special treatment afforded to the perpetrators of the frauds that helped create the financial crisis wasn't the only gift to Wall Street from the Democratically-controlled White House, Senate and Congress. The financial "reform" bill was so badly compromised (by the Administration and Senate Democrats, themselves) as it worked its way through the legislative process, that it is now commonly regarded as nothing more than a hoax. Frank Rich finds it ironic that the voters are about to return power to "those who greased the skids" to facilitate the financial catastrophe:
We can blame much of this turn of events on the deep pockets of oil billionaires like the Koch brothers and on the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which freed corporations to try to buy any election they choose. But the Obama White House is hardly innocent. Its failure to hold the bust's malefactors accountable has helped turn what should have been a clear-cut choice on Nov. 2 into a blurry contest between the party of big corporations and the party of business as usual.
David Weidner of MarketWatch recently discussed the idea of appointing a special prosecutor to bring the Wall Street culprits to justice. After acknowledging the often-used pushback argument made by those opposed to such a prosecutorial effort — that those cases are impossibly difficult to advance through the legal system — Weidner made this observation:
These cases may be difficult, but they're not impossible. And given the creation of a lawless marketplace where one economy-destroying decision can be made on top of another for short-term personal gains, something has to be done.
But nothing's happening. Maybe it's because of the money Wall Street lavishes on Congress. Perhaps it's the close ties between the industry and the administration. It could be, as Nouriel Roubini said in the new documentary "Inside Job," investigators are "afraid" of what they will find.
A special prosecutor, in a bid to make a name for himself or herself, might be immune to such pressure. It's our best hope for outing the scoundrels and creating an industry where greed finally takes a backseat to the law.
Back at The New York Times, Charles Blow brought our attention to the recent rant by Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless, who – despite his uselessness in the aftermath of the financial Ponzi-crisis – stands at the ready to prosecute marijuana smokers in the event that Proposition 19 becomes law in The Golden State. One would think that the Obama administration might prefer that a large bloc of voters should remain stoned for as long as possible, so as to prevent those citizens from realizing what a lousy job their President is doing for them. Worse yet, Charles Blow explained how the Democrats have been advancing the Clinton-era Byrne Formula Grant Program, as a vehicle for financing a war on pot smokers, over the objections of former President George W. Bush and conservative groups, who emphasized that the program "has proved to be an ineffective and inefficient use of resources." Nevertheless, the Democrats were able to direct two billion dollars from the financial stimulus program to the so-called Byrne Grants. Remember: that's two billion dollars from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – which was supposed to put people back to work and save the economy – misappropriated to the effort of putting pot smokers in jail. I guess that the Obama Justice Department has to look like it's doing something.
Another issue that has not escaped the public's radar – despite the efforts of the Obama administration – is the never-ending catastrophe in the Gulf of Corexit, caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil rig blowout. Washington's Blog recently featured an important posting, with links to several articles about this environmental disaster, which the administration wants you to forget about (at least until after the election). The BP-sponsored, mainstream media seem more than happy with the claim of "mission accomplished" voiced by Coast Guard Rear Admiral Paul Zukunft (the man in charge of the federal response) and his top science adviser, Steve Lehmann. A review of any one of the articles linked at the Washington's Blog posting will scare the hell out of you — just in time for Halloween (and Election Day). Nevertheless the people who will get the worst haunting of Halloween 2010 will be the Democrats. Unfortunately for us, most of them deserve it.
2010 elections, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Andrew Breitbart, Angelo Mozilo, Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless, Bad Report Card Haunts Democrats At Mid-Terms, BP, Byrne Formula Grant Program, Byrne Grants, California, Charles Blow, Clinton-era, Congress, Corexit, Countrywide, David Weidner, Deepwater Horizon, Democrats, Dick Fuld, Ditizens United decision, environmental disaster, Eric Holder, financial crimes, financial crisis, financial Ponzi-crisis, financial reform bill, financial reform bill as hoax, financial stimulus program, Fox News, Frank Rich, George W Bush, Golden State, Gulf of Corexit, Halloween 2010, independent voters, Inside Job, Koch brothers, Lehman Brothers, MarketWatch, mission accomplished, Nouriel Roubini, Obama Administration, Obama Justice Department, Paul Zukunft, Proposition 19, Senate, Senate Democrats, special prosecutor, Steve Lehmann, Supreme Court, The New York Times, two billion dollars, Wall Street, war on pot smokers, Washingtons Blog, White House


Stanley Coffee offers a unique mixture of various tobaccos from around the world.
This carefully selected blend has been developed with a tasteful Coffee flavor.
It's fresh aroma can be enjoyed both by rolling and tubing.


I must be getting closer to finishing up this album project! Yes sireeeeee – as I continue to finalize some of these tracks, more and more stuff happens to take up my TIME!! Like for instance, the other day the car just broke – transmission...costs more to fix than the car's worth – now what??
Than, mystery water leak in the basement – fortunately it stopped but I have no idea what happened. What the #$$!??
And people I know – in the hospital, strange illness, what ever... Yes sireeeeeeee, it's coming!!


text:
Community Theatre Full Length /
Stuck at Home
Book By: Bryan Starchman
Cast: Minimum 4 m, 2 w, 2 flexible, 2 offscreen voices. Maximum 15 m, 13 w, 2 flexible, 3 offscreen voices.
Join this hilarious family as they struggle to endure being stuck at home – together! Why is the WiFi out, and will their old-school solutions work when all the needed cords are missing from the junk drawer? Will the family secure two-ply rolls of toilet paper in trade negotiations with Grandma? Wait… what has each of them been using? How many family game nights can teens endure? How are the pets holding up? What foods (or beverages!) are critical enough to make a special run to the grocery store? How do first dates and book clubs work while social distancing? And really, who is strong enough to endure more than one Dad joke?
This show is perfect at providing both laugh-out-loud humor as well as flexibility in staging. It can be traditionally staged or performed and viewed online.
Also see: "Stuck at Home" (one-act)
and "Still Stuck at Home" (one-act)
SOUTH AIKEN HIGH SCHOOL 3 Performance(s)
AIKEN, SC 4/26/2023
CARVER ARTS & MAGNET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 Performance(s)
MONTGOMERY, AL 11/27/2022
2 Performance(s)
DUMFRIES, VA 11/19/2022
PROSSER HIGH SCHOOL 3 Performance(s)
RICHLAND, WA 11/17/2022
NORTHRIDGE LOCAL SCHOOLS 3 Performance(s)
DAYTON, OH 11/4/2022
NEW KNOXVILLE SCHOOLS 2 Performance(s)
NEW KNOXVILLE, OH 10/28/2022
CLAYMONT HIGH SCHOOL 3 Performance(s)
UHRICHSVILLE, OH 10/15/2022
FRIENDSHIP PLAYERS FALLSTON UM 4 Performance(s)
FALLSTON, MD 10/1/2022
SAINT SIMON THE APOSTLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL 3 Performance(s)
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 5/20/2022
GRAYSON COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 Performance(s)
LEITCHFIELD, KY 5/13/2022
SOUTHERN HILLS COMMUNITY THEATRE 2 Performance(s)
HOT SPRINGS, SD 5/13/2022
CATA PERFORMING ARTS CLUB 1 Performance(s)
COLUMBUS, OH 4/8/2022
CHEYENNE SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL 1 Performance(s)
CHEYENNE, WY 4/5/2022
WASCO HIGH SCHOOL 2 Performance(s)
BAKERSFIELD, CA 3/31/2022
TELL CITY MS 3 Performance(s)
TELL CITY, IN 3/4/2022
OAK FARM MONTESSORI SCHOOL 1 Performance(s)
AVILLA, IN 3/3/2022
RONAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 Performance(s)
RONAN, MT 1/10/2022
MIB DRAMA DEPARTMENT 1 Performance(s)
MOUNTAIN IRON, MN 11/11/2021
BEAVER ISLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOL 1 Performance(s)
BEAVER ISLAND, MI 5/27/2021
MARIPOSA COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 Performance(s)
MARIPOSA, CA 5/22/2021
BARN PLAYERS, INC. 2 Performance(s)
MILES CITY, MT 4/16/2021
LEWISTON-ALTURA HS 3 Performance(s)
LEWISTON, MN 4/2/2021
With Bryan Starchman
What inspired you to write this play?
I was inspired to write this play because like everyone else, I found myself stuck at home staring at the same four walls and I wanted to process how my life had changed. While I don't have kids, I went through a lot of the same challenges like running out of toilet paper, putting on a hazmat suit to go grocery shopping, and surviving one terrible day without WiFi.
What's your favorite part or line in the play? Why?
I relate to the son. I have a tendency to get really into something and study it for a week and then get distracted by something new. During the pandemic I was going to watch a famous film a day, then I was going to complete a great course every week, then I moved over to Master Class, I ran through the entire film studies series on Crash Course, then started cooking potatoes in every way imaginable after being inspired by videos on TikTok. So my favorite line is when he has just learned about the lock down and already he is learning how to say "My father does not wash his hands" in Spanish. It's subtle and some audiences might miss it, but I love that kind of humor.
Where did the characters come from? Are they based on people you know?
Even though I don't have kids, I have two sisters and my parents are a bit like the parents in this show. After writing additional scenes I started to realize that I was also inspired by the family dynamics in Schitt's Creek (a show that I binged in about a week during lock down). I feel that the sister is definitely inspired by Alexis Rose from that show.
What did you try to achieve with this play?
This was such a stressful time that I needed to find the lighter side of something that we were all struggling with. I had drama students who were seniors and they were realizing that they would never be in another high school production. I was able to workshop an early version of this script with them and it gave us all some closure as we ran the lines over Zoom. I feel that once we are able to return to the stage, students are going to want to work through the stress of 2020 and I think this show will be cathartic for both the actors and the audience.
Do you have anything else you'd like to add?
This was a challenging show to write because it is also a very serious subject. I strived to never poke fun at the real tragedy of this pandemic. It has affected us all. I've lost people to it. And I hope you will produce this show understanding that we all need to talk about the last year and find the collective humor while respecting just how serious this pandemic was.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Dan Castellaneta is a American Voice Actor, who was born on in Birth Place not known. Age old. Dan Castellaneta Zodiac Sign is Scorpio, Ethnicity White & religion Unknown.
Dan Castellaneta estimated net worth in 2018 is Under Review. Here we also added Dan Castellaneta previous years Net Worth, Income, Salary & Property details.
Height & Weight: Are you interested to know that How tall is Dan Castellaneta? Let's check it. Dan Castellaneta's height 5 Ft 10 In & Weight 75 Kg.
Body Measurements: Dan Castellaneta full body measurements Not Available Right Now. We will update once we get the correct information. Body build Average, Eye color Blue & Hair color Bald.
Qualification No Information Found About Educational Qualification.
School School Name will be update soon.
Father Fathers name not available right now.
Relatives No Information Available About Relatives / Other Family Members.
Best Friend(s) Not Shared about Best/Close Friends.
Children We will update soon about Childrens.
Figure/Measurements No varified information has been found about Body Measurements.
Address : No 100 Baria Sreet 100/2 Jaipur City, IN.


text:
Bulgaria opens new 24km stretch of Struma Motorway between Kresna and Sandanski
By Clive Leviev-Sawyer/ Published on: 16/12/2018
A further 23.6km of the Struma Motorway between Kresna and Sandanski, close to the border with Greece, opens on December 17 2018, Bulgaria's Road Infrastructure Agency said.
The section of the motorway is being co-financed by the European Union's Cohension Fund and Bulgaria's national budget through the Operational Programme Transport and Transport Infrastructure 2014-2020.
The official ceremony would be attended by Regional Development and Public Works Petya Avramova and Transport Minister Rossen Zhelyazkov, the chairman of the board of the Road Infrastructure Agency Svetoslav Glosov, members of Parliament, mayors and others, the agency said.
The section includes three road junctions – Kresna, Strumyani and Sandanski, 25 large facilities such as bridges and an overpass over the Sofia – Kulata railway line.
The contractor is a consortium of GBS Infrastructure, Putstroy 92, Glavbolgastroy and Geostroy, and the value of the contract is close to 281 million leva, VAT included. The construction supervision contract was awarded to Putinvestinzhering, with a value of 3.5 million leva with VAT.
The total length of Struma Motorway, from Daskalovo to the border with Greece, is 150km.
The motorway forms part of the Orient/Eastern Mediterranean Corridor, connecting Vidin to Kulata, and the traffic towards Greece uses this route. This road is also used as the shortest route between Western, Eastern Europe and the Aegean Sea, as well as a link between Europe and Asia.
Another stretch, from Blagoevgrad to Krupnik, a total of 12.6km is being built./IBNA
(Photo: Road Infrastructure Agency)
Investigation on the loss of military equipment in Leros
Kadri Simson is the new Energy Commissioner-Fans Timmermans has been appointed European Green Deal Coordinator
Joint Communiqué after the Mitsotakis-Anastasiades meeting: Negotiations in Cyprus should be relaunched
Mitsotakis and Anastasiades meet amid Cavusoglu's unacceptable statements
Bulgarian PM: Spread of African Swine Fever a global problem
Palmer: Agreement between Belgrade and Pristina is possible
Foreign Ministry of Cyprus: The "consulate" constitutes a serious secessionist move
Mitsotakis' economic plans put to Eurogroup test
Nicos Anastasiades in Athens
First Pride Parade in BiH passes without incidents


text:
Q: How does the return info of the XML documentation show? I love the XML documentation feature, the <summary> always shows up, and recently I found out how to make the function argument info in <param> visible in Intellisense by setting an Output Path in the Build tab of the property page of a class project or in web.config for the Web project. But so far I have not seen any benefit of writing documentation in the <returns> tag. How do I make this visible in Intellisense?

A: Unfortunately, the <returns> tag won't be shown by IntelliSense.
It is only shown in the Object Explorer.
It is also exported to the XML documentation (via options in the Build tab), so it can be used by documentation generators.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Hardwood is one of the most popular floor covering choices made by homeowners in the Salinas area. There's a reason that some other flooring materials try to replicate the appearance of hardwood flooring. The natural characteristics of hardwood floors accentuate and add a touch of elegance to any room. Hardwood flooring goes well in all types of homes, from traditional, to contemporary, to modern. The timeless appeal of hardwood floors allow you to create the specific ambiance you desire.
There are a number of benefits to choosing hardwood flooring over other materials. As you could probably guess, hardwood floors tend to hold up very well over time. If you're worried about costs, you can rest easy knowing that installing hardwood flooring increased the value of a home. Real estate agents have noted that houses with hardwood floors sell faster and bring higher prices than homes with other types of flooring. Hardwood floors are also easy to maintain. With minimal care, hardwood floors retain their beauty and elegance for decades. If properly cared for, hardwood typically needs to be refinished every 5 to 10 years, depending on the location of the wood and the traffic that it receives. By refinishing your hardwood floor you preserve the actual wood and ensure its longevity.
When choosing which hardwood floor to install in your home, there are a number of factors you'll need to consider. You've probably noticed that hardwood floors come in a variety of textures and patterns. Each variety of wood not only looks different, but it also behaves differently. You'll want to assess the characteristics of the room where the wood will be placed to determine the optimal hardness for your wood. A high-traffic hallway will often do better with different wood than your laundry room. You'll also have a number of visual characteristics to choose from. Some people will prefer more pronounced grain patterns, while others will want more subdued patterns.
If you're feeling overwhelmed, don't worry! It's a lot to take in, but that's why we're here. If you'd like to explore your options for hardwood flooring in your home or business you should call us at (831) 663-3496 or drop by our showroom at 10031 Reese Circle in Salinas, CA and we'd be glad to assist you. We will assess your needs and help you choose the flooring that's best for you.