Dear Friends,
Please take some time and look at this collection of original pictures taken between, 1939 and 1943 in America. Truly astounding and telling.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2010/07/26/captured-america-in-color-from-1939-1943/2363/
Happy Holidays
Monday, December 20, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Damage of the New tax Deal
Everyone knows that the "deal" that President Obama agreed to with Republicans will extend George W. Bush's reckless millionaire tax bailout—but what a lot of folks don't realize is that there are lots of other terrible parts of it, too.
Unemployed Americans desperately need their benefits extended to get by in this economy—so Republicans held them hostage to force through a slew of horrible economic policies in this deal. Here are just a few that you might not have heard about.
Share the list by going to http://pol.moveon.org/taxdealproblems?id=25497-1884697-bsjCA.x&t=3
If you're on Facebook, share it by clicking here. If you're on Twitter, tweet it here.
Top 5 Problems with the Tax Deal
Problem #1: The deal is a stealth attack on Social Security.
The deal will lower the payroll tax—the tax that funds the Social Security trust. This is a trap for Democrats. Republicans have been coming after Social Security for years and this cut is the biggest threat to the vital program in decades. It will cut one-third of Social Security's funding this year alone and when we need to restore the payroll tax back to its current level, Republicans will cry "tax increases" and could gut it permanently. 1
Problem #2: For nearly one in three workers, it's a tax increase.
Nearly 50 million working Americans—including all workers making less than $20,000 per year—and millions of federal, state, and municipal workers will see their taxes go up because of the deal.2
Problem #3: The deal has not one but TWO millionaire bailouts.
In addition to extending all the Bush income tax breaks for the top 2%, the deal will slash the estate tax. If Congress did nothing, next year the estate tax would be 55% and apply to everyone inheriting $1 million or more. But the deal reduces it to 35% and only people who inherit more than $5 million will have to pay. This second bailout will give a gigantic tax giveaway to a few thousand of the richest families in the country and add hundreds of billions to the national debt.3
Problem #4: Unemployment help is insufficient and inadequate.
While the deal extends unemployment benefits for another 13 months for people currently receiving it, millions of unemployed workers who've struggled the most and been out of work more than 99 weeks—since the giant Wall Street banks wrecked the economy—will get no help at all under the deal.4 It's a gamble that there will be jobs in the next 13 months when the insurance runs out, but the tax cuts will go well beyond that. Better to just pass a stand-alone unemployment extension to help all struggling Americans.
Problem #5: Tax giveaways to the rich are a terrible way to create jobs.
Tax breaks for the rich are the least efficient way to create jobs and help the economy grow. In fact the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says extending all tax cuts would lower unemployment only 0.1% to 0.3% over the next year5 and that the cost of the tax deal would be $900 billion over the next five years.6
We've got to stop this deal and make sure everyone understands what's really in it. Can you share this list now?
Thanks
Sources:
1."Tax Cut Deal A Hidden Threat To Social Security," The Huffington Post, December 8, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205508&id=25497-1884697-bsjCA.x&t=6
2. "Obama-Republican Deal Could Mean Tax Hike For One In Three Workers," The Huffington Post, December 10, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205509&id=25497-1884697-bsjCA.x&t=7
3. "Estate tax deal: worst part of a bad tax compromise," The Christian Science Monitor, December 7, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205510&id=25497-1884697-bsjCA.x&t=8
4. "Unemployment benefits: Extension won't help '99ers'," The Christian Science Monitor, December 7, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205511&id=25497-1884697-bsjCA.x&t=9
5. "The Deal," Paul Krugman, The New York Times, December 7, 2010
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/the-deal/
6. "CBO score shows tax plan ups deficit $900 billion in 5 years," CNN.com, December 10, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205512&id=25497-1884697-bsjCA.x&t=10
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
Unemployed Americans desperately need their benefits extended to get by in this economy—so Republicans held them hostage to force through a slew of horrible economic policies in this deal. Here are just a few that you might not have heard about.
Share the list by going to http://pol.moveon.org/taxdealproblems?id=25497-1884697-bsjCA.x&t=3
If you're on Facebook, share it by clicking here. If you're on Twitter, tweet it here.
Top 5 Problems with the Tax Deal
Problem #1: The deal is a stealth attack on Social Security.
The deal will lower the payroll tax—the tax that funds the Social Security trust. This is a trap for Democrats. Republicans have been coming after Social Security for years and this cut is the biggest threat to the vital program in decades. It will cut one-third of Social Security's funding this year alone and when we need to restore the payroll tax back to its current level, Republicans will cry "tax increases" and could gut it permanently. 1
Problem #2: For nearly one in three workers, it's a tax increase.
Nearly 50 million working Americans—including all workers making less than $20,000 per year—and millions of federal, state, and municipal workers will see their taxes go up because of the deal.2
Problem #3: The deal has not one but TWO millionaire bailouts.
In addition to extending all the Bush income tax breaks for the top 2%, the deal will slash the estate tax. If Congress did nothing, next year the estate tax would be 55% and apply to everyone inheriting $1 million or more. But the deal reduces it to 35% and only people who inherit more than $5 million will have to pay. This second bailout will give a gigantic tax giveaway to a few thousand of the richest families in the country and add hundreds of billions to the national debt.3
Problem #4: Unemployment help is insufficient and inadequate.
While the deal extends unemployment benefits for another 13 months for people currently receiving it, millions of unemployed workers who've struggled the most and been out of work more than 99 weeks—since the giant Wall Street banks wrecked the economy—will get no help at all under the deal.4 It's a gamble that there will be jobs in the next 13 months when the insurance runs out, but the tax cuts will go well beyond that. Better to just pass a stand-alone unemployment extension to help all struggling Americans.
Problem #5: Tax giveaways to the rich are a terrible way to create jobs.
Tax breaks for the rich are the least efficient way to create jobs and help the economy grow. In fact the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says extending all tax cuts would lower unemployment only 0.1% to 0.3% over the next year5 and that the cost of the tax deal would be $900 billion over the next five years.6
We've got to stop this deal and make sure everyone understands what's really in it. Can you share this list now?
Thanks
Sources:
1."Tax Cut Deal A Hidden Threat To Social Security," The Huffington Post, December 8, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205508&id=25497-1884697-bsjCA.x&t=6
2. "Obama-Republican Deal Could Mean Tax Hike For One In Three Workers," The Huffington Post, December 10, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205509&id=25497-1884697-bsjCA.x&t=7
3. "Estate tax deal: worst part of a bad tax compromise," The Christian Science Monitor, December 7, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205510&id=25497-1884697-bsjCA.x&t=8
4. "Unemployment benefits: Extension won't help '99ers'," The Christian Science Monitor, December 7, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205511&id=25497-1884697-bsjCA.x&t=9
5. "The Deal," Paul Krugman, The New York Times, December 7, 2010
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/the-deal/
6. "CBO score shows tax plan ups deficit $900 billion in 5 years," CNN.com, December 10, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205512&id=25497-1884697-bsjCA.x&t=10
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Too Optimistic?
That is what one blog reader thinks I am. After reading my last blog in which I echoed the thinking of one of the great commentators of our time, David Brooks, the reader wrote:
"I wish I could believe in your optimistic vision of a groundswell movement that will arise and renew and re-energize the best American values and cure the ills of our political system. My experience of the American system is that it swings from one extreme to an another and it manages to balance out the extremist views only over long periods of time and only after much distress and pain.
Ameirican industrialists fought for half a century against the right of workers to organize to fight oppresively low wages and horrible working conditions yet by mid 20th century, after a World War and a Great Depression, when unions finally gained legal rights, labor used their new found power to force their employers into accepting unreasonable settlements that hastened the decline of American industry and ultimately led to the bankruptcy of the American automobile industry.
Now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. The weaslth of the nation is once again in the hands of 1% of the population, just as it was in 1929 before the crash. This time however, big business and other private interests have built a powerful fortress to protect their dominance including a network of Lobbyists who spend vast sums of money to support politicians who support their self-seeking interests,"grass roots" organizations financed by ulta-conservative billionaires and a nationwide media empire powerful enough to dwarf the bully pulpit of any sitting president. In the process they have created a political party that has moved so far to the right they are convinced that the business of the United States is business and nothing else matters. Any position that conflicts with this ideology is trash, compromise is out of the question and the opposition party is an enemy to be destroyed if possible and defeated at all costs.
Yet, to my great astonishment, in the wake of the worst economic upheaval since the Great Depression - the American voter has overwhelmingly rejected an administration that has struggled against intractable opposition to right the ship and protect the interests of the middle class and the planet on which we all live. Sorry Ted, I cannot believe that help is on the way and the nation will right itself anytime soon. The American people have spoken and they have said, things will have to get a lot worse before we figure out what to do about it".
Like to know what you think. I remain optimistic and believe that out current president can take us through. He does need our support and that of the feint hearted democrats in Congress. The predictions are that the republicans, afraid of the tea party, will move right and continue to blockade progress on jobs, energy, immigration and climate change. We, friends can not let that happen. Please think how you may get involved to have your opinions count!
HAPPY THANKSGIVING
and
MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA
"I wish I could believe in your optimistic vision of a groundswell movement that will arise and renew and re-energize the best American values and cure the ills of our political system. My experience of the American system is that it swings from one extreme to an another and it manages to balance out the extremist views only over long periods of time and only after much distress and pain.
Ameirican industrialists fought for half a century against the right of workers to organize to fight oppresively low wages and horrible working conditions yet by mid 20th century, after a World War and a Great Depression, when unions finally gained legal rights, labor used their new found power to force their employers into accepting unreasonable settlements that hastened the decline of American industry and ultimately led to the bankruptcy of the American automobile industry.
Now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. The weaslth of the nation is once again in the hands of 1% of the population, just as it was in 1929 before the crash. This time however, big business and other private interests have built a powerful fortress to protect their dominance including a network of Lobbyists who spend vast sums of money to support politicians who support their self-seeking interests,"grass roots" organizations financed by ulta-conservative billionaires and a nationwide media empire powerful enough to dwarf the bully pulpit of any sitting president. In the process they have created a political party that has moved so far to the right they are convinced that the business of the United States is business and nothing else matters. Any position that conflicts with this ideology is trash, compromise is out of the question and the opposition party is an enemy to be destroyed if possible and defeated at all costs.
Yet, to my great astonishment, in the wake of the worst economic upheaval since the Great Depression - the American voter has overwhelmingly rejected an administration that has struggled against intractable opposition to right the ship and protect the interests of the middle class and the planet on which we all live. Sorry Ted, I cannot believe that help is on the way and the nation will right itself anytime soon. The American people have spoken and they have said, things will have to get a lot worse before we figure out what to do about it".
Like to know what you think. I remain optimistic and believe that out current president can take us through. He does need our support and that of the feint hearted democrats in Congress. The predictions are that the republicans, afraid of the tea party, will move right and continue to blockade progress on jobs, energy, immigration and climate change. We, friends can not let that happen. Please think how you may get involved to have your opinions count!
HAPPY THANKSGIVING
and
MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA
Monday, November 15, 2010
The Choice is Ours to Make
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Ever hear that? Well, folks I think it is all about attitude from here on in. We either pull together or we are doomed to third rate former empire status.
David Brooks from the NYTimes says it very well below. Are we to have two years of meaningless congressional investigations? Two years of "just say no" so that the president has no chance to move an agenda or be reelected? Two years of failing to enact both an immigration policy or energy policy? Is this what we mean when we say less government, less regulation, less taxes?
Here is a thought. What if climate change is not man caused? Does that mean that we should let the oceans rise 3 feet in the next 15 years? Wouldn't that have devastating effects on the coast lines and people along them on every continent in the world? Say goodbye to New York City, Venice and the Netherlands to name a few.
Here is David Brooks in yesterday's NYTimes:
"So we continue on the headlong path toward a national disaster. And along the way our dysfunctional political system will leave all sorts of other problems unaddressed: immigration, energy policy and on and on.
Yet, I’m optimistic right now. I’m optimistic because while our political system is a mess, the economic and social values of the country remain sound. My optimism is also based on the conviction that serious, vibrant societies don’t sit by and do nothing as their governments drive off a cliff.
Over the past few years, we have seen millions of people mobilize — some behind President Obama and others around the Tea Parties. The country is restive and looking for alternatives. And before the next round of voting begins, I suspect we will see another mass movement: a movement of people who don’t feel represented by either of the partisan orthodoxies; a movement of people who want to fundamentally change the norms, institutions and rigidities that cause our gridlock and threaten our country.
You can’t organize a movement like this around pain — around tax increases and spending cuts. But you can organize one around a broad revitalization agenda, and, above all, love of country.
It will take a revived patriotism to motivate Americans to do what needs to be done. It will take a revived patriotism to lift people out of their partisan cliques. How can you love your country if you hate the other half of it?
It will take a revived patriotism to get people to look beyond their short-term financial interest to see the long-term national threat. Do you really love your tax deduction more than America’s future greatness? Are you really unwilling to sacrifice your Social Security cost-of-living adjustment at a time when soldiers and Marines are sacrificing their lives for their country in Afghanistan?
Like the civil rights movement, this movement will ask Americans to live up to their best selves. But it will do other things besides.
It will have to restore the social norms that prevailed through much of American history: when narcissism and hyperpartisanship was mitigated by loyalties larger than tribe and self; when competition between the parties was limited and constructive, not total and fratricidal.
This movement will have to build institutions to support the leaders who make the hard bargains. As in the civil rights era, politicians won’t make big changes unless they are impelled and protected by a social upsurge.
Most important, this movement will have to develop a governing philosophy and a policy agenda. Right now, orthodox liberals and conservatives have their idea networks, and everybody else is intellectual roadkill. This coming movement will have to revive the American System: a governing philosophy that believes in targeted federal efforts to arouse growth, social mobility and responsibility.
Like the chairmen’s report, this movement could demand that Congress wipe out tax loopholes and begin anew. It could protect federal aid to the poor while reducing federal subsidies to the upper-middle class.
The coming movement may be a third party or it may support serious people in the existing two. Its goal will be unapologetic: preserving American pre-eminence. It will preserve America’s standing in the world on the grounds that this supremacy is a gift to our children and a blessing for the earth.
David Brooks from the NYTimes says it very well below. Are we to have two years of meaningless congressional investigations? Two years of "just say no" so that the president has no chance to move an agenda or be reelected? Two years of failing to enact both an immigration policy or energy policy? Is this what we mean when we say less government, less regulation, less taxes?
Here is a thought. What if climate change is not man caused? Does that mean that we should let the oceans rise 3 feet in the next 15 years? Wouldn't that have devastating effects on the coast lines and people along them on every continent in the world? Say goodbye to New York City, Venice and the Netherlands to name a few.
Here is David Brooks in yesterday's NYTimes:
"So we continue on the headlong path toward a national disaster. And along the way our dysfunctional political system will leave all sorts of other problems unaddressed: immigration, energy policy and on and on.
Yet, I’m optimistic right now. I’m optimistic because while our political system is a mess, the economic and social values of the country remain sound. My optimism is also based on the conviction that serious, vibrant societies don’t sit by and do nothing as their governments drive off a cliff.
Over the past few years, we have seen millions of people mobilize — some behind President Obama and others around the Tea Parties. The country is restive and looking for alternatives. And before the next round of voting begins, I suspect we will see another mass movement: a movement of people who don’t feel represented by either of the partisan orthodoxies; a movement of people who want to fundamentally change the norms, institutions and rigidities that cause our gridlock and threaten our country.
You can’t organize a movement like this around pain — around tax increases and spending cuts. But you can organize one around a broad revitalization agenda, and, above all, love of country.
It will take a revived patriotism to motivate Americans to do what needs to be done. It will take a revived patriotism to lift people out of their partisan cliques. How can you love your country if you hate the other half of it?
It will take a revived patriotism to get people to look beyond their short-term financial interest to see the long-term national threat. Do you really love your tax deduction more than America’s future greatness? Are you really unwilling to sacrifice your Social Security cost-of-living adjustment at a time when soldiers and Marines are sacrificing their lives for their country in Afghanistan?
Like the civil rights movement, this movement will ask Americans to live up to their best selves. But it will do other things besides.
It will have to restore the social norms that prevailed through much of American history: when narcissism and hyperpartisanship was mitigated by loyalties larger than tribe and self; when competition between the parties was limited and constructive, not total and fratricidal.
This movement will have to build institutions to support the leaders who make the hard bargains. As in the civil rights era, politicians won’t make big changes unless they are impelled and protected by a social upsurge.
Most important, this movement will have to develop a governing philosophy and a policy agenda. Right now, orthodox liberals and conservatives have their idea networks, and everybody else is intellectual roadkill. This coming movement will have to revive the American System: a governing philosophy that believes in targeted federal efforts to arouse growth, social mobility and responsibility.
Like the chairmen’s report, this movement could demand that Congress wipe out tax loopholes and begin anew. It could protect federal aid to the poor while reducing federal subsidies to the upper-middle class.
The coming movement may be a third party or it may support serious people in the existing two. Its goal will be unapologetic: preserving American pre-eminence. It will preserve America’s standing in the world on the grounds that this supremacy is a gift to our children and a blessing for the earth.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Food for Thought
The election is over and the people have had their say. It is said that for the democrats, the election was theirs to lose and they did. The one thing the democrats really can not stand, it seems, is to have the opportunity to achieve their agenda. Our president, as I and others I have published here have pointed out, failed to either recognize the depth of this recession or lacked the courage to do what needed to be done to stimulate the economy.
He seems to be a pragmatist rather than a balls out leader. I am hoping he finds his cojones now that he has nothing more than a second term to lose.
Our president can also not call the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan Bush's wars any longer; nor can he explain why we are in Afghanistan at all at the cost of $200 mm dollars a day. I am a supporter of this president; but I have been saying for some time that he missed the severity of the recession and should already be out of Afghanistan.
It is also clear that while he had both houses he was abandoned by the independents and the so-called blue dog democrats. For example, good old Ben Nelson from Montana rode his horse in, had his mask on, his guns out and held up the president till he got what he wanted. Great support Mr. Senator! Along the way he made himself and the president appear as though they are wheelers and dealers willing to compromise beyond propriety and good sense.
There were and are three issues: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!
The president, using the advice of the trio who brought us the recession, Summers, Geithner and Paulson, under estimated the recession and simply did not create a large enough stimulus package. And the one he did create never reached the ordinary working person. Stimulating the economy really amounts to spending money until business, which is sitting on $2.5 trillion in retained earnings, invests in its companies again. Thereby creating jobs, thereby putting money in peoples' pockets, who then spend it and voila, the economy is stimulated.
Now we shall see the likes of Rove, Cheney, the American Enterprise Institute, McConnell, Palin, Bachman, Boehner and Paul run the country. Here is their mantra: reduce the size of government( agencies that regulate- hmmmm been there done that haven't we!), cut all discretionary spending across the board, keep the Bush tax cuts intact, and repeal the health care reform law.
Couple of hints on what this means. Cut discretionary spending means cutting everything but Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense( 70% of the budget). This means cutting education, monies allocated for research and development grants, monies for infrastructure projects. Anybody seen the shape New York City's East river bridges are in lately? And, cutting monies dedicated to alternative fuels. Oh well, we don't need them anyway since climate change is a political ploy invented by liberals. Every one agrees they can cut earmarks which frankly amounts to a rounding error considering the size of the U.S. budget.
Here is the light at the end of the tunnel: the republicans put up Palin as the presidential nominee in two years. Need I say more? Meantime we go to hell in a hand basket and the American people see that. Watch this next one. We are about to go through redistricting which means with a republican house the democrats will be screwed until at least the next census.
Keep hope alive, please, and push back every where you can. Demand that the platitudes the Tea party and Republicans have been expounding be fleshed out with specifics on what they will do to end the recession and reduce expenses.
A little scary when the republican leadership says their agenda is to be sure President Obama is a one term president. Therefore, they will offer nothing constructive hoping he fails. Then when we have another republican in the white house, we can go back to the care and feeding of the wealthy and perhaps eight more years of Rove, Cheney, a Bush-like president so we can run up eight more years of deficits and find other countries to invade and spread democracy.
Gary Tomei offers a thought:
There are differences between us and every other country, and I'm not prepared to advocate any other country's system, but this does provide food for thought. We should not assume that we can not learn anything from any source that does not originate from within our borders.
Capitalism Uber Alles: How the American Working Class Got Brainwashed
. . . Our country has long been admired for its extraordinary social mobility, but as Arianna Huffington points out in Third World America, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and France now have greater social mobility -- university education is free, or at minimal cost in Western Europe. Compared to other advanced industrialized countries which all provide universal health care, we are at the bottom in life expectancy and infant mortality. Americans have three months unpaid parental leave -- Swedes have 13 months, paid. Unlike Western Europeans, we have no government legislated paid vacations. In Germany, the world's largest exporter after China, workers get 6 weeks a year off. Americans average 13 days.
American conservatives delight in predicting the imminent demise of socialistic Western European benefits. But these benefits are part of the social contract within which all major European political parties, including conservatives, operate. While large national debts are leading to some cuts in benefits, these cuts do not represent reneging on that contract, just as cuts to education in the U.S. do not represent reneging on government funding for education -- which is part of our social contract.
A look at the divergence in political thinking between Western Europeans and Americans provides much of the answer to why we lag so far behind. . . .
☞ Think about it: We are more than triple their population – and we have all those amazing agricultural exports – yet Germany, with its 6-week vacations, universal health care, and strong labor unions, outcompetes us in the world market. How can that be?
We’re number one! But in obesity. China now has the world’s fastest supercomputer.
Can the solution really be to borrow $700 billion to extend tax cuts on income above $250,000? Get rid of the minimum wage and social safety net, cut back on education, deregulate polluters, and increase military spending?
Food for thought.
=
He seems to be a pragmatist rather than a balls out leader. I am hoping he finds his cojones now that he has nothing more than a second term to lose.
Our president can also not call the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan Bush's wars any longer; nor can he explain why we are in Afghanistan at all at the cost of $200 mm dollars a day. I am a supporter of this president; but I have been saying for some time that he missed the severity of the recession and should already be out of Afghanistan.
It is also clear that while he had both houses he was abandoned by the independents and the so-called blue dog democrats. For example, good old Ben Nelson from Montana rode his horse in, had his mask on, his guns out and held up the president till he got what he wanted. Great support Mr. Senator! Along the way he made himself and the president appear as though they are wheelers and dealers willing to compromise beyond propriety and good sense.
There were and are three issues: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!
The president, using the advice of the trio who brought us the recession, Summers, Geithner and Paulson, under estimated the recession and simply did not create a large enough stimulus package. And the one he did create never reached the ordinary working person. Stimulating the economy really amounts to spending money until business, which is sitting on $2.5 trillion in retained earnings, invests in its companies again. Thereby creating jobs, thereby putting money in peoples' pockets, who then spend it and voila, the economy is stimulated.
Now we shall see the likes of Rove, Cheney, the American Enterprise Institute, McConnell, Palin, Bachman, Boehner and Paul run the country. Here is their mantra: reduce the size of government( agencies that regulate- hmmmm been there done that haven't we!), cut all discretionary spending across the board, keep the Bush tax cuts intact, and repeal the health care reform law.
Couple of hints on what this means. Cut discretionary spending means cutting everything but Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense( 70% of the budget). This means cutting education, monies allocated for research and development grants, monies for infrastructure projects. Anybody seen the shape New York City's East river bridges are in lately? And, cutting monies dedicated to alternative fuels. Oh well, we don't need them anyway since climate change is a political ploy invented by liberals. Every one agrees they can cut earmarks which frankly amounts to a rounding error considering the size of the U.S. budget.
Here is the light at the end of the tunnel: the republicans put up Palin as the presidential nominee in two years. Need I say more? Meantime we go to hell in a hand basket and the American people see that. Watch this next one. We are about to go through redistricting which means with a republican house the democrats will be screwed until at least the next census.
Keep hope alive, please, and push back every where you can. Demand that the platitudes the Tea party and Republicans have been expounding be fleshed out with specifics on what they will do to end the recession and reduce expenses.
A little scary when the republican leadership says their agenda is to be sure President Obama is a one term president. Therefore, they will offer nothing constructive hoping he fails. Then when we have another republican in the white house, we can go back to the care and feeding of the wealthy and perhaps eight more years of Rove, Cheney, a Bush-like president so we can run up eight more years of deficits and find other countries to invade and spread democracy.
Gary Tomei offers a thought:
There are differences between us and every other country, and I'm not prepared to advocate any other country's system, but this does provide food for thought. We should not assume that we can not learn anything from any source that does not originate from within our borders.
Capitalism Uber Alles: How the American Working Class Got Brainwashed
. . . Our country has long been admired for its extraordinary social mobility, but as Arianna Huffington points out in Third World America, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and France now have greater social mobility -- university education is free, or at minimal cost in Western Europe. Compared to other advanced industrialized countries which all provide universal health care, we are at the bottom in life expectancy and infant mortality. Americans have three months unpaid parental leave -- Swedes have 13 months, paid. Unlike Western Europeans, we have no government legislated paid vacations. In Germany, the world's largest exporter after China, workers get 6 weeks a year off. Americans average 13 days.
American conservatives delight in predicting the imminent demise of socialistic Western European benefits. But these benefits are part of the social contract within which all major European political parties, including conservatives, operate. While large national debts are leading to some cuts in benefits, these cuts do not represent reneging on that contract, just as cuts to education in the U.S. do not represent reneging on government funding for education -- which is part of our social contract.
A look at the divergence in political thinking between Western Europeans and Americans provides much of the answer to why we lag so far behind. . . .
☞ Think about it: We are more than triple their population – and we have all those amazing agricultural exports – yet Germany, with its 6-week vacations, universal health care, and strong labor unions, outcompetes us in the world market. How can that be?
We’re number one! But in obesity. China now has the world’s fastest supercomputer.
Can the solution really be to borrow $700 billion to extend tax cuts on income above $250,000? Get rid of the minimum wage and social safety net, cut back on education, deregulate polluters, and increase military spending?
Food for thought.
=
Sunday, October 24, 2010
In Case you Missed This,,,,,,
Gail Collins writes a column for the NY Times. If you missed this last week it is worth reading. If the stakes were not so high the hypocrisy she points out would be amusing. I reprint it for you below.
October 20, 2010
The Fury Failure
By GAIL COLLINS
Rage is not working out.
In Delaware, the Republican voters were so angry that they rejected a popular congressman and gave their Senate nomination to an apparently unemployed 41-year-old woman whose major life success had been an ongoing performance as Wacko Conservative Girl on late-night talk shows. In Alaska, they were so mad that they tossed out their incumbent senator for Joe Miller, a lawyer who believes unemployment compensation is unconstitutional, except when his wife is receiving it.
So now in Delaware the unangry Democrat candidate is way ahead. In Alaska, Miller keeps dropping in the polls, which made him so mad that he had his private security guards take an inquiring reporter into custody.
That did not go over very well even in Alaska, an extremely angry state that hateshateshates all forms of government, despite the fact that 40 percent of its economy comes from government aid, and the state’s oil-revenue-sharing program gives families thousands of dollars in payments every year. “Unemployment has never been lower; there is no housing crisis; banks are solvent. We just got Permanent Fund Checks — and, boy, are we pissed off!” said Michael Carey, an Anchorage Daily News columnist.
Really, people, rage never gets you anything but overturned garbage cans and broken windows. If you want to do rage, go to France.
We are talking here about undifferentiated anger, which creates nothing but a feeling of moral superiority on the part of the irate. It’s natural to get furious at specific things: a tax increase or an unfaithful spouse or a blown tire. Or, in the case of the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky, Rand Paul, a debate opponent who asks: “When is it ever appropriate to tie up a woman and have her kneel before a false idol that you refer to as Aqua Buddha?”
This involved a college prank that Paul told reporters he doesn’t remember. You can see why he was angry, although it does sound hard to forget.
It’s the difference between Joe Manchin, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in West Virginia, who has ads showing him metaphorically shooting a bullet into the heart of the cap-and-trade bill, and the unsuccessful Republican candidate for Congress in Arizona, who had herself filmed spraying machine-gun fire all over the place while an announcer said: “Pamela Gorman — conservative Christian and a pretty fair shot.” Even if you don’t agree with Manchin’s position, you have to admit that Gorman would probably be more difficult to work with.
In New York, Republicans were so full of free-floating rage that they nominated Carl Paladino, a hotheaded developer from Buffalo, for governor. For a while this summer, upstate New York was littered with “I’m Mad As Hell, Too, Carl!” lawn signs.
Paladino quickly developed a gender gap the size of the Grand Canyon. A recent Siena College poll showed that 71 percent of female voters preferred his opponent, Andrew Cuomo, while 21 percent supported him, demonstrating yet again that women will not vote for a guy who yells.
The Republican nominee got into fights, promised to “take out” one reporter and insulted gays. He trotted out his poor wife, who gave interviews recounting how she had forgiven Carl for fathering a 10-year-old daughter after he broke the news while she was getting ready for their son’s funeral.
Cuomo, meanwhile, has not only refrained from yelling, he’s barely had to leave his office.
On the rage-o-meter, this week’s gubernatorial debate in New York was not quite as stirring as Kentucky’s, possibly because it involved seven people, some in alarming get-ups, sitting on uncomfortable chairs in a line. Actually, it looked less like a debate than a tryout for some particularly embarrassing reality show.
Several third-party candidates, including a former Black Panther in a Nehru jacket, were more experienced in the politics of unproductive rage than Paladino. In a late-breaking attempt to change the tone, Paladino announced that he was not actually angry but simply “passionate.” Unfortunately, the world will remember his performance only for the part in which he had to run off to go to the bathroom before his concluding remarks.
The person who got the most postdebate attention was Jimmy McMillan of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party. McMillan wore black gloves and had a moustache that wound around his head like a ribbon, and a goatee that looked like two little fuzzy gerbils hanging from his chin. He was very, very, very angry. Particularly about the rents, which he pointed out were too damn high.
Afterward, Sarah Maslin Nir of The Times tracked him down in Brooklyn and discovered that McMillan’s own personal rent is, he said, zero. His landlords, he added, are “like family. They don’t want me to pay any money at all. I am basically living rent free.”
Which doesn’t mean he can’t be ticked off about it.
Remember to vote November 2 so we can "keep" our country!
October 20, 2010
The Fury Failure
By GAIL COLLINS
Rage is not working out.
In Delaware, the Republican voters were so angry that they rejected a popular congressman and gave their Senate nomination to an apparently unemployed 41-year-old woman whose major life success had been an ongoing performance as Wacko Conservative Girl on late-night talk shows. In Alaska, they were so mad that they tossed out their incumbent senator for Joe Miller, a lawyer who believes unemployment compensation is unconstitutional, except when his wife is receiving it.
So now in Delaware the unangry Democrat candidate is way ahead. In Alaska, Miller keeps dropping in the polls, which made him so mad that he had his private security guards take an inquiring reporter into custody.
That did not go over very well even in Alaska, an extremely angry state that hateshateshates all forms of government, despite the fact that 40 percent of its economy comes from government aid, and the state’s oil-revenue-sharing program gives families thousands of dollars in payments every year. “Unemployment has never been lower; there is no housing crisis; banks are solvent. We just got Permanent Fund Checks — and, boy, are we pissed off!” said Michael Carey, an Anchorage Daily News columnist.
Really, people, rage never gets you anything but overturned garbage cans and broken windows. If you want to do rage, go to France.
We are talking here about undifferentiated anger, which creates nothing but a feeling of moral superiority on the part of the irate. It’s natural to get furious at specific things: a tax increase or an unfaithful spouse or a blown tire. Or, in the case of the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky, Rand Paul, a debate opponent who asks: “When is it ever appropriate to tie up a woman and have her kneel before a false idol that you refer to as Aqua Buddha?”
This involved a college prank that Paul told reporters he doesn’t remember. You can see why he was angry, although it does sound hard to forget.
It’s the difference between Joe Manchin, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in West Virginia, who has ads showing him metaphorically shooting a bullet into the heart of the cap-and-trade bill, and the unsuccessful Republican candidate for Congress in Arizona, who had herself filmed spraying machine-gun fire all over the place while an announcer said: “Pamela Gorman — conservative Christian and a pretty fair shot.” Even if you don’t agree with Manchin’s position, you have to admit that Gorman would probably be more difficult to work with.
In New York, Republicans were so full of free-floating rage that they nominated Carl Paladino, a hotheaded developer from Buffalo, for governor. For a while this summer, upstate New York was littered with “I’m Mad As Hell, Too, Carl!” lawn signs.
Paladino quickly developed a gender gap the size of the Grand Canyon. A recent Siena College poll showed that 71 percent of female voters preferred his opponent, Andrew Cuomo, while 21 percent supported him, demonstrating yet again that women will not vote for a guy who yells.
The Republican nominee got into fights, promised to “take out” one reporter and insulted gays. He trotted out his poor wife, who gave interviews recounting how she had forgiven Carl for fathering a 10-year-old daughter after he broke the news while she was getting ready for their son’s funeral.
Cuomo, meanwhile, has not only refrained from yelling, he’s barely had to leave his office.
On the rage-o-meter, this week’s gubernatorial debate in New York was not quite as stirring as Kentucky’s, possibly because it involved seven people, some in alarming get-ups, sitting on uncomfortable chairs in a line. Actually, it looked less like a debate than a tryout for some particularly embarrassing reality show.
Several third-party candidates, including a former Black Panther in a Nehru jacket, were more experienced in the politics of unproductive rage than Paladino. In a late-breaking attempt to change the tone, Paladino announced that he was not actually angry but simply “passionate.” Unfortunately, the world will remember his performance only for the part in which he had to run off to go to the bathroom before his concluding remarks.
The person who got the most postdebate attention was Jimmy McMillan of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party. McMillan wore black gloves and had a moustache that wound around his head like a ribbon, and a goatee that looked like two little fuzzy gerbils hanging from his chin. He was very, very, very angry. Particularly about the rents, which he pointed out were too damn high.
Afterward, Sarah Maslin Nir of The Times tracked him down in Brooklyn and discovered that McMillan’s own personal rent is, he said, zero. His landlords, he added, are “like family. They don’t want me to pay any money at all. I am basically living rent free.”
Which doesn’t mean he can’t be ticked off about it.
Remember to vote November 2 so we can "keep" our country!
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Suggested Fixes for the Economy
As promised the following are the suggested fixes for the economy taken from the best minds* who are thinking, writing and speaking on the subject. At issue is whether Joseph Stiglitz( 10% unemployment may be the new normal) is correct and if so can we alter that outcome.
We need to learn from our major competitors to combine the forces of private enterprise with long-term government strategies and assistance to produce growth and prosperity.
America needs to change its perspective and theory about how our economy(or any economy works). All the models to date fail to account for one important element: Trust. People do not only behave or make economic decisions based upon macro or micro accepted Keynesian or Adam Smith theories. People also make decisions based upon their "gut instincts" for good or bad!
The government must stimulate the economy with enough money to kick start a growth cycle. An analysis of both the TARP and The Stimulus Package(TSP) reveals they were both on target, necessary and if anything not large enough. We must use the power of the Federal Reserve Bank and Congress to change the present course.
TARP which had $700 billion to be loaned actually spent $540 billions on 829 applicants. To date $194 billions have been paid back.*
TSP is working and when combined with the extension of unemployment benefits, the Small Business Stimulus Bill just enacted, letting tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250,000 a year will continue to keep growth from going negative or staying flat.
Wall Street and the Banks have not been reigned in and continue to behave badly(foreclosure scandal now hitting) They have proven that they can not police themselves. The government must use all of its powers to monitor and regulate their activities.
Is flat or going negative good enough?
Growth requires a different strategy. Business must come on line and invest the trillions of dollars held on their balance sheets. It is not a chicken and egg strategy, it is a cause and effect tactic. If business provides long term jobs, people will earn and put the money back into the economy.
Here is one that will send many of you into orbit: deficit spending is not going to hurt us long term. Getting our industries back to work, having them actually produce something and then selling the output world-wide will keep us from sliding into a third rate nation status behind China,India and even Germany who propers at the expense of its European neighbors.
President Obama has set the tone and direction. He is poised to spend us, yes I said spend us, to a kick-started economy. The existing political structure is unwilling to support such a plan. Demagogues from all segments with opinions based upon platitudes rule the day. Misinformation and an uninformed( by choice)electorate all have a say.
Examine the use of Targeted Credit. That is, credit should be extended to those who under normal conditions would be economically capable of using it and qualify for it.
Restructure Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to break the dream of every one in America can own a home.
No one of these tactics will in it self fix the economy. It requires a change of perspective, a willingness on the part of the electorate to sacrifice and become informed, an ability for the political structure to put aside partisan demagoguery and to understand that what is broken in the nation is Trust
Please support our president and our government. Have they done it all right? No. Have they had the foxes guarding the hen house? Yes? But the foxes are leaving and the president is showing courage and clear thinking on a range of issues.
Vote on November 2
* Sources
Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Shiller, Paul Krugman, George Akerlo, David Brooks and Noriel Roubini, The Wall Street Journal, The NY Times.
We need to learn from our major competitors to combine the forces of private enterprise with long-term government strategies and assistance to produce growth and prosperity.
America needs to change its perspective and theory about how our economy(or any economy works). All the models to date fail to account for one important element: Trust. People do not only behave or make economic decisions based upon macro or micro accepted Keynesian or Adam Smith theories. People also make decisions based upon their "gut instincts" for good or bad!
The government must stimulate the economy with enough money to kick start a growth cycle. An analysis of both the TARP and The Stimulus Package(TSP) reveals they were both on target, necessary and if anything not large enough. We must use the power of the Federal Reserve Bank and Congress to change the present course.
TARP which had $700 billion to be loaned actually spent $540 billions on 829 applicants. To date $194 billions have been paid back.*
TSP is working and when combined with the extension of unemployment benefits, the Small Business Stimulus Bill just enacted, letting tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250,000 a year will continue to keep growth from going negative or staying flat.
Wall Street and the Banks have not been reigned in and continue to behave badly(foreclosure scandal now hitting) They have proven that they can not police themselves. The government must use all of its powers to monitor and regulate their activities.
Is flat or going negative good enough?
Growth requires a different strategy. Business must come on line and invest the trillions of dollars held on their balance sheets. It is not a chicken and egg strategy, it is a cause and effect tactic. If business provides long term jobs, people will earn and put the money back into the economy.
Here is one that will send many of you into orbit: deficit spending is not going to hurt us long term. Getting our industries back to work, having them actually produce something and then selling the output world-wide will keep us from sliding into a third rate nation status behind China,India and even Germany who propers at the expense of its European neighbors.
President Obama has set the tone and direction. He is poised to spend us, yes I said spend us, to a kick-started economy. The existing political structure is unwilling to support such a plan. Demagogues from all segments with opinions based upon platitudes rule the day. Misinformation and an uninformed( by choice)electorate all have a say.
Examine the use of Targeted Credit. That is, credit should be extended to those who under normal conditions would be economically capable of using it and qualify for it.
Restructure Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to break the dream of every one in America can own a home.
No one of these tactics will in it self fix the economy. It requires a change of perspective, a willingness on the part of the electorate to sacrifice and become informed, an ability for the political structure to put aside partisan demagoguery and to understand that what is broken in the nation is Trust
Please support our president and our government. Have they done it all right? No. Have they had the foxes guarding the hen house? Yes? But the foxes are leaving and the president is showing courage and clear thinking on a range of issues.
Vote on November 2
* Sources
Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Shiller, Paul Krugman, George Akerlo, David Brooks and Noriel Roubini, The Wall Street Journal, The NY Times.
More on The Economy
I am pleased that so many of you are being thoughtful and willing to share your views. My sense is that if we do not express our views, find common ground we can not coalesce behind the political leadership we need to keep America from sliding into third rate nation status.
I received the following and offer it for your consideration:
Comments on the Current Economic/Political Situation in America
Sam Ginsburg / October 4, 2010
Americans tend to limit their vision of the world to the borders of the United States and to a time no earlier than the last election, or in some circles, to the last quarter. In a world that is being globalized at an every increasing rate, this near sightedness and lack of historical perspective is foolhardy and perilous to the future of this country.
America received a wakeup call warning us of the impending impact of economic globalism in the 1970’s when the Arab oil producers nationalized their oil, raised oil prices and threw the American economy into a tailspin that did not end until Paul Volcker brought rampant inflation under control by inducing a recession some ten years later during the Reagan years. Reagan then promptly dismissed Volcker so he could introduce the Free Market - Anti Regulation -Trickle down ideology espoused by his fellow Republicans. During this period, Japan grew its economy to become the second largest in the world by becoming the largest exporter to the United States by closely managing its government protected industries to increase exports while restricting imports. At about the same time, after the death of Mao-Tse-Tung, China began, what now can be seen, as the greatest national economic expansion in the history of the world – an expansion based on exports that has yielded double digit GDP growth over decades and has yet to show any sign of slowing down – a record of historical dimension totally orchestrated by a government, not private enterprise, and a Communist one no less.
The result of these changes and that of other “exporting” nations in Asia and the oil and gas producing countries of the world has been the greatest transfer of wealth and of jobs in the history of the world – from the Western, free nations, of the world to the exporting, nations of the world. Americans were told, not to worry when our industrial base shrunk from 60% of GDP to less than 10% - we were now transforming into an “information technology” economy and we would grow jobs in cleaner, safer, environments. Americans compensated for the loss of high paying factory jobs by sending their wives to work thus transforming the adage that two can live as cheaply as one to two workers can earn as much as one.
Every decade since the 1970’s has seen increasing erosion to the American way of life, most Americans aspire to, by countries outside of the United States. Clean office technology jobs began to be outsourced to other countries where the labor costs were less. High paying construction jobs have been decimated by alien workers from Mexico. Today, highly skilled legal, medical and architectural services are being outsourced to countries like India and China. And 30 years of ever increasing trade deficits with China and Japan has transformed the mighty American state into a debtor nation and 30 years of Free Market economics has brought us to the brink of another Great Depression from which no one knows when we will exit.
The argument about whether business or government is better at creating jobs in the country or which should be put in charge of getting this country back on track has to be seen in its historical context. The history of the last several decades has clearly proven that the free market, anti regulatory policies of the past have failed and new strategies are needed to address the reality that state-controlled foreign nations have exploited the American version of free market competition and have seriously impacted our economy and our labor force and that private corporations cannot possibly fix this problem. Nor can private corporations solve the numerous other problems confronting our nation such as global warming, alternative energy, heath care and education without the guidance of a government as effective as the Chinese state. We need to learn from our major competitors to combine the forces of private enterprise with long-term government strategies and assistance to produce growth and prosperity.
Having arrived at this conclusion, I am sad to say that America’s government no longer works. It is torn between two parties that can no longer work together and whose goals are limited to the next election. As for large business, their goals are limited to the force that fuels capitalism, Greed - defined by the results of the upcoming quarter and/or the goals prescribed by their executive’s bonus agreements. Tom Friedman, of the NY Times, in his latest editorial talks about the dysfunction of our government and the possibility of a third party entering the forthcoming presidential election. I wish I could believe this was possible. Instead I believe that, for years to come, America will continue to fumble from election to election and quarter to quarter and the nation will continue to decline as a world power and its influence will decline as our European partners seek to replace the dollar as the international currency and strengthen their connections to China and Russia and to the other extravagantly rich Sovereign wealth fund nations of the world who are sitting on rapidly expanding troves of trillions of dollars of private equity capital flowing to them from us and the rest of the western world who continue to import their products on a massive scale.
I received the following and offer it for your consideration:
Comments on the Current Economic/Political Situation in America
Sam Ginsburg / October 4, 2010
Americans tend to limit their vision of the world to the borders of the United States and to a time no earlier than the last election, or in some circles, to the last quarter. In a world that is being globalized at an every increasing rate, this near sightedness and lack of historical perspective is foolhardy and perilous to the future of this country.
America received a wakeup call warning us of the impending impact of economic globalism in the 1970’s when the Arab oil producers nationalized their oil, raised oil prices and threw the American economy into a tailspin that did not end until Paul Volcker brought rampant inflation under control by inducing a recession some ten years later during the Reagan years. Reagan then promptly dismissed Volcker so he could introduce the Free Market - Anti Regulation -Trickle down ideology espoused by his fellow Republicans. During this period, Japan grew its economy to become the second largest in the world by becoming the largest exporter to the United States by closely managing its government protected industries to increase exports while restricting imports. At about the same time, after the death of Mao-Tse-Tung, China began, what now can be seen, as the greatest national economic expansion in the history of the world – an expansion based on exports that has yielded double digit GDP growth over decades and has yet to show any sign of slowing down – a record of historical dimension totally orchestrated by a government, not private enterprise, and a Communist one no less.
The result of these changes and that of other “exporting” nations in Asia and the oil and gas producing countries of the world has been the greatest transfer of wealth and of jobs in the history of the world – from the Western, free nations, of the world to the exporting, nations of the world. Americans were told, not to worry when our industrial base shrunk from 60% of GDP to less than 10% - we were now transforming into an “information technology” economy and we would grow jobs in cleaner, safer, environments. Americans compensated for the loss of high paying factory jobs by sending their wives to work thus transforming the adage that two can live as cheaply as one to two workers can earn as much as one.
Every decade since the 1970’s has seen increasing erosion to the American way of life, most Americans aspire to, by countries outside of the United States. Clean office technology jobs began to be outsourced to other countries where the labor costs were less. High paying construction jobs have been decimated by alien workers from Mexico. Today, highly skilled legal, medical and architectural services are being outsourced to countries like India and China. And 30 years of ever increasing trade deficits with China and Japan has transformed the mighty American state into a debtor nation and 30 years of Free Market economics has brought us to the brink of another Great Depression from which no one knows when we will exit.
The argument about whether business or government is better at creating jobs in the country or which should be put in charge of getting this country back on track has to be seen in its historical context. The history of the last several decades has clearly proven that the free market, anti regulatory policies of the past have failed and new strategies are needed to address the reality that state-controlled foreign nations have exploited the American version of free market competition and have seriously impacted our economy and our labor force and that private corporations cannot possibly fix this problem. Nor can private corporations solve the numerous other problems confronting our nation such as global warming, alternative energy, heath care and education without the guidance of a government as effective as the Chinese state. We need to learn from our major competitors to combine the forces of private enterprise with long-term government strategies and assistance to produce growth and prosperity.
Having arrived at this conclusion, I am sad to say that America’s government no longer works. It is torn between two parties that can no longer work together and whose goals are limited to the next election. As for large business, their goals are limited to the force that fuels capitalism, Greed - defined by the results of the upcoming quarter and/or the goals prescribed by their executive’s bonus agreements. Tom Friedman, of the NY Times, in his latest editorial talks about the dysfunction of our government and the possibility of a third party entering the forthcoming presidential election. I wish I could believe this was possible. Instead I believe that, for years to come, America will continue to fumble from election to election and quarter to quarter and the nation will continue to decline as a world power and its influence will decline as our European partners seek to replace the dollar as the international currency and strengthen their connections to China and Russia and to the other extravagantly rich Sovereign wealth fund nations of the world who are sitting on rapidly expanding troves of trillions of dollars of private equity capital flowing to them from us and the rest of the western world who continue to import their products on a massive scale.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Economy
Here is how one of you caring, thoughtful people responded to the Economy blog.
I disagree with the premise that only business can create jobs. Though I certainly agree that we need more business investing and spending to aid the country in getting back on track, it seems to me that, more importantly, we need the government to take the lead and act as the engine to lead us on the road to recovery. The enormous public works projects of the Roosevwelt era did create jobs and stimulate the economy, but as Paul Krugman, in the November 10, 2008 edition of the NY Times, points out: the Roosevelt plan to end the Depression was not successful because it did not go far enough. It was Roosevelt's own cautious approach that almost undid him. Krugman writes, And F.D.R. wasn’t just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion — he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy. After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections.
Though Obama is not (contrary to Republican claims) raising taxes, he and the Democarats are exhibiting the same type of cautiousness, and, unfortunately, it seems to be yielding the same results:continued unemployment and a potential defeat in the coming elections.
As in the '30s there are numerous areas in which the government should invest. Our infrastructure is crumbling: roads, bridges, dams and schools all must be build or reconstructed, and we need, enormous government investment in, among other areas, clean energy, medical research and, of course, job retraining.
We need the bold leadship and bold change that we were promised. I do not fault President Obama for failures along these lines. He has put forth constructive plans and a stimulus package which was significantly cut back by the " just say no" right wingers in both parties. If the "Stimulus Package" hasn't lived up to its promise, a significant part of the reason is because of the those cutbacks, and not because it has proven too expensive. This is why I firmly believe we should be pushing for further govenment investment in the economy, not less.
Gary Tomei
-----
I disagree with the premise that only business can create jobs. Though I certainly agree that we need more business investing and spending to aid the country in getting back on track, it seems to me that, more importantly, we need the government to take the lead and act as the engine to lead us on the road to recovery. The enormous public works projects of the Roosevwelt era did create jobs and stimulate the economy, but as Paul Krugman, in the November 10, 2008 edition of the NY Times, points out: the Roosevelt plan to end the Depression was not successful because it did not go far enough. It was Roosevelt's own cautious approach that almost undid him. Krugman writes, And F.D.R. wasn’t just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion — he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy. After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections.
Though Obama is not (contrary to Republican claims) raising taxes, he and the Democarats are exhibiting the same type of cautiousness, and, unfortunately, it seems to be yielding the same results:continued unemployment and a potential defeat in the coming elections.
As in the '30s there are numerous areas in which the government should invest. Our infrastructure is crumbling: roads, bridges, dams and schools all must be build or reconstructed, and we need, enormous government investment in, among other areas, clean energy, medical research and, of course, job retraining.
We need the bold leadship and bold change that we were promised. I do not fault President Obama for failures along these lines. He has put forth constructive plans and a stimulus package which was significantly cut back by the " just say no" right wingers in both parties. If the "Stimulus Package" hasn't lived up to its promise, a significant part of the reason is because of the those cutbacks, and not because it has proven too expensive. This is why I firmly believe we should be pushing for further govenment investment in the economy, not less.
Gary Tomei
-----
Saturday, October 2, 2010
This President is Great Continued: The Economy
You may have wondered why I did not mention jobs and the economy yesterday. The answer is that it is a subject that must be addressed on its own.
The president and government, as mentioned previously, can not create sustainable long term employment. Government can put in stop gap measures such as the hiring for the US Census, unemployment benefits or infrastructure projects to repair or build roads, bridges and the like. Roosevelt tried that; but in truth from 1929 until the US entry into WWII, unemployment(25%) and a stagnant economy were entrenched. Why did the war change things and people go back to work? One million people went into the military and the rest, both men and women, went in to America's factories.
Only business can create sustainable long term employment. Business is sitting on the side lines with trillions of not invested dollars parked in retained earnings on their balance sheets. Why? Business does not have the confidence that this administration is trustworthy to protect its interest and be fair.
These three concepts confidence, trust, and fairness are and have been the under pinnings of all economies since the beginning of time. Read or read about Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, John Hicks and today's Robert Shiller out of Yale and you will see the recurring theme that these Animal Spirits are what drive any economy. Animal Spirits is a term coined by Keynes that comes from the Latin animus meaning the use of ones feelings, mind and gut instincts to make economic decisions.
So, business should come off the sidelines, start investing and hiring which would pump money into the economy. The government must cheer them on. Both, however, must demonstrate fairness, confidence and trust for this depression to end.
More specific recommendations on what each should consider doing in future blogs. Please let me know what you think
The president and government, as mentioned previously, can not create sustainable long term employment. Government can put in stop gap measures such as the hiring for the US Census, unemployment benefits or infrastructure projects to repair or build roads, bridges and the like. Roosevelt tried that; but in truth from 1929 until the US entry into WWII, unemployment(25%) and a stagnant economy were entrenched. Why did the war change things and people go back to work? One million people went into the military and the rest, both men and women, went in to America's factories.
Only business can create sustainable long term employment. Business is sitting on the side lines with trillions of not invested dollars parked in retained earnings on their balance sheets. Why? Business does not have the confidence that this administration is trustworthy to protect its interest and be fair.
These three concepts confidence, trust, and fairness are and have been the under pinnings of all economies since the beginning of time. Read or read about Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, John Hicks and today's Robert Shiller out of Yale and you will see the recurring theme that these Animal Spirits are what drive any economy. Animal Spirits is a term coined by Keynes that comes from the Latin animus meaning the use of ones feelings, mind and gut instincts to make economic decisions.
So, business should come off the sidelines, start investing and hiring which would pump money into the economy. The government must cheer them on. Both, however, must demonstrate fairness, confidence and trust for this depression to end.
More specific recommendations on what each should consider doing in future blogs. Please let me know what you think
Friday, October 1, 2010
This President is Great!
Hey! Quite a statement right? Hear me please. Tea Party? Yeah, well Carl Paladino, Meg( I didn't know she was illegal) Whitman, the lady from Delaware, Christine O Donnell who lied on her resume and is against masturbation, sex of any kind, don't mess with my Medicare and Messrs. Gingrich, Bohner, Madam Palin from Alaska(OMG is there another planet I can move to) and Anger??? Are any of you who read this blog ready to turn over our nation to these do nothing, self serving, so-called leaders?? I hope not.
Did you know:
1)Wall street has been reigned in and hates it.
2)The Banks have yet to write off any toxic investments.
3)Health care insurance companies are on notice and dare not be greedy.
4)TARP is over this Sunday and out of $700 billion dollars offered, less than $200 billion is out there.
5)Larry Summers is gone!! He was one of the group: Summers, Geither, Greenspan, Paulson and Goldman Sacks who brought us depression 2008.
Come on folks, this president has taken each item on his agenda and has either gotten it done or has it tee'd up. Yet to come are immigration, energy, and education.
Let's give him a chance to get it done. Has he made mistakes? Yes, in style as well as content. Did he bring people into his admin who helped create the problem? Yes he did. Again, not in content; but in style. He is an intellectual, deep feeling man who can not believe what he has been asked to do. Well, neither can I!
Here is my suggestion: Get behind the President Stop being partisan.
That is it! Stop doubting, get into the fray, stop listening to Rush, Glen, Michele, Newt, Ed, Rachelle, Keith and the rest of the SNL crowd, left, right or indifferent. They care only about their ratings and earnings.
Talk( I almost said pray) my friends to the Goddess, the God, the Universe, your Family whom ever you think controls or influences events.
Give this President a chance!!!
Did you know:
1)Wall street has been reigned in and hates it.
2)The Banks have yet to write off any toxic investments.
3)Health care insurance companies are on notice and dare not be greedy.
4)TARP is over this Sunday and out of $700 billion dollars offered, less than $200 billion is out there.
5)Larry Summers is gone!! He was one of the group: Summers, Geither, Greenspan, Paulson and Goldman Sacks who brought us depression 2008.
Come on folks, this president has taken each item on his agenda and has either gotten it done or has it tee'd up. Yet to come are immigration, energy, and education.
Let's give him a chance to get it done. Has he made mistakes? Yes, in style as well as content. Did he bring people into his admin who helped create the problem? Yes he did. Again, not in content; but in style. He is an intellectual, deep feeling man who can not believe what he has been asked to do. Well, neither can I!
Here is my suggestion: Get behind the President Stop being partisan.
That is it! Stop doubting, get into the fray, stop listening to Rush, Glen, Michele, Newt, Ed, Rachelle, Keith and the rest of the SNL crowd, left, right or indifferent. They care only about their ratings and earnings.
Talk( I almost said pray) my friends to the Goddess, the God, the Universe, your Family whom ever you think controls or influences events.
Give this President a chance!!!
Sunday, September 12, 2010
And God Speaks...in the Onion
I waited till the 11th had passed to bring you a summary that I believe says it all. This piece was written in 2001 and was published in the Onion. By the way this is funny, right on and should keep us all in perspective:
God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
NEW YORK—Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.
"Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again," said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near the site of the fallen Twin Towers. "Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don't. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand."
Worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, God said His name has been invoked countless times over the centuries as a reason to kill in what He called "an unending cycle of violence."
"I don't care how holy somebody claims to be," God said. "If a person tells you it's My will that they kill someone, they're wrong. Got it? I don't care what religion you are, or who you think your enemy is, here it is one more time: No killing, in My name or anyone else's, ever again."
The press conference came as a surprise to humankind, as God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs. As a matter of longstanding policy, He has traditionally left the task of interpreting His message and divine will to clerics, rabbis, priests, imams, and Biblical scholars. Theologians and laymen alike have been given the task of pondering His ineffable mysteries, deciding for themselves what to do as a matter of faith. His decision to manifest on the material plane was motivated by the deep sense of shock, outrage, and sorrow He felt over the Sept. 11 violence carried out in His name, and over its dire potential ramifications around the globe.
"I tried to put it in the simplest possible terms for you people, so you'd get it straight, because I thought it was pretty important," said God, called Yahweh and Allah respectively in the Judaic and Muslim traditions. "I guess I figured I'd left no real room for confusion after putting it in a four-word sentence with one-syllable words, on the tablets I gave to Moses. How much more clear can I get?"
"But somehow, it all gets twisted around and, next thing you know, somebody's spouting off some nonsense about, 'God says I have to kill this guy, God wants me to kill that guy, it's God's will,'" God continued. "It's not God's will, all right? News flash: 'God's will' equals 'Don't murder people.'"
Worse yet, many of the worst violators claim that their actions are justified by passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an.
"To be honest, there's some contradictory stuff in there, okay?" God said. "So I can see how it could be pretty misleading. I admit it—My bad. I did My best to inspire them, but a lot of imperfect human agents have misinterpreted My message over the millennia. Frankly, much of the material that got in there is dogmatic, doctrinal bullshit. I turn My head for a second and, suddenly, all this stuff about homosexuality gets into Leviticus, and everybody thinks it's God's will to kill gays. It absolutely drives Me up the wall."
God praised the overwhelming majority of His Muslim followers as "wonderful, pious people," calling the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks rare exceptions.
"This whole medieval concept of the jihad, or holy war, had all but vanished from the Muslim world in, like, the 10th century, and with good reason," God said. "There's no such thing as a holy war, only unholy ones. The vast majority of Muslims in this world reject the murderous actions of these radical extremists, just like the vast majority of Christians in America are pissed off over those two bigots on The 700 Club."
Continued God, "Read the book: 'Allah is kind, Allah is beautiful, Allah is merciful.' It goes on and on that way, page after page. But, no, some assholes have to come along and revive this stupid holy-war crap just to further their own hateful agenda. So now, everybody thinks Muslims are all murderous barbarians. Thanks, Taliban: 1,000 years of pan-Islamic cultural progress down the drain."
God stressed that His remarks were not directed exclusively at Islamic extremists, but rather at anyone whose ideological zealotry overrides his or her ability to comprehend the core message of all world religions.
"I don't care what faith you are, everybody's been making this same mistake since the dawn of time," God said. "The Muslims massacre the Hindus, the Hindus massacre the Muslims. The Buddhists, everybody massacres the Buddhists. The Jews, don't even get me started on the hardline, right-wing, Meir Kahane-loving Israeli nationalists, man. And the Christians? You people believe in a Messiah who says, 'Turn the other cheek,' but you've been killing everybody you can get your hands on since the Crusades."
Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: "Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp."
"Why would you think I'd want anything else? Humans don't need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you've been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!" God said. "The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?"
"I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm fucking serious!"
Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders began to shake, and He wept.
Have a nice day and please get it!
God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
NEW YORK—Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.
"Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again," said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near the site of the fallen Twin Towers. "Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don't. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand."
Worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, God said His name has been invoked countless times over the centuries as a reason to kill in what He called "an unending cycle of violence."
"I don't care how holy somebody claims to be," God said. "If a person tells you it's My will that they kill someone, they're wrong. Got it? I don't care what religion you are, or who you think your enemy is, here it is one more time: No killing, in My name or anyone else's, ever again."
The press conference came as a surprise to humankind, as God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs. As a matter of longstanding policy, He has traditionally left the task of interpreting His message and divine will to clerics, rabbis, priests, imams, and Biblical scholars. Theologians and laymen alike have been given the task of pondering His ineffable mysteries, deciding for themselves what to do as a matter of faith. His decision to manifest on the material plane was motivated by the deep sense of shock, outrage, and sorrow He felt over the Sept. 11 violence carried out in His name, and over its dire potential ramifications around the globe.
"I tried to put it in the simplest possible terms for you people, so you'd get it straight, because I thought it was pretty important," said God, called Yahweh and Allah respectively in the Judaic and Muslim traditions. "I guess I figured I'd left no real room for confusion after putting it in a four-word sentence with one-syllable words, on the tablets I gave to Moses. How much more clear can I get?"
"But somehow, it all gets twisted around and, next thing you know, somebody's spouting off some nonsense about, 'God says I have to kill this guy, God wants me to kill that guy, it's God's will,'" God continued. "It's not God's will, all right? News flash: 'God's will' equals 'Don't murder people.'"
Worse yet, many of the worst violators claim that their actions are justified by passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an.
"To be honest, there's some contradictory stuff in there, okay?" God said. "So I can see how it could be pretty misleading. I admit it—My bad. I did My best to inspire them, but a lot of imperfect human agents have misinterpreted My message over the millennia. Frankly, much of the material that got in there is dogmatic, doctrinal bullshit. I turn My head for a second and, suddenly, all this stuff about homosexuality gets into Leviticus, and everybody thinks it's God's will to kill gays. It absolutely drives Me up the wall."
God praised the overwhelming majority of His Muslim followers as "wonderful, pious people," calling the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks rare exceptions.
"This whole medieval concept of the jihad, or holy war, had all but vanished from the Muslim world in, like, the 10th century, and with good reason," God said. "There's no such thing as a holy war, only unholy ones. The vast majority of Muslims in this world reject the murderous actions of these radical extremists, just like the vast majority of Christians in America are pissed off over those two bigots on The 700 Club."
Continued God, "Read the book: 'Allah is kind, Allah is beautiful, Allah is merciful.' It goes on and on that way, page after page. But, no, some assholes have to come along and revive this stupid holy-war crap just to further their own hateful agenda. So now, everybody thinks Muslims are all murderous barbarians. Thanks, Taliban: 1,000 years of pan-Islamic cultural progress down the drain."
God stressed that His remarks were not directed exclusively at Islamic extremists, but rather at anyone whose ideological zealotry overrides his or her ability to comprehend the core message of all world religions.
"I don't care what faith you are, everybody's been making this same mistake since the dawn of time," God said. "The Muslims massacre the Hindus, the Hindus massacre the Muslims. The Buddhists, everybody massacres the Buddhists. The Jews, don't even get me started on the hardline, right-wing, Meir Kahane-loving Israeli nationalists, man. And the Christians? You people believe in a Messiah who says, 'Turn the other cheek,' but you've been killing everybody you can get your hands on since the Crusades."
Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: "Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp."
"Why would you think I'd want anything else? Humans don't need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you've been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!" God said. "The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?"
"I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm fucking serious!"
Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders began to shake, and He wept.
Have a nice day and please get it!
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
I am Really Worried!
The US economy is in the dumpster and is not showing signs of real recovery. Meaning, JOBS, AND NOT GOVERNMENT JOBS. Make no mistake here. The government(any government) can only create temporary jobs as Roosevelt did back in the depression and Obama did with the census. Business is the only group who can create long term sustainable employment. And Business is not investing in growth or employment until they think there is a more reasonable or even favorable climate toward business and taxes in Washington. Chicken and Egg? We shall see. Meanwhile there is a worthwhile Wall Street Journal column in today's paper that I share with you here:
By ANDY KESSLER
We should have eaten those toxic assets instead of sweeping them under the carpet.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was a foolish bait and switch. To prevent the 2008 financial crisis from worsening, TARP was originally designed to buy toxic mortgage derivatives weighing down banks and Wall Street, but no one could decide what price to pay for them. Too high and TARP would look like a government handout. But if the Treasury paid what they were worth, which was not much, financial firms would have to take huge write-offs, forcing many of them into insolvency and even nationalization.
So Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson switched plans, investing TARP funds directly into banks for a piece of equity. The idea was that banks would "earn out" their toxic portfolio—i.e., slowly write them off against the profits gained by the Federal Reserve's zero interest rate policy. It was a bold bet that the Treasury and Fed could engineer an economic recovery without allowing the bottoming action of a sharp but swift repricing of the U.S. housing stock. It turns out they only bought time, not a recovery, and now we are paying for that mistake.
Despite all efforts, the deleveraging continues. The $862 billion Congressional stimulus didn't stimulate the economy because it went into unproductive projects. The Fed's $1.4 trillion quantitative easing/dollar printing sent 30-year mortgage rates to record lows, but not enough people are buying homes because home prices haven't fallen enough to clear the inventory. And with 9.5% unemployment and 18.4% underemployed, there are more sellers than buyers.
Home sales dropped 27% from a year ago July to a 3.83 million annual rate, which was blamed on the May expiration of the $8,000 home buyer's tax credit. Dig deeper and it's even scarier. Existing home inventory (the number of homes for sale) now stands at four million units—that's a 12.5-month supply versus the average 6.2-month supply since 1999. As late as 2005, home inventory was just 2.5 million. Using that as a baseline or normal number, there are now around 1.5 million "extra" homes on the market that are not selling and either empty or soon to be foreclosed.
And those toxic mortgage assets? As far as I can tell, most are still there, valued at "mark to wish" since the Financial Accounting Standards Board's relaxation of "mark to market" accounting rules. Who knows what they're really worth? The stock market is guessing not much, sending finance stocks like Bank of America, Wells Fargo and even J.P. Morgan down close to 52-week lows. The Dow is once again flirting with 10,000. Money that had been flowing into stocks is now flowing into bond funds.
Wall Street smells a rat. Why? Because without a housing turnaround, jobs in construction, decoration, mortgage banking, auto sales and finance will stay in the doldrums. Delinquency rates, which are a leading indicator of foreclosures, are on the rise. According to the latest Mortgage Bankers Association survey, in the second quarter, prime adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) delinquency rates rose to 9.3%, with prime fixed-rate mortgages seeing delinquencies up 4.75%. On the subprime side, ARM delinquencies hit 30.9% with fixed at 22.5%.
This is not good for banks that still own toxic assets of any type of mortgage, subprime or not. If home prices fall further, and I can't see too many scenarios where they won't, these toxic assets are all set to drop in value. At some point, buyers of bank debt will get nervous. Think of these mortgage derivatives as soon to be nonperforming loans, the same ones that were a 20-year anchor dragging down Japan.
If this toxic sludge were sitting on a shelf at the Treasury or Fed, it really wouldn't matter. They can both hold them indefinitely without any real consequences. But instead, even a small uptick in foreclosures could take down the banking system—again. The trajectory is scary, but we don't have to get there.
There are three fixes:
• QE toxic. The Fed's quantitative easing has been focused on buying Treasurys as well as packages of high-quality mortgage assets. It's time to go back to the original TARP and start buying toxic assets directly from banks, no matter the price. If they become insolvent, set up the Treasury to inject capital a la TARP2 and allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to implement a quick-turnaround, prepackaged bank resolution and receivership. Clean those balance sheets up for good, else we relapse into financial crises again and again.
• Import buyers. Someone has to step up and buy those 1.5 million extra homes in inventory. I would wager there is a backlog of high-paying jobs for educated foreigners well beyond what H1-B visas allow to trickle in. In the name of financial stability, create a million visas for qualified immigrants, say, those with a masters or Ph.D., and watch home prices start to rise.
• Wait. Business deleveraging is an overhang for the economy, but it's really the consumer that is overdrawn. Digging through household liabilities numbers, I calculate that since 2006 consumers overshot by approximately $4 trillion in debt. Even at normal economic growth rates, that calls for at least seven years of consumer deleveraging. We're now three years into it. Bad policy (tax increases and regulatory burdens) will only extend it. You can't hurry up this deleveraging.
There are so many price distortions that markets, let alone business leaders, are confused as to what is real. So they sit on their hands. The only way out is to let prices go to where they need to go to clear the overhang. This is especially true of housing and the housing assets clogging up bank balance sheets. Next time banks are under fire (and I hope we are not heading toward a next time), buy them out, fire management and restart the franchise with a clean bill of health. We are starting to see what the alternative is.
Mr. Kessler, a former hedge fund manager, is the author most recently of "Grumby" (Vigilante, 2010).
By ANDY KESSLER
We should have eaten those toxic assets instead of sweeping them under the carpet.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was a foolish bait and switch. To prevent the 2008 financial crisis from worsening, TARP was originally designed to buy toxic mortgage derivatives weighing down banks and Wall Street, but no one could decide what price to pay for them. Too high and TARP would look like a government handout. But if the Treasury paid what they were worth, which was not much, financial firms would have to take huge write-offs, forcing many of them into insolvency and even nationalization.
So Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson switched plans, investing TARP funds directly into banks for a piece of equity. The idea was that banks would "earn out" their toxic portfolio—i.e., slowly write them off against the profits gained by the Federal Reserve's zero interest rate policy. It was a bold bet that the Treasury and Fed could engineer an economic recovery without allowing the bottoming action of a sharp but swift repricing of the U.S. housing stock. It turns out they only bought time, not a recovery, and now we are paying for that mistake.
Despite all efforts, the deleveraging continues. The $862 billion Congressional stimulus didn't stimulate the economy because it went into unproductive projects. The Fed's $1.4 trillion quantitative easing/dollar printing sent 30-year mortgage rates to record lows, but not enough people are buying homes because home prices haven't fallen enough to clear the inventory. And with 9.5% unemployment and 18.4% underemployed, there are more sellers than buyers.
Home sales dropped 27% from a year ago July to a 3.83 million annual rate, which was blamed on the May expiration of the $8,000 home buyer's tax credit. Dig deeper and it's even scarier. Existing home inventory (the number of homes for sale) now stands at four million units—that's a 12.5-month supply versus the average 6.2-month supply since 1999. As late as 2005, home inventory was just 2.5 million. Using that as a baseline or normal number, there are now around 1.5 million "extra" homes on the market that are not selling and either empty or soon to be foreclosed.
And those toxic mortgage assets? As far as I can tell, most are still there, valued at "mark to wish" since the Financial Accounting Standards Board's relaxation of "mark to market" accounting rules. Who knows what they're really worth? The stock market is guessing not much, sending finance stocks like Bank of America, Wells Fargo and even J.P. Morgan down close to 52-week lows. The Dow is once again flirting with 10,000. Money that had been flowing into stocks is now flowing into bond funds.
Wall Street smells a rat. Why? Because without a housing turnaround, jobs in construction, decoration, mortgage banking, auto sales and finance will stay in the doldrums. Delinquency rates, which are a leading indicator of foreclosures, are on the rise. According to the latest Mortgage Bankers Association survey, in the second quarter, prime adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) delinquency rates rose to 9.3%, with prime fixed-rate mortgages seeing delinquencies up 4.75%. On the subprime side, ARM delinquencies hit 30.9% with fixed at 22.5%.
This is not good for banks that still own toxic assets of any type of mortgage, subprime or not. If home prices fall further, and I can't see too many scenarios where they won't, these toxic assets are all set to drop in value. At some point, buyers of bank debt will get nervous. Think of these mortgage derivatives as soon to be nonperforming loans, the same ones that were a 20-year anchor dragging down Japan.
If this toxic sludge were sitting on a shelf at the Treasury or Fed, it really wouldn't matter. They can both hold them indefinitely without any real consequences. But instead, even a small uptick in foreclosures could take down the banking system—again. The trajectory is scary, but we don't have to get there.
There are three fixes:
• QE toxic. The Fed's quantitative easing has been focused on buying Treasurys as well as packages of high-quality mortgage assets. It's time to go back to the original TARP and start buying toxic assets directly from banks, no matter the price. If they become insolvent, set up the Treasury to inject capital a la TARP2 and allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to implement a quick-turnaround, prepackaged bank resolution and receivership. Clean those balance sheets up for good, else we relapse into financial crises again and again.
• Import buyers. Someone has to step up and buy those 1.5 million extra homes in inventory. I would wager there is a backlog of high-paying jobs for educated foreigners well beyond what H1-B visas allow to trickle in. In the name of financial stability, create a million visas for qualified immigrants, say, those with a masters or Ph.D., and watch home prices start to rise.
• Wait. Business deleveraging is an overhang for the economy, but it's really the consumer that is overdrawn. Digging through household liabilities numbers, I calculate that since 2006 consumers overshot by approximately $4 trillion in debt. Even at normal economic growth rates, that calls for at least seven years of consumer deleveraging. We're now three years into it. Bad policy (tax increases and regulatory burdens) will only extend it. You can't hurry up this deleveraging.
There are so many price distortions that markets, let alone business leaders, are confused as to what is real. So they sit on their hands. The only way out is to let prices go to where they need to go to clear the overhang. This is especially true of housing and the housing assets clogging up bank balance sheets. Next time banks are under fire (and I hope we are not heading toward a next time), buy them out, fire management and restart the franchise with a clean bill of health. We are starting to see what the alternative is.
Mr. Kessler, a former hedge fund manager, is the author most recently of "Grumby" (Vigilante, 2010).
Thursday, August 5, 2010
One Score Card on the The Fiscal Crisis
I hope you find this WSJ article informative. The newspaper is usually not friendly to government intervention which makes this assessment compelling. It is written by David Wessel of the WSJ.
"Although few realized it at the time, the devastating financial crisis began when money markets seized up in August 2007, prompting the first responders at the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank to act. With the modicum of hindsight that three years offer, what do we know now that we didn't know then?
A few lessons are widely accepted: Unfettered, poorly supervised finance can be dangerous to economic growth. Bankers and financial engineers do what rules encourage and permit, even if it means trouble later. Regulation was less than optimal, if not negligent. And borrowing heavily in good times in the hope they'll last forever is as imprudent as it sounds for homeowners and big bank CEOs.
A few other conclusions, though, are in dispute or are underappreciated. Here are three:
Government, which did fail to head off the crisis, saved us from an even worse outcome.
Hostility to the Bush-Paulson-Geithner-Bernanke (and largely Obama-blessed) bank bailouts, Obama fiscal stimulus and Fed meddling in markets is proof the public doubts this. (Full disclosure: My book, "In Fed We Trust," credits the Fed with a major role in averting another Depression.) Experts debate whether the Treasury and Fed were too soft on the banks and the bankers when they rescued them, about how much the Obama stimulus accomplished, and whether it was the right size and shape.
Those important arguments obscure the really big question: If the government hadn't done what it did, would unemployment be higher and the recession have been deeper and longer?
No one can answer a what-if question with certainty, and those skeptical of the potency of government spending won't be persuaded by economic models that assume government spending is potent.
But we know now that the economy was imploding in late 2008. We know now with detail how paralyzed financial markets were, and how rotten were the foundations of some big banks. We know now that even after all the Fed has done, we still risk devastating deflation.
So the short answer has to be: Yes, it would have been far worse had the government failed to act.
The biggest single bill to taxpayers will come not from a bank bailout, but from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Most people believe big Wall Street banks got bailed out and continue to profit from low interest rates. That's true, but many banks have paid back taxpayers with interest. Fannie and Freddie, though, burdened by huge mortgage portfolios, have taken $145 billion so far. In a new analysis, Alan Blinder of Princeton University and Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics put the ultimate price for saving them at $305 billion.
That compares with $71 billion in estimated costs to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for closing failing banks, $38 billion for American International Group, $29 billion for General Motors and its finance arm, GMAC, and somewhere between zero and a profit for banks in which taxpayers invested directly, according to the Blinder-Zandi calculations.
The government didn't nationalize the banks. Someday, it will sell its stake in GM. But it nationalized the mortgage market and hasn't found a way out. So taxpayers keep pumping money into Fannie and Freddie at a rate of greater than $1 billion a week.
The overall cost to Americans as taxpayers looks less than feared initially; the human and economic toll greater.
In narrow budget terms, the rescue of the financial system won't cost as much an initially estimated. The Congressional Budget Office has cut its estimate of the ultimate cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (which doesn't include Fannie or Freddie) to $109 billion from $350 billion and probably will reduce it further later this month. Bank losses are simply less than initially thought. In October 2009, the International Monetary Fund estimated U.S. banks would take write-downs of $1.085 trillion. By April 2010, it had reduced that by almost 20% to $885 billion. Officials at the Fed whisper that they may not lose a nickel on all their extraordinary lending.
But only the profoundly pessimistic in August 2007 imagined how deep and prolonged the recession would be, how much federal tax revenues would fall and thus how much the government would borrow, and how many would be out of work for so long. "The most pressing danger we now face is unacceptably weak growth and persistent unemployment rather than outright economic collapse," Peter Orszag said in his last speech as White House budget director.
So the good news is that we're not in a Great Depression. The bad news is that an army bigger than the entire population of Los Angeles has been out of work for a year—4.3 million people—and that just counts those still looking for work.
No wonder there's so much skepticism about the efficacy of fiscal stimulus, and such strong resistance to even think about doing more".
Hope you got something from that analysis. For the people out of work, homes and hope this is not a recession, it is a Great Depression. Job creation we all know is key and we also know that government can not create long term employment. Only the private sector can do that. There are trillions of corporate dollars sitting on the side lines waiting to understand how the administration will act towards business.
Tax cuts expiring, health care costs sure to rise, it is no wonder that business and thinking citizens are nervous and sitting on the side lines.
I wonder what you think? Please comment and have a great day.
"Although few realized it at the time, the devastating financial crisis began when money markets seized up in August 2007, prompting the first responders at the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank to act. With the modicum of hindsight that three years offer, what do we know now that we didn't know then?
A few lessons are widely accepted: Unfettered, poorly supervised finance can be dangerous to economic growth. Bankers and financial engineers do what rules encourage and permit, even if it means trouble later. Regulation was less than optimal, if not negligent. And borrowing heavily in good times in the hope they'll last forever is as imprudent as it sounds for homeowners and big bank CEOs.
A few other conclusions, though, are in dispute or are underappreciated. Here are three:
Government, which did fail to head off the crisis, saved us from an even worse outcome.
Hostility to the Bush-Paulson-Geithner-Bernanke (and largely Obama-blessed) bank bailouts, Obama fiscal stimulus and Fed meddling in markets is proof the public doubts this. (Full disclosure: My book, "In Fed We Trust," credits the Fed with a major role in averting another Depression.) Experts debate whether the Treasury and Fed were too soft on the banks and the bankers when they rescued them, about how much the Obama stimulus accomplished, and whether it was the right size and shape.
Those important arguments obscure the really big question: If the government hadn't done what it did, would unemployment be higher and the recession have been deeper and longer?
No one can answer a what-if question with certainty, and those skeptical of the potency of government spending won't be persuaded by economic models that assume government spending is potent.
But we know now that the economy was imploding in late 2008. We know now with detail how paralyzed financial markets were, and how rotten were the foundations of some big banks. We know now that even after all the Fed has done, we still risk devastating deflation.
So the short answer has to be: Yes, it would have been far worse had the government failed to act.
The biggest single bill to taxpayers will come not from a bank bailout, but from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Most people believe big Wall Street banks got bailed out and continue to profit from low interest rates. That's true, but many banks have paid back taxpayers with interest. Fannie and Freddie, though, burdened by huge mortgage portfolios, have taken $145 billion so far. In a new analysis, Alan Blinder of Princeton University and Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics put the ultimate price for saving them at $305 billion.
That compares with $71 billion in estimated costs to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for closing failing banks, $38 billion for American International Group, $29 billion for General Motors and its finance arm, GMAC, and somewhere between zero and a profit for banks in which taxpayers invested directly, according to the Blinder-Zandi calculations.
The government didn't nationalize the banks. Someday, it will sell its stake in GM. But it nationalized the mortgage market and hasn't found a way out. So taxpayers keep pumping money into Fannie and Freddie at a rate of greater than $1 billion a week.
The overall cost to Americans as taxpayers looks less than feared initially; the human and economic toll greater.
In narrow budget terms, the rescue of the financial system won't cost as much an initially estimated. The Congressional Budget Office has cut its estimate of the ultimate cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (which doesn't include Fannie or Freddie) to $109 billion from $350 billion and probably will reduce it further later this month. Bank losses are simply less than initially thought. In October 2009, the International Monetary Fund estimated U.S. banks would take write-downs of $1.085 trillion. By April 2010, it had reduced that by almost 20% to $885 billion. Officials at the Fed whisper that they may not lose a nickel on all their extraordinary lending.
But only the profoundly pessimistic in August 2007 imagined how deep and prolonged the recession would be, how much federal tax revenues would fall and thus how much the government would borrow, and how many would be out of work for so long. "The most pressing danger we now face is unacceptably weak growth and persistent unemployment rather than outright economic collapse," Peter Orszag said in his last speech as White House budget director.
So the good news is that we're not in a Great Depression. The bad news is that an army bigger than the entire population of Los Angeles has been out of work for a year—4.3 million people—and that just counts those still looking for work.
No wonder there's so much skepticism about the efficacy of fiscal stimulus, and such strong resistance to even think about doing more".
Hope you got something from that analysis. For the people out of work, homes and hope this is not a recession, it is a Great Depression. Job creation we all know is key and we also know that government can not create long term employment. Only the private sector can do that. There are trillions of corporate dollars sitting on the side lines waiting to understand how the administration will act towards business.
Tax cuts expiring, health care costs sure to rise, it is no wonder that business and thinking citizens are nervous and sitting on the side lines.
I wonder what you think? Please comment and have a great day.
Friday, July 23, 2010
> Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and
> tried to light it? Well, back in 2003 he was found guilty and the judge read him off as reported below:
>
>
> Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.
> < font color="#002041" size="4">
> Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to
> say His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record,
> Reid also admitted his 'allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the
> religion of Allah,' defiantly stating, 'I think I will not apologize for my
> actions,' and told the court 'I am at war with your country.'
>
> Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:
>
>
> Judge Young: 'Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the
> Court imposes upon you.
>
> On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the
> custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4and 7, the
> Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on
> each count to run consecutively. (That's 80 years.)
>
> On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to
> be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes
> upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that's an aggregate
> fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with
> respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to
> Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.
>
> The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court imposes
> upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it.
> But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.
>
> This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair
> and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.
>
> Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of
> your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been
> through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to
> everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with
> individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As
> human beings, we reach out for justice.
>
> You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a
> soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to
> call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of
> government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a
> soldier, you are not----- you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with
> terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with
> terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.
>
> So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But
> you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a
> terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted
> murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you
> first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the
> press and the TV crews were, and he said: 'You're no big deal. '
>
> You are no big deal.
>
> What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys
> have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to
> grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led
> you here to this courtroom today?
>
> I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to
> search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to
> do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing? And, I have an
> answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record,
> it comes as close to understanding as I know.
>
> It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You
> hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live
> as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we
> individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom.
> It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize
> individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom, so
> that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly,
> individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers
> are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in
> their representation of you before other judges.
>
> We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we
> treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake
> though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to
> preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The
> world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. The day after
> tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.
>
> Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American
> people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not
> war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the
> United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay
> out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens
> will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape
> and refine our sense of justice.
>
> See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of
> America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That
> flag stands for freedom. And it always will.
>
> Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down.
>
> So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets? We
> need more judges like Judge Young . Pass this around. Everyone should and
> needs to hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike
> home.
>
>
>
> tried to light it? Well, back in 2003 he was found guilty and the judge read him off as reported below:
>
>
> Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.
> < font color="#002041" size="4">
> Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to
> say His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record,
> Reid also admitted his 'allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the
> religion of Allah,' defiantly stating, 'I think I will not apologize for my
> actions,' and told the court 'I am at war with your country.'
>
> Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:
>
>
> Judge Young: 'Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the
> Court imposes upon you.
>
> On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the
> custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4and 7, the
> Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on
> each count to run consecutively. (That's 80 years.)
>
> On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to
> be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes
> upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that's an aggregate
> fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with
> respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to
> Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.
>
> The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court imposes
> upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it.
> But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.
>
> This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair
> and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.
>
> Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of
> your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been
> through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to
> everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with
> individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As
> human beings, we reach out for justice.
>
> You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a
> soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to
> call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of
> government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a
> soldier, you are not----- you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with
> terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with
> terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.
>
> So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But
> you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a
> terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted
> murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you
> first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the
> press and the TV crews were, and he said: 'You're no big deal. '
>
> You are no big deal.
>
> What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys
> have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to
> grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led
> you here to this courtroom today?
>
> I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to
> search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to
> do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing? And, I have an
> answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record,
> it comes as close to understanding as I know.
>
> It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You
> hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live
> as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we
> individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom.
> It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize
> individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom, so
> that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly,
> individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers
> are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in
> their representation of you before other judges.
>
> We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we
> treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake
> though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to
> preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The
> world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. The day after
> tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.
>
> Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American
> people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not
> war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the
> United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay
> out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens
> will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape
> and refine our sense of justice.
>
> See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of
> America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That
> flag stands for freedom. And it always will.
>
> Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down.
>
> So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets? We
> need more judges like Judge Young . Pass this around. Everyone should and
> needs to hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike
> home.
>
>
>
Friday, July 2, 2010
A Time to ask Questions
As we watch our government work in several major areas, I wonder about the driving philosophy. Is it "Get something done that we promised or want for our progressive agenda, or, should it be "Get it right the first time"
Does our government already have enough power, resources, law, technology to carry out its responsibilities and get it right the first time or are they politicizing several dreadful situations.
I worked at New York Telephone in another life time where we created the Quality Institute. Among its driving philosophies were "Close enough is not good enough unless you are meeting the customers' expectations. And Do it right the first time". Both of these ideas were cost effective and achieved high customer satisfaction to say nothing about getting the job done!
The Oil Spill
It seems that the only relief is the relief wells due in August. We all understand that accidents happen and that it appears the BP will pay for the consequences.
Why are the various agencies not taking advantage of available help to speed up containment and clean up?
*First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time.
Various skimmers and tankers (some of them very large) are available that could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, discharging the mostly clean water while storing the oil onboard. While this would clean vast amounts of water efficiently, the EPA is unwilling to grant a temporary waiver of its regulations".
Next, the Obama administration can waive the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from operating in U.S. coastal waters. Many foreign countries (such as the Netherlands and Belgium) have ships and technologies that would greatly advance the cleanup. So far, the U.S. has refused to waive the restrictions of this law and allow these ships to participate in the effort.
The combination of these two regulations is delaying and may even prevent the world's largest skimmer, the Taiwanese owned "A Whale," from deploying. This 10-story high ship can remove almost as much oil in a day as has been removed in total—roughly 500,000 barrels of oily water per day. The tanker is steaming towards the Gulf, hoping it will receive Coast Guard and EPA approval before it arrives.
In addition, the federal government can free American-based skimmers. Of the 2,000 skimmers in the U.S. (not subject to the Jones Act or other restrictions), only 400 have been sent to the Gulf. Federal barriers have kept the others on stations elsewhere in case of other oil spills, despite the magnitude of the current crisis. The Coast Guard and the EPA issued a joint temporary rule suspending the regulation on June 29—more than 70 days after the spill.
* Paul Rubin WSJ 7/2/10
Energy Legislation
Let's pray that the cynics are not correct that the administration is using this tragedy to push for a new energy bill. After all, we know that" no good crisis should go to waste".
Speaking of an energy bill, if the administration fails to cap carbon emissions by creating a tax for exceeding, it will not reduce emissions or begin getting us off fossil fuel dependence. We listen to Warren Buffet why are we not listening to T Bonne Pickens?
Financial Industry Regulation Legislation
The jury is out as to whether the Frank-Dodd bill will do the job it is intended to do. Regardless. It's worrisome that the driving philosophy is that the government needs more over sight to avoid another crisis. Well folks that simply ain't the truth. The Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the SEC and the rest of the gang had all the rules and laws they needed to keep control of the "Greed Group". These government agencies simply did not use their powers and failed to do their jobs. No new regulations will remedy that so one wonders why the rush to pass a bill even before the president's Commission appointed to determine the causes of the melt down will not finish its work until December?
What is at play here? Politics? Fear? Is our government going in the right direction and if so why these nonsensical out comes?
Have a great 4th of July and may God/Goddess bless and watch over us.
Does our government already have enough power, resources, law, technology to carry out its responsibilities and get it right the first time or are they politicizing several dreadful situations.
I worked at New York Telephone in another life time where we created the Quality Institute. Among its driving philosophies were "Close enough is not good enough unless you are meeting the customers' expectations. And Do it right the first time". Both of these ideas were cost effective and achieved high customer satisfaction to say nothing about getting the job done!
The Oil Spill
It seems that the only relief is the relief wells due in August. We all understand that accidents happen and that it appears the BP will pay for the consequences.
Why are the various agencies not taking advantage of available help to speed up containment and clean up?
*First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time.
Various skimmers and tankers (some of them very large) are available that could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, discharging the mostly clean water while storing the oil onboard. While this would clean vast amounts of water efficiently, the EPA is unwilling to grant a temporary waiver of its regulations".
Next, the Obama administration can waive the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from operating in U.S. coastal waters. Many foreign countries (such as the Netherlands and Belgium) have ships and technologies that would greatly advance the cleanup. So far, the U.S. has refused to waive the restrictions of this law and allow these ships to participate in the effort.
The combination of these two regulations is delaying and may even prevent the world's largest skimmer, the Taiwanese owned "A Whale," from deploying. This 10-story high ship can remove almost as much oil in a day as has been removed in total—roughly 500,000 barrels of oily water per day. The tanker is steaming towards the Gulf, hoping it will receive Coast Guard and EPA approval before it arrives.
In addition, the federal government can free American-based skimmers. Of the 2,000 skimmers in the U.S. (not subject to the Jones Act or other restrictions), only 400 have been sent to the Gulf. Federal barriers have kept the others on stations elsewhere in case of other oil spills, despite the magnitude of the current crisis. The Coast Guard and the EPA issued a joint temporary rule suspending the regulation on June 29—more than 70 days after the spill.
* Paul Rubin WSJ 7/2/10
Energy Legislation
Let's pray that the cynics are not correct that the administration is using this tragedy to push for a new energy bill. After all, we know that" no good crisis should go to waste".
Speaking of an energy bill, if the administration fails to cap carbon emissions by creating a tax for exceeding, it will not reduce emissions or begin getting us off fossil fuel dependence. We listen to Warren Buffet why are we not listening to T Bonne Pickens?
Financial Industry Regulation Legislation
The jury is out as to whether the Frank-Dodd bill will do the job it is intended to do. Regardless. It's worrisome that the driving philosophy is that the government needs more over sight to avoid another crisis. Well folks that simply ain't the truth. The Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the SEC and the rest of the gang had all the rules and laws they needed to keep control of the "Greed Group". These government agencies simply did not use their powers and failed to do their jobs. No new regulations will remedy that so one wonders why the rush to pass a bill even before the president's Commission appointed to determine the causes of the melt down will not finish its work until December?
What is at play here? Politics? Fear? Is our government going in the right direction and if so why these nonsensical out comes?
Have a great 4th of July and may God/Goddess bless and watch over us.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Want Confidence in our Leaders?
We read and hear so much negativism in our media these days, it is no wonder we all feel badly about politics. Tea Party(no government), Conservatives(less government) Republicans(don't know for sure), Democrats(more government),Liberals/Progressives(welfare state). All denigrating each other and clearly not cooperating. Yet, we have made several enormous changes to our health care system and are about to do so with financial reform. Next up is immigration and climate change control.
It's a wonder any administration of any persuasion can keep its head with all the sniping, two wars being fought and the colossal oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. By the way, wonder how the Tea Party & Mr Paul (no government)would be handling the spill?
Anyway a friend of mine reminded me recently not to clog the internet with information we already have or can get readily. I do want you to see and hear, however,a first rate interview conducted by Charlie Rose with VP Joe Biden.
Please take the time to watch this 40 minute segment. Mr. Biden's range of knowledge, honesty and confidence are a wonderful testament to whom we have at the helm .
Here is the link: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11035
It's a wonder any administration of any persuasion can keep its head with all the sniping, two wars being fought and the colossal oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. By the way, wonder how the Tea Party & Mr Paul (no government)would be handling the spill?
Anyway a friend of mine reminded me recently not to clog the internet with information we already have or can get readily. I do want you to see and hear, however,a first rate interview conducted by Charlie Rose with VP Joe Biden.
Please take the time to watch this 40 minute segment. Mr. Biden's range of knowledge, honesty and confidence are a wonderful testament to whom we have at the helm .
Here is the link: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11035
Saturday, May 22, 2010
And the Losers Are..........
We, The American people!
Bob Herbert of the NY Times said today:
"Already the oil from the nightmare brought to us by BP is making its way into the wondrous wetlands of the gulf coast, into this natural paradise that belongs not just to the people of Louisiana but to all Americans. Oil is showing up along dozens of miles of the Louisiana coast, including the beaches of Grand Isle, which were ordered closed to the public.
The response of the Obama administration and the general public to this latest outrage at the hands of a giant, politically connected corporation has been embarrassingly tepid. We take our whippings in stride in this country. We behave as though there is nothing we can do about it.
The fact that 11 human beings were killed in the Deepwater Horizon explosion (their bodies never found) has become, at best, an afterthought. BP counts its profits in the billions, and, therefore, it’s important. The 11 men working on the rig were no more important in the current American scheme of things than the oystermen losing their livelihoods along the gulf, or the wildlife doomed to die in an environment fouled by BP’s oil, or the waters that will be left unfit for ordinary families to swim and boat in".
Analysis
This is the bitter reality of the American present, a period in which big business has cemented an unholy alliance with big government against the interests of ordinary Americans, who, of course, are the great majority of Americans. The great majority of Americans no longer matter.
No one knows how much of BP’s runaway oil will contaminate the gulf coast’s marshes and lakes and bayous and canals, destroying wildlife and fauna — and ruining the hopes and dreams of countless human families. What is known is that whatever oil gets in will be next to impossible to get out. It gets into the soil and the water and the plant life and can’t be scraped off the way you might be able to scrape the oil off of a beach.
It permeates and undermines the ecosystem in much the same way that big corporations have permeated and undermined our political system, with similarly devastating results.
We Americans have done marvelous things for our fellow citizens in the last two hundred years.
The Obama administration continues this tradition and has made several culture altering changes starting with health care. They are poised to reign in the banks and Wall street and next will take on immigration. All the while, we work on the economy that is showing signs of recovery. After that will come climate change. What an agenda! What courage!
Th hidden agenda that has existed for two hundred years is the sordid connection between big business and government. I need not detail it here since you all know it and it is well documented. It is time for government to take an aggressive stand concerning off shore drilling, dependence on oil, climate pollution and privileges and free passes afforded big business.
As the President's chief of staff says" never let a good crises go to waste" Now is the moment to reign in big business and corporate greed. The economic crises was brought to us by corporate greed and the gulf coast crises is another expression of that greed.
Let us get behind the president as he attempts to take advantage of the gulf crises to further his energy strategy. He will meet a whirlwind of lobbyists greater than he did over health care and financial reform. He will not get unswerving support even inside his party because so many legislators are dependent on corporate contributions for themselves and jobs for the communities they represent.
I think the president has the courage to do this and hope you will all send him enrgy, courage and good will.
Bob Herbert of the NY Times said today:
"Already the oil from the nightmare brought to us by BP is making its way into the wondrous wetlands of the gulf coast, into this natural paradise that belongs not just to the people of Louisiana but to all Americans. Oil is showing up along dozens of miles of the Louisiana coast, including the beaches of Grand Isle, which were ordered closed to the public.
The response of the Obama administration and the general public to this latest outrage at the hands of a giant, politically connected corporation has been embarrassingly tepid. We take our whippings in stride in this country. We behave as though there is nothing we can do about it.
The fact that 11 human beings were killed in the Deepwater Horizon explosion (their bodies never found) has become, at best, an afterthought. BP counts its profits in the billions, and, therefore, it’s important. The 11 men working on the rig were no more important in the current American scheme of things than the oystermen losing their livelihoods along the gulf, or the wildlife doomed to die in an environment fouled by BP’s oil, or the waters that will be left unfit for ordinary families to swim and boat in".
Analysis
This is the bitter reality of the American present, a period in which big business has cemented an unholy alliance with big government against the interests of ordinary Americans, who, of course, are the great majority of Americans. The great majority of Americans no longer matter.
No one knows how much of BP’s runaway oil will contaminate the gulf coast’s marshes and lakes and bayous and canals, destroying wildlife and fauna — and ruining the hopes and dreams of countless human families. What is known is that whatever oil gets in will be next to impossible to get out. It gets into the soil and the water and the plant life and can’t be scraped off the way you might be able to scrape the oil off of a beach.
It permeates and undermines the ecosystem in much the same way that big corporations have permeated and undermined our political system, with similarly devastating results.
We Americans have done marvelous things for our fellow citizens in the last two hundred years.
The Obama administration continues this tradition and has made several culture altering changes starting with health care. They are poised to reign in the banks and Wall street and next will take on immigration. All the while, we work on the economy that is showing signs of recovery. After that will come climate change. What an agenda! What courage!
Th hidden agenda that has existed for two hundred years is the sordid connection between big business and government. I need not detail it here since you all know it and it is well documented. It is time for government to take an aggressive stand concerning off shore drilling, dependence on oil, climate pollution and privileges and free passes afforded big business.
As the President's chief of staff says" never let a good crises go to waste" Now is the moment to reign in big business and corporate greed. The economic crises was brought to us by corporate greed and the gulf coast crises is another expression of that greed.
Let us get behind the president as he attempts to take advantage of the gulf crises to further his energy strategy. He will meet a whirlwind of lobbyists greater than he did over health care and financial reform. He will not get unswerving support even inside his party because so many legislators are dependent on corporate contributions for themselves and jobs for the communities they represent.
I think the president has the courage to do this and hope you will all send him enrgy, courage and good will.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
So Here we Go Again: The tail Wagging the Dog
Who ever said that America had it right? What we have said,however, is that we knew right from WRONG. That, my dear friends, is a very different proposition than what we are faced with today.
Have you looked at and listened, for example, to the Tea Party? Have you Looked at what they represent? Try this on: they are a lunatic fringe well beyond the beleaguered republican, inept democratic, disappearing conservative and out of business independent parties. They are ready to fill in the void of "the leadership vacuum" that has plagued out nation since the year 2000.
If you think I exaggerate look at the way the nation and world is handling the current economic and international political crises. The West is held hostage by Iran and its allies Turkey and Venezuela, The greed of US companies such as Goldman Sachs has plunged Europe into an economic wasteland.
We watch as the gold coasts of Louisiana, Florida and the Eastern-Atlantic run the risks of being destroyed by corporate greed and no planning. We fight two wars without purpose, and we are playing" I win, You lose" on every major issue facing the nation and world. " Drill, baby drill, seems to have no cache these days, as SP is silent as she builds her fortune and has no intent of running for anything(thank the Goddess). BTW, she is a darling of the Tea Party advocates.
Oh me, are there simple answers? No. Are there people of good will willing to compromise and include solutions that care for most concerns? No.
Who rules the world dialog? The demagogues on the air waves in all languages in the world's major countries, the world governments' self interested staffs, and finally WE THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION AND EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED NATION OF THE WORLD WHO SIMPLY DO NOT CARE FOR OUR FELLOW MAN!
If you think this is depressing, try waking up tomorrow and alter the direction.
Guess what? I do! Each and every day. I think, I write, I take part, I influence and here comes the real punch: I LOVE.
Yes, that is the answer. Love, reach out, make unselfish decisions about little and big things in your life. Be sure your family, friends, village, city, country and world is making it.
Heroine: Jane Wells does!!! Check out her website and work on Darfur. She is a lady who can afford,frankly, to sit at home, make tea and not bother herself with issues.
Instead she, her husband Jon and children have traveled to Dafur many times to call attention to the genocide and systematic destruction of a whole race of people! Look at Jane's website, 3 Generations, a 501c3 Not-for-Profit-organization, to find out how to get out side your self and change the world.
Well, here is the good news: we count, we make a difference, we must speak and act up and we LOVE AND ARE LOVED.
Have you looked at and listened, for example, to the Tea Party? Have you Looked at what they represent? Try this on: they are a lunatic fringe well beyond the beleaguered republican, inept democratic, disappearing conservative and out of business independent parties. They are ready to fill in the void of "the leadership vacuum" that has plagued out nation since the year 2000.
If you think I exaggerate look at the way the nation and world is handling the current economic and international political crises. The West is held hostage by Iran and its allies Turkey and Venezuela, The greed of US companies such as Goldman Sachs has plunged Europe into an economic wasteland.
We watch as the gold coasts of Louisiana, Florida and the Eastern-Atlantic run the risks of being destroyed by corporate greed and no planning. We fight two wars without purpose, and we are playing" I win, You lose" on every major issue facing the nation and world. " Drill, baby drill, seems to have no cache these days, as SP is silent as she builds her fortune and has no intent of running for anything(thank the Goddess). BTW, she is a darling of the Tea Party advocates.
Oh me, are there simple answers? No. Are there people of good will willing to compromise and include solutions that care for most concerns? No.
Who rules the world dialog? The demagogues on the air waves in all languages in the world's major countries, the world governments' self interested staffs, and finally WE THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION AND EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED NATION OF THE WORLD WHO SIMPLY DO NOT CARE FOR OUR FELLOW MAN!
If you think this is depressing, try waking up tomorrow and alter the direction.
Guess what? I do! Each and every day. I think, I write, I take part, I influence and here comes the real punch: I LOVE.
Yes, that is the answer. Love, reach out, make unselfish decisions about little and big things in your life. Be sure your family, friends, village, city, country and world is making it.
Heroine: Jane Wells does!!! Check out her website and work on Darfur. She is a lady who can afford,frankly, to sit at home, make tea and not bother herself with issues.
Instead she, her husband Jon and children have traveled to Dafur many times to call attention to the genocide and systematic destruction of a whole race of people! Look at Jane's website, 3 Generations, a 501c3 Not-for-Profit-organization, to find out how to get out side your self and change the world.
Well, here is the good news: we count, we make a difference, we must speak and act up and we LOVE AND ARE LOVED.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Welcome Back,Ted
I have missed me! Have you? Just kidding. There is so much to talk about; but today is about special people. Yes, heroes and heroines. I will define the terms for you as I see them and will introduce you to some over the next few blogs.
Definition of Heroine/Hero: a person who makes a difference in other people's lives in a positive way even when it is not convenient.
Candace Sue Wife, friend executive, daughter, healer, shaman, victim, yes I said victim. Candace has survived sarcoma and this year lived to tell about it at the Sarcoma Foundation of America's annual Gala. She was awarded a "courage" award and trust me , that word does not tell the story. If you ever want to meet courage, love, faith, an angel, allow me to introduce you to Candace. On my best day, I don't measure up. Not that she puts up any measurements. It is just the way she lives her life. Trust me, she doesn't get who she is which is the magic!
Deb Phillips You may not know her; but I recommend you visit her web site debphillips@groupmv.com This perfectly human woman has not only been through all the human stuff(illness, family deaths,etc) but always knows where she is, who needs her, and how to give love. If you are in trouble, or think you are about to be, call Deb.
Jenifer March-Joly. Mother, wife, daughter and Executive Director of the Citizens'Children Committee of New York. As if Jenifer did not have enough to do in her personal life; she heads one of the finest children's advocacy groups in the country. Focused on New York City, Jenifer(through the C.C.C.) ensures that children are not victimized by Washington, Albany or NY City government as they attempt to balance budgets and legislate on their behalf.
Rhea Wong. Hang on to your seats when around this woman. She is the Executive Director of Breakthrough New York. This organization takes promising middle school children from the NYC inner city public schools and helps them get to the next level. Next level? How about scholarships to the the best private schools in the country and then on to the Ivies. That do it for you? Does for me.
Elise Platt. You would not say "who" if you knew her. Smart, dedicated, professional, direct, honest, and one of the creative people in our midst. Yes, she paints, sculpts and designs homes for real people to live in and thinks like a Rabbi. By the way, if you develop a life threating illness you must live with, contact Elise. Been there, done that.
One more for today and then I am done. The Pope, yeah, the Pope. Everyone is having fun pissing on him and the church(which they richly deserve),but I must point out that he has taken the heat, and, after realizing that the Vatican bull shit would not fly about the liberal press beating on them or jihad against the church, he finally got down on his knees and said today "we are wrong, the enemies are inside the church. We must purify the church, do penance, administer justice and seek forgiveness"
Who would think that the church and the pope had that in him. Usually it is "off with their heads, don't challenge our authority, go back to your slimy lives and oh, send us money"
Great world? yes, one way or the other.
Love you and have lots to share over the next few writings.
Definition of Heroine/Hero: a person who makes a difference in other people's lives in a positive way even when it is not convenient.
Candace Sue Wife, friend executive, daughter, healer, shaman, victim, yes I said victim. Candace has survived sarcoma and this year lived to tell about it at the Sarcoma Foundation of America's annual Gala. She was awarded a "courage" award and trust me , that word does not tell the story. If you ever want to meet courage, love, faith, an angel, allow me to introduce you to Candace. On my best day, I don't measure up. Not that she puts up any measurements. It is just the way she lives her life. Trust me, she doesn't get who she is which is the magic!
Deb Phillips You may not know her; but I recommend you visit her web site debphillips@groupmv.com This perfectly human woman has not only been through all the human stuff(illness, family deaths,etc) but always knows where she is, who needs her, and how to give love. If you are in trouble, or think you are about to be, call Deb.
Jenifer March-Joly. Mother, wife, daughter and Executive Director of the Citizens'Children Committee of New York. As if Jenifer did not have enough to do in her personal life; she heads one of the finest children's advocacy groups in the country. Focused on New York City, Jenifer(through the C.C.C.) ensures that children are not victimized by Washington, Albany or NY City government as they attempt to balance budgets and legislate on their behalf.
Rhea Wong. Hang on to your seats when around this woman. She is the Executive Director of Breakthrough New York. This organization takes promising middle school children from the NYC inner city public schools and helps them get to the next level. Next level? How about scholarships to the the best private schools in the country and then on to the Ivies. That do it for you? Does for me.
Elise Platt. You would not say "who" if you knew her. Smart, dedicated, professional, direct, honest, and one of the creative people in our midst. Yes, she paints, sculpts and designs homes for real people to live in and thinks like a Rabbi. By the way, if you develop a life threating illness you must live with, contact Elise. Been there, done that.
One more for today and then I am done. The Pope, yeah, the Pope. Everyone is having fun pissing on him and the church(which they richly deserve),but I must point out that he has taken the heat, and, after realizing that the Vatican bull shit would not fly about the liberal press beating on them or jihad against the church, he finally got down on his knees and said today "we are wrong, the enemies are inside the church. We must purify the church, do penance, administer justice and seek forgiveness"
Who would think that the church and the pope had that in him. Usually it is "off with their heads, don't challenge our authority, go back to your slimy lives and oh, send us money"
Great world? yes, one way or the other.
Love you and have lots to share over the next few writings.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Easter Message
Rev. Bill Federici,nephew, sent Laura and me this message that we share with you. Have a great weekend what ever you do and what ever your spiritual persuasion is.
Dear Friends:
Eastertide is about meeting, and witnessing the shocking core of our beliefs and our practices as Christians:
God is Love.
Love is God.
In the midst of the world’s pain, we dare assert that fact. Rather than ignoring the pain of the world, our message meets that pain with the promise and possibility of healing and transformation.
Easter, then, becomes a year round fact and a year round choice. In fact, I believe that Easter is a moment by moment fact, and a moment by moment choice.
Easter is the choice for Love.
Eastertide is an opportunity to intensely remember and practice this choice for
love over hate,
courage over fear,
life over death.
We can choose the excellent over the medicore, the strange over the familiar, the uncomfortable over the comfortable, the uncomon over the common.
Our lives are moment by moment choice for Love, or for Love’s opposite. How thrilling to know that in each of our breaths we can choose to make tangible the Love of God by “choosing it down to earth.”
May this season be rich with blessings and joys for you and yours.
All Love, great and small, Rev. Bill
Dear Friends:
Eastertide is about meeting, and witnessing the shocking core of our beliefs and our practices as Christians:
God is Love.
Love is God.
In the midst of the world’s pain, we dare assert that fact. Rather than ignoring the pain of the world, our message meets that pain with the promise and possibility of healing and transformation.
Easter, then, becomes a year round fact and a year round choice. In fact, I believe that Easter is a moment by moment fact, and a moment by moment choice.
Easter is the choice for Love.
Eastertide is an opportunity to intensely remember and practice this choice for
love over hate,
courage over fear,
life over death.
We can choose the excellent over the medicore, the strange over the familiar, the uncomfortable over the comfortable, the uncomon over the common.
Our lives are moment by moment choice for Love, or for Love’s opposite. How thrilling to know that in each of our breaths we can choose to make tangible the Love of God by “choosing it down to earth.”
May this season be rich with blessings and joys for you and yours.
All Love, great and small, Rev. Bill
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Frailty of Blind Obedience, or, The End of the Catholic Church as We Know It
Few Catholics, including those of us retired from the institution, know how to understand or deal with the current world-wide meltdown of the Catholic Church. Yet, we Americans have seen similar meltdowns in our recent political lifetime and even in times past.
To be more precise, when I was running PR for the Verizon System, I learned and practiced the first rule of public relations survival.
That rule is " When things go wrong, tell it FIRST, FAST AND FULLY.
Unfortunately, people like Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton either never learned it or forgot it and in the end it cost them their presidencies. The cover up is almost always worse than the offense.
How does the Catholic Church believe it can survive the Tsunami about to wash over it without coming clean? As importantly, what is this breach of trust all about?
Please read Sister Joan Chittister, OSB's opinion reprinted below. Sr. Joan is a Benedictine nun who has been in the forefront of speaking out on issues regardless of the consequences. Because of her international standing as author and lecturer on peace, justice, spirituality and women's issues, she has not been squelched.
"Divided loyalties: an incredible situation
By Joan Chittister
Created Mar 17, 2010
For all the certainty about the facts of the case, there is still an aura of discontent everywhere about the situation surrounding clerical sex abuse in the church. No one disputes the data now; everyone disputes the nature of the problem. And worse than that, the data simply keeps piling up on all sides.
First, the world called it an "American problem." As in, those Americans are a wild bunch anyway, what else can you expect?" The Vatican went so far as to dismiss the issue as simply another demonstration of American exaggeration -- what the Irish call the American tendency to be "over the top."
Then Ireland found itself engulfed in the problem and suddenly the outrage was no longer seen as "over the top." On the contrary, it became a display of integrity. Nor were the numbers seen as being exaggerated by the media. On the contrary, the numbers of child victims, the world began to understand, had, if anything, been minimized.
Now, the boil has broken in Europe, too: in the Netherlands, in Austria, in Germany, and, oh yes, in the Vatican, as well.
Now, the United States is no longer seen as being hysterical about a non-problem but early in its confrontation of it, also a decidedly American trait.
But what, precisely, is "it?" What is the real problem?
Note well: After stories of the first few high-profile cases of serial rapes and molestations and their unheard of numbers died down, the focus shifted away from individual clerical rapists to the unmasking of what was now obviously a systemic problem. This prevailing practice of episcopal cover-ups, of moving offenders from one parish to another rather than expose them either to legal accountability or to moral censure in the public arena, occupied the spotlight. It was a practice that saved the reputation of the church at the expense of children. It traded innocence for image.
But we know all of that. So why doesn't all of this just settle down and go away? Why won't these people -- these survivors -- "just forget about it," some people said.
The answers to that question is both personal and social.
For some, of course, the need to expose their experiences comes out of the need to heal themselves by reclaiming a sense of control over their lives. To stop living in the shadow of victimhood and powerlessness. For others of them, it was because, having had their secret shame exposed, they now found the courage themselves to speak out about the unspeakable ghost that had for so long haunted their lives.
But it is also possible that the survivors go on drawing our attention to the situation because, this time, consciously or unconsciously, they are trying to warn us of a second aspect of the problem, still largely undefined, that is at least as serious -- even the incubator, in fact -- of the obvious issues of cover-up and concealment.
This time, however, it is Ireland, not America, that is ripping away the veil from this even deeper dimension, the one that moves beyond the problems of sexual repression and institutional face-saving. The unmasking of this context requires changes in the church that are in ways more serious -- and certainly as important -- as is the awareness of the danger of the sexual abuse itself.
The dilemma that really threatens the future of the church is a distorted notion of the vow of obedience and the tension it creates between loyalty to the Gospel and loyalty to the institution -- translate: "system."
In this case, the problem swirls around Ireland's Primate, Cardinal Sean Brady, a good man with a good heart and a good reputation. Until now. In 1975, then Fr. Sean Brady, a newly certified canon lawyer and secretary to then Bishop Francis McKiernan, now deceased, in the diocese of Kilmore, took testimony from two young boys abused by the serial rapist Fr. Brendan Smyth. At the end of those interviews, Brady exacted a vow of silence from the boys which effectively protected Smyth from public censure and enabled him to go on abusing children -- including in the United States -- for another 18 years. Brady, too, said nothing to any one about the case, other than to his bishop, ever again. Not to the gardai, not to the courts, not even to the bishops to whose dioceses Smyth had then been sent.
Challenged now to resign because of that failure to give evidence of a crime, Brady's answer is the Nuremberg defense: He was only following orders; he did not have the responsibility to make any reports other than to his bishop; he was only a note-taker. All of these elements of the situation are now in hot dispute.
But the question is deeper than the simple ones of role and organizational responsibility.
The question is why would a good man with a good heart, as he surely is, think twice about his responsibility to take moral and legal steps to stop a child predator from preying on more children everywhere, some of them for years at a time?
The answer to that question is a simple one: It is that the kind of "blind obedience" once theologized as the ultimate step to holiness, is itself blind. It blinds a person to the insights and foresight and moral perspective of anyone other than an authority figure.
Blind obedience is itself an abuse of human morality. It is a misuse of the human soul in the name of religious commitment. It is a sin against individual conscience. It makes moral children of the adults from whom moral agency is required. It makes a vow, which is meant to require religious figures to listen always to the law of God, beholden first to the laws of very human organizations in the person of very human authorities. It is a law that isn't even working in the military and can never substitute for personal morality.
From where I stand, if there are any in whom we should be able to presume a strong conscience and an even stronger commitment to the public welfare, it is surely the priests and religious of the church. But if that is the case, then the church must also review its theology of obedience so that those of good heart can become real moral leaders rather than simply agents of the institution.
A bifurcation of loyalties that requires religious to put canon law above civil law and moral law puts us in a situation where the keepers of religion may themselves become one of the greatest dangers to the credibility -- and the morality -- of the church itself."
To be more precise, when I was running PR for the Verizon System, I learned and practiced the first rule of public relations survival.
That rule is " When things go wrong, tell it FIRST, FAST AND FULLY.
Unfortunately, people like Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton either never learned it or forgot it and in the end it cost them their presidencies. The cover up is almost always worse than the offense.
How does the Catholic Church believe it can survive the Tsunami about to wash over it without coming clean? As importantly, what is this breach of trust all about?
Please read Sister Joan Chittister, OSB's opinion reprinted below. Sr. Joan is a Benedictine nun who has been in the forefront of speaking out on issues regardless of the consequences. Because of her international standing as author and lecturer on peace, justice, spirituality and women's issues, she has not been squelched.
"Divided loyalties: an incredible situation
By Joan Chittister
Created Mar 17, 2010
For all the certainty about the facts of the case, there is still an aura of discontent everywhere about the situation surrounding clerical sex abuse in the church. No one disputes the data now; everyone disputes the nature of the problem. And worse than that, the data simply keeps piling up on all sides.
First, the world called it an "American problem." As in, those Americans are a wild bunch anyway, what else can you expect?" The Vatican went so far as to dismiss the issue as simply another demonstration of American exaggeration -- what the Irish call the American tendency to be "over the top."
Then Ireland found itself engulfed in the problem and suddenly the outrage was no longer seen as "over the top." On the contrary, it became a display of integrity. Nor were the numbers seen as being exaggerated by the media. On the contrary, the numbers of child victims, the world began to understand, had, if anything, been minimized.
Now, the boil has broken in Europe, too: in the Netherlands, in Austria, in Germany, and, oh yes, in the Vatican, as well.
Now, the United States is no longer seen as being hysterical about a non-problem but early in its confrontation of it, also a decidedly American trait.
But what, precisely, is "it?" What is the real problem?
Note well: After stories of the first few high-profile cases of serial rapes and molestations and their unheard of numbers died down, the focus shifted away from individual clerical rapists to the unmasking of what was now obviously a systemic problem. This prevailing practice of episcopal cover-ups, of moving offenders from one parish to another rather than expose them either to legal accountability or to moral censure in the public arena, occupied the spotlight. It was a practice that saved the reputation of the church at the expense of children. It traded innocence for image.
But we know all of that. So why doesn't all of this just settle down and go away? Why won't these people -- these survivors -- "just forget about it," some people said.
The answers to that question is both personal and social.
For some, of course, the need to expose their experiences comes out of the need to heal themselves by reclaiming a sense of control over their lives. To stop living in the shadow of victimhood and powerlessness. For others of them, it was because, having had their secret shame exposed, they now found the courage themselves to speak out about the unspeakable ghost that had for so long haunted their lives.
But it is also possible that the survivors go on drawing our attention to the situation because, this time, consciously or unconsciously, they are trying to warn us of a second aspect of the problem, still largely undefined, that is at least as serious -- even the incubator, in fact -- of the obvious issues of cover-up and concealment.
This time, however, it is Ireland, not America, that is ripping away the veil from this even deeper dimension, the one that moves beyond the problems of sexual repression and institutional face-saving. The unmasking of this context requires changes in the church that are in ways more serious -- and certainly as important -- as is the awareness of the danger of the sexual abuse itself.
The dilemma that really threatens the future of the church is a distorted notion of the vow of obedience and the tension it creates between loyalty to the Gospel and loyalty to the institution -- translate: "system."
In this case, the problem swirls around Ireland's Primate, Cardinal Sean Brady, a good man with a good heart and a good reputation. Until now. In 1975, then Fr. Sean Brady, a newly certified canon lawyer and secretary to then Bishop Francis McKiernan, now deceased, in the diocese of Kilmore, took testimony from two young boys abused by the serial rapist Fr. Brendan Smyth. At the end of those interviews, Brady exacted a vow of silence from the boys which effectively protected Smyth from public censure and enabled him to go on abusing children -- including in the United States -- for another 18 years. Brady, too, said nothing to any one about the case, other than to his bishop, ever again. Not to the gardai, not to the courts, not even to the bishops to whose dioceses Smyth had then been sent.
Challenged now to resign because of that failure to give evidence of a crime, Brady's answer is the Nuremberg defense: He was only following orders; he did not have the responsibility to make any reports other than to his bishop; he was only a note-taker. All of these elements of the situation are now in hot dispute.
But the question is deeper than the simple ones of role and organizational responsibility.
The question is why would a good man with a good heart, as he surely is, think twice about his responsibility to take moral and legal steps to stop a child predator from preying on more children everywhere, some of them for years at a time?
The answer to that question is a simple one: It is that the kind of "blind obedience" once theologized as the ultimate step to holiness, is itself blind. It blinds a person to the insights and foresight and moral perspective of anyone other than an authority figure.
Blind obedience is itself an abuse of human morality. It is a misuse of the human soul in the name of religious commitment. It is a sin against individual conscience. It makes moral children of the adults from whom moral agency is required. It makes a vow, which is meant to require religious figures to listen always to the law of God, beholden first to the laws of very human organizations in the person of very human authorities. It is a law that isn't even working in the military and can never substitute for personal morality.
From where I stand, if there are any in whom we should be able to presume a strong conscience and an even stronger commitment to the public welfare, it is surely the priests and religious of the church. But if that is the case, then the church must also review its theology of obedience so that those of good heart can become real moral leaders rather than simply agents of the institution.
A bifurcation of loyalties that requires religious to put canon law above civil law and moral law puts us in a situation where the keepers of religion may themselves become one of the greatest dangers to the credibility -- and the morality -- of the church itself."
Monday, March 22, 2010
Health Care Cost and Coverage Reform: the loyal opposition's opinion
As promised, here is the Wall Street Journal's opinion. Before you go on here is a comment from some one from another country:
"I’m not an American (some of those who knows me may add ‘regretfully’… J). Am an Israeli and veteran friend of Laura & Ted (as well as, with other addressees) and as such, I’ve the privilege to be on Ted’s ‘mailing-list’.
Notwithstanding, I’m taking the liberty to share with you guys my feelings.
I feel today that the success of Obama’s Administration (with the House-Speaker’s support…) to pass the Health Reform is an historical event that defined as, no less, than a hilling of the entire ‘Civil Right Legislation’.
By giving a chance to any one to get, at least, a basic Medicare (such as in Israel) we are expressing mercy and humanity.
Yes, the priorities with the budget expenditure might be amended, however, being part of a Society that has a sense of mutual responsibility and brotherhood, seems to be a reasonable price.
To that extent, Ted’s great expression – “The good of everyone equally comes first” is an adequate way to illustrate your achievement for better life.
Happy Passover. Yoav"
CAPITAL JOURNALMARCH 22, 2010
Vast Ambition, Colossal Risk
By GERALD F. SEIB
As a piece of social policy, the health bill passed Sunday night by the House of Representatives ranks up there with the Great Society programs of Lyndon B. Johnson in ambition and scope. But here's one big difference: The Great Society programs were enacted in an era when Americans still tended to trust the government to get things done.
By contrast, a principal reason the health bill was so hard to get to this point, and the reason it's such a political risk, is that this landmark legislation proposes expanding the government's role in the giant health economy at a time when Americans are far less likely to trust the government to do things right.
President Barack Obama will sign the core legislation into law, and it's likely the Senate will also approve a package of changes to that law, which the House passed Sunday night. But how the legislation is perceived by Americans in both the short term and long run may well depend on whether its advocates—Mr. Obama, his Democratic allies in Congress, a variety of labor and health interest groups—can convince Americans that, at least on this giant issue, the government is up to the task.
At a minimum, Democrats will be trying to show citizens that the government can produce outcomes that are at least superior to the status quo in health care, which almost everybody agrees can't be sustained.
Proponents of the health legislation are quick to point out that it doesn't amount to a government takeover of health care, and they are right. The legislation builds on, rather than replaces, the employer-based health-insurance system that has prevailed in this country for decades. It funnels patients getting government subsidies into private insurance policies and pools, not a government-run health plan, and is at best a small step toward the nationalized health-care system some liberals want.
So in that sense, it's a far more modest exercise in social engineering than was the Great Society program of the mid-1960s, which included legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid, the food-stamp program and Head Start, as well as two landmark civil rights acts.
Yet by making the federal government both a much bigger economic player, and a more potent referee, in the private health marketplace, the new health bill represents a similar turn to government action to confront gnawing domestic concerns. What has changed are attitudes toward that government
When President Johnson led the drive to create Medicare and Medicaid, Americans saw before them a government that had won World War II, built the interstate highway system and launched an almost universally admired space program that was headed toward putting a man on the moon. The New Deal was widely considered the reason the Great Depression finally was vanquished. "Liberal" was such a coveted label for a politician that one of President Johnson's deep worries when he took over after President John Kennedy's assassination was that he might be seen in Kennedy circles as too conservative.
Since then, attitudes have soured. The Vietnam War went from nuisance to debacle, tarnishing for a long while the notion that the nation's best and brightest minds were at work in Washington dealing brilliantly with difficult problems.
Later, President Ronald Reagan told us government was the problem rather than the solution, President Bill Clinton declared the era of big government was over and President George W. Bush told us the other big piece of the social safety net, Social Security, was better taken out of the government's hands entirely and turned over to the private sector.
More recently, government experts assured the nation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, a mistaken conclusion with calamitous consequences. Now deficits further sow doubts about Washington.
The result has been an erosion over time in confidence in government's competence. One of the best barometers of that shifting attitude is found in polling done by the Gallup organization, which for four decades has been testing Americans' trust in government. When Gallup asked in 1972 how much Americans trusted the federal government to handle domestic problems, 70% said they had a "great deal" or "fair amount" of trust. By last year, that had fallen to 51%—almost even with the 48% who said "not very much" trust, or "none at all."
Here's an even starker reading: In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last fall, Americans were asked how much of the time they trusted the government to do the right thing; 65% said "only some of the time," and a stunning 11% said "never."
Can confidence in government be turned around? Perhaps; it seemed to rise briefly in those feel-good moments after President Obama's 2008 election victory.
That's why the Obama administration's ability to competently put health legislation into practice, assuming it becomes law, is so crucial.
On that front Democrats can console themselves with some other history: Medicare itself was viewed as a nearly impossible undertaking, but was implemented smoothly, as was a Medicare prescription-drug benefit signed into law by President George W. Bush.
Maybe, advocates might argue, that shows the government can get some things right after all.
Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com
"I’m not an American (some of those who knows me may add ‘regretfully’… J). Am an Israeli and veteran friend of Laura & Ted (as well as, with other addressees) and as such, I’ve the privilege to be on Ted’s ‘mailing-list’.
Notwithstanding, I’m taking the liberty to share with you guys my feelings.
I feel today that the success of Obama’s Administration (with the House-Speaker’s support…) to pass the Health Reform is an historical event that defined as, no less, than a hilling of the entire ‘Civil Right Legislation’.
By giving a chance to any one to get, at least, a basic Medicare (such as in Israel) we are expressing mercy and humanity.
Yes, the priorities with the budget expenditure might be amended, however, being part of a Society that has a sense of mutual responsibility and brotherhood, seems to be a reasonable price.
To that extent, Ted’s great expression – “The good of everyone equally comes first” is an adequate way to illustrate your achievement for better life.
Happy Passover. Yoav"
CAPITAL JOURNALMARCH 22, 2010
Vast Ambition, Colossal Risk
By GERALD F. SEIB
As a piece of social policy, the health bill passed Sunday night by the House of Representatives ranks up there with the Great Society programs of Lyndon B. Johnson in ambition and scope. But here's one big difference: The Great Society programs were enacted in an era when Americans still tended to trust the government to get things done.
By contrast, a principal reason the health bill was so hard to get to this point, and the reason it's such a political risk, is that this landmark legislation proposes expanding the government's role in the giant health economy at a time when Americans are far less likely to trust the government to do things right.
President Barack Obama will sign the core legislation into law, and it's likely the Senate will also approve a package of changes to that law, which the House passed Sunday night. But how the legislation is perceived by Americans in both the short term and long run may well depend on whether its advocates—Mr. Obama, his Democratic allies in Congress, a variety of labor and health interest groups—can convince Americans that, at least on this giant issue, the government is up to the task.
At a minimum, Democrats will be trying to show citizens that the government can produce outcomes that are at least superior to the status quo in health care, which almost everybody agrees can't be sustained.
Proponents of the health legislation are quick to point out that it doesn't amount to a government takeover of health care, and they are right. The legislation builds on, rather than replaces, the employer-based health-insurance system that has prevailed in this country for decades. It funnels patients getting government subsidies into private insurance policies and pools, not a government-run health plan, and is at best a small step toward the nationalized health-care system some liberals want.
So in that sense, it's a far more modest exercise in social engineering than was the Great Society program of the mid-1960s, which included legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid, the food-stamp program and Head Start, as well as two landmark civil rights acts.
Yet by making the federal government both a much bigger economic player, and a more potent referee, in the private health marketplace, the new health bill represents a similar turn to government action to confront gnawing domestic concerns. What has changed are attitudes toward that government
When President Johnson led the drive to create Medicare and Medicaid, Americans saw before them a government that had won World War II, built the interstate highway system and launched an almost universally admired space program that was headed toward putting a man on the moon. The New Deal was widely considered the reason the Great Depression finally was vanquished. "Liberal" was such a coveted label for a politician that one of President Johnson's deep worries when he took over after President John Kennedy's assassination was that he might be seen in Kennedy circles as too conservative.
Since then, attitudes have soured. The Vietnam War went from nuisance to debacle, tarnishing for a long while the notion that the nation's best and brightest minds were at work in Washington dealing brilliantly with difficult problems.
Later, President Ronald Reagan told us government was the problem rather than the solution, President Bill Clinton declared the era of big government was over and President George W. Bush told us the other big piece of the social safety net, Social Security, was better taken out of the government's hands entirely and turned over to the private sector.
More recently, government experts assured the nation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, a mistaken conclusion with calamitous consequences. Now deficits further sow doubts about Washington.
The result has been an erosion over time in confidence in government's competence. One of the best barometers of that shifting attitude is found in polling done by the Gallup organization, which for four decades has been testing Americans' trust in government. When Gallup asked in 1972 how much Americans trusted the federal government to handle domestic problems, 70% said they had a "great deal" or "fair amount" of trust. By last year, that had fallen to 51%—almost even with the 48% who said "not very much" trust, or "none at all."
Here's an even starker reading: In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last fall, Americans were asked how much of the time they trusted the government to do the right thing; 65% said "only some of the time," and a stunning 11% said "never."
Can confidence in government be turned around? Perhaps; it seemed to rise briefly in those feel-good moments after President Obama's 2008 election victory.
That's why the Obama administration's ability to competently put health legislation into practice, assuming it becomes law, is so crucial.
On that front Democrats can console themselves with some other history: Medicare itself was viewed as a nearly impossible undertaking, but was implemented smoothly, as was a Medicare prescription-drug benefit signed into law by President George W. Bush.
Maybe, advocates might argue, that shows the government can get some things right after all.
Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com
Health Care Cost and Coverage Reform
Some time ago, I asked in this blog whether you feel responsible in any way for your fellow Americans. Some have said no, some maybe and depends and others Yes.
Well, it seems the Yeses have the day. No matter what your persuasion, I ask that you think whether civil rights legislation was(is) the right thing for America? Is(was) Medicare the right thing? Any of you citizens on Medicare willing to give it up because government runs it? And are you willing to pay your own freight?
Either the Congressional Budget Office is a shill for the administration or they are accurate in their financial analysis. I urge you not to read the hate mongers left or right: rather read the CBO report. Below is Krugman, tomorrow the Wall Street Journal's piece will get space. You all know where I stand on most issues: The good of everyone equally comes first with me even at my own expense. I don't ask you to think or feel that; just to know it.
Fear Strikes Out
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made ... And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”
And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.
I’d argue that Mr. Gingrich is wrong about that: proposals to guarantee health insurance are often controversial before they go into effect — Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted.
But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.)
And that cynicism has been the hallmark of the whole campaign against reform.
Yes, a few conservative policy intellectuals, after making a show of thinking hard about the issues, claimed to be disturbed by reform’s fiscal implications (but were strangely unmoved by the clean bill of fiscal health from the Congressional Budget Office) or to want stronger action on costs (even though this reform does more to tackle health care costs than any previous legislation). For the most part, however, opponents of reform didn’t even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing health care system or of the moderate, centrist plan — very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts — that Democrats were proposing.
Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency.
It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.” It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives.
And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.”
Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?
And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation.
This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.
Editors' Note:
This column quotes Newt Gingrich as saying that “Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation, a quotation that originally appeared in The Washington Post. After this column was published, The Post reported that Mr. Gingrich said his comment referred to Johnson’s Great Society policies, not to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Well, it seems the Yeses have the day. No matter what your persuasion, I ask that you think whether civil rights legislation was(is) the right thing for America? Is(was) Medicare the right thing? Any of you citizens on Medicare willing to give it up because government runs it? And are you willing to pay your own freight?
Either the Congressional Budget Office is a shill for the administration or they are accurate in their financial analysis. I urge you not to read the hate mongers left or right: rather read the CBO report. Below is Krugman, tomorrow the Wall Street Journal's piece will get space. You all know where I stand on most issues: The good of everyone equally comes first with me even at my own expense. I don't ask you to think or feel that; just to know it.
Fear Strikes Out
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made ... And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”
And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.
I’d argue that Mr. Gingrich is wrong about that: proposals to guarantee health insurance are often controversial before they go into effect — Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted.
But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.)
And that cynicism has been the hallmark of the whole campaign against reform.
Yes, a few conservative policy intellectuals, after making a show of thinking hard about the issues, claimed to be disturbed by reform’s fiscal implications (but were strangely unmoved by the clean bill of fiscal health from the Congressional Budget Office) or to want stronger action on costs (even though this reform does more to tackle health care costs than any previous legislation). For the most part, however, opponents of reform didn’t even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing health care system or of the moderate, centrist plan — very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts — that Democrats were proposing.
Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency.
It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.” It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives.
And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.”
Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?
And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation.
This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.
Editors' Note:
This column quotes Newt Gingrich as saying that “Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation, a quotation that originally appeared in The Washington Post. After this column was published, The Post reported that Mr. Gingrich said his comment referred to Johnson’s Great Society policies, not to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
