Monday Reads
Posted: August 1, 2011 Filed under: morning reads | Tags: Debt Ceiling, famine, Federal Deficit Deal, Somalia, Syria 50 Comments
Good Morning!
President Cave-in and the spineless Democrats in congress have handed Republican hostage takers a big win. This is beyond ridiculous. As I’ve said before, President Push-over draws a line on the etcha sketch then goes shake shake shake!
Anything can happen, but it apppears the GOP is on the verge of pulling off a political victory that may be unprecedented in American history. Republicans may succeed in using the threat of a potential outcome that they themselves acknowledged would lead to national catastrophe as leverage to extract enormous concessions from Democrats, without giving up anything of any significance in return.
Not only that, but Republicans — in perhaps the most remarkable example of political up-is-downism in recent memory — cast their willingness to dangle the threat of national crisis as a brave and heroic effort they’d undertaken on behalf of the national interest. Only the threat of national crisis could force the immediate spending cuts supposedly necessary to prevent a far more epic crisis later.
Under the emerging deal, President Obama can hike the debt limit in two stages — the first in exchange for equivalent cuts; the second after a Congressional committee comes up with second round of yet more cuts, including to entitlements. The talks appear close to resolving the spending cut“trigger” that would force the committee to act — without giving the GOP an incentive to deliberately sabotage its work. The remaining question is how to get it through the House. But a deal seems immiment.
Again and again, Dems drew lines in the sand that they promptly erased as the threat of default grew. A clean debt ceiling hike? Dropped. Cuts to Medicare benefits? They’ll likely be in that committee’s crosshairs. The insistence on revenue hikes? Withdrawn.
This is sure to create a recession. There’s no lack of economists expressing that view point either.
Macroeconomic Advisers, a leading forecaster, said Thursday that a rewritten plan offered by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, would shave more than a tenth of a percentage point off of growth next year, while the plan being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would cause an even larger hit on growth in fiscal 2013 — shaving almost half a percentage point.
That view was shared by Thomas Lam, Singapore-based chief economist at OSK-DMG, a joint venture of Malaysian securities firm OSK Holdings Bhd. and Germany’s Deutsche Bank AG.
“Our calculations … suggest that the Senate and House proposals, respectively, could lower economic growth on average by less than 0.5 percentage points, all else equal, over the next five years (from 2012 to 2016),” Lam said in a research note that suggested the Senate Democrat plan would hit the economy harder.
The chief economist for forecaster IHS Global Insight, Nariman Behravesh, warned Friday that “a weak economy will only make the tough decisions on the budget even more difficult and the case for fiscal austerity in the near-term even weaker.”
Some House Republicans backed by tea party groups demand even deeper front-end cuts, perhaps as much as $100 billion, arguing that politicians can’t be trusted to keep their promises further out.
That’d be dangerous, warned Mark Zandi, chief economist for forecaster Moody’s Analytics.
“I think the idea is a very serious policy error,” he said. “This would be the fodder for another recession. The economy may be able to digest $25-30 billion more (in federal spending cuts) … but $100 billion, I don’t think it could digest that.”
Zandi, who’s frequently cited by Republicans and Democrats alike, favors spending cuts “when the economy is off and running,” but he cautions that “to add more fiscal restraint in the latter part of 2011 and 2012 would be a mistake.”
Obama is choosing to ignore the jobs crisis and expects to win the election on the back of the bi-partisan pony, I guess. I can’t believe the recession that will be inevitable shortly isn’t going to tank a few political careers. Also, wait until every one finds out that the programs that no one wants cut are going to be subjected to possible across the board cuts. My guess is that the super committee will deadlock and those triggers will turn in to a bunch of big regrets for every one. This will only create more havoc on the budget also. It’s really bad policy. Afterall, did we get anything done from the catfood commission or the gang of six? These committees are beginning to remind me of the old soviet style planning commissions and their 5 year plans.
The famine in Somalia is deepening. The Economist has an interesting piece up suggesting ways that the world can respond to the desperate situation there. It also suggests that we missed all the signs that should’ve told us it would happen.
Famine has a technical meaning these days. It is declared when 30% of children are acutely malnourished, 20% of the population is without food, and deaths are running at two per 10,000 adults or four per 10,000 children every day. Parts of Somalia exceed these dreadful thresholds. In three provinces almost a third of people are acutely malnourished, says the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP). FEWS Net conducted surveys across southern Somalia this month and found that malnutrition exceeded 38% in most areas—a catastrophic rate. Famine is likely to spread all over the south in the next few months (see map). About 2.8m people are thought to need immediate life-saving help.
Yet famine was not declared until July, eight months after the first FEWS Net forecast. The UN did not issue its first appeal until then, though it made a small provision for expected problems in November. The response by donors has been patchy. In a sign of its growing global role, Brazil has pledged more to Somalia than Germany and France have combined. Italy offered nothing. Of the $2 billion the UN says the region needs, it has received less than half. The cash available for food in southern Somalia looks likely to run out well before the next rains.
Outsiders’ caution is linked to the role of the Shabab, an Islamist militia which controls much of southern Somalia and is locked in battle with the internationally recognised but feeble government. The Shabab has banned food aid in most of southern Somalia since 2009, branding Western aid agencies anti-Muslim. The WFP, the biggest provider of food aid, has had 14 staff killed there since 2008. Agencies also worry that militias use food aid to rally their troops—some say this happened in Ethiopia and Eritrea in the 1980s—and do not want to pile into southern Somalia to find they have reinvigorated the Shabab.
Syria’s dictator ushered in a violent start to the Ramadan holy days by upping the level of violence used against democracy protestors. This is yet another terrible story.
Rights activists said 80 civilians were killed in Sunday’s tank-backed assault on the central Syrian city where Assad’s father crushed an armed Muslim Brotherhood revolt 29 years ago by razing neighbourhoods and killing many thousands of people.
Security forces had besieged the Sunni Muslim city of 700,000 for nearly a month before Sunday’s crackdown on the eve of Ramadan, a holy month when Muslims fast in daylight hours.
Many flock to mosque prayers at night, occasions which may provide opportunities for protests to multiply across Syria.
The Syrian state news agency said the military entered Hama to purge armed groups that were terrorising citizens, an account dismissed as “nonsense” by a U.S. diplomat in Damascus.
The agency said eight police personnel were killed while “confronting armed terrorist groups” in Hama.
U.S. President Barack Obama said he was appalled by the Syrian government’s “horrifying” violence against its people in Hama and promised to work with others to isolate Assad.
“Syria will be a better place when a democratic transition goes forward,” Obama said in a statement
So, it appears that most of today’s news will be that Wall Street and the global financial markets can take a breather. It also appears to be a sad day for sane fiscal policy and America’s poor and elderly.
What’s on your blogging and reading list today?
Fox News Consultant Comes Out for Enslaving Pregnant Women
Posted: July 31, 2011 Filed under: abortion rights, Violence against women, Women's Rights 20 CommentsWe’re headed back to property status ladies. Keith Ablow argues for forced pregnancy. Why do these nuts think it’s okay to deregulate banks but consider women’s bodies their personal property?
The abortion debate has left one issue largely off the table: The proper rights of men to prevent the abortion of their children.
I believe that in those cases in which a man can make a credible claim that he is the father of a developing child in utero, in which he could be a proper custodian of that child, and in which he is willing to take full custody of that child upon its delivery, that the pregnant woman involved should not have the option to abort and should be civilly liable, and possibly criminally liable, for psychological suffering and wrongful death should she proceed to do so.…
Allow men who want to be fathers, and who could be good parents, to compel the women they impregnate to bring their children to term.
I love the language. Men “impregnate” women and then “compel” them to bring “their” children to term. Ablow notes, as a quick aside, that his proposal has certain negative consequences for women:
I understand that adopting social policy that gives fathers the right to veto abortions would lead to presently unknown psychological consequences for women forced to carry babies to term. But I don’t know that those consequences are greater than those suffered by men forced to end the lives of their unborn children.
In Ablow’s world no woman can die or become seriously ill from pregnancy or from giving birth! There are only “unknown psychological consequences,” probably minor, from being forced to bring to term the child of any man who has successfully impregnated her! The pregnancy does not happen inside her body, the stakes in the pregnancy are identical for both men and women, and, honestly, pregnancy has no physical health risks whatsoever!But this is one of those chilling and cold-blooded arguments you will get once you define a fertilized egg as a child. The woman has become an incubator for a child and the man has parental rights from the minute the egg and sperm unite. Inside the woman’s body. Which means that he has rights to endanger that body if he so wishes.
Indeed, all our Keith thinks a man needs to make is a credible claim that it is his sperm! Any woman can then be forced to give birth. Perhaps even by a rapist, say? Ablow is unclear on that point.
This is outrageous. It’s hard to believe that a major media outlet would give a platform to an argument for forced servitude. This is beyond the pale.
Next time we hear them talk about compromise, go buy some KY
Posted: July 30, 2011 Filed under: Federal Budget, Federal Budget and Budget deficit, We are so F'd | Tags: compromise, President Pushover 20 Comments
I really don’t know exactly what the definition of a super committee is in the eyes of the El-Supremos, but I’d stock up on some lubricant if I were you. Oh, and put some cat food on that list if you get a chance. Supposedly, there’s a deal and it ain’t pretty at all. What would you expect with a Republican in the White House.
In many respects, the deal will, if approved by all parties, resemble the contours of a short-lived pact negotiated last weekend by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Obama rejected that deal, forcing Congress to wrestle with other inferior legislative options throughout the week.
Among the newest wrinkles, according to informed sources, is an agreement to extend the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling very briefly to give the legislative process time to work without resorting to emergency, hurry-up measures.
President Obama has said he would only sign a short-term extension (days, not weeks) if it were linked to an extension of borrowing authority that lasts beyond the 2012 election.
According to sources, the Senate would use the military construction appropriations bill, one currently available for action, as the vehicle for the short-term extension. This element of the arrangement, like everything else, is subject to modification. But those close to the negotiations expect Congress to slow things down without jeopardizing the nation’s full faith and credit. A debt extension of days would achieve that goal.
Other component parts of the tentative deal include:
- $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
- The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
- The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
- If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
- No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.
With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans? OH, right…supreme evil needs them.
Here’s some more compromise nastiness via ABC. Looks like Wall Street is saved again and the rest of us just can go off to our appointed ice floes and die.
- Debt ceiling increase of up to $2.8 trillion
- Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion
- Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment
- Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion (or whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase)
- Committee must make recommendations before Thanksgiving recess
- If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare.
You think we could get some credit for seeing through the Obama subterfuge before any one else did now?
This can only mean one thing … President Cave-in Strikes Again
Posted: July 30, 2011 Filed under: Federal Budget, Federal Budget and Budget deficit, voodoo economics, Voter Ignorance, We are so F'd | Tags: Debt Ceiling, Federal Budget, Harry Reid, John Boehner, Mitche McConnell, Nancy Pelosi 14 CommentsIf you haven’t been watching live coverage of the leader on leader snit fit on the senate floor, you’re missing the clash of two realities. For all
intents and purposes, Senate minority leader McConnell appears to be engaged in a filibuster of the Reid Plan in full expectation that he can make a deal with President Cave-in. The earlier speeches on the House floor were more raucous than the backbenchers in parliament. Representative Nancy Pelosi received applause, hoots, catcalls and boos. The acting speaker clearly lost control of house decorum.
GOP leaders appear to have been encouraged enough in behind closed doors White House meetings they held a press conference suggesting the stand off might be near an end. Senator Reid took to the senate floor to tell McConnell and Boehner they were sorely mistaken. You can see the coverage of the Boehner/McConnell Presser here.
“We are now fully engaged” with the White House said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a joint appearance with House Speaker John Boehner. “It should be clear … that Senator McConnell and I believe that we are going to be able to come to some sort of agreement,” Boehner said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi met alone with Obama and Biden, both the president and vice president have been in conversations with Boehner and McConnell.
Indeed, McConnell has been most insistent on this point, leading to some acerbic, amusing exchanges with Reid earlier in the day.
“He called the White House and said `Mr. President, let us do the deal,” Reid said of McConnell. “And now he’s telling the president he wants the president to do the deal.”
“We cannot reach a deal without the president. We tried that,” McConnell answered. “I’ll concede the point…but it makes my point that there’s no way under the constitutional system for my friend and I to work this out we have to have the president at the table.”
The biggest two outstanding issues are the Republicans’ insistence on “dollar-for-dollar” deficit reductions –without new tax revenues—to match any increase in the Treasury’s borrowing authority. And second, what enforcement mechanism is best to ensure that a new joint House-Senate committee will be able to come up with an estimated $1.6 trillion in savings by the end of this year.
The Republican leaders in Congress signalled that they were close to reaching a deal with President Barack Obama to raise the US borrowing limit and stave off a devastating default, a breakthrough that would relieve markets – and ordinary Americans – if it were to happen.
But in a sign of the confusion on Capitol Hill about how parties would end the impasse, Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, said Republican claims of new progress on a debt ceiling deal are “not true”.
But “the process has not been moved forward,” Mr Reid said.
Pelosi pulled out a Star Wars reference on the House floor, saying that Speaker John Boehner “chose to go to the dark side” and court the most conservative members of his conference, rather than work on a bipartisan compromise.
“It’s time for us to end this theater of the absurd,” she said. “It’s time for us to get real.”
The House struck down the Democratic measure, 173-246, in a vote that was designed to fail. Boehner brought the measure up under a special rule that required a two-third majority for passage.
“This thing is not on the level,” Pelosi said before the vote.
Boehner’s office said Saturday morning that the vote on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s legislation would show that the Nevada Democrat’s plan can’t pass the House, dismissing it as a “pointless political exercise.”
Despite the House’s pre-emptive rejection of the Reid plan, Senate Democrats say they are moving forward with its consideration. The Senate is tentatively scheduled to take up Reid’s proposal beginning at 1 a.m. ET on Sunday — part of that chamber’s arcane procedural path required to get something passed before the Treasury runs out of funds.
Any proposal put forward by Reid will ultimately need the support of at least seven Senate Republicans in order to reach the 60-vote margin required to overcome a certain GOP filibuster.
Forty-three of the Senate’s 47 Republicans sent a letter to Reid Saturday promising to oppose his plan as currently drafted. Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Massachusetts’ Scott Brown, and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski declined to sign it.
McConnell urged Reid early Saturday afternoon to hold a quick vote on his bill in order to clear the way for new talks.
Your plan “will not pass the Senate. It will not pass the House It is simply a nonstarter,” McConnell told Reid on the Senate floor. “Hold the vote here and now” and let’s “not waste another minute of the nation’s time.”
Reid responded by accusing the Republicans of wasting time on the Boehner plan, and criticized the Senate GOP for not allowing his plan to be considered with a simple majority vote.
“The two parties must work together to forge an agreement that preserves this nation’s economy,” Reid said. “My door is still open.”
It’s getting pretty obvious what the dynamic is now. The Republican leadership in Congress has absolutely no control over its rogue teabot faction which appears to be made up of people that cannot be reasoned with, have no clue about how the constitution sets up the passage of laws, and never cracked a book on finance or economics in their lives. The Democratic leadership are about to have the legs knocked out from under them again by President Cave-In. The Republicans are stalling until President Cave-In forces Democrats to fully give in to Republican demands. Get ready for the next recession. It’s on its way . From my vantage point, the teabots are terrorists and the President and the Republican leadership are in negotiations with them.
Krugman Debunks Republican Fairy Tales
Posted: July 30, 2011 Filed under: Economy | Tags: Bush tax cuts, Paul Krugman, Ronald Reagan Fairy Tales 11 Comments
As we inch closer to purposeful default on our debt and spending policies destined to send us into recession, Nobel Prize winning Economist Paul Krugman comes out blasting with some nifty graphs. Stylized facts are an economist’s best friend. We continue to see this unending push of thoroughly trounced bad hypotheses spew out of Republicans and even the President. The vast degree of economic illiteracy in this country astounds me.
First, I’ll repeat one set of facts I mentioned in my post yesterday. Ronald Reagan was responsible for the largest tax increases in history and Barrack Obama was responsible for the largest tax cuts through his stimulus plan. This doesn’t even include his extension of the Dubya tax cuts. Discussion during TEFRA of 1982 resembles the discussion going on today. However, Reagan did tax increases. This particular ridiculousness is enough to make a data junkie scream. If you look at deficit numbers, former President Jimmy Carter was moving towards a budget balanced by the end of his term in office. Reagan blew government spending out of the water. However, Dubya remains the biggest spender of all since World War 2. If you want to blame the spending on any one, blame it on Reagan and George W, Bush. More on that in a bit.
Paul Krugman covers another Reagan Bedtime Story. He also points out that even conservative economists have started spewing the notion that Reagan was responsible for an era of “unprecedented growth”. This is also not true.
This shows what everyone was supposed to know: we had an awesome performance in the generation following the war (despite very high tax rates on the rich and a very strong union movement); we had a long period of poor productivity performance that spanned the Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I administrations; we then had a revival during the Clinton administration, but even so not up to postwar standards. By the way, I don’t give Clinton credit for that revival; it was about learning to use technology. But in any case, there is no hint of a Reagan miracle in the data.
Now, back to stylized facts on federal spending. This is also from Krugman. There is this huge meme out there right now that some how, President Obama has gone on some kind of spending spree. This couldn’t be further from the truth. It appears that Rush Limbaugh is not only a big fat liar, but he is also incapable of doing the math on simple fractions. He is joined by nearly every Republican in the House today.
The fact is that federal spending rose from 19.6% of GDP in fiscal 2007 to 23.8% of GDP in fiscal 2010. So isn’t that a huge spending spree? Well, no.
First of all, the size of a ratio depends on the denominator as well as the numerator. GDP has fallen sharply relative to the economy’s potential; here’s the ratio of real GDP to the CBO’s estimate of potential GDP:
A 6 percent fall in GDP relative to trend, all by itself, would have raised the ratio of spending to GDP from 19.6 to 20.8, or about 30 percent of the actual rise.
That still leaves a rise in spending; but most of that is safety-net programs, which spend more in hard times because more people are in distress.
Beginning in 2005, the CBPP showed how George W. Bush’s excessive tax cuts played the largest part in federal deficits. Simply allowing these to expire last December would have gone farther in pushing a balanced budget than nearly anything done to date. In May of this year, they continued their analysis of how the Bush Policies were the ones driving the budget deficit.
Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).
The deficit for fiscal year 2009 — which began more than three months before President Obama’s inauguration — was $1.4 trillion and, at 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the largest deficit relative to the economy since the end of World War II. At $1.3 trillion and nearly 9 percent of GDP, the deficit in 2010 was only slightly lower. If current policies remain in place, deficits will likely resemble those figures in 2011 and hover near $1 trillion a year for the next decade.
The events and policies that pushed deficits to these high levels in the
near term were, for the most part, not of President Obama’s making. If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.
Other drives of the current deficit are extremely short-lived. These would be all the financial rescue spending delivered to financial institutions and the recession which brings in loss of revenues and increased expenditures. The other big expenditures are the two unfunded wars that having been running for over 10 years. These are the first wars that we have ever run that were not funded by tax increases.
However, these Republican Fairy Tales do not let the current President off the hook. He seems as hell bent as the Republicans in many ways to repeat their sins. He also seems woefully short on economic knowledge and incapable of listening to his economics advisers–now frustrated and gone–on what to do with the economy. The simplest way to shut down the deficit would be to eliminate preferential treatment of capital gains income and let the Bush tax cuts expire. I’d prefer they expire for folks over $200,000 a year, but letting them expire altogether is better than setting the stage for all these falsehoods spewing from Limbaugh and the like. Obama should’ve let the tax cuts expire when he had the chance. However, his ability to negotiate a position that proposes a Democratic alternative policy has never been present. People can’t figure out if he is just has the world’s worst negotiating skills or he wants what the Republicans want. My belief is that the outcome could matter less to him as long as he gets some ego strokes from it.
We have gotten to the point that complete insanity and adherence to fairy tales is putting our economy in serious jeopardy. We simply cannot afford to listen to the voices of ignorance any more. I cannot even believe we’re being held hostage now to a balanced budget amendment. That is one of the most flagrantly wrong policies any one could ever think about. I’m going to take that on this week since I can’t believe that zombie canard is back haunting the halls of Congress again.
We seriously need experienced economic stewardship of the economy right now. We have a tremendous jobs deficit that will only get worse if any of these seriously flawed budget initiatives pass. We couldn’t have gotten a worse group of leaders at a more crucial point in time. Their mistakes will hurt this country for a very long time.






near term were, for the most part, not of President Obama’s making. If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.



Recent Comments