I’m with him …
Posted: August 18, 2009 Filed under: Health care reform, president teleprompter jesus, Surreality, Team Obama, Voter Ignorance | Tags: James Carville, Paul Krugman, Politico, Public Option Comments Off on I’m with him …
I have to say, I’m with my neighbor James Carville on this one … put a decent health care reform out there and let the Republicans kill it. I’ve said over and over that without a vital public option, it’s neither about the health care or the reform. It’s about the lobbyists and an administration win and I don’t think we should go for it. Carville thinks it would send a good signal to the country about how little Republicans are willing to come to the table in the name of what’s good for American and bi-partisanship if they fight health care reform vehemently. Let them show themselves as obstructionists while we trot out people bankrupted by underinsurance, folks who lost relatives to insurance companies who ration health care, and people who can’t even access the basics enough to be treated for the most treatable of diseases. Let them all be seen on TV saying no well baby care and prenatal care to their fetus fetishists.
On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Democratic strategist James Carville became the first leading Democrat to suggest publicly that there might be political advantage in letting Republicans “kill” health care.
“Put a bill out there, make them filibuster it, make them be what they are, the party of no,” Carville said. “Let them kill it. Let them kill it with the interest group money, then run against them. That’s what we ought to do.”
This weekend’s comments by White House officials simply acknowledged the long-obvious reality that the idea of a government-run insurance plan was partly a bargaining chip.
Bargaining chip? WTF? What exactly do we get if the public option is off the table?
Krugman says the public option may be a signal on Obama’s trustworthiness that not every one is seeing. Okay, finance/economics lesson time again. Signaling theory is based on the idea that that market reacts rationally to publicly available information. So, for example, if I want to signal that my company is worth more than the average company, I want to find a way to signal that to the market I’m superior so they’ll run up my stock price to recognize me as a superior company. Then I can rake in bonuses and capital gains. I could borrow money in the commercial market, for example, that gives me a Aaa rating. This signals raters who are assumed to be in the know find my company to be a good bet compared to others that they rate lower. This signal should push up my stock price.
So what kind of signal do we have here? Well, Krugman argues that the public option is one of the ways Obama can ‘signal’ that he’s still a progressive democrat and he’s signaling that he’s a sell out without realizing it. He points out that the public option debate has turn into a signal on who should buy stock in what Obama says. Signals are based on the market knowing what actions can be trusted, however. You have to trust that some one who gives a company the Aaa rating really has some inside proprietary information and believe they are a reliable, trustworthy source of rating. Krugman says the Obama administration is sending out bad signals and doesn’t even realize it.
If progressives had real trust in Obama’s commitment to doing the right thing, the administration would have broad leeway to do deals. But the president doesn’t command that kind of trust.
Partly it’s a matter of style — as many people have noted, he has been weirdly reluctant to make the moral case for universal care, weirdly unable to show passion on the issue, weirdly diffident even about the blatant lies from the right. Partly it’s a spillover from his other policies: by appointing an economic team that’s Rubin redux, by taking such a kindly attitude to the banks, he has squandered a lot of progressive enthusiasm.
Add in the dealmaking as part of the health care process itself, and progressives can be forgiven for having the impression that Obama (a) takes them for granted (b) is way too easily rolled by the other side.
So progressives have their backs up over one provision in health care reform that’s easy to monitor. The public option has become not so much a symbol as a signal, a test of whether Obama is really the progressive activists thought they were backing.
And the bizarre thing is that the administration doesn’t seem to get that.
So, who’s signals should we trust? Carville? Krugman? Obama?
Please Digg!!! Share!!! Tweet!!!
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine
Shoot the message and the messenger
Posted: August 14, 2009 Filed under: Health care reform, Hillary Clinton: Her Campaign for All of Us, president teleprompter jesus, Surreality, The Media SUCKS, Voter Ignorance | Tags: Big phRMA, healt care town hall meetings 1 Comment
For some one who was supposed to be the nation’s hip professor with that smooth oration style holding us all rapt and breathless, President Barack Obama sure has turned into to the teacher who has lost control of the classroom. I can’t recall any president–other than LBJ on Vietnam–that has rolled out a major policy and lost the conversation so quickly. It’s not that great of a leap to see remnants of “Hey, Hey LBJ, how many babies did you kill today?” in the faces of seniors who have some how been convinced that discussing living wills puts them in danger of being set out on the ice floes by their government. How did this administration lose control of this conversation so rapidly?
I would speculate that the major players in the debate did not want a repeat of the “HillaryCare” episode so they may have concentrated a bit too much on not repeating a similar process. There were no blue ribbon panels meeting all over the country and no attempts to set up a health care czar. Instead there was this via Bloomberg: “Six Lobbyists Per Lawmaker Work on Health Overhaul” and this from Jane at FDL : Memo Confirms Deal Between phRMA and White House. With this White House–as with Richard Nixon’s–it’s always about following the money. Before the bill even hit the Congress and the people, it was morphed into something that is said to be setting up windfall profits for the people who profit grandly already from the ill among us. Given that, now we’re supposed to buy it as a foot in the door to the real thing. Excuse me for my lack of trust. I’m just not buying that passing this thing will lead to anything but corporate windfall profits and a win in the Obama column.
That’s six lobbyists for each of the 535 members of the House and Senate, according to Senate records, and three times the number of people registered to lobby on defense. More than 1,500 organizations have health-care lobbyists, and about three more are signing up each day. Every one of the 10 biggest lobbying firms by revenue is involved in an effort that could affect 17 percent of the U.S. economy.
These groups spent $263.4 million on lobbying during the first six months of 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group, more than any other industry. They spent $241.4 million during the same period of 2008. Drugmakers alone spent $134.5 million, 64 percent more than the next biggest spenders, oil and gas companies.
“Whenever you have a big piece of legislation like this, it’s like ringing the dinner bell for K Street,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based watchdog group …
We now have a botched roll out, a messy misunderstood plan, and rooms filled with shrieking constituents of all shapes, sizes, and flavors. Is any one buying this as a national conversation?
We need a New Brain Trust
Posted: August 13, 2009 Filed under: Global Financial Crisis, president teleprompter jesus, Surreality, Team Obama, The Great Recession, U.S. Economy | Tags: Angela Merkel, Christine Lagarde, Eurozone, French Economy, German economy, Nicolas Sarkozy Comments Off on We need a New Brain TrustWhile the U.S. economy sputters, France and Germany appear to have exited their recessions and returned to modest growth during the spring. There’s been a distinctly different approach to macroeconomic policy taken by Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Nicolas Sarkozy and their respective finance ministers that deserve elucidation.
The French and German economies both grew by 0.3% between April and June, bringing to an end year-long recessions in Europe’s largest economies.
Stronger exports and consumer spending, as well as government stimulus packages, contributed to the growth.
Germany is a manufacturer and exporter. Yes, that’s right. Germany has trade unions, good vacation packages, 
excellent schools, universal health care, lots of solar power and tough environmental regulations and they still have a manufacturing economy and they export. Their form of government is basically a type of democratic socialism. All the things we are taught to view with suspicion. Still, Germany manages to manufacture things and export to China the country to whom the U.S. has practically sold their collective soul so we can massively import junk on a rapidly decreasing credit line.
The latest figures showed German exports had grown at their fastest pace for nearly three years at 7%, with particularly strong growth in demand from rapidly-growing economies such as China.
The country’s Federal Statistics Office said that household and government expenditure had also boosted growth.
It added that imports had declined “far more sharply than exports, which had a positive effect on GDP growth”.
“These [GDP] figures should encourage us,” said Germany’s Economy Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. “They show that the strongest decline in economic performance likely lies behind us.”
It’s the same story with France. Household consumption and export markets are improving. I don’t know if you’ve ever listened to Finance Minister Christine Lagarde but she’s undoubtedly one of the best in the world. Compare her to our Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner and you’ll see who comes up quite short. First, she’s a noted anti trust lawyer as compared to a noted monopoly enabler.
Ms Lagarde said that consumer spending and strong exports had helped to pull France out of recession.
“What we see is that consumption is holding up,” she said.
Official figures showed that household consumption rose by 0.4% in the second quarter.
She said government incentive schemes for trading in old cars, together with falling prices, were helping consumers.
Foreign trade contributed 0.9% to the GDP figure – a “very strong impact”, said Ms Lagarde.
We are daily fed this propaganda that other countries come up short when compared to the United States and our economic machine. We are told that countries with high union participation, with universal health care, with high standards for the work environment and tough regulations for business and standards for the environment come up short when compared to the U.S. These countries both undertook solid fiscal stimulus. Here is some information on the French package passed in February. The Obama stimulus package passed during February also.
France’s economic stimulus package encompasses a three-pronged plan: €11 billion ($14.5 billion) each to go to direct state investment and to inject capital into private-sector enterprises, plus €4 billion ($5.24 billion) for state-run companies to be applied toward improvements for the national postal service, energy supplies and the rail network. Of that amount, some €1.3 billion ($1.7 billion) is to go into refurbishment of higher educational institutions, prisons, monuments and court.
Here’s some information on the German package also passed in February.
Germany has approved a 50bn euro ($63bn, £44bn) stimulus plan aimed at boosting Europe’s largest economy.
The plan was approved by the upper house of parliament, which represents Germany’s 16 state governments.
It includes infrastructure investments, tax relief, reductions in health care contributions and money for families with children.
The package follows an earlier 23 bn-euro plan that was criticised for being too cautious.
It’s just a little bit of Policy Fail Repeating
Posted: August 6, 2009 Filed under: Bailout Blues, Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, president teleprompter jesus, Team Obama, The Bonus Class, The DNC, The Great Recession, The Media SUCKS, U.S. Economy | Tags: bad bank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, homeownership, James B. Lockhart, mortgage origination, secondary market for mortgages, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner Comments Off on It’s just a little bit of Policy Fail Repeating
When you let lobbyists make public policy, failure is an acceptable outcome. That’s because the point of the policy isn’t the public and isn’t necessarily doing what will work. The point of the policy is to enrich and perpetuate the entrenched interests. Every other possible goal becomes expendable including those that have to do with protecting the public purse and welfare.
Imagine my lack of surprise when I saw that the creation of a “bad bank” policy is back in today’s WaPo headlines. Go take a look at “U.S. Considers Remaking Mortgage Giants:’Bad Bank’ Would Wipe the Slate Clean for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac by Taking Their Toxic Loans” and weep. This administration will reward bad players as long as there is a political reason for them to exist. So, instead of real reform of Fannie and Freddie, they’re proposing a solution that sweeps past mistakes under the rug and allows these failed institutions to operate in the same irresponsible way that brought them their current fate. There is no such thing as the discipline of the market or the bankruptcy court when you’re big enough to hire K Street impresarios to keep your show running and the federal government enables you.
The Obama administration is considering an overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would strip the mortgage finance giants of hundreds of billions of dollars in troubled loans and create a new structure to support the home-loan market, government officials said.
The bad debts the firms own would be placed in new government-backed financial institutions — so-called bad banks — that would take responsibility for collecting as much of the outstanding balance as possible. What would be left would be two healthy financial companies with a clean slate.
The moves would represent one of the most dramatic reorderings of the badly shattered housing finance system since District-based Fannie Mae was created by Congress to support mortgage lending during the Great Depression. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, based in McLean, have government charters to buy home loans from banks, which they then repackage and sell to investors. The banks can then use the proceeds to offer more loans to home buyers.
The leviathans became emblematic of the financial crisis when they were effectively nationalized in September amid a market meltdown that revealed much of their holdings to be troubled. The government has since pledged more than $1.5 trillion, including $85 billion in direct aid, to keep the mortgage market working through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The proposal, which is preliminary and one of several under discussion, is scheduled to be taken up by the White House’s National Economic Council on Thursday.
What about the Japanese lost decade and all the papers and studies written about the bad bank policy did these folks miss? Well, of course, you do know that the head of the “White House’s National Economic Council ” is La-La Summers, right? Mister, I got mine from Wall Street? Let’s look at the other players who buy into this. I’ll just highlight them so you can see that it’s basically the same players that had some kind of supporting role in the original failure. Why does Washington D.C. continue to reward the very same people and players? It has too be some thing pathological.
What’s That Lassie? Little Timmy’s in the Well AGAIN?
Posted: August 4, 2009 Filed under: Bailout Blues, Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, president teleprompter jesus, The Bonus Class, The Great Recession, U.S. Economy | Tags: Ben Bernanke, CNBC, FDic, FED, Larry Summers, Mary Schapiro, Naked Capitalism, SEC, Sheila Bair, Timothy Geithner, Wall Street Cheerleaders, Zero Hedge Comments Off on What’s That Lassie? Little Timmy’s in the Well AGAIN?
Wow, it looks like Turbo Tax Timmy has gone rogue! We better send the press up to Alaska to chase down another Palin rumor. First, there’s that nastiness over the weekend with the Stephanapolous show on ABC where he explicitly said that the administration wasn’t ruling out new taxes on the middle class. (Something Larry-the-la-la Summers also inkled, but hey, he’s not a cabinet officer, he’s something akin to a Czar that has to be overthrown by something other than scandal and public displays of stupidity.) I believe that gave Robert Gibbs Excedrin headaches number 349-357 during yesterday’s presser.
Now, there’s rumors of a temper tantrum in the presence of all the nation’s topic economists and financial regulators outlined here in the WSJ. It seems he’s not getting the Obama way on this one. The ladies in the room have taken exception to his granting Ben Bernanke (possibly later, this year, La-la Summers) all the fun and power. I guess being an independent regulator with an agency all to yourself just isn’t what it used to be; especially when you have scary lady parts and a huge brain.
Mr. Geithner told the regulators Friday that “enough is enough,” said one person familiar with the meeting. Mr. Geithner said regulators had been given a chance to air their concerns, but that it was time to stop, this person said.
Among those gathered in the Treasury conference room were Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair.
Friday’s roughly hourlong meeting was described as unusual, not only because of Mr. Geithner’s repeated use of obscenities, but because of the aggressive posture he took with officials from federal agencies generally considered independent of the White House. Mr. Geithner reminded attendees that the administration and Congress set policy, not the regulatory agencies.
Mr. Geithner, without singling out officials, raised concerns about regulators who questioned the wisdom of giving the Federal Reserve more power to oversee the financial system. Ms. Schapiro and Ms. Bair, among others, have argued that more authority should be shared among a council of regulators.
This current turf battle is only the latest move by a group within government possibly thwarting the Treasury’s plans to continue uploading tax dollars to the bonus class in the guise of saving the financial sector. If there’s still disagreement about this point, can you imagine what other things are going on in complete disarray behind the scenes? Who is really in charge of solving this overt act of sibling rivalry? Well, if you have figured out where the buck stops in this administration, you’re doing better than me. (Hint: these folks are ALL presidential appointments).
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments