If anyone is wondering whether the Bush Debacalypse is over we need to look no further than these three stories ...
Robert Benmosche, the CEO of government bail out champion AIG, is threatening to quit because he's not getting his way on everything he wants from the federal government. Will the government cave in to his demands? I don't know, but I suspect so. Given the Obama administration's reluctance to take on Wall Steet's malfeasance and incompetence I have to believe that Benmosche's arrogance will somehow be rewarded. Here's an overview from nakedcapitalism.com of a man who (1) took a two week vacation before he started work, (2) then told everyone that he - and not Uncle Sam - was in charge, (3) handed out bonuses to incompetents in a collapsed industry, and (4) then publicly went after NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for drawing attention to the bonuses. It's not pretty.
If you're not sure whether to support the notoriously weak health care reform passed out of the House of Representatives on Saturday this link from Firedoglake won't help. But it provides more information than most media outlets have on what's really wrong with the House bill. At this point, while I don't like much of what's in the House bill, the trajectory we're on is worse. Damn.
Finally, we have the Obama administration's uncertainty over what to do with President Bush's Bungled Wars Project (Here's a hint: We're broke, they're not afraid, and they see us as occupiers. Leave).
With Congress operating as if it's business as usual on something as important as health care, Corporate America's CEOs still pushing their weight around as if their industry deserves a prize for ruining the economy, and President Obama's uncertainty over a failed war project that threatens to last longer than any war in American history (whatever happened to the "last throes" Cheney talked about?), my hunch is that things are going to get worse before they get better.
Is the Bush Debacalypse spreading into the Obama administration? It would appear so. Stay tuned.
- Mark
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
DON'T MISREAD FORT HOOD
OK, I've been looking for the right moment to shift the following two stories from one section of my blog to the regular post section. With the ugly events at Fort Hood, and the Right Wing medias immediate turn to stereotypes, I think I've found it.
It turns out that the nut jobs on the Far Right are ready to go after Muslim-Americans because of the recent actions of Major Malik Nadal Hasan. What they forget is that our military personnel have been under stress, and killing themselves at record rates, for some time now. The following two posts detail the strain of conducting a never-ending war on the backs of soldiers doing 3-4 tours of duty because of "stop-loss" orders. The following (in red) were originally posted during November/December 2007 ...
No, Seriously, We're Not Overstretched ...
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the number of service members returning from Iraq with mental health problems is 19.1% (compared with 11.3% after returning from Afghanistan and 8.5% after returning from other locations). So, what does Mr. Compassionate Conservative “I’m the Decider” Guy do? He maintains his back door draft “stop-loss” orders which have reportedly been used more than 50,000 times to keep military personnel on extended duty (currently there are 12,500 "stop-loss" troops). The results should have been predictable.
According to the Associated Press U.S. military personnel, strained by six years at war and constant rotations, are now deserting their posts at the highest rates since 1980. Indeed, the number of Army deserters this year showed an 80 percent increase since the United States invaded Iraq. This should not come as a surprise. For many, desertion is better than the alternative: It turns out that Army suicide rates are the highest ever since suicides were tracked in war time.
Still, the Associated Press found that despite the increase in desertions the military does little to find those who bolt. Unless, of course, you’re this guy, and need help ... (follow me to the next "Support the Troops" post)
Support the Troops ... But Only if They're Healthy
According to the Military Times Kentucky soldier, SPC. Justin Faulkner, shared his concerns over his deteriorating mental condition with his superiors. He was rebuffed. So Faulkner checked himself into a Veteran's Administration hospital on his own, where doctors wanted to hold him for observation.
To bad for Faulkner. By checking himself into the VA hospital, where he could be found with minimal effort from the MP, Faulkner got himself arrested … for going AWOL.
It’s no wonder that more U.S. troops disapproved of the president’s handling of the war than approved of it (35% approval) last year. While there are those who believe the insurgents are in their “last throes” (I guess a “throe” unit equals 2 ½ years), somehow I can’t see the president’s standing with the troops improving this year.
The Fort Hood Connection
One of the things that becomes clear from these posts is that mental stress from a war with unclear objectives (Democracy? Nation building? al Qaeda?) has already caused some serious problems with our military personnel. Record desertions, record suicide rates, divorce rates double the national average, and lower recruiting standards, are not an indicator of an organization that is running on all cylinders. These problems will only get worse now as we continue to be mired in a war longer than we were involved in World War II, and now are on the verge of surpassing our presence in Vietnam.
Incredibly enough, it's taken a sordid and ugly event at Fort Hood to get the nation's attention on how President Bush's Bungled Wars Project is affecting our military. Sadly, because of the Right-Wing media's penchant to promote stereotypes our attention is being directed away from the stress placed on our military personnel, and our military as an organization, and shifted to American muslims and Islam. Specifically,
At the end of the day, to suggest that we need to focus on all Muslims rather than seeing a disturbed and cowardly man in a difficult situation loses sight of how a bungled a seemingly never-ending war is affecting our military on many levels. Were signals missed by Hasan's superiors (and the FBI)? No doubt. But record suicides, record desertion rates, divorce, and lower recruiting standards all suggest that our military and political leadership need to reevaluate more than the events that led up to the massacre at Fort Hood.
- Mark
It turns out that the nut jobs on the Far Right are ready to go after Muslim-Americans because of the recent actions of Major Malik Nadal Hasan. What they forget is that our military personnel have been under stress, and killing themselves at record rates, for some time now. The following two posts detail the strain of conducting a never-ending war on the backs of soldiers doing 3-4 tours of duty because of "stop-loss" orders. The following (in red) were originally posted during November/December 2007 ...
No, Seriously, We're Not Overstretched ...
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the number of service members returning from Iraq with mental health problems is 19.1% (compared with 11.3% after returning from Afghanistan and 8.5% after returning from other locations). So, what does Mr. Compassionate Conservative “I’m the Decider” Guy do? He maintains his back door draft “stop-loss” orders which have reportedly been used more than 50,000 times to keep military personnel on extended duty (currently there are 12,500 "stop-loss" troops). The results should have been predictable.
According to the Associated Press U.S. military personnel, strained by six years at war and constant rotations, are now deserting their posts at the highest rates since 1980. Indeed, the number of Army deserters this year showed an 80 percent increase since the United States invaded Iraq. This should not come as a surprise. For many, desertion is better than the alternative: It turns out that Army suicide rates are the highest ever since suicides were tracked in war time.
Still, the Associated Press found that despite the increase in desertions the military does little to find those who bolt. Unless, of course, you’re this guy, and need help ... (follow me to the next "Support the Troops" post)
Support the Troops ... But Only if They're Healthy
According to the Military Times Kentucky soldier, SPC. Justin Faulkner, shared his concerns over his deteriorating mental condition with his superiors. He was rebuffed. So Faulkner checked himself into a Veteran's Administration hospital on his own, where doctors wanted to hold him for observation.
To bad for Faulkner. By checking himself into the VA hospital, where he could be found with minimal effort from the MP, Faulkner got himself arrested … for going AWOL.
“It’s humiliating, degrading,” Faulkner said in an interview with The Associated Press Monday afternoon, just minutes before his release from the Fayette County Detention Center. “It’s made me lose respect for the military. To come and arrest me at the VA, it wasn’t like I was trying to hide, trying to run. I was getting help. I am being punished for getting help.”
It’s no wonder that more U.S. troops disapproved of the president’s handling of the war than approved of it (35% approval) last year. While there are those who believe the insurgents are in their “last throes” (I guess a “throe” unit equals 2 ½ years), somehow I can’t see the president’s standing with the troops improving this year.
The Fort Hood Connection
One of the things that becomes clear from these posts is that mental stress from a war with unclear objectives (Democracy? Nation building? al Qaeda?) has already caused some serious problems with our military personnel. Record desertions, record suicide rates, divorce rates double the national average, and lower recruiting standards, are not an indicator of an organization that is running on all cylinders. These problems will only get worse now as we continue to be mired in a war longer than we were involved in World War II, and now are on the verge of surpassing our presence in Vietnam.
Incredibly enough, it's taken a sordid and ugly event at Fort Hood to get the nation's attention on how President Bush's Bungled Wars Project is affecting our military. Sadly, because of the Right-Wing media's penchant to promote stereotypes our attention is being directed away from the stress placed on our military personnel, and our military as an organization, and shifted to American muslims and Islam. Specifically,
* To declare that "every jihadist is a Muslim" while losing sight of what abortion clinic bombers do and doctor killers do (and Pat Robertson's fatwa) is to suggest that only Muslims advocate killing in the name of their faith.
* To declare that only Muslims conduct indiscriminate violence and mass murder in this manner loses sight of Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma (and the KKK in the early 20th century).
* To declare that all Muslims serving their country should be "debriefed" loses sight of how Japanese-Americans - many with parents in internment camps - performed as American soldiers during war.
At the end of the day, to suggest that we need to focus on all Muslims rather than seeing a disturbed and cowardly man in a difficult situation loses sight of how a bungled a seemingly never-ending war is affecting our military on many levels. Were signals missed by Hasan's superiors (and the FBI)? No doubt. But record suicides, record desertion rates, divorce, and lower recruiting standards all suggest that our military and political leadership need to reevaluate more than the events that led up to the massacre at Fort Hood.
- Mark
AL CAPONE'S REAL CRIME
I've written about this in the past but it bears repeating.
The people who put together, begged for and then pushed the toxic instruments that got us into this economic mess don't deserve to be compensated a kingly sum for their efforts. Everyone knows that if you offer someone insurance and then fail to pay because there's no money in the bank (or collateral) there would be problems. In the legal world there would be criminal proceedings. In the underworld you would get whacked.
Yet, the clowns at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase did exactly that. They created "insurance" for toxic products and then said, "We can't pay ... Oooops."
So why is it that we continue to see this?
Seriously, in what world does drowning an economy on bad bets and then sucking off the American taxpayer to finish the payoff constitute "creating wealth." This is akin to Al Capone saying, "Hey, I kept da' streets safe for merchants to make da' money ... I gotta pay my people ... so I extort."
Both Al Capone's gangsters and today's banksters participated in wealth extraction through fraudulent means. Both deserve to be in jail. Yet, the banksters are getting bonuses.
Al Capone's real crime was that he didn't work on Wall Street.
- Mark
The people who put together, begged for and then pushed the toxic instruments that got us into this economic mess don't deserve to be compensated a kingly sum for their efforts. Everyone knows that if you offer someone insurance and then fail to pay because there's no money in the bank (or collateral) there would be problems. In the legal world there would be criminal proceedings. In the underworld you would get whacked.
Yet, the clowns at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase did exactly that. They created "insurance" for toxic products and then said, "We can't pay ... Oooops."
So why is it that we continue to see this?
The firms -- the three biggest banks to exit the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- will hand out $29.7 billion in bonuses, according to analysts’ estimates. That’s up 60 percent from last year and more than the previous high of $26.8 billion in 2007. The money, split among 119,000 employees, equals $250,400 each, almost five times the $50,303 median household income in the U.S. last year ...These people would be out of work if we had let their industry collapse. We saved their bacon. Why are they getting bonuses? Oh, that's easy, according Michael Karp, co-founder of Options Group:
“Wall Street is all about creating wealth, and when banks start making money again, they have to pay their people.”I think it would be easier if I just went and banged my head against a wall.
Seriously, in what world does drowning an economy on bad bets and then sucking off the American taxpayer to finish the payoff constitute "creating wealth." This is akin to Al Capone saying, "Hey, I kept da' streets safe for merchants to make da' money ... I gotta pay my people ... so I extort."
Both Al Capone's gangsters and today's banksters participated in wealth extraction through fraudulent means. Both deserve to be in jail. Yet, the banksters are getting bonuses.
Al Capone's real crime was that he didn't work on Wall Street.
- Mark
Monday, November 9, 2009
RUMP REPUBLICAN(S) CAST ME OUT
Paul Krugman’s most recent op-ed makes an interesting observation. Currently the Republican Party - a.k.a. the Party of No - is bent on standing in the way of legislation that might hand President Obama any degree of success. As a result our national political scene has become more and more burlesque and may soon become “Californified.”
A Brief History Lesson: The Rump Parliament
Like the Republican and conservative radicals today who refuse to believe that anyone but themselves are capable of virtue and governing, those who rose to oppose King Charles I during the English Civil War (c. 1641-1653) didn’t trust the business of governing to those in Parliament. This was especially the case for members of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army.
Cromwell’s army eventually surrounded Parliament in 1648 and only let those who they favored back in. This left a Rump Parliament that was made up of about 20% of its actual membership. These virtuous guarders of English “liberties” went after enemies of the state, eventually executed Charles I, and attempted to establish a Puritan republic, with Oliver Cromwell as its leader.
Over time Cromwell, who naturally distrusted assemblies, grew weary of the Rump Parliamentarians inability to create a “godly reformation” in England. Former radicals were no longer held in good standing, or were not seen as pure enough. Cromwell would dissolve the Parliament that brought him to power in a military coup in 1653, which marked the beginning of The Protectorate (1653-1658).
The Tea Baggers as Rump Republicans
The fact that former radicals during the English Civil War were no longer seen as sufficiently loyal is instructive for our political scene today. Paul Krugman finds it especially ironic that Newt Gingrich is now seen as a “sober, reasonable elder statesman of the G.O.P.” The problem, as Krugman points out, is that Gingrich “has no authority: Republican voters ignored his call to support a relatively moderate, electable candidate in New York’s special Congressional election … Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.”
Put another way, moderation in the Republican Party has been buried by a Radical Right who is either unwilling or incapable of reaching out to middle America. Imagine what this means. The first Republican Puritans of the modern age - Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America crowd - are no longer seen as pure enough. They have been replaced by a group of ideologues who, one would assume, can bring the “godly reformation” and the market purity demanded by Conservative Independents and the dwindling but faithful 20% who continue to claim they belong to the Republican Party.
The problem, according to Krugman, is that because “these people aren’t interested in actually governing” their only recourse is to “feed the base’s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it.” These people want blood. This explains why the Republican Party and Conservatives in general have increasingly been captured by a tea-bagging movement that puts hate, empty slogans, and symbolism above social purpose and our nation’s political health.
How does this affect people like you and me? I'm glad you asked.
I'm Cast Out (as a Non-Patriot)
Today, purity tests and name-calling stand in where analysis and judgment once did. While I have had the honor of enduring my share of name-calling while on air, I especially enjoyed this Facebook exchange directed at me (on another account) I had over the weekend.
For anyone interested in historical lessons the experiences of England's Rump Parliament does not bode well for America. Ideological and spiritual purity are not what the the Framers had in mind when they fought for and shaped our Constitution. Losing an election because your team left a mess of things does not give you the right to throw in the towel on democracy, in the process giving America a case of political constipation.
Should we be worried? Paul Krugman thinks there's something afoot. If the movement driving the tea baggers today gains any real traction, I think he's on to something.
- Mark
NOTE: "Rump" normally means the hind end of an animal; Since 1649, the term "rump parliament" has been used to refer to any parliament left over from the actual legitimate parliament.
Having become the minority party, and tethered to an increasingly ideological and symbol-responsive base, the G.O.P. has essentially arrived at the point where it has become a “rump” party, interested in little more than making sure that if it can’t govern no else will.For those of you who are a bit dusty in history, the rump party reference is a nod to the Rump Parliament that rose up during England’s Civil War. The background is illustrative for what it tells us about today’s political environment, and deserves a few brief words.
A Brief History Lesson: The Rump Parliament
Like the Republican and conservative radicals today who refuse to believe that anyone but themselves are capable of virtue and governing, those who rose to oppose King Charles I during the English Civil War (c. 1641-1653) didn’t trust the business of governing to those in Parliament. This was especially the case for members of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army.
Over time Cromwell, who naturally distrusted assemblies, grew weary of the Rump Parliamentarians inability to create a “godly reformation” in England. Former radicals were no longer held in good standing, or were not seen as pure enough. Cromwell would dissolve the Parliament that brought him to power in a military coup in 1653, which marked the beginning of The Protectorate (1653-1658).
The Tea Baggers as Rump Republicans
The fact that former radicals during the English Civil War were no longer seen as sufficiently loyal is instructive for our political scene today. Paul Krugman finds it especially ironic that Newt Gingrich is now seen as a “sober, reasonable elder statesman of the G.O.P.” The problem, as Krugman points out, is that Gingrich “has no authority: Republican voters ignored his call to support a relatively moderate, electable candidate in New York’s special Congressional election … Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.”
Put another way, moderation in the Republican Party has been buried by a Radical Right who is either unwilling or incapable of reaching out to middle America. Imagine what this means. The first Republican Puritans of the modern age - Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America crowd - are no longer seen as pure enough. They have been replaced by a group of ideologues who, one would assume, can bring the “godly reformation” and the market purity demanded by Conservative Independents and the dwindling but faithful 20% who continue to claim they belong to the Republican Party.
The problem, according to Krugman, is that because “these people aren’t interested in actually governing” their only recourse is to “feed the base’s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it.” These people want blood. This explains why the Republican Party and Conservatives in general have increasingly been captured by a tea-bagging movement that puts hate, empty slogans, and symbolism above social purpose and our nation’s political health.
How does this affect people like you and me? I'm glad you asked.
I'm Cast Out (as a Non-Patriot)
Today, purity tests and name-calling stand in where analysis and judgment once did. While I have had the honor of enduring my share of name-calling while on air, I especially enjoyed this Facebook exchange directed at me (on another account) I had over the weekend.
… you belong to that low life, scum sucking, bottom dwelling, dingy smelling group of nefarious would be communist Marxist who are by some twisted fate, members of that disgraceful group known as the Barney Frank, act alike, Democrats.Interestingly, being part of a “disgraceful group” (the Democratic Party) was not enough. I was also told that I should hide myself in shame, and then was cast out of the “real American patriot” campaign (I didn’t know a drive was going on).
… you really are not American at heart or of mind. But most definitely are an accumulation from some oderferious, decayed part of the world, like the bottom of a human waste pit. Consider yourself properly vetted and cast out of membership with any real American patriot. "WE THE PEOPLE" shall overcome the likes of detrimental ilk, such as you. I will pray for you, but not very much!And to think, this is the response I got (from a Christian, no less) because I support health care reform. At least he's praying for me (but not very hard).
For anyone interested in historical lessons the experiences of England's Rump Parliament does not bode well for America. Ideological and spiritual purity are not what the the Framers had in mind when they fought for and shaped our Constitution. Losing an election because your team left a mess of things does not give you the right to throw in the towel on democracy, in the process giving America a case of political constipation.
Should we be worried? Paul Krugman thinks there's something afoot. If the movement driving the tea baggers today gains any real traction, I think he's on to something.
- Mark
NOTE: "Rump" normally means the hind end of an animal; Since 1649, the term "rump parliament" has been used to refer to any parliament left over from the actual legitimate parliament.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
MAIN STREET'S TURN ... TIME FOR "PLAN ORANGE"?
In my book I argue that the economic growth we experienced after Ronald Reagan arrived at the White House was a product of "state-led" initiatives. There were no invisible hands involved. Spurred by deficit spending, Federal Reserve policies, state subsidies, successive bailouts, and deregulation the laggard American economy of the 1970s was able to stabilize and then take off in the 1980 and 1990s. But it did so on the backs of the American taxpayer and because of favorable legislation.
More specifically, the idea that the "free market" brought America back is a myth. The causes behind the market collapse - which many are just learning about for the first time - are evidence of this. Still, we have free market zombies telling us that, on the road ahead, we need to follow the same path that got us into this mess.
Famed bond trader Bill Gross (of PIMCO) is not one of these zombies.
One of the reasons that Gross is not one of these free market zombies is that he sees the same things about our past that I discussed in my book. He argues that the period of government-sponsored easy money (from low interest rates), managed inflation, and the excessive use of debt to take advantage of deregulation (the "accelerated use of financial leverage" for "increasingly complex financial innovation") may have brought growth. But he also recognizes that this period is now officially over. In its place we are going to see slower growth and the rise of new financial power centers, like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the so-called BRIC countries).
So where does this leave us?
In market speak Bill Gross likes to discuss how "deleveraging, reregulation and de-globalization" must occur and that we must be prepared for what follows. But we are resisting change. Why? Because, as PIMCO Managing Director Mohamed El-Erian explains, many are inclined to "look back to what we are familiar with, rather than try to define the new paradigm." In plain English what both Gross and El-Erian are saying is that as we scramble to adapt to and fix this mess there are many others who only want to save themselves, and are standing in the way of real change. Look no further than Wall Street's pay/bonus scale and their lobbying efforts in DC to understand how this works.
From what I can see, selfish and greedy people are winning the day. Or, to paraphrase the kid in Sixth Sense, I see stupid people, and they're walking away with our money.
Still, there is hope. David Einhorn, founder of Greenlight Capital, and one of the earliest users of credit default swaps (a from of insurance) is now calling for a ban on these instruments. He argues, convincingly, that “trying to make safer credit default swaps is like trying to make safer asbestos.” Others, like the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, Martin Feldstein, call for innovative ways to help stabilize housing prices. His approach includes allowing American homeowners to borrow up 20% of the value of their mortgage at low interest rates from the U.S. Treasury. This would cut out the private sector, which has effectively been gouging American taxpayers through higher credit card rates, while holding back small business and personal loans.
All of this is important because Bill Gross appears to support a plan that resembles what Professor Feldstein is proposing. According to Chicago mortgage broker Michael White, Mr. Gross has signed on to Plan Orange. In a few words Plan Orange would have the American government pay down the mortgage debt of all property owners in the United States, to 80% of the value of their home today. This would make mortgage debt more affordable and help make most deliquent mortgage (now running at a record 13%) current. It would also strengthen the banks who own mortgages and are now worrying about defaults. See the details here.
(In my world I would also call for a forced unwinding of the CDO market, which would help to take care of much of the mess that the CDS market is worried about. But that's another story for another day.)
To be sure, the bill for Plan Orange may be as high as $5 trillion. But consider this. We've already spent and/or guaranteed $20+ trillion in toxic wealth. Worse, we have little to show for it other than "stability" that includes record deficits, 10% unemployment, record bankruptcies, record bank failures, collapsed and falling home prices, decling consumer confidence, and banks that won't lend (if I missed one, I apologize). Put another way, we've raised the Titanic, but have it sailing through the same ice-berg filled waters.
We should also consider the following. We're already on the hook to the banks for about $23 trillion in the form of loans, credits, and numerous other financial guarantees. The banks - or the banksters - will get their money one way or the other. The bonuses will continue (because they're doing such a fine job). Would you rather take a shot at saving family homes and neighborhoods, which just might make additionial trillion dollar guarantees to Wall Street unecessary? Or would you rather sit around waiting for the banks to lend money, in the process suffering through a steady drip of news of how Wall Street has become "liquid" with $20+ trillion of our money?
I don't know about you, but a self-imposed financial waterboarding - that includes giving Wall Street what they want but leaves Main Street drowing in debt - is not what I'm looking forward to.
Let me repeat. The people on Wall Street already have their money and their guarantees. I think it's time we start thinking about Main Street. Especially since it just might curb the housing free fall, and make much of the incredibly toxic CDS-CDO payoff unnecessary.
- Mark
More specifically, the idea that the "free market" brought America back is a myth. The causes behind the market collapse - which many are just learning about for the first time - are evidence of this. Still, we have free market zombies telling us that, on the road ahead, we need to follow the same path that got us into this mess.
Famed bond trader Bill Gross (of PIMCO) is not one of these zombies.
One of the reasons that Gross is not one of these free market zombies is that he sees the same things about our past that I discussed in my book. He argues that the period of government-sponsored easy money (from low interest rates), managed inflation, and the excessive use of debt to take advantage of deregulation (the "accelerated use of financial leverage" for "increasingly complex financial innovation") may have brought growth. But he also recognizes that this period is now officially over. In its place we are going to see slower growth and the rise of new financial power centers, like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the so-called BRIC countries).
So where does this leave us?
In market speak Bill Gross likes to discuss how "deleveraging, reregulation and de-globalization" must occur and that we must be prepared for what follows. But we are resisting change. Why? Because, as PIMCO Managing Director Mohamed El-Erian explains, many are inclined to "look back to what we are familiar with, rather than try to define the new paradigm." In plain English what both Gross and El-Erian are saying is that as we scramble to adapt to and fix this mess there are many others who only want to save themselves, and are standing in the way of real change. Look no further than Wall Street's pay/bonus scale and their lobbying efforts in DC to understand how this works.
From what I can see, selfish and greedy people are winning the day. Or, to paraphrase the kid in Sixth Sense, I see stupid people, and they're walking away with our money.
Still, there is hope. David Einhorn, founder of Greenlight Capital, and one of the earliest users of credit default swaps (a from of insurance) is now calling for a ban on these instruments. He argues, convincingly, that “trying to make safer credit default swaps is like trying to make safer asbestos.” Others, like the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, Martin Feldstein, call for innovative ways to help stabilize housing prices. His approach includes allowing American homeowners to borrow up 20% of the value of their mortgage at low interest rates from the U.S. Treasury. This would cut out the private sector, which has effectively been gouging American taxpayers through higher credit card rates, while holding back small business and personal loans.
All of this is important because Bill Gross appears to support a plan that resembles what Professor Feldstein is proposing. According to Chicago mortgage broker Michael White, Mr. Gross has signed on to Plan Orange. In a few words Plan Orange would have the American government pay down the mortgage debt of all property owners in the United States, to 80% of the value of their home today. This would make mortgage debt more affordable and help make most deliquent mortgage (now running at a record 13%) current. It would also strengthen the banks who own mortgages and are now worrying about defaults. See the details here.
(In my world I would also call for a forced unwinding of the CDO market, which would help to take care of much of the mess that the CDS market is worried about. But that's another story for another day.)
To be sure, the bill for Plan Orange may be as high as $5 trillion. But consider this. We've already spent and/or guaranteed $20+ trillion in toxic wealth. Worse, we have little to show for it other than "stability" that includes record deficits, 10% unemployment, record bankruptcies, record bank failures, collapsed and falling home prices, decling consumer confidence, and banks that won't lend (if I missed one, I apologize). Put another way, we've raised the Titanic, but have it sailing through the same ice-berg filled waters.
We should also consider the following. We're already on the hook to the banks for about $23 trillion in the form of loans, credits, and numerous other financial guarantees. The banks - or the banksters - will get their money one way or the other. The bonuses will continue (because they're doing such a fine job). Would you rather take a shot at saving family homes and neighborhoods, which just might make additionial trillion dollar guarantees to Wall Street unecessary? Or would you rather sit around waiting for the banks to lend money, in the process suffering through a steady drip of news of how Wall Street has become "liquid" with $20+ trillion of our money?
I don't know about you, but a self-imposed financial waterboarding - that includes giving Wall Street what they want but leaves Main Street drowing in debt - is not what I'm looking forward to.
Let me repeat. The people on Wall Street already have their money and their guarantees. I think it's time we start thinking about Main Street. Especially since it just might curb the housing free fall, and make much of the incredibly toxic CDS-CDO payoff unnecessary.
- Mark
Friday, November 6, 2009
A HUMOROUS LOOK AT THE MELTDOWN
This is a succinct - and entertaining - look at the mortgage collapse. While the title suggests otherwise, it doesn't just explain the sub-prime mess, it explains the logic behind the entire mess.
I picked this up from this Michael White's site, where the discussion centers around solving the real estate crisis by paying down all the mortgages in America by 20%. It's going to cost about $5 trillion, but the discussion has merits. You can take a look at the discussion here.
- Mark
I picked this up from this Michael White's site, where the discussion centers around solving the real estate crisis by paying down all the mortgages in America by 20%. It's going to cost about $5 trillion, but the discussion has merits. You can take a look at the discussion here.
- Mark
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
POLITICAL PARTIES IN AMERICA
My Introduction to American Politics class is having a mid-term tomorrow night. I told them that I would post a brief overview of my lecture on political parties here on my blog. What I present below is also from an earlier, more contentious, post.
*********************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************
The history of the two major political parties in America is not well known and often misunderstood. Up front we need to understand that political parties are nothing more than a coalition of interests. On their own these interests are often categorized simply as interest groups (among other names). As interests and groups change so do coalitions and alliances. This is an all too brief history of political parties in America.
****************************************************************************
IN THE BEGINNING … POST REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
A brief introduction to the history of the republican and democratic parties requires that we understand two basic points about each party. First, what we see as the Democratic Party was founded largely by anti-federalist, state’s rights supporters, and led initially by Thomas Jefferson. Since most of America was dominated by small farmers it should come as no surprise that the Anti-Federalists were early supporters of small farmers, local political issues, and states’ rights. This was the forerunner of the Democratic-Republican Party, which would become simply the Democratic Party.
The modern Republican Party, on the other hand, is a product of up can coming industrial Northern interests who were partial to the Federalists. This group was originally led by Alexander Hamilton. They focused on the need for a strong federal government to help deal with emerging industrial and growing business interests (like the value of money, tariffs, etc.).
In the first phase of party growth you generally had the Jeffersonians (anti-Federalist, small farmer supporters) and the Hamiltonians (Federalists, business supporters). Because the South was dominated by slave trading farmers, and the north was the home of emerging industrialists, we begin to see the basic contours of our current Democratic-Republican-party split: Democrats supporting local interests and small players, Republicans supporting money and business interests.
EARLY HISTORY … PARTY CONSOLIDATION
Led by Thomas Jefferson, the Anti-Federalists (soon to be Democratic-Republicans and, later, simply “Democrats”) focused on small farmers who did not want the federal government intervening in their affairs or undermining their sovereignty. This helps us understand why the south, filled with slave-holders, would embrace states rights and gravitate to “Jefferson’s Party.” Later, southerner and war hero Andrew Jackson united southern farmers and urban workers under a party that focused on a populist message, emerging machine politics, and city patronage (which grew significantly as immigrants streamed into the east coast’s cities). His personal style attracted newcomers, while westerners and the “New Frontier” advocates (Manifest Destiny, and all that) gravitated to Jackson, which allowed the party to consolidate a number of disparate interests into a strong Democratic party.
On the Federalists side things weren’t going as well. In fact, Jackson was so popular that opposition to Jackson was the real driving force behind the emergence of the Whig Party (the immediate predecessor to the Republican Party). The Whig Party broke down and reemerged as the Republican Party, putting together enough supporters from industrialists, Whig hold-overs, and Northern Democrats opposed to slavery. This coalition – and not simply the Republican party – got Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860.
And here lies a key point. First, Lincoln’s majority was really a coalition of anti-slavery Whigs, emerging business interests, and anti-slavery Democrats. Second, it was at this point that the Democratic Party began to split along two lines. Those who supported slavery (the south) and those who opposed it (the north), choosing instead to focus on machine politics, patronage, populist policies, the working class, etc.
POST-CIVIL WAR PERIOD
The Republican Party begins its history after the Civil War as a supporter of the business class (the northern industrial elites) and, when it suited them, opposition to emerging Jim Crow laws in the Democratic, slave-holding south. I say this because people often forget – or never learn – it was the Republican Party that agreed in 1876 to sign away the protective Reconstruction Troops placed throughout the south in the post-Civil War era. They did this so that they could get southern Democrats to concede the contested 1876 presidential election and get the incompetent Rutherford B. Hayes in office.
With the removal of federal troops from the post-civil war south the region was free to create its own social system. Jim Crow was on his way, as the Black Codes became a part of the southern law and culture (e.g. it was illegal for black men to be unemployed in some states, black men could not look at white women, etc.). It was at this time that the Civil Rights legislation of the 1870s (yes, there was a Civil Rights revolution then) was either ignored or broken down by the push for state’s rights in the south. Once established, Jim Crow pushed to every part of the country, and the southern caste system was generally accepted by the early 1900s (Democrat Woodrow Wilson was especially no help).
Southern Democrats continued to remain an integral part of the larger Democratic Party not because the party embraced their view on race (as did the Republicans), but because the party sided with southern farmers on the issue of tariffs and prices. Tariffs were key because northern industrialists needed them to keep out competition, which Republicans supported. But tariffs also hurt southern interests as importers of southern farm goods also kept tariffs artificially high, thus blocking out or reducing the profits of farmers.
It is at this time that the Republican Party becomes entrenched as the party of Big Business. Placing high tariffs on imports, the United States had the highest overall tariffs in the industrial world from the mid-1800s through World War I. At the same time, Republicans create a larger economic and political environment that was so industry friendly that regulations and codes were willfully ignored, while labor rights were ignored or put up for sale.
FDR AND THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Corruption became rampant throughout the political system, as state legislatures were regularly bought and sold (some of the stories of former California Governor Leland Stanford are quite interesting). This is one of the reasons a populist backlash emerged, which allowed progressives like Hiram Johnson in California, and Teddy Roosevelt nationally, to become popular, at least for a time (corruption was so rampant it was at this time that California got its referendum, recall, and initiative process). This Progressive Era subsided, but returned with a vengeance after the market collapse of 1929. It is at this time coalitions within parties begin to switch, or become uncomfortable where they are.
But before this happens a political tidal wave ushered in an anti-business environment, which led to the regulatory capitalism of the post-war era. Republican industrialists retrenched, while FDR wove together a coalition of organized labor, southern farmers, Big City machines (who weren’t wiped out by the progressive movement in the early 1900s), and northern liberals. By the 1960s, however, southern farmers were not happy with the emerging civil rights legislation and other “liberal” ideas associated with “northern elites.” Simply put, they threatened the cultural status quo of the south.
NIXON, REAGAN, AND THE MODERN G.O.P.
After Barry Goldwater was crushed in the 1964 presidential elections Richard Nixon, coming off his own defeat in 1960 (where, yes, JFK won with corrupt political bosses), he saw a political opening in the south. Disgruntled southerners opposed federal legislation, and argued for state’s rights, because they were opposed to emerging civil rights legislation (and other liberal ideas like women’s rights, labor rights, etc.) that would undo almost a century of Jim Crow.
Embarking on what would become known as his “southern strategy” Nixon deliberately played to the cultural fears of the south; e.g.. the "dangers" brought by civil rights and liberal thinkers which threatened to undermine a culture and a lifestyle. This attracted southern democrats to the Republican Party which, by this time, was also known as the Grand Old Party, or G.O.P. Southern Democrats who supported the Republican Party at this time became known as “dixiecrats,” were pandered to by Ronald Reagan in 1980, and eventually became – along with big business and, later, the religious right (another story for another day) – the base of the modern Republican Party.
- Mark
*********************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************The history of the two major political parties in America is not well known and often misunderstood. Up front we need to understand that political parties are nothing more than a coalition of interests. On their own these interests are often categorized simply as interest groups (among other names). As interests and groups change so do coalitions and alliances. This is an all too brief history of political parties in America.
****************************************************************************
IN THE BEGINNING … POST REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
A brief introduction to the history of the republican and democratic parties requires that we understand two basic points about each party. First, what we see as the Democratic Party was founded largely by anti-federalist, state’s rights supporters, and led initially by Thomas Jefferson. Since most of America was dominated by small farmers it should come as no surprise that the Anti-Federalists were early supporters of small farmers, local political issues, and states’ rights. This was the forerunner of the Democratic-Republican Party, which would become simply the Democratic Party.The modern Republican Party, on the other hand, is a product of up can coming industrial Northern interests who were partial to the Federalists. This group was originally led by Alexander Hamilton. They focused on the need for a strong federal government to help deal with emerging industrial and growing business interests (like the value of money, tariffs, etc.).
In the first phase of party growth you generally had the Jeffersonians (anti-Federalist, small farmer supporters) and the Hamiltonians (Federalists, business supporters). Because the South was dominated by slave trading farmers, and the north was the home of emerging industrialists, we begin to see the basic contours of our current Democratic-Republican-party split: Democrats supporting local interests and small players, Republicans supporting money and business interests.
EARLY HISTORY … PARTY CONSOLIDATION
Led by Thomas Jefferson, the Anti-Federalists (soon to be Democratic-Republicans and, later, simply “Democrats”) focused on small farmers who did not want the federal government intervening in their affairs or undermining their sovereignty. This helps us understand why the south, filled with slave-holders, would embrace states rights and gravitate to “Jefferson’s Party.” Later, southerner and war hero Andrew Jackson united southern farmers and urban workers under a party that focused on a populist message, emerging machine politics, and city patronage (which grew significantly as immigrants streamed into the east coast’s cities). His personal style attracted newcomers, while westerners and the “New Frontier” advocates (Manifest Destiny, and all that) gravitated to Jackson, which allowed the party to consolidate a number of disparate interests into a strong Democratic party.On the Federalists side things weren’t going as well. In fact, Jackson was so popular that opposition to Jackson was the real driving force behind the emergence of the Whig Party (the immediate predecessor to the Republican Party). The Whig Party broke down and reemerged as the Republican Party, putting together enough supporters from industrialists, Whig hold-overs, and Northern Democrats opposed to slavery. This coalition – and not simply the Republican party – got Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860.
And here lies a key point. First, Lincoln’s majority was really a coalition of anti-slavery Whigs, emerging business interests, and anti-slavery Democrats. Second, it was at this point that the Democratic Party began to split along two lines. Those who supported slavery (the south) and those who opposed it (the north), choosing instead to focus on machine politics, patronage, populist policies, the working class, etc.
POST-CIVIL WAR PERIOD
The Republican Party begins its history after the Civil War as a supporter of the business class (the northern industrial elites) and, when it suited them, opposition to emerging Jim Crow laws in the Democratic, slave-holding south. I say this because people often forget – or never learn – it was the Republican Party that agreed in 1876 to sign away the protective Reconstruction Troops placed throughout the south in the post-Civil War era. They did this so that they could get southern Democrats to concede the contested 1876 presidential election and get the incompetent Rutherford B. Hayes in office.
With the removal of federal troops from the post-civil war south the region was free to create its own social system. Jim Crow was on his way, as the Black Codes became a part of the southern law and culture (e.g. it was illegal for black men to be unemployed in some states, black men could not look at white women, etc.). It was at this time that the Civil Rights legislation of the 1870s (yes, there was a Civil Rights revolution then) was either ignored or broken down by the push for state’s rights in the south. Once established, Jim Crow pushed to every part of the country, and the southern caste system was generally accepted by the early 1900s (Democrat Woodrow Wilson was especially no help).
Southern Democrats continued to remain an integral part of the larger Democratic Party not because the party embraced their view on race (as did the Republicans), but because the party sided with southern farmers on the issue of tariffs and prices. Tariffs were key because northern industrialists needed them to keep out competition, which Republicans supported. But tariffs also hurt southern interests as importers of southern farm goods also kept tariffs artificially high, thus blocking out or reducing the profits of farmers.
It is at this time that the Republican Party becomes entrenched as the party of Big Business. Placing high tariffs on imports, the United States had the highest overall tariffs in the industrial world from the mid-1800s through World War I. At the same time, Republicans create a larger economic and political environment that was so industry friendly that regulations and codes were willfully ignored, while labor rights were ignored or put up for sale.
FDR AND THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Corruption became rampant throughout the political system, as state legislatures were regularly bought and sold (some of the stories of former California Governor Leland Stanford are quite interesting). This is one of the reasons a populist backlash emerged, which allowed progressives like Hiram Johnson in California, and Teddy Roosevelt nationally, to become popular, at least for a time (corruption was so rampant it was at this time that California got its referendum, recall, and initiative process). This Progressive Era subsided, but returned with a vengeance after the market collapse of 1929. It is at this time coalitions within parties begin to switch, or become uncomfortable where they are.
But before this happens a political tidal wave ushered in an anti-business environment, which led to the regulatory capitalism of the post-war era. Republican industrialists retrenched, while FDR wove together a coalition of organized labor, southern farmers, Big City machines (who weren’t wiped out by the progressive movement in the early 1900s), and northern liberals. By the 1960s, however, southern farmers were not happy with the emerging civil rights legislation and other “liberal” ideas associated with “northern elites.” Simply put, they threatened the cultural status quo of the south.
NIXON, REAGAN, AND THE MODERN G.O.P.
After Barry Goldwater was crushed in the 1964 presidential elections Richard Nixon, coming off his own defeat in 1960 (where, yes, JFK won with corrupt political bosses), he saw a political opening in the south. Disgruntled southerners opposed federal legislation, and argued for state’s rights, because they were opposed to emerging civil rights legislation (and other liberal ideas like women’s rights, labor rights, etc.) that would undo almost a century of Jim Crow.
Embarking on what would become known as his “southern strategy” Nixon deliberately played to the cultural fears of the south; e.g.. the "dangers" brought by civil rights and liberal thinkers which threatened to undermine a culture and a lifestyle. This attracted southern democrats to the Republican Party which, by this time, was also known as the Grand Old Party, or G.O.P. Southern Democrats who supported the Republican Party at this time became known as “dixiecrats,” were pandered to by Ronald Reagan in 1980, and eventually became – along with big business and, later, the religious right (another story for another day) – the base of the modern Republican Party.
- Mark
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
PREPARE FOR ANOTHER HOUSING COLLAPSE?
Here's an updated graph from Chicago mortgage broker Michael D. White. In a few words, if we're using historical trends in housing prices we can expect housing prices to drop ... another 43%!

Indeed, as Michael White previously pointed out (and I commented on here), whatever stabilization we're seeing in current housing prices may be an anomaly due the character of new purchases, and the trillions in government bailout cash that are propping up the economy. Worse, there's another issue that doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar at the moment. While it's one thing to be worried about declining home values no one seems to be looking at rising (and total) liabilities for the American homeowner.
Incredibly, according to the Sept. 17, 2009 Federal Reserve Statistical Release, total mortgage liabilities for the American homeowner (page 63 on the document, page 70 on the PDF scroll) are higher in 2009 than they were during the peak housing value years of 2006-2007. Yet, housing values have been going down.
Think about what this means. Since the market began it's collapse over a year ago very little new money has been lent out for new home purchases. Even less has been lent out for refinancing. We also know that housing prices have tanked from the 2006-2007 peak years. But Americans now carry more mortgage debt than they did before the market collapse?
Why is this happening? I'm not sure.
Can it be bigger (or more) refis? I doubt it. Are deliquent mortgage loans being reassessed with late penalties and fees tacked on? I have no idea. In all cases, something doesn't seem right.
Stay tuned.
- Mark

Indeed, as Michael White previously pointed out (and I commented on here), whatever stabilization we're seeing in current housing prices may be an anomaly due the character of new purchases, and the trillions in government bailout cash that are propping up the economy. Worse, there's another issue that doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar at the moment. While it's one thing to be worried about declining home values no one seems to be looking at rising (and total) liabilities for the American homeowner.
Incredibly, according to the Sept. 17, 2009 Federal Reserve Statistical Release, total mortgage liabilities for the American homeowner (page 63 on the document, page 70 on the PDF scroll) are higher in 2009 than they were during the peak housing value years of 2006-2007. Yet, housing values have been going down.
Think about what this means. Since the market began it's collapse over a year ago very little new money has been lent out for new home purchases. Even less has been lent out for refinancing. We also know that housing prices have tanked from the 2006-2007 peak years. But Americans now carry more mortgage debt than they did before the market collapse?
Why is this happening? I'm not sure.
Can it be bigger (or more) refis? I doubt it. Are deliquent mortgage loans being reassessed with late penalties and fees tacked on? I have no idea. In all cases, something doesn't seem right.
Stay tuned.
- Mark
Labels:
Home Equity Losses,
Housing Starts,
Real Estate Mess
Monday, November 2, 2009
THE WORST EDITORIAL EVER?
Via FaceBook I was sent this Wall Street Journal article titled, "The Worst Bill Ever." It could have easily been titled, "Worst Piece of Partisan Hackery Ever." Here's my short response:
Still, for the WSJ to suggest that HR 3692 is the worst piece of legislation is simply absurd. This is especially the case since their editorial board essentially gave the Bush administration a pass on his legislative agenda, which helped drive our economy into the ground and doubled our national debt.
Let's take just a couple of the absurdities that come from what may well be "The Worst Editorial Ever" (my comments in bold) ...
- Long Response: Read my book.

There's more, much more. But you get the picture. The point is, the Wall Street Journal is not an honest player in this debate.
- Mark
What an intellectually dishonest piece. The article takes a few Frank Luntz quotables, focuses on taxes, throws in Nancy Pelosi for good measure, and says nothing about how we got to the point where 44,000 die from having no insurance each year, or how bad things will get if nothing is done. What about the CBO estimate that says HR 3962 will save money over time? Who really penned this? The insurance industry?Look, I'm not going to be happy with the final version of HR 3692. It's a mess. I suspect the health care-insurance industry understands something is going to pass, so they've gotten some of their industry-bought members of Congress to insert a few poison pills, which will water down the effectiveness of the public option, fatten industry wallets, and generally make no one happy with the outcome. There's a reason sausage making and legislation are not something to be watched by commoners.
Still, for the WSJ to suggest that HR 3692 is the worst piece of legislation is simply absurd. This is especially the case since their editorial board essentially gave the Bush administration a pass on his legislative agenda, which helped drive our economy into the ground and doubled our national debt.
Let's take just a couple of the absurdities that come from what may well be "The Worst Editorial Ever" (my comments in bold) ...
"... as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics."- Republicans going back to the scare-mongering is not good analysis. These kind of statements simply don't stand up to scrutiny, especially since America's elderly, it's military, and government employees (like our members of Congress) seem to enjoy their government "controlled" healthcare. So do those who work in the private sector, but are presently subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer.
"The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can ..."- Short Response: Did the WSJ object to President Bush's "income-redistribution scheme" when he took projected trillion dollar surpluses and shifted them over to America's wealthiest class, who then took the money and gambled and speculated in a casino market they had created?
- Long Response: Read my book.
"... Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics"- My response to this is, So What. The Party of No has demonstrated little beyond their capacity to do Rush Limbaugh's bidding, and to help make sure that President Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress fails, at all costs.
"The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate"- The WSJ editorial famously left out that the same CBO estimate also said that "H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period."
"... ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that."- Curiously missing are projected cost estimates if nothing is done. By 2052 America will be spending almost 50 cents of every dollar we earn on health care if we do nothing.

There's more, much more. But you get the picture. The point is, the Wall Street Journal is not an honest player in this debate.
- Mark
CONGRESSMAN GRAYSON'S MONEY BOMB
Those of you who listened to the program on Saturday were no doubt inspired by Congressman Alan Grayson's comments during the interview. As noted, Congressman Grayson is running a "Money Bomb" designed to raise money for his campaign next year.

As noted during the interview, he's become FNC-Republican-Target-#1. Even with FOX News and the Republican Party going after him, Congressman Grayson wants to show America that you don't need to be a slave to corporate money in order to run a congressional campaign in America. Today is the day for Congressman Grayson to raise $400,000.
You can go here and here if you want to donate and/or see the progress.
- Mark

As noted during the interview, he's become FNC-Republican-Target-#1. Even with FOX News and the Republican Party going after him, Congressman Grayson wants to show America that you don't need to be a slave to corporate money in order to run a congressional campaign in America. Today is the day for Congressman Grayson to raise $400,000.
You can go here and here if you want to donate and/or see the progress.
- Mark
Saturday, October 31, 2009
THE CHENEY LIE MACHINE ...
Why in the world is Liz Cheney seen as a legitimate voice, on anything?
More on Liz Cheney's lies (and her dad's failed memory) ...
- Mark
More on Liz Cheney's lies (and her dad's failed memory) ...
- Mark
NATIONAL HEALTH CARE & FOX NEWS
HR 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009, was assessed by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. It's conclusion? The total cost for the proposed health care legislation is $894 billion dollars. This is how FOX covered it ...
While FOX chose to focus on the total cost of the health care program they conveniently ignored that the bill would actually reduce the budget deficit by $104 billion over the 2010-2019 period. How does this happen? Because of "other spending changes" and "provisions" in the bill that increase revenue.
FOX News reporting tactics in the area of health care are akin to looking at future expenditures in a growing family but failing to look at salary increases, promotions, new income (from second jobs, over time, royalties, etc.), or investments paying off over time. Who does this? Apparently FOX News Corps.
Check out the CBO estimate here.
- Mark
While FOX chose to focus on the total cost of the health care program they conveniently ignored that the bill would actually reduce the budget deficit by $104 billion over the 2010-2019 period. How does this happen? Because of "other spending changes" and "provisions" in the bill that increase revenue.
FOX News reporting tactics in the area of health care are akin to looking at future expenditures in a growing family but failing to look at salary increases, promotions, new income (from second jobs, over time, royalties, etc.), or investments paying off over time. Who does this? Apparently FOX News Corps.
Check out the CBO estimate here.
- Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)











