Perfect example of how Congress is out of touch and too concerned with their own status.  Senator Boxer is so petty and obviously suffers from low self-esteem.  Congress will never get anything done if they keep up attitudes like Senator Boxer's.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/17/please-call-me-senator/

A new Gallup poll shows that "Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% moderate and 21% liberal.  This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the US since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx

These results show, in my opinion, that America is a center-right nation.  It also highlights the impressive personal victory of Obama's election but it was not an ideological turning point for America.  It also highlights that the Republican party is in significantly worse shape than the conservative movement.

Our President is extremely popular and I do not underestimate the value in this.  He is both liked and trusted by the public, which gives him the latitude currently to act in ways that others could not.  And Obama is exceptionally good at making his policies sound different than they are.   Still, Obama is governing to the left of where he ran, in a nation that is significantly more conservative than it is liberal.  So while much of the public has been willing to defer to him so far, I do not think the public's patience is endless.  If Obama's policies are seen as starting to contribute to our probems rather than solving them - and the staggering deficit and debt we are seeing are going to trigger some unpleasant outcomes and choices - the political climate can change very rapidly.  There's only so long that unemployment can rise but he can claim that he has "saved" jobs.  There's only so long that people can think that their taxes aren't going up - just wait for the day that your healthcare benefits start to be taxed and your utility bills go through the roof because of the new cap-and-trade taxes.

The President remains in a very strong position, but he is far from invincible.

God bless the NY Times for reporting on the cost of the new healthcare proposal and how many people will still be uninsured.  That's really encouraging what a trillion dollars of spending will get us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/health/policy/16obama.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

What I find most alarming is that there doesn't appear to be a middle ground from the Administration   It's either spend a trillion dollars and still have 36 million people remain uninsured, or as President Obama says - "do nothing".  Why is he talking about the "do nothing" option?  We all know that's not an option.  We all agree that "something" needs to be done but maybe that something doesn't entail spending a trillion dollars.

Maybe we need to spend more time finding ways to cut costs without needing to spend a trillion dollars.  Here's an interesting article from the CEO of Safeway on how they've been cutting their healthcare costs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html

 

 

Obama said today - "we can only spend a dollar if you save a dollar elsewhere". 

How can he say that with a straight face when the budget he proposed plans to run an approximate $1 trillion deficit every year for the next 10 years? 

Today total US debt is $11.3 trillion and rising rapidly.  The Administration projects that to rise another $1.85 trillion in 2009 (13% of GDP) and another $1.4 trillion in 2010.  The CBO projects over $9 trillion in additional debt from 2010 through 2019.  Just back in January the 2009 deficit was estimated at "only" $1.2 trillion.  Things have gone downhill fast.

The CBO assumes a rather robust recovery in 2010, with growth of about 3% and then up to 4.5% in 2011.  But they also project that unemployment will continue to rise.  It will be a strange recovery with the economy up 4% and unemployment isn't falling.

This year the Administration's plan is to borrow 50% of every dollar spent.  The CBO projects that nominal GDP will grow about 50% over the next 10 years.  But revenues are projected to double, which suggests massive tax increases in relation to GDP.  The deficit in 2010 is almost 10% of GDP.  Ten years from now the deficit is projected to be $1.2 trillion.  And that is if government costs do not go up and inflation only averages 1.1% for the next few years.

Deficits are not necessarily a bad thing if kept in check and restraint is shown.  But everyone cannot run deficits at the same time.  Sooner or later the bond markets will call a halt to $1 trillion deficits.  The deficits will not be funded at anywhere close to an interest rate that will not break the budget. (Pretty soon we could be spending 20-25% of our revenues on interest expense).  We saw that happened with Britain's S&P rating and Bill Gross thinks the same thing will happen in the US.

With all the bad economic news out there, rates should be going down, not up.  The bond market is telling us the deficit simply can't be financed down the road. 

The game doesn't end if there are reasonable deficits.  It ends with deficits that cannot be financed except by monetization.  And that will tank the dollar, except against all the other countries that are monetizing their debt.  When you run deficits that are 4-6-8% or more of GDP, at some point things simply back up.   

If you can stomach it, all the data mentioned is avaialble on www.cbo.gov

GM, as part of its restructuring plan, decided to shut down its Norton, Mass facility.  I'm sure that Obama's GM task force was heavily involved in the GM restructuring plan and deciding which plants needed to be closed.  These are very hard decisions to make.

But Barney Frank decides it's not in the best interest of his constituents to close the Norton plant.  So he leaned on Fritz Henderson to keep that plant open.

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Business/2009/06/04/Barney-Frank-helps-delay/1244165040.html

Why is Barney Frank dictating how GM should restructure itself?

President Obama says he has no interest in running GM, but apparently Mr. Frank has other ideas.  Barney Frank's spokesman says that they are "just doing what any other Congressman would do". 

But it's not a level playing field.  Every member of Congress will want to force their own special favors on to GM.  And that's no way to get GM back to financial health.    GM's restructuring decisions must be driven by economic factors, not political ones.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3yutzL3xApI

 

It's just a matter of time before more companies follow Microsoft's footsteps and move jobs offshore

If we're going to clean up the foreign tax loopholes, then we need to lower the US corporate tax rate so we can prevent losing more jobs than we already are.

With all the discussion recently around "empathy" and Obama, I thought people would be interested to read an excerpt from Sen. Obama's floor statement in 2005 explaining why he would not vote for Roberts.

As of this week, total US debt is $11.3 trillion and rising rapidly.  The Administration projects that to rise another $1.85 trillion in 2009 (13% of GDP) and another $1.4 trillion in 2010.  The CBO projects over $9 trillion in additional debt from 2010 through 2019.  Just back in January the 2009 deficit was estimated at "only" $1.2 trillion.  Things have gone downhill fast.

The CBO assumes a rather robust recovery in 2010, with growth of about 3% and then up to 4.5% in 2011.  But they also project that unemployment will continue to rise.  It will be a strange recovery with the economy up 4% and unemployment isn't falling.

This year the Administration's plan is to borrow 50% of every dollar spent.  The CBO projects that nominal GDP will grow about 50% over the next 10 years.  But revenues are projected to double, which suggests massive tax increases in relation to GDP.  The deficit in 2010 is almost 10% of GDP.  Ten years from now the deficit is projected to be $1.2 trillion.  And that is if government costs do not go up and inflation only averages 1.1% for the next few years.

Deficits are not necessarily a bad thing if kept in check and restraint is shown.  But everyone cannot run deficits at the same time.  Sooner or later the bond markets will call a halt to $1 trillion deficits.  The deficits will not be funded at anywhere close to an interest rate that will not break the budget. (Pretty soon we could be spending 20-25% of our revenues on interest expense).  We saw that happened with Britain's S&P rating last week and Bill Gross thinks the same thing will happen in the US.

With all the bad economic news out there, rates should be going down, not up.  The bond market is telling us the deficit simply can't be financed down the road. 

The game doesn't end if there are reasonable deficits.  It ends with deficits that cannot be financed except by monetization.  And that will tank the dollar, except against all the other countries that are monetizing their debt.  When you run deficits that are 4-6-8% or more of GDP, at some point things simply back up.   

If you can stomach it, all the data mentioned is avaialble on www.cbo.gov

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abXWfVxx_e8w&refer=home

Obama is right that the current debt load is unsustainable - so why is he proposing a $2 trillion deficit which will stay in the trillions for as long as one can project?

How will he pay for it?  Even getting rid of the Bush tax cuts will only produce a few hundred billion a year, which isn't nearly enough.  They project much lower medical costs because they assume they are going to figure out a way to cut costs and make things more efficient.  I guess no one has tried that before.

The only way to really cut costs is to ration health care, especially health care in the last year of life, which I've seen estimated as 30% of health-care expenses.  That will be a tough choice but I don't see what other choice Obama has. 

You cannot propose massive spending without either creating crushing debt that the markets will simply not allow, pushing interest rates much higher and really slowing growth and hurting the economy.  You cannot increase the debt-to-GDP ratio without limit.

We found the limit on personal and corporate debt this year.  We pushed the limits until the system crashed.  And now the government wants to do the same thing.  They are planning to see where the limits on government debt-to-GDP will be.  Unless cooler heads prevail, this is not going to be pretty.  Somewhere in the middle of the next decade we will hit the wall, and it will make the current crisis pale in comparison.

The only way to solve the problem is to grow GDP more rapidly than debt, and for that to happen you have to have policies that are shaped for the growth of the economy or massive savings by consumers.  And right now we have neither.  Cap and trade is hugely anti-growth. So are higher corporate tax rates that will be created by closing loopholes for income earned outside the US.  Much better would be to lower the overall corporate level to a competitive world rate and then require the offshore income to be taxed. 

Obama is right that the current situation is unsustainable.  Let's hope he will do more than just talk and show some budget restraint.

How does handing over a subsidized Chrysler to Fiat herald the revival of an American car company?  This is the same Fiat that has failed miserably to enter the American car market. 

There was also a major emphasis in the speech on what the car company has done for the workers - housed, fed, clothed them, sent their kids to college, etc. 

But the same can be said for industries building nuclear weapons, tobacco products and dangerous toys.  Every worker could have been doing something else for the same compensation.   Public purpose is about opportunity cost under full employment conditions.  Obama defended this plan not on public purpose but on the issue of whether there will be losses of "taxpayer money".    He said no company can be supported on the endless stream of taxpayer dollars.  What about the defense industry or other industries of public purpose?  The difference is that Chrysler's output has no public purpose.

And then there was the vicious attack on the legally secured creditors.  Was there any consideration, for example, to what would happen to credit availability and interest rates for private borrowers if secured lenders expected to have to take discounts if the borrowers got in trouble? There would be no lending as we know it.

Yes, removing debt and reducing obligations to workers makes a company financially stronger and gives it a competitive advantage.  But done this way it's a transfer of wealth previously subject to contract law.

 

How does handing over a subsidized Chrysler to Fiat herald the revival of an American car company?  This is the same Fiat that has failed miserably to enter the American car market. 

There was also a major emphasis in the speech on what the car company has done for the workers - housed, fed, clothed them, sent their kids to college, etc. 

But the same can be said for industries building nuclear weapons, tobacco products and dangerous toys.  Every worker could have been doing something else for the same compensation.   Public purpose is about opportunity cost under full employment conditions.  Obama defended this plan not on public purpose but on the issue of whether there will be losses of "taxpayer money".    He said no company can be supported on the endless stream of taxpayer dollars.  What about the defense industry or other industries of public purpose?  The difference is that Chrysler's output has no public purpose.

And then there was the vicious attack on the legally secured creditors.  Was there any consideration, for example, to what would happen to credit availability and interest rates for private borrowers if secured lenders expected to have to take discounts if the borrowers got in trouble? There would be no lending as we know it.

Yes, removing debt and reducing obligations to workers makes a company financially stronger and gives it a competitive advantage.  But done this way it's a transfer of wealth previously subject to contract law.

 

Helen Thomas to Robert Gibbs:  "Why is the president blocking habeus corpus from prisoners at Bagram? I thought he taught constitutional law.  And these prisoners have been..."

Robert Gibbs:  "You're incorrect that he taught on constitutional law"

Why shouldn't the Bagram detainees have the same rights that Gitmo detainees are now provided under Boumediene v. Bush?

I guess Obama figured out that Bush was right.  I'm glad that there's such a difference between the past Obama rhetoric and the new Obama reality.  As it pertains to Bagram, the Adminsitration is saying that giving detainees such rights as habeus corpus could lead to protracted litigation, disclosure of intelligence secrets and harm to American security.

The US needs the flexibility to detain people we know to be dangerous.  Thankfully Obama is realizing this as it pertains to Bagram.

Why is Josh such a pussy?  Instead of dancing around the subject he should just name names and say which banking CEOs he wants ousted! Why does he bring up the subject but then not close the loop?  Maybe it's because he went to Princeton and Brown and I just went to a state-school.  So I clearly don't get his intellectual points.

Here's what he said - "Why is Rick Wagoner getting the boot while the management of the big banks remains in place? Whatever resonance the question has on first blush, it gets more complicated on further inspection. Citi does not have the same CEO it did at the start of the crisis. And the government installed a new CEO at AIG after the initial bailout. Another rejoinder might be that the automakers' plight is of a much more longstanding vintage than that of the finance barons, though I suspect, as we learn more, we'll be revisiting those assumptions. And even after getting substantial government aid, I think Wagoner's the first auto industry CEO to get the boot. So perhaps we should be asking why it is that something like this hasn't happened sooner.

All that said, though, after that meeting of the major bank CEOs at the White House last week, it's hard for me not to think that, for all that has happened, their clout in Washington is just on a scale where they are accepted as peers of the realm. And simply immune to certain sorts of treatment.

--Josh Marshall"

C'mon Josh - show some sack.  Maybe you should try to interview them first before you just spout about their "clout".  Did you do any due diligence before writing this?

I think Howard Dean was great at pointing out how hypocritical Olbermann has been. 

Dean maybe was deliberately trying to embarrass Olbermann and prove his true colors?

Of all the shows for Dean to get on and say that we shouldn't be calling any of our Presidents a fascist, he chooses Olbermann!!  Olbermann is the one that for years has been calling Bush a fascist.

I love the irony!!


http://www.olbermannwatch.com/

There are so many angry people on this blog who are pissed at a lot of things.  They spend a lot of time "blogging" but are they actually spending time DOING anything?  Maybe volunteering at a food bank? Or writing letters to congress?

Just thought I would ask.  I hope people aren't wasting all their energy just typing and yelling at me.