Come on Sarah! Ambushed by Katie Couric asking you what you read. Really? Ambushed?
Sarah seems awfully defensive about the simplest question she was asked during her failed run to be “one heartbeat away” from being the President of the United States, the most powerful job on the face of the earth to a guy who was in his 70’s and had recovered at least once from cancer. Sarah (I’ve been told) wrote in her book that she felt “ambushed” by the Katie Couric question. Then, I heard her on Faux News tell “Gritch’n” Karlson that she would like to interview Katie to see if Katie had learned anything about Alaska since she asked Sarah that “sneaky” question. My bet is Katie probably knows more about Alaska than Sarah does.
But, could an easier question be asked? “What do you read?” Sarah…the question wasn’t about the Bush Doctrine (which you nothing about), or the duties of the Vice President (which you knew nothing about). The question wasn’t about foreign policy (which you only seemed to think was about the short distance between Alaska and Russia). It wasn’t about how you would approach healthcare (which apparently is limited to your objection to “death panels”…we’re all with you on that one Sarah). The question wasn’t about trade policies (which you never commented on), or tax policy (which you just object to in general…by the way, Sarah, how would we finance the wars, and the highways…stuff like that). It was just about “what do you read?”
I would think any good conservative could rattle off The National Review (you know the publication begun by Wm. F. Buckley…you do know who Buckley is don’t you?), or the Wall Street Journal (for goodness sakes, it’s a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, he also owns Faux News). I would have even accepted an Anchorage newspaper…they have stories about the nation and the world, don’t they? Heck, I’m not nearly smart enough to be the Vice President but on even short notice I can tell you I read the Dallas Morning News, the New York Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, the Nation, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, The Hill, and Politico, shoot…I even read People magazine when my wife leaves it in the bathroom. I can name several books I’ve read…even ones that don’t involve national issues.
You were ambushed just like I was in high school and college when I had the arrogance to show up for a test when I hadn’t read the assignment, or made any attempt to prepare for the test. I failed the test…and, so did you Sarah.
Those of you who insist that Sarah is qualified to be president ask yourself if you really think someone who has shown the character for breaking under pressure the way she has(why else would you quit half way through her first term as Governor in one of the smallest states in the country) could possible stand up to the pressure of being president. Do you just think when she becomes the leader of the free world, and the person the rest of us depend on, that she will just automatically become curious? I’ll tell you what I’m afraid of…she will be just as rattled as she was when Katie Couric asked her, “what do you read?” I’m afraid we’d have to send in the Marines to pull her out from under her bed.
John McCain created a monster!
What do you read? Really!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Liberty and JUSTICE
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish JUSTICE, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America)
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty AND JUSTICE for all. (The pledge of allegiance)
Our conservative, free-market friends on the right are very passionate about freedom. Freedom, of course, is expressed as “liberty.” The free market advocates adamantly proclaim that liberty is the cornerstone of the founding of the United States. They genuinely believe there should not be any restrictions on their freedom…well, at least where business is concerned. The un-restrained free market will solve all inequities in their opinion. They would gladly turn over your fate and safety to the free market economy. Business will do right and the inequities will be forced to the sidelines in a “free market economy,” they will tell you.
However, these dedicated friends of ours overlook an important aspect of the founding fathers. Liberty is tempered with “justice.” Establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare are all components of securing the blessings of liberty. The founding fathers never thought that liberty wouldn’t need to be tempered. And, justice, domestic tranquility, a common defense and promoting the general welfare were the buffer they foresaw as predicates to freedom, or liberty.
I’ve used this example several times to demonstrate to my children why there is a need for regulation, or what some might call “government interference.” When you go to buy gasoline for your car you drive into the convenience store of your choice, you put the nozzle into your gas tank and begin to fill up your tank. You don’t stop to think about whether the pump maybe filling your gas tank with water, sugar water, or something else harmful to your car engine. You know you’re getting gasoline. You don’t have to weigh the fuel to determine whether you’re getting a gallon, or quart, or pint. You know you’re getting a gallon of gas. Then, you don’t have to calculate whether you were charged the amount advertised on the marquis of the station sign. You know the fuel pump is accurately measuring and charging you correctly. Why is that?
That’s because government regulations (or what some call government interference) require the business to be honest about the advertising, the government inspects the fuel to insure they are selling gasoline and not something else, and the government calibrates the pump to insure the correct amount is being charged. Because of all this we have confidence in the commerce of our country. Similar regulation exists for most all avenues of our economy. That’s the JUSTICE insuring the “blessings of liberty.”
It’s time for our conservative free market, “keep your hands off my…whatever,” friends realize that justice, and promoting the general welfare, is as much a part of our national DNA as “freedom or liberty” is.
And, when they start waiving their copies of their pocket size U. S. Constitution in your face inquiring where the Constitution says the government has any right dictating healthcare for the country…suggest they read that document they carry around. Explain that “promoting the general welfare” is exactly what provides for the government to enact laws regarding the health of our citizens. They won’t have to read very far…it’s in the first sentence.
Remind them that it’s not justice when “too large to fail” banks, oversized insurance companies, and investment banks are allowed to gouge “we the people” in the name of freedom, free markets, or liberty.
Liberty and JUSTICE for all!
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty AND JUSTICE for all. (The pledge of allegiance)
Our conservative, free-market friends on the right are very passionate about freedom. Freedom, of course, is expressed as “liberty.” The free market advocates adamantly proclaim that liberty is the cornerstone of the founding of the United States. They genuinely believe there should not be any restrictions on their freedom…well, at least where business is concerned. The un-restrained free market will solve all inequities in their opinion. They would gladly turn over your fate and safety to the free market economy. Business will do right and the inequities will be forced to the sidelines in a “free market economy,” they will tell you.
However, these dedicated friends of ours overlook an important aspect of the founding fathers. Liberty is tempered with “justice.” Establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare are all components of securing the blessings of liberty. The founding fathers never thought that liberty wouldn’t need to be tempered. And, justice, domestic tranquility, a common defense and promoting the general welfare were the buffer they foresaw as predicates to freedom, or liberty.
I’ve used this example several times to demonstrate to my children why there is a need for regulation, or what some might call “government interference.” When you go to buy gasoline for your car you drive into the convenience store of your choice, you put the nozzle into your gas tank and begin to fill up your tank. You don’t stop to think about whether the pump maybe filling your gas tank with water, sugar water, or something else harmful to your car engine. You know you’re getting gasoline. You don’t have to weigh the fuel to determine whether you’re getting a gallon, or quart, or pint. You know you’re getting a gallon of gas. Then, you don’t have to calculate whether you were charged the amount advertised on the marquis of the station sign. You know the fuel pump is accurately measuring and charging you correctly. Why is that?
That’s because government regulations (or what some call government interference) require the business to be honest about the advertising, the government inspects the fuel to insure they are selling gasoline and not something else, and the government calibrates the pump to insure the correct amount is being charged. Because of all this we have confidence in the commerce of our country. Similar regulation exists for most all avenues of our economy. That’s the JUSTICE insuring the “blessings of liberty.”
It’s time for our conservative free market, “keep your hands off my…whatever,” friends realize that justice, and promoting the general welfare, is as much a part of our national DNA as “freedom or liberty” is.
And, when they start waiving their copies of their pocket size U. S. Constitution in your face inquiring where the Constitution says the government has any right dictating healthcare for the country…suggest they read that document they carry around. Explain that “promoting the general welfare” is exactly what provides for the government to enact laws regarding the health of our citizens. They won’t have to read very far…it’s in the first sentence.
Remind them that it’s not justice when “too large to fail” banks, oversized insurance companies, and investment banks are allowed to gouge “we the people” in the name of freedom, free markets, or liberty.
Liberty and JUSTICE for all!
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
TO SERVE, NOT TO SPEAK
It’s a scam that goes back to the beginning of religion. If you claim to speak for God…then you can’t be wrong, because if you challenge one who claims to speak for God, then you’ve challenged God. Except, of course, no one…NO ONE can speak for God. Now, I’m not disputing the existence of God. In fact, I’m a believer myself. I think, in my life God has spoken to me. But, never by someone who had actually claimed to be speaking for God.
The most memorable time I believe God spoke to me was when one of my daughters, without prompting, advised me that she always gave money to street people who asked for money. Her belief was that anyone who had to ask her for a dollar needed the money more than she did. For me, God could not have been clearer and my attitude has been different about giving money to persons who ask me for money on the street ever since. That’s the way God has always spoken to me…and, I’ll bet that’s the way God normally speaks to you too.
However, the ruse that the “executives of the clergy” use, whether they be our neighborhood church pastors, or preachers who have infected the airwaves, is they tell you they speak for God. That way…you have no standing to question their edict. Very convenient, don’t you think? Not all pastors are this way. Some actually devote themselves to the purpose religious teachings espouse…SERVING. That’s what Christians, Muslim’s, Hindu’s are supposed to do. Serving mankind is our admonition. It can’t be said any clearer than the admonition from the Bible…”do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
I have not read Sarah Palin’s book…nor, do I intend to. However, Frank Rich (who has read all of Sarah’s book) in his Op-Ed article of Sunday, November 22, 2009 in the New York Times mentioned a two page portion of the book were Sarah signed a letter from God in her book as though it was God who wrote and sent the letter. Mr. Rich states, “The book’s most frequently dropped names, predictably enough, are the Lord and Ronald Reagan (though not necessarily in that order). Easily the most startling passage in “Going Rogue,” running more than two pages, collates extended excerpts from a prayerful letter Palin wrote to mark the birth of Trig, her child with Down syndrome. This missive’s understandable goal was to reassert Palin’s faith and trust in God. But Palin did not write her letter to God; she wrote the letter from God, assuming His role and voice herself and signing it “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.” If I may say so — Oy!” Rather bold don’t you think.
Sister Sarah’s latest foreign policy position (something she’s never had before) comes via her biblical interpretation of the book of Revelations. She believes the Jews should continue settling in the Gaza since, as she states, “in the days and years ahead the Jews will be returning to this land.” You’ll need to read up on Revelations to see exactly where her divine foreign policy emanates from, but let me give you what I remember God revealing in the Book of Revelations… “no man knows the time!” The earth is estimated by scientist to be approximately 4.5 BILLION years old but Sister Sarah and her spiritual guide Billy Graham know we are in the “end of times.” Yes…as much as it hurts me to say this, because I grew up admiring Billy Graham. However, Billy and his son Franklin also engage in this deception. They submit themselves to us as “SPEAKING” for God.
Evangelical and Catholic…churches of all denominations use this technique (that they SPEAK for God). Say you speak for God…and then no one can dispute your position. I grew up in Southern Baptist churches where most, not all…but, most, of the ministers tried to use this ruse. Catholics use it with gusto. Even to the point they think they should determine whether a parishioner can take communion or not! This is outrageous. We are either all children of God…or none of us is a child of God.
Our purpose is to SERVE God…not to SPEAK for God. To speak for God in my way of thinking takes issue with the third commandment to “take the name of God in vain.” I’m not proposing to be a member of this elite, arrogant, evangelical group…but, let me let you in on a little secret. I know who speaks for God. GOD SPEAKS FOR GOD!
Finally let me conclude with the case of Bishop Thomas Tobin, Bishop of Providence, Rhode Island, who proposes to enforce the will of the Catholic Church on members of Congress who are Catholic. The Bishop stated on November 23, 2009 (Hardball with Chris Matthews) “…the point is that any Catholic in public office, his first commitment has to be to his faith, not just for a Catholic, but for a member of any religious community. No commitment is more important than your commitment to your faith, because it involves your relationship with God.”
I remember how in the 1960 election, we Southern Baptist, we’re worried that John F. Kennedy would allow the Pope to govern the country through President Kennedy, a Roman Catholic. To dispel this concern President Kennedy said the following, “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish, where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source, where no religious body seeks to impose its will, directly or indirectly, upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.”
Chris Matthews had one of the best exchanges I have ever witnessed with the fine Bishop. Chris stated, “…what we’re talking about here is the law, not the morality of the issue, but the law.”
This is exactly the point. Adultery is adverse to the teachings of the Christian Church, yet we’re not proposing nor imposing criminal penalties for adultery are we…Senator Vetter, or Senator Ensign? The Roman Catholic Church through Bishop Tobin is telling Catholic members of Congress how to vote.
Chris went on to challenge the Bishop regarding what the criminal penalties for abortion should be. Chris said this…“You said that we should go back to where we were before Roe v. Wade in '73. So let's go back to that, if that is the prescription you're offering here. If you outlaw abortion at the state level, say at the Rhode Island level, or the Pittsburgh level in Pennsylvania, where you come from, or anything like that, then you make it illegal for a person to go get on abortion. So what does that do, in fact? What's the effect on human life? You want to respect and preserve human life. What is the effect that has if you say a doctor can't perform an abortion? Would you criminalize it? Would you put people in jail? If it's murder, as you see it, would you criminalize it? And the Bishops reply…“I wouldn’t even pretend to be in a position to do that.” Read that again…”I wouldn’t even pretend to be in a position to do that.” Well then, what the hell is the Bishop doing telling a member of Congress, elected by much more than the Roman Catholic Church and it’s members, regarding his vote on anything.
Chris Matthews (a Roman Catholic himself) had some very poignant comments to make to the Bishop…and all of us in my opinion.
Chris said, “I think you're intervening. I think you're getting into law here, and you don't like Congressman Kennedy's voting record in Congress.” And if there is a hesitancy to punish a woman for having an abortion, maybe that's instructive to you because when you realize you don't really want to punish a woman for having an abortion, under the law, then maybe you should step back from using the law as your tool in enforcing moral authority. Maybe your moral authority comes from the pulpit and from teaching, and a congressman has a totally different role, which is to write the law. When it comes to the law, it's a secular question. It has not to do with the moral - we do a lot of things in this country we don't like, we think are immoral. But the question is what sanction do you apply to it? What should be the penalty for a young woman or a girl, even, to have an abortion? You have no idea, and it's not your area. And yet this is the very area you've transgressed in. You've gone into the area of lawmaking, and condemned the behavior of public officials who have to write public policy. The difference between rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, which is the law, and rendering to your flock and people like me what is right and wrong.”
“Your problem is you haven't gotten people to obey your moral code through teaching, and you have resorted now to use the law to do your enforcement for you. And the problem with that is you are hesitant to state for me now what the punishment should be under the law for having an abortion, because you know, deep down, if you said one minute in prison, you would be laughed at, because the American people, catholic and non-catholic, do not think it's a criminal act to have an abortion.”
“They may not like it. They may think it's immoral. But they don't think it's criminal. And yet you are here bringing the force of the law, the authority of the police, and the bench, the law, the judiciary. You want to bring it all to bear, including the Constitution, to enforce your moral beliefs.”
Powerful words from a Roman Catholic lay person (Chris Matthews) to a Roman Catholic Bishop. I doubt even Chris Matthews realizes the Bishop does not SPEAK for GOD…the Bishop is supposed to SERVE God. And, there’s a big difference.
The most memorable time I believe God spoke to me was when one of my daughters, without prompting, advised me that she always gave money to street people who asked for money. Her belief was that anyone who had to ask her for a dollar needed the money more than she did. For me, God could not have been clearer and my attitude has been different about giving money to persons who ask me for money on the street ever since. That’s the way God has always spoken to me…and, I’ll bet that’s the way God normally speaks to you too.
However, the ruse that the “executives of the clergy” use, whether they be our neighborhood church pastors, or preachers who have infected the airwaves, is they tell you they speak for God. That way…you have no standing to question their edict. Very convenient, don’t you think? Not all pastors are this way. Some actually devote themselves to the purpose religious teachings espouse…SERVING. That’s what Christians, Muslim’s, Hindu’s are supposed to do. Serving mankind is our admonition. It can’t be said any clearer than the admonition from the Bible…”do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
I have not read Sarah Palin’s book…nor, do I intend to. However, Frank Rich (who has read all of Sarah’s book) in his Op-Ed article of Sunday, November 22, 2009 in the New York Times mentioned a two page portion of the book were Sarah signed a letter from God in her book as though it was God who wrote and sent the letter. Mr. Rich states, “The book’s most frequently dropped names, predictably enough, are the Lord and Ronald Reagan (though not necessarily in that order). Easily the most startling passage in “Going Rogue,” running more than two pages, collates extended excerpts from a prayerful letter Palin wrote to mark the birth of Trig, her child with Down syndrome. This missive’s understandable goal was to reassert Palin’s faith and trust in God. But Palin did not write her letter to God; she wrote the letter from God, assuming His role and voice herself and signing it “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.” If I may say so — Oy!” Rather bold don’t you think.
Sister Sarah’s latest foreign policy position (something she’s never had before) comes via her biblical interpretation of the book of Revelations. She believes the Jews should continue settling in the Gaza since, as she states, “in the days and years ahead the Jews will be returning to this land.” You’ll need to read up on Revelations to see exactly where her divine foreign policy emanates from, but let me give you what I remember God revealing in the Book of Revelations… “no man knows the time!” The earth is estimated by scientist to be approximately 4.5 BILLION years old but Sister Sarah and her spiritual guide Billy Graham know we are in the “end of times.” Yes…as much as it hurts me to say this, because I grew up admiring Billy Graham. However, Billy and his son Franklin also engage in this deception. They submit themselves to us as “SPEAKING” for God.
Evangelical and Catholic…churches of all denominations use this technique (that they SPEAK for God). Say you speak for God…and then no one can dispute your position. I grew up in Southern Baptist churches where most, not all…but, most, of the ministers tried to use this ruse. Catholics use it with gusto. Even to the point they think they should determine whether a parishioner can take communion or not! This is outrageous. We are either all children of God…or none of us is a child of God.
Our purpose is to SERVE God…not to SPEAK for God. To speak for God in my way of thinking takes issue with the third commandment to “take the name of God in vain.” I’m not proposing to be a member of this elite, arrogant, evangelical group…but, let me let you in on a little secret. I know who speaks for God. GOD SPEAKS FOR GOD!
Finally let me conclude with the case of Bishop Thomas Tobin, Bishop of Providence, Rhode Island, who proposes to enforce the will of the Catholic Church on members of Congress who are Catholic. The Bishop stated on November 23, 2009 (Hardball with Chris Matthews) “…the point is that any Catholic in public office, his first commitment has to be to his faith, not just for a Catholic, but for a member of any religious community. No commitment is more important than your commitment to your faith, because it involves your relationship with God.”
I remember how in the 1960 election, we Southern Baptist, we’re worried that John F. Kennedy would allow the Pope to govern the country through President Kennedy, a Roman Catholic. To dispel this concern President Kennedy said the following, “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish, where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source, where no religious body seeks to impose its will, directly or indirectly, upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.”
Chris Matthews had one of the best exchanges I have ever witnessed with the fine Bishop. Chris stated, “…what we’re talking about here is the law, not the morality of the issue, but the law.”
This is exactly the point. Adultery is adverse to the teachings of the Christian Church, yet we’re not proposing nor imposing criminal penalties for adultery are we…Senator Vetter, or Senator Ensign? The Roman Catholic Church through Bishop Tobin is telling Catholic members of Congress how to vote.
Chris went on to challenge the Bishop regarding what the criminal penalties for abortion should be. Chris said this…“You said that we should go back to where we were before Roe v. Wade in '73. So let's go back to that, if that is the prescription you're offering here. If you outlaw abortion at the state level, say at the Rhode Island level, or the Pittsburgh level in Pennsylvania, where you come from, or anything like that, then you make it illegal for a person to go get on abortion. So what does that do, in fact? What's the effect on human life? You want to respect and preserve human life. What is the effect that has if you say a doctor can't perform an abortion? Would you criminalize it? Would you put people in jail? If it's murder, as you see it, would you criminalize it? And the Bishops reply…“I wouldn’t even pretend to be in a position to do that.” Read that again…”I wouldn’t even pretend to be in a position to do that.” Well then, what the hell is the Bishop doing telling a member of Congress, elected by much more than the Roman Catholic Church and it’s members, regarding his vote on anything.
Chris Matthews (a Roman Catholic himself) had some very poignant comments to make to the Bishop…and all of us in my opinion.
Chris said, “I think you're intervening. I think you're getting into law here, and you don't like Congressman Kennedy's voting record in Congress.” And if there is a hesitancy to punish a woman for having an abortion, maybe that's instructive to you because when you realize you don't really want to punish a woman for having an abortion, under the law, then maybe you should step back from using the law as your tool in enforcing moral authority. Maybe your moral authority comes from the pulpit and from teaching, and a congressman has a totally different role, which is to write the law. When it comes to the law, it's a secular question. It has not to do with the moral - we do a lot of things in this country we don't like, we think are immoral. But the question is what sanction do you apply to it? What should be the penalty for a young woman or a girl, even, to have an abortion? You have no idea, and it's not your area. And yet this is the very area you've transgressed in. You've gone into the area of lawmaking, and condemned the behavior of public officials who have to write public policy. The difference between rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, which is the law, and rendering to your flock and people like me what is right and wrong.”
“Your problem is you haven't gotten people to obey your moral code through teaching, and you have resorted now to use the law to do your enforcement for you. And the problem with that is you are hesitant to state for me now what the punishment should be under the law for having an abortion, because you know, deep down, if you said one minute in prison, you would be laughed at, because the American people, catholic and non-catholic, do not think it's a criminal act to have an abortion.”
“They may not like it. They may think it's immoral. But they don't think it's criminal. And yet you are here bringing the force of the law, the authority of the police, and the bench, the law, the judiciary. You want to bring it all to bear, including the Constitution, to enforce your moral beliefs.”
Powerful words from a Roman Catholic lay person (Chris Matthews) to a Roman Catholic Bishop. I doubt even Chris Matthews realizes the Bishop does not SPEAK for GOD…the Bishop is supposed to SERVE God. And, there’s a big difference.
Friday, November 13, 2009
INSTANT ECONOMY
I’m one of those who indulge in instant meals more than I should. It’s just too easy to wake up in the morning, pop a cup of water into the microwave, empty a package of instant oatmeal or grits into a bowl, add the boiling water and presto…breakfast is served. Just like everyone, after going twelve hours or so without any food, an instant hot meal cures all that is wrong. Plus, most of the time it provides the necessary nutrition.
That’s the way most of think a stimulus cure for the economy should work. We discover we need a recovery, we argue over adding billions of dollars of government spending to the economy, finally settle on an amount, pour some money into the economy bowl and presto…we expect our economic hunger to be solved. Here it is, a little over six months since we poured this hot stimulus money into the bowl, and we’re wondering why we’re still suffering…still economically hungry.
A couple of business and economic writers and experts wrote comments on the state of the economy this week…which by the way has stabilized, if not begun to improve.
Newsweek’s Daniel Gross noted the following in a story titled “A Birder’s Guide to D.C. …The deficit hawks squawk too much.”
The deficit grew from $248 billion in 2006 to $1.4 trillion for fiscal 2009, and Mr. Gross noted that much of that can be pinned on cyclical factors. Mr. Gross goes on to highlight that when the economy contracts two factors have a detrimental effect on the deficit. Tax receipts go down, and demand for government spending goes up in the way of unemployment benefits, bailouts and government stimulus.
It should also be of interest that spending rose 18% and revenue fell 16.6% in fiscal 2009. This contrary motion, of income and expense, was the worst decline for the United States since the 1930’s. However, the budget deficit predicted to be $1.84 trillion in May of 2009 actually came in somewhat better by fiscal year end at %1.58 trillion. The rally of the stock market, for all it hasn’t been for Main Street American, helped recover corporate profits, and coupled with the now expanding economy have resulted in higher than expected tax revenues. So, when the Treasury Department ended the country’s fiscal year in October of 2009 the final deficit was $1.42 trillion even better than in May and $138 billion less than the July prediction. As the late great Senator Everett Dirkson once said…”a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
Mr. Gross notes that historically “the consensus of economists and politicians has continually underestimated the strength and timing of the recovery.” As a result of the change of direction for the economy the Treasury announced it would need to borrow 42% less than expected in July…$276 billion less. “A billion here, a billion there…” So, we might be able to reasonably expect a 10% to 20% improvement in the 2010 deficit.
The sad fact about deficit hawks is they ignore the affects of the costs of health care and the improvement that a “robust” public option would do for deficit spending. Then, there are still those lingering problems caused by the Bush tax cuts, and the adverse effect they have on the deficit and entitlement spending. Our conservative adversaries still stupidly call for us to scale back the not-yet-spent stimulus funds in the name of fiscal discipline.
But, the “Quote the Day from Daniel Gross’s article was this: “Being obsessed with deficit reduction when the economy has suffered its largest setback since the Depression is like being obsessed with water conservation when your house is on fire.” This is rich and a quote worth remember when your conservative friends want to start preaching the gospel of fiscal restraint. Restraint, after eight years of a spending spree by the Bush Administration, that looking backwards, would have been a great time for debt reduction. Remember Alan Greenspan’s admonishment that we would damage the economy if we saved too much…and these Republican hacks stood there drooling like high school seniors standing at a craps table in Las Vegas.
The other notable opinion on the economy came from the November 13, 2009 Op-Ed page of the New York Times. This piece, by Nobel Economist Paul Krugman, compared the United States approach to tackling joblessness to that of Germany. Mr. Krugman advocates “policies that address the job issue more directly.” For example, the “New Deal style employment programs.” This article reminds us “that at their peak, the W.P.A. and the Civilian Conservation Corps employed millions of Americans, at relatively low cost to the budget. If you are interested in reading more about Great Depression era solutions like the W.P.A and the Civilian Conservation Corps I would suggest you read “the Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008” by Paul Krugman, and “The Defining Moment” by Jonthan Alter.
Paul Krugman’s article advocates that regulations that would discourage firing, coupled with incentives for hiring, or modifying working hours to prevent additional layoffs could help us with unemployment.
Mr. Krugman makes another poignant point…“right now, workers who lose their jobs aren’t moving to the jobs of the future; they’re entering the ranks of the unemployed and staying there.” Furthermore, the longer you’re out of job the harder it is to get another job. What Paul Krugman suggests, and we all should be able to agree, is that “we should introduce an employment tax credit” and a job-sharing subsidy which would help workers on the bubble keep their jobs.
That’s the way most of think a stimulus cure for the economy should work. We discover we need a recovery, we argue over adding billions of dollars of government spending to the economy, finally settle on an amount, pour some money into the economy bowl and presto…we expect our economic hunger to be solved. Here it is, a little over six months since we poured this hot stimulus money into the bowl, and we’re wondering why we’re still suffering…still economically hungry.
A couple of business and economic writers and experts wrote comments on the state of the economy this week…which by the way has stabilized, if not begun to improve.
Newsweek’s Daniel Gross noted the following in a story titled “A Birder’s Guide to D.C. …The deficit hawks squawk too much.”
The deficit grew from $248 billion in 2006 to $1.4 trillion for fiscal 2009, and Mr. Gross noted that much of that can be pinned on cyclical factors. Mr. Gross goes on to highlight that when the economy contracts two factors have a detrimental effect on the deficit. Tax receipts go down, and demand for government spending goes up in the way of unemployment benefits, bailouts and government stimulus.
It should also be of interest that spending rose 18% and revenue fell 16.6% in fiscal 2009. This contrary motion, of income and expense, was the worst decline for the United States since the 1930’s. However, the budget deficit predicted to be $1.84 trillion in May of 2009 actually came in somewhat better by fiscal year end at %1.58 trillion. The rally of the stock market, for all it hasn’t been for Main Street American, helped recover corporate profits, and coupled with the now expanding economy have resulted in higher than expected tax revenues. So, when the Treasury Department ended the country’s fiscal year in October of 2009 the final deficit was $1.42 trillion even better than in May and $138 billion less than the July prediction. As the late great Senator Everett Dirkson once said…”a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
Mr. Gross notes that historically “the consensus of economists and politicians has continually underestimated the strength and timing of the recovery.” As a result of the change of direction for the economy the Treasury announced it would need to borrow 42% less than expected in July…$276 billion less. “A billion here, a billion there…” So, we might be able to reasonably expect a 10% to 20% improvement in the 2010 deficit.
The sad fact about deficit hawks is they ignore the affects of the costs of health care and the improvement that a “robust” public option would do for deficit spending. Then, there are still those lingering problems caused by the Bush tax cuts, and the adverse effect they have on the deficit and entitlement spending. Our conservative adversaries still stupidly call for us to scale back the not-yet-spent stimulus funds in the name of fiscal discipline.
But, the “Quote the Day from Daniel Gross’s article was this: “Being obsessed with deficit reduction when the economy has suffered its largest setback since the Depression is like being obsessed with water conservation when your house is on fire.” This is rich and a quote worth remember when your conservative friends want to start preaching the gospel of fiscal restraint. Restraint, after eight years of a spending spree by the Bush Administration, that looking backwards, would have been a great time for debt reduction. Remember Alan Greenspan’s admonishment that we would damage the economy if we saved too much…and these Republican hacks stood there drooling like high school seniors standing at a craps table in Las Vegas.
The other notable opinion on the economy came from the November 13, 2009 Op-Ed page of the New York Times. This piece, by Nobel Economist Paul Krugman, compared the United States approach to tackling joblessness to that of Germany. Mr. Krugman advocates “policies that address the job issue more directly.” For example, the “New Deal style employment programs.” This article reminds us “that at their peak, the W.P.A. and the Civilian Conservation Corps employed millions of Americans, at relatively low cost to the budget. If you are interested in reading more about Great Depression era solutions like the W.P.A and the Civilian Conservation Corps I would suggest you read “the Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008” by Paul Krugman, and “The Defining Moment” by Jonthan Alter.
Paul Krugman’s article advocates that regulations that would discourage firing, coupled with incentives for hiring, or modifying working hours to prevent additional layoffs could help us with unemployment.
Mr. Krugman makes another poignant point…“right now, workers who lose their jobs aren’t moving to the jobs of the future; they’re entering the ranks of the unemployed and staying there.” Furthermore, the longer you’re out of job the harder it is to get another job. What Paul Krugman suggests, and we all should be able to agree, is that “we should introduce an employment tax credit” and a job-sharing subsidy which would help workers on the bubble keep their jobs.
Monday, November 9, 2009
FEAR FOR A CAUSE
I was having a conversation with one of my colleagues in the banking industry a few days ago about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the 2009 Stimulus Package). We were discussing the past history (in the depressions of the 1930’s) and success of a government stimulus. History records the facts as follows; after assuming the presidency, Franklin Roosevelt, pursued a government stimulus that successfully revived a depressed economy. However, encouraged by deficit hawks to abandon continuing the stimulus, he deviated returning to government austerity to quickly, and sending the economy into another depression. But, a significant world event occurred. The president and members of congress, having lost their confidence for government deficit spending were involuntarily re-engaged in a massive deficit stimulus when the fear of the Nazi’s in Germany and an aggressive enemy in Japan forced them into the kind of deficit spending program that the economy not only needed to recover but, to issued in a long period of productivity and wealth that brought the United States to be the leader of the World (free and otherwise) that we are today.
What we lack today, for a similar recovery, is the “fear” which would launch us into a similar recovery. Today, deficit hawks are again cautioning about a federal deficit of $1.4 trillion…a fear to be sure…but, the wrong kind of fear. This is their (conservative deficit hawks) reason for saying no to everything…including the most recent debate about healthcare. This argument is based in denying history and ignorance. It’s a prescription for a continuation of a weak recovery and possibly a re-entry into another great recession or even a new depression. Their argument will result in a long slow recovery, possible negating any meaningful recovery, and continuing the suffering of the under-employed, and the unemployed.
Here’s the facts as recently described by The Nation Magazine. “The mobilization for World War II produced one of the most remarkable success stories in US economic history. War production not only overcame lingering weaknesses from the Great Depression but transformed the economic system into the modern powerhouse that became the platform for our long-running postwar prosperity. All this was achieved by the government, largely with borrowed money. By war’s end Washington had piled up federal debt totaling around 120 percent of annual GDP (nearly double today’s debt level).” DID YOU GET THAT…120% of the annual GDP!
The Nation goes on to say, “During the wartime emergency the government took charge of the economy and rapidly shifted the industrial system to armaments while suppressing domestic consumption. Deficit spending force-fed the rapid development of new technologies and new basic industries. In a few short years, economic output expanded by about 75 percent. Despite rationing and wage and price controls, Americans at large were replenished: per capita income rose by almost 70 percent (with industrial jobs opened to women and blacks).”
Another massive government stimulus plan, that I like, which lasted for years was the Interstate Highway System enacted during the Eisenhower Administration. I could argue that this government program created additional wealth and prosperity for all of us, rich and poor. The key to un-locking prolonged economic opportunity continues even unto today, although this system is crumbling and badly in need of repair (roads and bridges). This presents an opportunity for additional stimulus and growth in our current crisis.
We, as a country, need a new fear which would force us into making the commitment to our predicament of today. We need a public “Jobs Program.” A “Jobs Program” that would create jobs when the private sector seems unable or unwilling to do so. We should commit to creating “green jobs” that would supplement environmental construction, and re-tooling standing buildings with environmental efficiencies, not to mention high speed rail which would encourage green efficiencies and conservation. We need to encourage and create “green companies” and our government should support and purchase from those companies.
What we lack today, for a similar recovery, is the “fear” which would launch us into a similar recovery. Today, deficit hawks are again cautioning about a federal deficit of $1.4 trillion…a fear to be sure…but, the wrong kind of fear. This is their (conservative deficit hawks) reason for saying no to everything…including the most recent debate about healthcare. This argument is based in denying history and ignorance. It’s a prescription for a continuation of a weak recovery and possibly a re-entry into another great recession or even a new depression. Their argument will result in a long slow recovery, possible negating any meaningful recovery, and continuing the suffering of the under-employed, and the unemployed.
Here’s the facts as recently described by The Nation Magazine. “The mobilization for World War II produced one of the most remarkable success stories in US economic history. War production not only overcame lingering weaknesses from the Great Depression but transformed the economic system into the modern powerhouse that became the platform for our long-running postwar prosperity. All this was achieved by the government, largely with borrowed money. By war’s end Washington had piled up federal debt totaling around 120 percent of annual GDP (nearly double today’s debt level).” DID YOU GET THAT…120% of the annual GDP!
The Nation goes on to say, “During the wartime emergency the government took charge of the economy and rapidly shifted the industrial system to armaments while suppressing domestic consumption. Deficit spending force-fed the rapid development of new technologies and new basic industries. In a few short years, economic output expanded by about 75 percent. Despite rationing and wage and price controls, Americans at large were replenished: per capita income rose by almost 70 percent (with industrial jobs opened to women and blacks).”
Another massive government stimulus plan, that I like, which lasted for years was the Interstate Highway System enacted during the Eisenhower Administration. I could argue that this government program created additional wealth and prosperity for all of us, rich and poor. The key to un-locking prolonged economic opportunity continues even unto today, although this system is crumbling and badly in need of repair (roads and bridges). This presents an opportunity for additional stimulus and growth in our current crisis.
We, as a country, need a new fear which would force us into making the commitment to our predicament of today. We need a public “Jobs Program.” A “Jobs Program” that would create jobs when the private sector seems unable or unwilling to do so. We should commit to creating “green jobs” that would supplement environmental construction, and re-tooling standing buildings with environmental efficiencies, not to mention high speed rail which would encourage green efficiencies and conservation. We need to encourage and create “green companies” and our government should support and purchase from those companies.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
SEED MONEY
Having grown up on the “buckle” of the “bible belt,” I have been exposed to my fair share of the language of evangelicals. One of the coin phrases, especially of televangelist, is to “plant seed money.” Of course, what they’re actually enticing their viewer to do is to send their money to the televangelist with the promise that it will come back “ten fold.” “Ten fold” is also one of the phrases in their vocabulary because that’s what they want their followers to give, at a minimum, out of every dollar that passes through the follower’s hands. Sort of a 10% church tax, as I used to like to think of it.
But, let’s go back to their idea of seed money and consider that under their “snake oil” salesman pitch that maybe we could borrow that phrase from them in regard to our current national, and world, economic dilemma. What if rather than Wall Street Investment firms, and banks paying those obscene bonuses they instead used that money to hire a few more employees, or pay the lower employees a little more, or even used the money to start new businesses that would hire new employees. It would be legitimate “seed money.”
I’ve never understood how big business and the wealthiest of us have missed the point that the key to economic growth and greater income for them as well as the lower and middle class is not tax cuts but, is a growing middle class. The economic principle is simple…the more customers you have the more products you can sell and the more money you can make. Basically, everybody does better when everybody does better. The “cardinal rule” of EVERYBODY WINS! Paying $30 million dollars to a single employee is obscene and it’s happening thousands of times every year in our society. What would be wrong with executives, who by the way were the architects of the financial meltdowns and obviously aren’t worth the big salaries they’re getting, trimming their unjustified salaries back to $10 million a year and using the balance to hire new employees and create new companies that would create new jobs.
But, what we’re left with is Wall Street paying out billions of dollars of over the top bonus and Main Street unemployment topping 10%. It ain’t right! And, let’s keep this all in perspective…paying a 50% or 100% bonus to a $250,000 salaried worker isn’t the same as paying a $25 million bonus to a multi-million dollar executive.
A recently published article out of Time magazine’s September 9th issue by Allan Sloan accurately described the character of these Wall Street firms as having “collapsed out of ignorance fueled by avarice – a particularly toxic combination.” And, this avarice lives on.
The rescue of the financial industry by the Bush Administration and then followed up by the Obama Administration had a few very glaring holes in the plan. Some of this was justified…the plan had to be enacted on a emergency basis and unfortunately we didn’t have the luxury of knowing all the repercussions. However one glaring deficiency which needs to be corrected is there should be a requirement for the money to be lent to the public in the form of consumer, commercial and real estate loans…and not back to the government in the form of T-bill investments. The plan should correct this miscalculation today by refusing to allow the money to be directed back to T-bill investments for the spread between interest rate they got the money from the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) Fund for and what the yield on T-bill is today. That money was to rescue all of us…not just Wall Street.
Let’s use the TARP money and those big bonuses to “seed” the economy. I think it would work.
Additionally, we all need to recognize this is not a problem that can be turned around on a dime any more that an ocean liner could. As a country we need to be smarter than we act like from time to time. It’s as though a builder was hired to build a billion dollar complex and we showed up at the site three months later and wondered why the building wasn’t finished. We need to get real…but, we need to hold commercial and investment bankers feet to the fire. Believe me, I’ve worked with them for my entire profession career and they really don’t get it!
But, let’s go back to their idea of seed money and consider that under their “snake oil” salesman pitch that maybe we could borrow that phrase from them in regard to our current national, and world, economic dilemma. What if rather than Wall Street Investment firms, and banks paying those obscene bonuses they instead used that money to hire a few more employees, or pay the lower employees a little more, or even used the money to start new businesses that would hire new employees. It would be legitimate “seed money.”
I’ve never understood how big business and the wealthiest of us have missed the point that the key to economic growth and greater income for them as well as the lower and middle class is not tax cuts but, is a growing middle class. The economic principle is simple…the more customers you have the more products you can sell and the more money you can make. Basically, everybody does better when everybody does better. The “cardinal rule” of EVERYBODY WINS! Paying $30 million dollars to a single employee is obscene and it’s happening thousands of times every year in our society. What would be wrong with executives, who by the way were the architects of the financial meltdowns and obviously aren’t worth the big salaries they’re getting, trimming their unjustified salaries back to $10 million a year and using the balance to hire new employees and create new companies that would create new jobs.
But, what we’re left with is Wall Street paying out billions of dollars of over the top bonus and Main Street unemployment topping 10%. It ain’t right! And, let’s keep this all in perspective…paying a 50% or 100% bonus to a $250,000 salaried worker isn’t the same as paying a $25 million bonus to a multi-million dollar executive.
A recently published article out of Time magazine’s September 9th issue by Allan Sloan accurately described the character of these Wall Street firms as having “collapsed out of ignorance fueled by avarice – a particularly toxic combination.” And, this avarice lives on.
The rescue of the financial industry by the Bush Administration and then followed up by the Obama Administration had a few very glaring holes in the plan. Some of this was justified…the plan had to be enacted on a emergency basis and unfortunately we didn’t have the luxury of knowing all the repercussions. However one glaring deficiency which needs to be corrected is there should be a requirement for the money to be lent to the public in the form of consumer, commercial and real estate loans…and not back to the government in the form of T-bill investments. The plan should correct this miscalculation today by refusing to allow the money to be directed back to T-bill investments for the spread between interest rate they got the money from the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) Fund for and what the yield on T-bill is today. That money was to rescue all of us…not just Wall Street.
Let’s use the TARP money and those big bonuses to “seed” the economy. I think it would work.
Additionally, we all need to recognize this is not a problem that can be turned around on a dime any more that an ocean liner could. As a country we need to be smarter than we act like from time to time. It’s as though a builder was hired to build a billion dollar complex and we showed up at the site three months later and wondered why the building wasn’t finished. We need to get real…but, we need to hold commercial and investment bankers feet to the fire. Believe me, I’ve worked with them for my entire profession career and they really don’t get it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
