• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Economy

A different way of looking at the numbers. I am not clear what the blogger means by "In reality, given that the debt is incurred and owned by the same borrower and could easily be papered over by an Act of Congress", since taken literally it would mean revoking Social Security, which won't go over well with the Boomer voters.

The longer term hope lies in demographics. If the United States maintains its birthrate, they will have the workers to man the factory floors and soldiers to man the barricades while China, Russia and the EU tank due to their population implosions. Canadians are going along with the EU WRT population, but in our case, I suppose we will be "recolonized" by Americans seeking land and opportunity (and they will be socially conservative "Red State" Americans, since the "Blue Staters" are also following the EU, Russia and China down the demographic slope).

This is very much a long term issue, since the effects of the demographic implosions will start making themselves felt @ 2020 and continue until the 2040's at a minimum. We will live in interesting times.

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/10/the-fiscal-bala.html

The Fiscal Balance of the American Federal Government

I, for one am a little bit tired of hearing about how “the United States is bankrupt” from people with a minute level of knowledge of international finance.  In truth – despite recent setbacks – the U.S. Federal Government is probably in the best shape of any major world government when one measures total debt, assets, and ability to borrow.

Let’s begin with one fallacy – the size of the Federal Debt.  Down below, Mike cites a debt-to-GDP ratio of 70% for the United States.  This is an officially accurate number – but it’s an extremely misleading one.  That’s because a large portion of the U.S. Public Debt ($4.3 Trillion of $10.1) is held by (wait for it)… the Federal Government.  It may sound strange, but it’s true – the Federal Government owes about 42% of the American national debt to the Federal Government.

Bizarre?  Sure.  But it’s the truth.  What happens each year, as a result of a Social Security reform law, is that the Federal Government notionally “borrows” the Social Security surplus from itself.  In reality, given that the debt is incurred and owned by the same borrower and could easily be papered over by an Act of Congress, it shouldn’t be counted when comparing the American public debt to that of other major industrial nations.

In other words, if you ignore the money that the Federal Government owes to itself, the real debt to GDP ratio of the US Government is something like 41% - better than most developed nations (indeed, Canada’s is still just under 70%). 

Even this, I should add, understates things even further – because the Federal Government owns, as of 2007, a little over 42 Million acres of land, much of it filled with unexploited resources.  If that property interest were to be liquidated in an orderly fashion over a period of time (say twenty years), it could generate the revenues to retire an appreciable portion of the nation’s debt.

The present balance of the U.S. Government is strong.  If you want to argue over the future – and in particular how that $4.3 Trillion that the Government notionally owes to itself is just a downpayment on future pension bills – well, then we have another story altogether. 
But, on that count, let me point something out to you – that’s a problem that everyone has. Indeed, because it continues to experience robust population growth and has a higher-than-replacement birthrate, the United States is the Western country with the best chance of successfully navigating the pending pension crisis. 

Does this mean that everything is great?  No, far from it – but it does mean that the sky isn’t falling over America.  Indeed, the United States has – and God willing will be able to keep – one great advantage over every other major country: it doesn’t have a national health care system.  Medicare and Medicaid, one could argue, are bad enough – but I don’t think that’s the case.  Because they aren’t universal entitlements, it will be much easier to target them for destruction when the fiscal crisis comes.  In Canada and other places, on the other hand, I think that we will continue to embrace the futile delusion that socialized medicine is economically feasible until the day that our governments literally hit the wall. 

Indeed, that’s the one silver lining of the present credit crisis – it makes any sort of socialized health care system in the United States impossible to afford.  And it won’t be getting any more affordable as the years go by.

Dealing with the coming pension and health crisis is going to be dangerous game.  As we saw when President Bush tried it in 2005, there’s probably too much vested in those programs right now to fight them and win.  The key is timing.  Time is on our side.  It’s true that the Baby Boomers are aging and going to start retiring – but that also means that they’re going to start dying as well.  And it’s worth remembering that, under the status quo, Baby Boomers are likely to vote for these programs for two reasons – that they expect to benefit from them and that they want their parents to continue to do the same (they being of the Greatest Generation and all).  As time marches on and Generation X’ers and Echo-Boomers come to make up the largest voting cohort, it’s worth pondering if they will have the same regard for the most selfish generation that threw away so much of what their parents fought for and who ran up most of the debts that we now have to contend with.  I, for one, am of the attitude that my own Baby Boomer parents have sufficient wealth to see them through the rest of their lives and that the rest of the wretched generation to which they lamentably belong can go beg in the streets (but, ideally, not my streets) before they can get a cent of my money.  That’s a minority attitude for now – but give it time.

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 6, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink
 
Manipulating the economy has always been a tactic of the wealthy and powerful to maintain their advantage over the rest of us:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/how_allies_of_george_soros_hel.html

How allies of George Soros helped bring down Wachovia Bank
By Ed Lasky

Wachovia Bank, a major institution, has seen its stock plummet and its continued viability called into question, as the nation's financial crisis muddles forward. [Update: shortly after publication of this article, Citigroup agreed to purchase Wachovia's banking operations in a deal facilitated by the FDIC.]

Largely ignored in this crisis is the key role played by Herbert and Marion Sandler, founders of Golden West Financial (GDW), one of the largest savings and loans in the nation. Wachovia purchased GDW for $24 billion dollars in 2006. This was one of the worst merger and acquisition deals of all time for the buyer, and remarkably excellent timing on the part of the seller. In essence, Wachovia bought a financial time bomb ticking away, one that exploded this year, bringing down yet another former financial titan and further wrecking Wall Street. [Update: see this commentary from Bllomberg on the role of GDW in the fall of Wachovia.]

How did this transpire and who are the Sandlers?

Herbert and Marion Sandler, a New York lawyer and Wall Street analyst respectively, bought a small California thrift in 1963 and built it into GDW -- one of the largest thrifts in the nation. The company's business was built on adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs. These were mortgages offered at low "teaser" rates that ratcheted upward as interest rates increased. They were often sold aggressively to unsophisticated home buyers who did not comprehend the vast financial risks they were taking, or who assumed that housing prices would rise high enough to provide a profit to them when they sold their houses. They were targets for lenders peddling mortgages that should have been stamped with a skull and crossbones, for these were among the most seductive and dangerous types of mortgage.

This book of business is the core reason for Wachovia's current difficulties

The Sandlers knew their business far better than any other person could. Not only were they the founders and major owners, they famously ran the company as a husband and wife team for all these years.

So why did they happen to cash out at precisely the right time? Did they see the handwriting on the wall, realizing the massive risks inherent in the mortgages they originated throughout one of the most overheated real estate markets in the nation's history? They are not talking, but when smart people cash in some of their chips, it's rarely a good time to bet against them. Nevertheless, Wachovia bet 24 billion dollars and lost big time.

The collapse was primarily caused by the GDW purchase, which became an albatross around Wachovia's neck soon after the purchase. "Wachovia found itself in ARM's Way" was the headline of a recent Wall Street Journal article. A huge percentage of these Wachovia ARMs were made to deep subprime borrowers with very poor credit scores. Most of these were "inherited from its ill-timed acquisition of Golden West" at the end of the housing boom in 2006.

The Sandlers have started to invest their billions of dollars politically, in the manner of George Soros, sugar daddy of many far-left wing groups and an early and prominent supporter of Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Soros has developed an empire of so-called 527 groups, putatively independent political activists groups that have influence within the Democratic Party. These 527 groups include the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.Org, Human Rights Watch, Media Matters and a slew of other like-minded groups .

This set of political organizations also includes the International Crisis Group, whose foreign policy staff is likely to contain the embryonic future of the State Department in an Obama Administration . Eli Pariser, who heads MoveOn.Org, boasts about his group's role in the Democratic Party:

    "Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we are going to take it back."


They have already done so, in large measure.

The top four donors to these 527 groups in the last Presidential election cycle (2004) were Soros, Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler . Collectively they gave 78 million dollars to left-leaning 527 groups. That was just in 2004. They have become much more ambitious over the last few years.

Soros, Lewis, and the Sandlers form a core group of billionaire activists and Democrat partisans who have formed a group called The Democracy Alliance. They realized that they could magnify their power by working in unison and tapping other wealthy donors to further their agenda (the superb Boston Globe article "Follow the money" is a good primer on how money and 527 groups have come together to have a huge impact on politics in America).

The Democracy Alliance is a major avenue to help them achieve their goals. The roster of its growing membership consists of a list of billionaires and mere multi-millionaires who collectively hope to give upwards of 500 million dollars each year to further promote a left-wing agenda.  A partial roster of the Democracy Alliance  membership can be found here.

Half a billion dollars a year can purchase a great deal of influence.

The Sandlers certainly know quite a bit about leverage from their savings and loan days.

Among the beneficiaries of their largesse: Air America, ACORN (a group that has very close and long lasting ties to Barack Obama and has a long history of engaging in voter fraud. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (basically a private detective group focused on the private faults and foibles of Republicans), Media Matters, a media watchdog group that engages in harsh partisan attacks against media figures and articles it considers supportive of Republicans). The list goes on and on.

They are not merely out to elect Democrats, but to also permanently realign U.S. politics and shift our society and culture in a far-left wing direction.

One of the steps the Sandlers have taken on their own is to start ProPublica with a 10 million dollar donation, a sum which they promise to replenish annually. This is an outfit that will engage in investigative journalism and will provide its "findings" to larger media outlets for greater impact at no cost. American Thinker was among the first outlets to express wariness over ProPublica and the approach it would take given the ideology of its founding couple. Even Jane Mayer of the New Yorker described the Sandlers as hard-core partisans. Other publications shared our concern about ProPublica. Investor's Business Daily commented in an editorial:

    Could a couple of left-wing billionaires really be sincere about creating a "nonpartisan," "non-ideological" center for investigative reporting? Or is the pair just paying more to drive the media agenda further left?

    One problem: The Sandlers fund both leftist causes and the Democratic Party. In fact, they rank in the top tier of donors. In 2004 they gave MoveOn.org $2.5 million, or as much money as their philanthropic ally, George Soros.

    Along with Soros and billionaire Peter Lewis, the Sandlers fund some of the most important players of what is now known as the "progressive" left. In 2003, the three together funded about a third of the Center for American Progress think tank, which has close staff ties to Hillary Clinton.

    Now if this enterprise were called a "progressive" nonprofit, as other projects are, it wouldn't be news. But given the chairmanship of Herbert Sandler, and Steiger's claim that ProPublica will be run according to the "strictest standards of journalistic impartiality and fairness," there's reason to wonder if this isn't a new bid to drive the political agenda leftward under media disguise.

    "We will look hard at the critical functions of business and government, the two biggest centers of power, in areas ranging from product safety to securities fraud, from flaws in our system of criminal justice to practices that undermine fair elections," its Web site says.


I would be very surprised indeed if the malfeasance of ACORN will ever be investigated by Publica, for its undermining of fair elections.

Unsurprisingly, though, ProPublica has already shown that agenda-driven journalism is its founding principle. One of its first pieces of "investigative journalism" was an attack on the oil and gas industry for developing the Marcellus Shale (a vast natural gas reservoir located in northeast America). ProPublica reported that developing this domestic energy source would damage the environment and advocated that these resources not be developed.

Maybe the Sandlers are helping their political ally George Soros, a hedge fund manager who runs an offshore fund whose investors may well include some of the world's wealthiest and most anti-American petrocats. Shielded from scrutiny by offshore operations, the names of Soros's investors are a closely-guarded secret. But perhaps more than a few of them would look askance at expedited development of our own energy resources. We would be less dependent on petrodollar rich abroad, and the price of oil and gas would weaken, should domestic energy resources like the Marcellus Shale be developed.

While the Sandlers personally made 2.4 billion dollars on the 24 billion dollar sale of Golden West Financial to Wachovia,  the employees (including their own former employees) and shareholders of Wachovia, including those who have invested their retirement money and children's college funds in Wachovia stock and bonds, are not doing nearly so well. Communities where Wachovia has branches that may be closed as a cost-saving measure will also suffer. But worst hurt of all will be the homeowners who were sold mortgages that they should have never been offered, by a lender far more sophisticated than they were.

And here I thought that Democrat partisans were supposed to protect the little people.

So far as I know, the Sandlers have not offered to reinvest any of their gains into Wachovia to help it recover. It appears to be far more fun taking those ill-begotten billions and use them to fund an ever-expanding "left-wing conspiracy."

Keep an eye on the Sandlers if Barack Obama becomes President. As I wrote, they know about leverage.

Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.
 
This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail may be a major development:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081010.wgm1010/BNStory/Business/home
GM, Chrysler exploring merger: reports

The Associated Press

October 11, 2008 at 8:33 AM EDT

General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC have held preliminary talks about a merger or an acquisition of Chrysler by GM, according to published reports.

The Wall Street Journal, citing people it described as familiar with the discussions, reported that Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm that owns 80.1 per cent of Chrysler and 51 per cent of GMAC Financial Services, proposed trading Chrysler's automotive operations to GM. The Journal said Cerberus would receive GM's remaining 49 per cent stake in GMAC.

The New York Times, also citing people familiar with the talks, reported that the automakers were discussing a merger. The Times did not mention GMAC, a traditional auto lender hit hard by the housing market downturn.

The talks have stalled because of the recent turmoil in the financial markets, according to the Journal. Its sources said negotiations could resume if markets stabilize because both GM and Cerberus want to quickly divest the assets under discussion.

The negotiations between 100-year-old GM and 83-year-old Chrysler began more than a month ago, according to the Times. Its sources said the chances of a merger were “50-50” as of Friday and likely would take weeks to complete.

Both newspapers posted their stories on their web sites late Friday.

“Without referencing this specific rumour, as we've often said, GM officials routinely discuss issues of mutual interest with other automakers,” GM spokesman Tony Cervone said.

“The company is looking at a number of potential global partnerships as it explores growth opportunities around the world,” Chrysler spokeswoman Lori McTavish said. “Beyond those partnerships already announced however, Chrysler has not formed any new agreements and has no further announcements to make at this time.”

A merger would drastically reshape the ailing U.S. auto industry, reducing the Big Three of Detroit to the Big Two.

The news comes after GM lost 31 per cent of its value Thursday, in a day of market turmoil that saw the Dow Jones close below 9,000 points. GM shares have fallen to near a 60-year low on fears the global financial crisis could derail turnaround plans.

GM and Detroit's other automaker, Ford Motor Co., both ruled out seeking bankruptcy protection on Friday.

This may have a major psychological impact on America, indeed on the world. For many, many millions of people, around the world, the automobile and electricity are the marques of the ‘modern.’ The car and the auto industry are also the classic defining attributes of modern America – every school-child in China learns that Henry Ford decided that workers must be paid enough to buy a Ford motorcar. (See the rest of the story re: the $5.00/day issue here.)

The demise of one of two “big three” may save tens of thousands of jobs but it will be a blow to the American public’s morale. 

 
Considering the "Big Three" are posting quarterly losses equal to the economic output of small nations or Canadian provinces, it is surprising something like this hasn't been considered far sooner.

The only other way GM might "survive" is to cast off the overarching structure and devolve into several competing brands (Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile etc were all independent companies at one time, and "might" be able to compete as individual marques again free of the "drag" of the GM corporate bureaucracy). This would be the end of GM, but perhaps the salvation of the US auto industry.
 
The Big Three's global operations seem to be profitable.Their domestic business has stumbled due to IMO overregulation and bad union contracts. Anytime you pay laid off workers full time wages you cant survive.
 
tomahawk6 said:
The Big Three's global operations seem to be profitable.Their domestic business has stumbled due to IMO overregulation and bad union contracts. Anytime you pay laid off workers full time wages you cant survive.

- Yup.  Far better to keep the workers employed building a quality product that people want to buy offered at a competitive price.  But no, they dropped the ball on both counts and now have more former employees than current employees. Essentially, they are a health-care provider that also builds a few cars on the side.

 
tomahawk6 said:
The Big Three's global operations seem to be profitable.Their domestic business has stumbled due to IMO overregulation and bad union contracts. Anytime you pay laid off workers full time wages you cant survive.

The Auto Sector is a prime example of unions destroying their own nest.....
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s Globe and Mail web site: is an analysis of the maybe merger:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081011.wmergeranalysis1011/BNStory/Business/home
Auto merger has many pitfalls, few advantages

GREG KEENAN

Globe and Mail Update
October 11, 2008 at 11:34 AM EDT

A merger of Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp. would reshape the North American automotive landscape, but the pitfalls are many and the advantages few.

“It really kind of feels like what happened in the 1950s when the Nashes, Packards and the Hudsons combined to save themselves against the Big Three and it didn't work for any of them,” said one long-time auto industry observer.

The most pressing reason for the potential deal is the collapse of the U.S. market that has caused billions of dollars in losses at those companies and at their Detroit rival, Ford Motor Co.

The outlook is growing grimmer by the day for the three companies as buyers shun their showrooms, credit dries up and the offshore markets they relied on to generate some profits start to shrivel as well.

A merger of the no. 1 and no. 3 Detroit auto makers would at least give the new company bigger scale. That would enable the company to cut some costs in the areas of steel and other commodities, which have soared in price in recent years.

A merger could also reduce the costs of developing leading-edge technologies to meet stringent new fuel requirements.

Labour costs could be lowered by slashing tens of thousands of jobs and shutting dozens of plants in North America, but that would require severance payments that might rise into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The combined company would control about 35 per cent of the North American market and allow GM to stay ahead of Toyota Motor Corp. on top of the global auto maker rankings as measured by sales and vehicle production.

But there are two huge issues that would be difficult to unravel, even apart from finding banks to finance such a deal in the midst of the global credit meltdown.

The first is the product overlap. Both companies have relied for more than a decade on large pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles as profit centres to offset losses in their passenger car businesses. More than two-thirds of Chrysler's vehicle sales, for example, come from pickups and SUVs. That market has collapsed.

GM has also relied on similar vehicles, although it has begun improving its passenger car business and at least offers subcompact cars for sale in the United States and Canada to meet the growing demand for small cars. Chrysler has no subcompact cars.

Chrysler is almost entirely North America-focused, which means GM would gain no added heft or market share in the markets of China, Brazil, India and Russia, which are expected to dominate growth in the next decade and beyond.

The other problem GM would have to solve would be combining and slashing the vast dealership networks the two companies have in Canada and the United States.

Both companies are already in the process of doing that, but it's time-consuming and costly as GM learned when it eliminated its Oldsmobile division a few years ago at a cost of more than $1-billion (U.S.).

Solving these two problems would take four years, one industry analyst estimates.

I’d almost forgotten about the creation of American Motors in 1954 – then the biggest merger in US history – and its demise in 1987, when Chrysler bought the remnants.


 
VDH reminds us the classical values of thrift and hard work are the ones that really count in the end:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzlkMmI2M2NiZjkyN2JlYWIxMGFmYWVkNzg5NmFkNDU=

Wall Street 101
If a promised return on an investment seems too good to be true, it probably is.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Until the past few weeks, the financial panic was still mostly far away on Wall Street. But not now.

Car loans, mortgages, and college financing are suddenly harder to come by. Millions are stuck in houses not worth what is owed on them. Cash-strapped consumers are cutting back. The economy is slowing. Jobs are disappearing. Who wants to open quarterly 401(k) statements only to learn that everything they put away in retirement accounts the past two or three years is gone?

There is plenty of blame to go around. Greedy Wall Street speculators took mega-bonuses even when they knew their leveraged companies were tottering — and someone else would pick up the tab. Crooked or stupid politicians allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to squander billions, as they raked in campaign donations and crowed about their politically correct support for millions of shaky — and now mostly defaulting — buyers.

The new national gospel became charge now/pay later and speculate, rather than put something away in case of a downturn. To provide more goodies that we hadn’t earned, politicians ignored soaring annual budget deficits and staggering national debt and kept spending.

But amid the gloom, there are some valuable lessons that we can take away from the Wall-Street panic.

First, cash really is king. For all the talk of a trillion here or billions there, when the crunch came, many of these investment houses and their once-strutting managers found themselves with a minus net worth. They were desperate to find liquidity — any money anywhere they could find it. Pedestrian passbook savings accounts proved wiser investments than all the clever hedge funds, derivatives, and sub-prime schemes put together.

Second, wisdom and blue-chip college educations are not quite the same thing. The fools in Washington and New York who blew up Wall Street had degrees from our finest professional schools.

The most chilling example, at the very beginning of this ongoing mess, came in 2003 during the House Financial Services Committee’s hearing on Fannie and Freddie. At one point, Harvard Law School graduate Rep. Barney Frank, (D., Mass.), asked Fannie Mae CEO and fellow Harvard Law School graduate Franklin Raines — who took millions in bonuses even as he helped bankrupt the once-hallowed institution — whether he felt the mortgage giant had been “under-regulated.” Raines answered him under oath, “No, sir.” Then overseer Frank announced, “OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here.”

If these guys are our best and brightest, then it is about time we rethink what constitutes wisdom, since an Ivy League law degree certainly seemed no proof of either intelligence or ethics.

Third, we as a nation need to relearn the old notion of shame — as in “shame on you!” Firms like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were once responsible Wall Street institutions, built up over decades by sober men. But their far-lesser successors in just a few months have bankrupted these venerable brokerage houses — with seemingly no shame at what they have done to the image of Wall Street.

Americans used to pay their debts. Somewhere in all the blame-gaming about the crooks and liars in New York and Washington, we never hear that real people borrowed real money that they should not have. And they then defaulted on what they owed to others. Walking away from debts may have been understandable, but it was also a violation of trust — and wrong.

Finally, what one makes is no proof of his worth. Almost every head of a Wall Street firm took tens of millions of dollars in bonuses these past few years, as they posted phony profits by borrowing ever more with ever fewer assets. But if financing facilitates the American economy, we should remember that less exotic and remunerative construction — such as farming, manufacturing, and mining — is what really powers America.

Recently, Americans built a new bridge across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis to replace the older one on I-35 that collapsed last year. It was finished three months ahead of schedule, and the industrious construction team that worked 24/7 to make thousands of commuters safer is now eligible for up to $27 million in well-earned incentives. Meanwhile, Franklin Raines at Fannie Mae made nearly twice that sum in bonuses — leaving behind nothing much at all other than billions in other peoples’ debts.

How odd that all those boring lessons from our grandparents turn out to be true in the globalized, hip 21st century: Save your money. Don’t borrow what you can’t pay back. Look first at a man’s character, not his degrees. And if a promised return on an investment seems too good to be true, it probably is.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal and the 2008 Bradley Prize.

© 2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
 
Thucydides said:
Considering the "Big Three" are posting quarterly losses equal to the economic output of small nations or Canadian provinces, it is surprising something like this hasn't been considered far sooner.

The only other way GM might "survive" is to cast off the overarching structure and devolve into several competing brands (Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile etc were all independent companies at one time, and "might" be able to compete as individual marques again free of the "drag" of the GM corporate bureaucracy). This would be the end of GM, but perhaps the salvation of the US auto industry.


For more on the rumoured Chrysler/GM merger and its possible effects on Canada see here.
 
As it becomes ever more clear that legislative mischeif was the primary cause and driver behind the current financial crisis, we should be very wary of legislative "solutions" to the crisis. Unfortunatly people and some paniced legislators can cause a great deal of damage by the pressue to "do something". On the other hand, since the crisis was entirely forseeable, you have to wonder how much encouragement was being given by politicians to promote other agendas?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjY3Y2VmNTZkYjhhYzdjYzNmZTMyN2M0ZDJmZDEyYjA=

Obama’s Cover-Up
The truth about deregulation.

By Peter Ferrara

Barack Obama never misses a chance these days to allege that the financial crisis is due to the right-wing philosophy of deregulation, “a philosophy that views even the most common-sense regulations as unwise and unnecessary.” The charge is echoed by fellow Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

They’re often unclear on specifics, and for a good reason: Not all deregulation hurts, and not all regulation helps. Republicans and Democrats alike supported a 1999 deregulation that has actually made this crisis easier to handle, for example. Also, Republicans have supported regulations that could have helped avert this problem, while the regulations Democrats enacted worsened it.

The aforementioned 1999 legislation, pushed through Congress by then-Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm, repealed the 65-year-old Glass-Steagall Act. In late September, Obama was blasting Gramm as “the architect in the United States Senate of the deregulatory steps that helped cause this mess.” Glass-Steagall had mandated separation of commercial banking, based on deposits, from investment banking, based on issuing and trading securities such as stocks and bonds. The financial community had long ago eaten gaping loopholes in this Swiss-cheese regulation, attempting to compete with the universal banks of Europe, which had never suffered such confused rules.

This long-overdue deregulation played no role in the current crisis. Bill Clinton, who signed the legislation, and his treasury secretary, who told him to do so, Obama adviser Robert Rubin, have both said as much. The bill passed the Senate 90-8, with the votes of Obama supporters Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and Tom Daschle.

Indeed, exactly contrary to Obama’s claims, the repeal of Glass-Steagall has helped to counter the current crisis. It allowed Bank of America to buy out Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan Chase to buy out Bear Stearns, and Barclays Bank to work on buying up the remains of Lehman Brothers. It allowed investment banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to take up refuge as bank holding companies. If investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers had diversified more into commercial banking, taking commercial deposits — as the Act’s repeal made possible — that might have provided them with the superior capital cushions needed to survive.

More recently, Obama has attacked McCain on deregulation by saying, “Senator McCain wrote that we need to open up health care to ‘more vigorous nationwide competition as we have done over the last decade in banking.’ That’s right, he wants to deregulate the insurance industry just like he fought to deregulate the banking industry. And we’ve all seen how well that worked out.” Obama is talking here about the deregulation to allow interstate banking, which McCain referenced in proposing interstate sales of health insurance. But the analogy actually supports McCain’s position: Interstate banking has been an unqualified success, strengthening banks and providing more competition and services for consumers. It has not contributed to the financial crisis as Obama implied.

The least regulated of our financial institutions, hedge funds, have fared the best in the current crisis.

REPUBLICAN REGULATION

As far back as April 2001, the Bush administration warned that the size of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was “a potential problem” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.” By September 2003, the administration was proposing “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But Democrats almost uniformly opposed such regulation in the name of “affordable housing.”
Barney Frank, ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said in October 2003, “these two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

At a House hearing in 2003, Republicans sought to expand supervision and regulatory controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal regulators testified that their reckless financial practices threatened the entire system. The Republicans called for a new regulatory authority to impose standard bank regulation on them.

Barney Frank led the counterattack, saying, “I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists,” and “I think we see entities [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that are fundamentally sound financially.” Frank added, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.” That is what we did.

Democrat Maxine Waters said:

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Franklin Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their policy goals.

Franklin Raines was the former Clinton budget director who went on to serve as president of Fannie Mae. He expert-testified that the mortgage-related securities of Fannie and Freddie were “riskless.”

In the Raines era, government-backed Fannie and Freddie came to be plagued with outright corruption. He criminally led Fannie to falsify its books so that he would qualify for excessive bonuses and compensation eventually totaling $90 million. Fannie and Freddie sought to protect their ongoing racket by hefty political contributions to key political angels. (The top recipient of such contributions has been Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd. The second highest recipient has been Barack Obama.)

In 2004, the Bush administration renewed its proposal for a strengthened regulator. But Barney Frank accused the president of creating an “artificial issue,” saying “people tend to pay their mortgages. I don’t think we are in any remote danger here.”

By 2005, John McCain, supported by the Bush administration, was one of three co-sponsors of legislation to impose such regulatory supervision and controls over Fannie and Freddie. But the Democrats shouted these proposals down.


So it was the Republicans who tried time and again to extend oversight, supervision, and regulation over the government’s own runaway GSEs. And it was the Democrats who stopped them because such regulation threatened their policy of turning Fannie and Freddie into welfare programs, to serve their goal of “affordable housing.”

DEMOCRAT REGULATION

While the Republicans failed to enact regulation to tame the GSEs’ practices, the Democrats succeeded in using government to actually encourage bad lending. As Stan Liebowitz, Professor of Economics at the University of Texas, wrote recently in the New York Post, “Pushed hard by politicians and community activists, the regulators systematically and deliberately altered financially sound lending practices.”

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), adopted during the Carter administration but greatly expanded in the Clinton years. Under the CRA, the government evaluates federally insured banking institutions based mainly on how well they serve low- and moderate-income borrowers. CRA evaluations are taken into account when the government decides whether to allow mergers and acquisitions.

A key turning point came in 1989, when liberal Democrats won amendment of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act to require banks to compile public records of mortgage lending by race, gender, and income. This data was eventually used to argue that racist banks were hiding behind traditional lending standards to discriminate against minorities and the poor. This assault eventually broke down such traditional requirements as down payments, good credit histories, proven income, mortgage payments limited to 28 percent of income, etc.

Central to this process were Barack Obama’s friends at ACORN, who used provisions of the CRA in the early 1990s to block mergers and expansions based on allegedly racist lending practices. Financial institutions were forced to agree to ACORN demands for relaxed lending standards, as well as cash buyoffs, to get these approvals.

ACORN went national in the early 1990s, lobbying congressional Democrats to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to relax their standards for buying up and securitizing mortgages. The big breakthrough came in the Clinton administration, which adopted quotas for half of Fannie and Freddie financing to go to low- and moderate-income buyers, and even allowed the left-wing extremists at ACORN to rewrite the loan guidelines for these institutions.

Thus, the sub-prime mortgage market was born. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spread severe, unrecognized sub-prime mortgage risk throughout the financial world in the form of securities. With an implicit government guarantee, Fannie and Freddie were able to borrow huge amounts to fuel this explosion in lending, and to pump up the housing bubble overall to ever more extremes.


Here’s ACORN’s pitch to prospective low-income mortgage applicants at the time: “You’ve got only a couple of thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.”

Of course, for several years from the mid-1990s on, Barack Obama was busily shuffling money to ACORN, working with Bill Ayers as a director of Chicago’s Woods Fund.

By 2005, as Alan Greenspan was warning that if Fannie and Freddie “continue to grow, continue to have the low capital they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road. . . . We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

Recently on the campaign trail, Obama said of John McCain, “[H]e’s fought against the very rules of the road that could have stopped this mess.”

This is the Deregulation Big Lie, meant to mislead and misdirect the public in covering up the role of Obama himself, and other liberal Democrats, in creating the current financial crisis.

— Peter Ferrara serves as director of entitlement and budget policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation, and general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union.


 
Thucydides,

As much as all of this is true, it just doesn't matter.

Kim Campbell and Goebbels had it right.  Elections are no time to discuss policy and the bigger the lie the easier it is to make it the truth.

There is a very small percentage of the population that is swayed by argument during an election.  It seems that an ever increasing proportion of westerners that might be amenable to rational discussion, are feeling like the middle balls in those chains of swinging balls (you know the ones, battered from left and right but never going any place) and have decided " a pox on all your houses".  They just don't care any more.

I was interested to read your Galtian Strike submission.

In point of fact that is what will happen if Obama and the Dems ever institute the policies  they promise.  And there won't have to be any organizer to make it happen.  It is what happened in France.  It happened in Pre-Maggie Britain.  It happened in Denmark. 

In Denmark you were taxed something like 110% of your overtime income.  Consequently nobody worked overtime.  Productivity was no great shakes.

Raise taxes?  Swedes went to Britain.  Brits went to the US or Switzerland.  French went to Monaco or Luxembourg.  All of them went to the Bahamas or the Turks and Caicos.  No Problem.

1945 to 1975 - 30 years for the Brits to figure out the problem
1932 to 1980 - 48 years for the Yanks
1930s to ca2000 - 70 years for the Scandinavians
1789 to 2008 and still counting for the French

Time for the two generation pendulum to swing again so that we can all relearn what our grandparents learnt.
 
Wall Street banks in $70bn staff payoutPay and bonus deals equivalent to 10% of US government bail-out
Simon Bowers The Guardian, Saturday October 18 2008
Article Link

Financial workers at Wall Street's top banks are to receive pay deals worth more than $70bn (£40bn), a substantial proportion of which is expected to be paid in discretionary bonuses, for their work so far this year - despite plunging the global financial system into its worst crisis since the 1929 stock market crash, the Guardian has learned.

Staff at six banks including Goldman Sachs and Citigroup are in line to pick up the payouts despite being the beneficiaries of a $700bn bail-out from the US government that has already prompted criticism. The government's cash has been poured in on the condition that excessive executive pay would be curbed.

Pay plans for bankers have been disclosed in recent corporate statements. Pressure on the US firms to review preparations for annual bonuses increased yesterday when Germany's Deutsche Bank said many of its leading traders would join Josef Ackermann, its chief executive, in waiving millions of euros in annual payouts.

The sums that continue to be spent by Wall Street firms on payroll, payoffs and, most controversially, bonuses appear to bear no relation to the losses incurred by investors in the banks. Shares in Citigroup and Goldman Sachs have declined by more than 45% since the start of the year. Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley have fallen by more than 60%. JP MorganChase fell 6.4% and Lehman Brothers has collapsed.

At one point last week the Morgan Stanley $10.7bn pay pot for the year to date was greater than the entire stock market value of the business. In effect, staff, on receiving their remuneration, could club together and buy the bank.

In the first nine months of the year Citigroup, which employs thousands of staff in the UK, accrued $25.9bn for salaries and bonuses, an increase on the previous year of 4%. Earlier this week the bank accepted a $25bn investment by the US government as part of its bail-out plan.

At Goldman Sachs the figure was $11.4bn, Morgan Stanley $10.73bn, JP Morgan $6.53bn and Merrill Lynch $11.7bn. At Merrill, which was on the point of going bust last month before being taken over by Bank of America, the total accrued in the last quarter grew 76% to $3.49bn. At Morgan Stanley, the amount put aside for staff compensation also grew in the last quarter to the end of August by 3% to $3.7bn.
More on link
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is more grim news:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081024.wusmarkets1024/BNStory/Business/home
Wall St. futures frozen after plunge

LEAH SCHNURR

Reuters
October 24, 2008 at 8:28 AM EDT

NEW YORK — U.S. stock index futures tumbled so sharply on Friday they had to be frozen at several points as global markets tumbled on signs the global economy is in the throes of recession.

Stock markets were in freefall around the world as panicked investors moved to liquidate risky positions. Japan's Nikkei index ended down 9.6 per cent and European shares lost 8 per cent.

By 7:00 a.m. in New York (1100 GMT) December Dow Jones futures were down 6.3 per cent, Standard & Poor's 500 futures were off 6.6 per cent and Nasdaq 100 futures were down 6.8 per cent.

All three contracts lost the maximum amount permissible before the start of futures trading in the United States.


Both the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq said trading would open as normal at 9:30 a.m. (1330 GMT).

“The markets are basically following grim news that's coming out of the global economy ... It's basically feeding on itself,” said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at Avalon Partners in New York.

“It's just a question of right now the markets are in the process of discounting a global recession and how severe it's going to be.”

According to Reuters data, December S&P futures hit a low of 855.20, while Dow Jones futures touched a low of 8,224 – the lowest levels at which both contracts could trade in a session. The Nasdaq fell to 1,168.50.

Jeremy Hughes, a spokesman for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in London, said both contracts were “limit down.”

“The limit is calculated at roughly 5 per cent down. At that point it can't go any further down but it is still accessible and can go up again,” he said.

“When the U.S. futures open in Chicago (at 9.30 EST), the contract becomes available again, so (it could go) further down another 5 per cent down, so 10 per cent in total,” he added.

Financial shares were poised to see deep losses, with bank shares tumbling 6.1 per cent before the bell.

Meanwhile, the prices of U.S. government bonds rose to fresh session highs. Benchmark 10-year Treasury notes' price jumped 1-20/32 to 104-5/32. The yield which moves inversely to price was 3.49 per cent, down 20 basis points from late Thursday.

A slew of profit warnings from major Asian companies slammed Tokyo's Nikkei during its Friday session, while European equities fell by almost 10 per cent at one point to hit their lowest since May 2003.

The MSCI global equities index lost 4.5 per cent.

“There will be more margin calls today and something sinister is brewing,” said City Index chief market strategist Tom Hougaard in London.

Global stock markets plunged to their lowest in five years and major currency rates gyrated wildly on intense concern about a worldwide recession, corporate damage and fragile emerging markets.

The U.S. dollar and yen – considered among the safer currencies – surged to multi-year highs against European currencies such as the euro and sterling as investors repatriated investments in search of shelter and speculation of global interest rate cuts weakened those currencies with the highest rates now.

Japan's huge external surpluses and already rock bottom interest rates saw the yen outperform, with the dollar/yen exchange rate losing more than six per cent at one point to a 13-year low of 90.95 yen.

The disorderly nature of the moves, which catapulted one-month dollar/yen implied volatility up to 20 percentage points higher at one point on Friday to as high as 45 per cent, fuelled speculation about Group of Seven central bank intervention to stabilize markets.

“The scale of the recent currency moves will most likely rekindle intervention talks,” said Audrey Childe-Freeman, currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman. “The question here is: have recent moves been excessive? The answer is yes.”

MSCI's all-country world index was down 3.8 per cent at five-year lows and its emerging market benchmark down almost 7 per cent.

The emerging market stock index has now lost more than 15 per cent this week and has wiped out all its massive gains from the last four years.

“Equities have crashed. There is a fear the credit crunch has swung from banks to sovereign nations and there is a belief there is only a matter of time before countries start going bust and defaulting on debt,” said Jim Wood-Smith, head of research at Williams de Broe.

“There is a flight to the two perceived safe currencies to the dollar and the yen. There is a state of general panic. We are in a self feeding bear market with all news deemed to be bad news,” added Mr. Wood-Smith.

Although interbank lending rates remained steady on Friday, the stress in the wider credit market intensified.

The investment grade Markit iTraxx Europe index, which measures debt default risks, clocked its biggest one-day rise ever of almost 20 per cent to new records.

The financial crisis has now spread far beyond the banking sector, with electronics maker Sony Corp. and U.S. online retailer Amazon.com Inc. cutting their forecasts in the face of weakening consumer demand.

South Korea led the decline on Friday with shares falling 11 per cent, leading to a brokerage industry group asking its members to stop selling shares to save the country from more losses.

In Europe, the FTSEurofirst 300 index was down 7.2 per cent having earlier hit its lowest level since mid-2003.

“All of the major developed economies are either in recession or slipping into recession currently and the growth rates in emerging economies are slowing very significantly as well,” said Darren Winder, strategist at Cazenove in London.

“People are finding it very hard at the moment to get any confidence about what the forces for recovery can be.”

The dollar hit two year highs versus a basket of currencies and the euro, and sterling hit a six-year low, reflecting heavy dollar repatriation.

The euro was down 3 per cent at $1.2595. Sterling lost 4.5 per cent to $1.5580.

“Its extreme risk aversion and deleveraging of risky assets ... and we are seeing safe-haven flows into dollar and yen,” said Lee Hardman, currency economist at BTM-UFJ.

Oil slid another $3 a barrel on Friday as gloom about a global economic downturn that is sapping fuel demand took the steam out of an OPEC agreement to cut output.

Ministers of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed at an emergency meeting in Vienna to take 1.5 million barrels a day of crude, about 5 per cent of its supply, off the world market.

But traders said OPEC's action might not be enough to halt a slide that has seen oil drop from a record $147 a barrel in July.

“Already we've seen demand destruction of 2 million barrels per day. I'm not convinced this cut will be enough to stop the slide.” said Rob Laughlin, at broker MF Global. Euro zone government bond prices leapt higher. Two-year bond yields were 16 basis points lower at 2.606 per cent and 10-year yields lost 9 basis points to 3.698 per cent.


A couple of words, especially for those prone to fear and, worse, panic:

• Traders are not investors. Some investors - many, many investors, actually - are, finally, in panic mode and they are proving Stephen Harper right: this is a good time to buy. But the real investors are sitting pat (and unhappy) while the traders move the markets; and

• The underlying ‘real economy’ – resources, agriculture, manufacturing, technology, finances, services and so on – is still there, there is still (albeit reduced) demand for everything in the ‘real economy’ and the law of supply and demand remains immutable, notwithstanding anything Jack Layton et al might say. Demand will increase as soon as the current oversupply is reduced, as it will be. When demand increases prices go up production lines are reopened, jobs are created, demand rises again and so on – until the next ‘bust.’

Bubbles and busts appears to have adopted something like a ten year cycle. Buy now and be ready to sell out, quickly, in 2017/18.  ;D

 
Excess supply is not causing the drop in commodity prices despite the prospect of a global recession reducing demand.

On the commodities side there are current low inventories for such things as base metals (copper, lead, zinc, nickel) and agriculturals  (corn, grains, soybeans).  The current low pricing is causing supply to cut back further as mining operations are approaching or beyond their cost of production.  Expansion and development projects are being shelved and the industry is hunkering down, hoarding their cash, and trying to keep costs low to ride out the storm. 

Unprecedented times where the current supply/demand levels should be keeping prices higher but the reported forced selling of "paper" long positions by hedge funds and piggybacked by speculators is driving prices below cost of production.  This should be a short term deleveraging effect and either corrects in the short term with a rapid spike in commodity prices to sustainable levels or the reduced supply will lead to widespread shortages.  Eventually the prices will have to make their way back up to bring more production online to keep up with demand and reach an equilibrium.  Who knows whether the prices have bottomed yet. 

A good indicator of commodity price bottoming will be when the U.S. dollar reverses its parabolic rise.  The big player commercial traders are reported to have huge short positions on the US dollar now expecting a dramatic fall anyday.  Gold, oil, commodities, Canadian dollar and TSX would rally hard from their oversold lows if/when that were to happen.  Maybe the Price Protection Team can keep the US dollar together until after the presidential election.  Interesting times.
 
This is exactly why the average person (in my opinion) is against the "bailout". No accountability, no change of ways - just wallow up to the trough. When small businesses "make mistakes", they go under.

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2008/10/31/20081031aigwoes-CR.html

AIG plans conference despite financial woes

1Oct. 31, 2008 10:24 PM
12 News

AIG plans to spend thousands of dollars at a Valley resort for a training conference next week, just days after the insurance giant asked the federal government for more taxpayer bailout money.

The Investment Advisory Services / Asset Management Conference is scheduled for two days at the Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak Resort.

About 175 AIG financial advisors and at least eight corporate executives are expected to attend the conference, according to documents obtained by 12 News.

Hotel event order paperwork shows guests will stay in $189-per-night suites, get their pictures taken with NFL legend Terry Bradshaw after a motivational speech and eat $70 chicken and shrimp dinners.

Taxpayers question the company's decision to spend money at the resort while accepting massive government loans.

"Wow, I didn't know broke people could throw nice parties like that." said Terry Turner, a phoenix office worker. "With their money or mine?"

Across the street from an AIG financial services officer, Betty Dale said, "I'm not happy about it taking our tax dollars and spending it on resorts, that's not a good idea."

AIG spokesman Joe Norton said the advisors pay out of pocket for some conference expenses, but he said he didn't know what AIG's share is for the event. By adding prices on hotel order forms, the conference and lodging appears to cost more than $200 thousand dollars.

Norton emphasized the two day conference will include classes and speakers focused on sales training. He says AIG executives recently reviewed the expense and decided it was necessary to keep the business going.

Still taxpayers who are paying for the federal loans are skeptical. Terri Tilling said, "Sounds a little bit still like a boondoggle. but if there's some educational element to it and they are not bringing spouses and families and it's pure business, then perhaps it's acceptable."

Dale questioned why the troubled company didn't move the conference to a more budget-conscious place. "They have a really nice building on central avenue why can't they do it there?" she said.

AIG was criticized for a lavish executive retreat in September in the middle of the the original $85 billion bailout loan.
 
Forecasting the state of the US economy under an Obama administration. Short version: the last time (like every time before) these policies were applied, the economy headed towards the tank. History is a useful tool; too bad most people don't choose to learn from it:

http://tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010209A

Which Clinton Economy Does Obama Admire?
By Rafael Resendes : BIO| 31 Oct 2008
 
During his acceptance speech, Barrack Obama eloquently voiced the need for America to return to the successful economic policies of the Clinton Presidency when the nation prospered, and people came before Wall Street.  But which term was he referring to?

Big Government and Tax the Rich

During his speech, Obama referred to raising the tax rate on the highest earners, increasing the capital gain tax rate, radically revising the health care system, and aggressively pursuing spending on infrastructure projects.

When Clinton entered office, he also proposed raising taxes on the highest earning Americans, expanding spending on the nation's infrastructure, and redefining the nation's health care system. There is no doubt that Senator Obama seeks to follow the Clinton's economic blueprint. Unfortunately, those are a set of collective failed policies that he seems to idealize. Using a benchmark that Senator Obama often holds out to evaluate economic success, President Clinton's first term was clearly a failure compared to that of President H.W. Bush who preceded him. Unemployment during Clinton's first four years in office averaged 6.5% compared to 6.3% under the first Bush. The economic track record of Clinton's first term is particularly distressing, as Clinton entered office on the tail wind of an economic recovery, yet he still fell short of Bush's economic record. Collectively, Obama's policies to raise taxes on income and capital gains, combined with massive spending related to expand welfare payments and health care reform has an empirical track record, and it is called failure.

Smaller Government and Lower Capital Gains Taxes

Ironically, Clinton's economic success came as the Republicans regained control of Congress and set the country in a new economic direction with promises to cut capital gains taxes. However, this period of success and new direction are the very policies that Obama consistently vilifies, and seeks to undo. During this period, Clinton created the economy that led Alan Greenspan to remark how Clinton was the best "'Republican' president in a long time." The defining economic policy driver of Clinton's second term was aggressively cutting the capital gains tax, which the market began to anticipate in 1996. Though Clinton was politically forced to alter his policies to a new political reality due to the sweeping success of House Republicans and their Contract With America in 1994, Clinton's reputation will forever reap the benefits.

The Contract With America sought to reduce capital gains taxes by 50 percent. Ultimately, with the final version of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, capital gains tax rates dropped approximately 30% for the highest earning Americans. Also in late 1996, Clinton and Congressional Republicans agreed to welfare reform that further reduced the role of the federal government in everyday life. The result of lower taxes, and a smaller federal government under President Clinton was nothing short of miraculous. During Clinton's second term, unemployment fell about 30%, and averaged 4.5%.

An alternative evaluation of the Clinton years is revealed through the stock market. While Clinton was clearly enacting the policies he advocated during his first campaign, the stock market returned 5% a year, well below its historic 9% annual rate. However, as it became clear that President Clinton would work with Republicans on the items covered by the Contract With America, the market became much more favorably disposed, returning 20% annually during the last six years of his Presidency. Ironically, Senator Obama's policies are diametrically opposed to the ideas that produced the Clinton economy he so warmly embraces.

Expanding the Welfare State as an Economic Plan

In a very sneaky manner, Senator Obama has seemingly embraced Republican rhetoric, by claiming that his economic plan is built around reducing taxes for 95% of Americans. Sadly, Senator Obama seemed to only learn fuzzy math from the education system he refuses to fundamentally reform. After all, how can 95% of the population receive income tax reductions, when approximately only 41%, or 100 million individuals, of the taxable population pay no federal income taxes? This makes no sense. While it is of course physically and/or logically impossible to cut income taxes for those that do not pay them, Senator Obama works around this by providing refundable tax credits of $500 to individuals and $1000 to families that pay no taxes. This in essence creates $750 Billion a year of new welfare spending. Again the irony is President Clinton worked very hard to reduce and eliminate welfare, while Senator Obama makes it a fringe benefit for voting for him.

What is particularly disingenuous about this plan, is that unlike the logic of past tax cuts, which provided incentives for individual to work and earn more, and thus consistently resulted in higher revenue for the Treasury, this approach actually provides individuals incentives to work less. Obama currently couches his vision of expanding welfare under a fairness argument. He argues that only those earning more than $250,000 year will incur higher taxes.

Unfortunately the number of earners making $250,000 or more a year is very small relative to the number of people they must support under this plan. In 2005, out of 104 million filed tax returns, approximately 3 million had incomes exceeding $250,000. In other words, Obama looks for each person in this income bracket to pay an annual welfare payment of $500 a year to 30 individuals, for an average burden of $15,000 per tax paying citizen. While Obama has currently stated this expense should only be the burden of those earning more than $250,00 a year, the sad truth is that it will be too easy and tempting to reach to lower income levels to and promise more and more benefits to those not paying taxes to keep getting their votes. History has consistently shown one thing, when the government begins giving money away to get votes, it tends to have very little restraint on its appetite to give even more away later for more votes. This eventually means tapping more and more citizens to feed the machine.

Rafael Resendes is the Co-Founder of The Applied Finance Group (AFG), and Managing Director of Toreador Research and Trading.  He is also co-author of  AFG's Monthly Market Review, a free monthly market newsletter available at: www.monthlymarketreview.com.
 
VDH on the root causes of the financial crisis. You can extrapolate what actions will end the crisis and what actions will not. Ontario's running a deficit is a "not" action, we will have to watch and shoot to how the Congress and Administration will act:



It’s the Debt, Stupid
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

Who caused the American financial panic and the wild swings in our financial system — and what are we going to do about it in the long term after the markets settle down?

Republicans point to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Politically wired executives at Fannie and Freddie cooked the books. They received mega-bonuses and took cover through campaign gifts to their Democratic supporters in Congress. Then almost everyone involved justified their scams by claiming that, as good liberals, they only wanted to help the poor buy homes.

Democrats counter that Republicans always pushed for more deregulation and, as good conservatives, kept quiet about multimillion-dollar CEO bonuses paid out from shaky Wall Street firms and passed off as good for business — rather than symptoms of suicidal greed.

Those in the present Bush administration blame the Clintonites for seeding the disaster; those in the last administration blame the present one for harvesting it.

Long ago, John McCain warned about the antics of Freddie and Fannie, and later charged that Barack Obama and some of his advisers received too much money from these agencies for looking the other way. Obama has countered that McCain was a reckless deregulator and that some on his staff were lobbyists for Wall Street firms.

The blame game goes on and on. But so far no one seems willing to tell the American people the truth: It is not just "they," but we, the people, who have recklessly borrowed to spend what we haven't yet earned.

Take energy. In recent years, we've borrowed trillions of dollars overseas to buy oil from foreign producers. Wind and solar may sound like neat and easy solutions. But for decades to come, Americans must drill more oil and natural gas of our own for transportation and heating; we must build more coal and nuclear power plants to power the electric grid; and we must conserve. Otherwise, we'll go broke before clean alternate fuels become accessible and affordable.

Our energy challenges do not just concern independence, natural security and global warming. They involve basic financial solvency as well. Yet so far, none of our public officials have warned us that the energy crisis is largely a money matter: We're borrowing too much to buy what we won't or can't produce at home.

Second, as a nation of debtors, we are renting money from Asia to buy its exports with our credit cards. Given our talents and natural wealth, we could easily consume more than others in the world and still balance the books. But Americans cannot charge all that we desire on unlimited credit. Surely one of our presidential candidates can warn the American people to save a little more, use our credit cards a little less and pay off what we already owe.

Third, the government can only hand out more entitlements by borrowing even more to pay for them. Raising taxes on anyone in a recession is insane. But even crazier is cutting them further at a time of skyrocketing national debt without commensurate reductions in spending.

So who will tell the people that we can't raise — or reduce — taxes and that we can't borrow for any more new programs until we first cut expenses and begin paying off the trillions we've already borrowed?

In a hugely productive economy that creates each year some $13 trillion of goods and services, the government has the resources to make real headway in paying down our $10 trillion national debt in relatively short order — if we have leaders brave enough to quit promising to spend a few more hundred billion here and there that we simply don't have.

Fourth, will some candidate explain to the wheeler-dealer public that most real estate is not going to double or triple in value every few years? Instead, houses should once again be seen as homes to live in, rather than investments to get rich from.

If 70 percent of the American people scrimp to buy a home, we can't endanger their financial solvency by waiving the rules for others, who can't or won't pay the mortgage debts they freely incurred. It's time to tell the public that you must budget to buy a house, see it as a place to raise a family and pay the mortgage you took on. And if that's not possible, then keep renting.

The problems on Wall Street, our energy woes, the election-year fight over taxes versus more programs, and the housing crash have one common denominator: massive debt. They are simply the collective reflections of our own spendthrift habits of buying things with borrowed money that we now either can't or don't want to pay back.

In this year's presidential race, the honest candidate who stops promising endless bailouts and has the guts to lead us out of debt could well end up winning.

©2008 Tribune Media Services
 
   
 
The markets reacted to the victory:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022010.php

It's A Bit Late...
November 5, 2008 Posted by John at 8:41 PM

...for investors to notice that pretty much everything Barack Obama wants to do will hurt the economy. Today, the stock market plummeted around five percent on Obama's election. At least, that's how it was being reported this morning as the collapse occurred. Later in the day, accounts softened to downplay Obama's election as a cause of the market slide.

Actually, I think--more important, my broker thinks--that the prospect of an Obama administration is one factor that has contributed to the sharp decline of the stock market in recent months. Obama wants to increase taxes on capital gains and dividends, which will instantly reduce the value of every company in America and drive more jobs overseas. And that's before we even get to "windfall" profits, increased regulation, empowerment of union thugs, higher tariffs and reduced trade, and so on.

Barack Obama is a rather mysterious figure: despite the fact that every policy he advocates will hurt the economy and the stock market, he has been the darling of Wall Street. Employees of securities firms have been among the biggest contributors to his campaign. I'm not sure how to explain that, and I don't really think that today's steep drop represents a case of buyer's remorse. That will come, I think, but not for a while.

 
Back
Top