Robert Reich « TheCenterLane.com

Wisconsin Bogeymen Could Save Democrats From Themselves

April 7th, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Apr, 07 2011

Comments Off

Until this week, it was beginning to appear as though November 6, 2012 would be the day when Barack Obama and the entire Democratic Party would fall victim to their incurable case of The Smug. I discussed this syndrome back on December 2:

The Democratic Party is suffering from a case of terminal smugness. Democrats ignored the warning back in 2006, when the South Park television series ran the episode, “Smug Alert”.

* * *

In the 2008 Democratic Primary elections, voters chose “change” rather than another Clinton administration. Nevertheless, what the voters got was another Clinton administration. After establishing an economic advisory team consisting of retreads from the Clinton White House, President Obama has persisted in approaching the 2010 economy as though it were the 1996 economy. Obama’s creation of a bipartisan deficit commission has been widely criticized as an inept fallback to the obsolete Bill Clinton playbook. Robert Reich, Labor Secretary for the original Clinton administration recently upbraided President Obama for this wrongheaded approach:

Bill Clinton had a rapidly expanding economy to fall back on, so his appeasement of Republicans didn’t legitimize the Republican world view. Obama doesn’t have that luxury. The American public is still hurting and they want to know why.

More recently, Robert Scheer lamented how President Obama’s economic team of recycled Clinton advisors shared the blame with Republicans in helping bring about the financial crisis and the ever-worsening income inequality between the “haves” and the “have nots”. Mr. Scheer reminded us that the Democrats who promised “change” have been no less corrupted by lobbyists than their Republican counterparts:

The lobbyists are deliberately bipartisan in their bribery, and the authors of our demise are equally marked as Democrats and Republicans. Ronald Reagan first effectively sang the siren song of ending government’s role in corporate crime prevention, but it was Democrat Bill Clinton who accomplished much of that goal. It is the enduring conceit of the top Democratic leaders that they are valiantly holding back the forces of evil when they actually have continuously been complicit.

* * *

Thanks to President Clinton’s deregulation and the save-the-rich policies of George W. Bush, the situation deteriorated further from 2002 to 2006, a period in which the top 1 percent increased its income 11 percent annually while the rest of Americans had a truly paltry gain of 1 percent per year.

And that was before the meltdown that wiped out the jobs and home values of so many tens of millions of American families.

Thanks to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, the Democrats now have two bogeymen, who can personify the “reverse Robin Hood” crusade of the modern Republican Party. E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post recently placed the burden on centrists to prevent the draconian budget proposal introduced by Representative Ryan, from finding its way to the President’s desk (probably because it would be signed if it got there):

Ryan’s truly outrageous proposal, built on heaping sacrifice onto the poor, slashing scholarship aid to college students and bestowing benefits on the rich, ought to force middle-of-the-roaders to take sides. No one who is even remotely moderate can possibly support what Ryan has in mind.

Mr. Dionne then focused his attack more directly on two “middle-of-the-road” political figures:

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of the deficit commission and the heroes of the budget-cutting center, put out a statement saying some nice things about the idea of the Ryan budget. They called it “serious, honest, straightforward,” even though there is much about its accounting that is none of those.

What Mr. Dionne conveniently ignores is that it was President Obama who appointed Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson as co-chairs of the deficit commission. Those guys were never my heroes. Last December, when I criticized Obama’s elevation of Alan Simpson and a Clinton retread to leadership of his own deficit commission, I incorporated some pointed observations by Cullen Roche of Pragmatic Capitalism. The platitudinous insistence by Erskine Bowles (Clinton’s former Chief of Staff) that it’s time for an “adult conversation about the dangers of this debt” drew this blistering retort from Cullen Roche:

Yes. America has a debt problem. We have a very serious household, municipality and state debt crisis that is in many ways similar to what is going on in Europe. What we absolutely don’t have is a federal government debt problem. After all, a nation with monopoly supply of currency in a floating exchange rate system never really has “debt” unless that debt is denominated in a foreign currency. He says this conversation is the:

“exact same conversation every family, every single business, every single state and every single municipality has been having these last few years.”

There is only one problem with this remark. The federal government is NOTHING like a household, state or municipality. These entities are all revenue constrained. The Federal government has no such constraint. We don’t need China to lend us money. We don’t need to raise taxes to spend money. When the US government wants to spend money it sends men and women into a room where they mark up accounts in a computer system. They don’t call China first or check their tax revenues. They just spend the money.

* * *
Mr. Bowles finished his press conference by saying that the American people get it:

“There is one thing I am absolutely sure of. If nothing else, I know deep down the American people get it. They know this is the moment of truth”

The American people most certainly don’t get it. And how can you blame them? When a supposed financial expert like Mr. Bowles can’t grasp these concepts how could we ever expect the average American to understand it? It’s time for an adult conversation to begin before this misguided conversation regarding the future bankruptcy of America sends us towards our own “moment of truth” – a 1937 moment.

We centrists actually know better than to take Simpson and Bowles seriously. Unfortunately, E.J. Dionne’s hero – Barack Obama – doesn’t.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has become the second bogeyman for the Democrats to spotlight in their efforts to cleanse their own tarnished images after selling out to Wall Street lobbyists. As Amanda Terkel reported for The Huffington Post:

A divisive budget battle between labor unions and Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) turned a state Supreme Court race into a nationally watched bellwether on the electorate’s mood heading into a recall campaign and the 2012 elections.

Nearly 1.5 million people turned out to vote, representing 33.5 percent of voting-age adults — 68 percent higher than the 20 percent turnout officials had expected. JoAnne Kloppenburg has already declared victory, with the vote tallies showing her beating incumbent David Prosser by just a couple hundred votes. The race is expected to head to a recount.

* * *

There were no party affiliations on the ballot, but Kloppenburg was heavily backed by Democrats and Prosser by Republicans, making it a fierce proxy battle for the two parties.

Will the Wisconsin Bogeymen provide the Democrats with the inspiration and motivation they need to put the interests of the American middle class ahead of the goals of the Plutocracy? Don’t bet on it.

1937 moment, 2008 Democratic Primary, 2012 election, Alan Simpson, Amanda Terkel, American middle class, American public, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton playbook, bipartisan deficit commission, bribery, centrists, change, China, Clinton administration, Clinton retreads, Congressman, Cullen Roche, David Prosser, debt, debt problem, Deficit Commission, Democratic Party, deregulation, draconian budget proposal, economic advisory team, economy, EJ Dionne, Erskine Bowles, Federal Government, financial crisis, George W Bush, Governor, income, income inequality, JoAnne Kloppenburg, jobs, John T Burke Jr, Labor Secretary, lobbyists, middle-of-the-roaders, Paul Ryan, plutocracy, Pragmatic Capitalism, President Obama, Republican Party, Republicans, revenue constraint, reverse Robin Hood, Robert Reich, Robert Scheer, Ronald Reagan, Scott Walker, Smug Alert, smugness, South Park, Supreme Court, tax revenues, taxes, The Huffington Post, The Smug, The Washington Post, top 1 percent, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Bogeymen, Wisconsin Bogeymen Could Save Democrats From Themselves

Obama Fatigue

March 31st, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 31 2011

Comments Off

Since President Obama first assumed office, it hasn’t been too difficult to find harsh criticism of the new administration. One need only tune in to the Fox News, where an awkward Presidential sneeze could be interpreted as a “secret message” to Bill Ayers or George Soros. Nevertheless, with the passing of time, voices from across the political spectrum have joined a chorus of frustration with the Obama agenda.

On February 26, 2009 – only one month into the Obama Presidency – I voiced my suspicion about the new administration’s unwillingness to address the problem of systemic risk, inherent in allowing a privileged few banks to enjoy their “too big to fail” status:

Will Turbo Tim’s “stress tests” simply turn out to be a stamp of approval, helping insolvent banks avoid any responsible degree of reorganization, allowing them to continue their “welfare queen” existence, thus requiring continuous infusions of cash at the expense of the taxpayers? Will the Obama administration’s “failure of nerve” – by avoiding bank nationalization — send us into a ten-year, “Japan-style” recession? It’s beginning to look that way.

By September of 2009, I became convinced that Mr. Obama was suffering from a degree of hubris, which could seal his fate as a single-term President:

Back on July 15, 2008 and throughout the Presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised the voters that if he were elected, there would be “no more trickle-down economics”. Nevertheless, his administration’s continuing bailouts of the banking sector have become the worst examples of trickle-down economics in American history – not just because of their massive size and scope, but because they will probably fail to achieve their intended result.

Although the TARP bank bailout program was initiated during the final months of the Bush Presidency, the Obama administration’s stewardship of that program recently drew sharp criticism from Neil Barofsky, the retiring Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP). Beyond that, in his March 29 op-ed piece for The New York Times, Mr. Barofsky criticized the Obama administration’s failure to make good on its promises of “financial reform”:

Finally, the country was assured that regulatory reform would address the threat to our financial system posed by large banks that have become effectively guaranteed by the government no matter how reckless their behavior. This promise also appears likely to go unfulfilled. The biggest banks are 20 percent larger than they were before the crisis and control a larger part of our economy than ever. They reasonably assume that the government will rescue them again, if necessary.

* * *

Worse, Treasury apparently has chosen to ignore rather than support real efforts at reform, such as those advocated by Sheila Bair, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to simplify or shrink the most complex financial institutions.

* * *

In the final analysis, it has been Treasury’s broken promises that have turned TARP – which was instrumental in saving the financial system at a relatively modest cost to taxpayers – into a program commonly viewed as little more than a giveaway to Wall Street executives.

It wasn’t meant to be that. Indeed, Treasury’s mismanagement of TARP and its disregard for TARP’s Main Street goals – whether born of incompetence, timidity in the face of a crisis or a mindset too closely aligned with the banks it was supposed to rein in – may have so damaged the credibility of the government as a whole that future policy makers may be politically unable to take the necessary steps to save the system the next time a crisis arises. This avoidable political reality might just be TARP’s most lasting, and unfortunate, legacy.

Another unlikely critic of President Obama is the retired law school professor who blogs using the pseudonym, “George Washington”. A recent posting at Washington’s Blog draws from a number of sources to ponder the question of whether President Obama (despite his Nobel Peace Prize) has become more brutal than President Bush. The essay concludes with a review of Obama’s overall performance in The White House:

Whether or not Obama is worse than Bush, he’s just as bad.

While we had Bush’s “heck of a job” response to Katrina, we had Obama’s equally inept response and false assurances in connection with the Gulf oil spill, and Obama’s false assurances in connection with the Japanese nuclear crisis.

And Bush and Obama’s response to the financial crisis are virtually identical: bail out the giant banks, let Wall Street do whatever it wants, and forget the little guy.

The American voters asked for change. Instead, we got a different branch of the exact same Wall Street/military-industrial complex/Big Energy (BP, GE)/Big Pharma party.

Another commentator who has become increasingly critical of President Obama is Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration. Mr. Obama’s failure to push back against the corporatist politicians, who serve as “reverse Robin Hoods” enriching CEOs at the expense of American workers, resulted in this rebuke from Professor Reich:

President Obama and Democratic leaders should be standing up for the wages and benefits of ordinary Americans, standing up for unions, and decrying the lie that wage and benefit concessions are necessary to create jobs. The President should be traveling to the Midwest – taking aim at Republican governors in the heartland who are hell bent on destroying the purchasing power of American workers. But he’s doing nothing of the sort.

As attention begins to focus on the question of who will be the Republican nominee for the 2012 Presidential election campaign, Obama Fatigue is causing many people to appraise the President’s chances of defeat. The excitement of bringing the promised “change” of 2008 has morphed into cynicism. Many of the voters who elected Obama in 2008 might be too disgusted to bother with voting in 2012. As a result, the idea of a Democratic or Independent challenger to Obama is receiving more consideration. Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi recently provided this response to a letter inquiring about the possibility that Elizabeth Warren could make a run for the White House in 2012:

A few months ago I heard a vague rumor from someone who theoretically would know that such a thing was being contemplated, but I don’t know anything beyond that. I wish she would run. I’m not sure if it would ultimately be a good thing or a bad thing for Barack Obama – she could fatally wound his general-election chances by exposing his ties to Wall Street – but I think she’s exactly what this country needs. She’s totally literate on the finance issues and is completely on the side of human beings, as opposed to banks and oil companies and the like. One thing I will say: if she did run, she would have a lot more support from the press than she probably imagines, as there are a lot of reporters out there who are reaching the terminal-disappointment level with Obama ready to hop on the bandwagon of someone like Warren.

If Elizabeth Warren ultimately decides to make a run for The White House, Mr. Obama should do the right thing: Stop selling the sky to people and step aside.

2008 Presidential campaign, 2012 Republican Presidential nominee, American history, American voters, American workers, bailouts, bank bailouts, bank nationalization, Barack Obama, Big Energy, Big Pharma, Bill Ayers, BP, Bush Presidency, campaign promise, CEOs, change, Clinton administration, corporatist politicians, Democratic challenger to Obama, Democratic leaders, Elizabeth Warren, failure of nerve, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, finance, financial crisis, financial institutions, financial reform, financial system, Fox News, Fukushima disaster, GE, George Soros, George Washington pseudonym, giant banks, government guarantees, Gulf oil spill, hubris, Independent challenger, insolvent banks, Japan-style recession, Japanese nuclear crisis, job creation, Katrina, little guy, Main Street, Matt Taibbi, military-industrial complex, Neil Barofsky, no more trickle down economics, Nobel Peace Prize, Obama agenda, Obama Fatigue, Obama Presidency, President Bush, President Obama, recession, regulatory reform, reorganization, reporters, Republican governors, reverse Robin Hoods, Robert Reich, Rolling Stone, Secretary of Labor, Sheila Bair, SIGTARP, single-term President, Special Inspector General for TARP, stress tests, systemic risk, TARP, taxpayers, ten-year recession, The New York Times, Timothy Geithner, too big to fail, Treasury Department, trickle down economics, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, unions, wage and benefit concessions, wages and benefits, Wall Street, Washingtons Blog, welfare queen, White House, worse than Bush

The Wrong Playbook

March 21st, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 21 2011

Comments Off

President Obama is still getting it wrong. Nevertheless, we keep hearing that he is such a clever politician. Count me among those who believe that the Republicans are setting Obama up for failure and a loss to whatever goofball happens to win the GOP Presidential nomination in 2012 – solely because of a deteriorating economy. Obama had the chance to really save the economy and “right the ship”. When he had the opportunity to confront the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, President Obama violated Rahm Emanuel’s infamous doctrine, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”. The new President immediately made a point of squandering the opportunity to overcome that crisis. I voiced my frustration about this on October 7, 2010:

The trouble began immediately after President Obama assumed office. I wasn’t the only one pulling out my hair in February of 2009, when our new President decided to follow the advice of Larry Summers and “Turbo” Tim Geithner. That decision resulted in a breach of Obama’s now-infamous campaign promise of “no more trickle-down economics”. Obama decided to do more for the zombie banks of Wall Street and less for Main Street – by sparing the banks from temporary receivership (also referred to as “temporary nationalization”) while spending less on financial stimulus. Obama ignored the 50 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, who warned that an $800 billion stimulus package would be inadequate. At the Calculated Risk website, Bill McBride lamented Obama’s strident posturing in an interview conducted by Terry Moran of ABC News, when the President actually laughed off the idea of implementing the so-called “Swedish solution” of putting those insolvent banks through temporary receivership.

In September of 2009, I discussed a fantastic report by Australian economist Steve Keen, who explained how the “money multiplier” myth, fed to Obama by the very people who caused the financial crisis, was the wrong paradigm to be starting from in attempting to save the economy. The Australian professor (Steve Keen) was right and Team Obama was wrong. In analyzing Australia’s approach to the financial crisis, economist Joseph Stiglitz made this observation on August 5, 2010:

Kevin Rudd, who was prime minister when the crisis struck, put in place one of the best-designed Keynesian stimulus packages of any country in the world. He realized that it was important to act early, with money that would be spent quickly, but that there was a risk that the crisis would not be over soon. So the first part of the stimulus was cash grants, followed by investments, which would take longer to put into place.

Rudd’s stimulus worked: Australia had the shortest and shallowest of recessions of the advanced industrial countries.

On October 6, 2010, Michael Heath of Bloomberg BusinessWeek provided the latest chapter in the story of how America did it wrong while Australia did it right:

Australian Employers Added 49,500 Workers in September

Australian employers in September added the most workers in eight months, driving the country’s currency toward a record and bolstering the case for the central bank to resume raising interest rates.

The number of people employed rose 49,500 from August, the seventh straight gain, the statistics bureau said in Sydney today. The figure was more than double the median estimate of a 20,000 increase in a Bloomberg News survey of 25 economists. The jobless rate held at 5.1 percent.

Meanwhile, America’s jobless rate has been hovering around 9 percent and the Federal Reserve found it necessary to print-up another $600 billion for a controversial second round of quantitative easing. If that $600 billion had been used for the 2009 economic stimulus (and if the stimulus program had been more infrastructure-oriented) we would probably have enjoyed a result closer to that experienced by Australia. Instead, President Obama chose to follow Japan’s strategy of perpetual bank bailouts (by way of the Fed’s “zero interest rate policy” or ZIRP and multiple rounds of quantitative easing), sending America’s economy into our own “lost decade”.

The only member of the Clinton administration who deserves Obama’s ear is being ignored. Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, has been repeatedly emphasizing that President Obama is making a huge mistake by attempting to follow the Clinton playbook:

Many of President Obama’s current aides worked for Clinton and vividly recall Clinton’s own midterm shellacking in 1994 and his re-election two years later – and they think the president should follow Clinton’s script. Obama should distance himself from congressional Democrats, embrace deficit reduction and seek guidance from big business. They assume that because triangulation worked for Clinton, it will work for Obama.

They’re wrong. Clinton’s shift to the right didn’t win him re-election in 1996. He was re-elected because of the strength of the economic recovery.

By the spring of 1995, the American economy already had bounced back, averaging 200,000 new jobs per month. By early 1996, it was roaring – creating 434,000 new jobs in February alone.

Obama’s 2011 reality has us losing nearly 400,000 jobs per month. Nevertheless, there is this misguided belief that the “wealth effect” caused by inflated stock prices and the current asset bubble will somehow make the Clinton strategy relevant. It won’t. Instead, President Obama will adopt a strategy of “austerity lite”, which will send America into a second recession dip and alienate voters just in time for the 2012 elections. Professor Reich recently warned of this:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently stated the Republican view succinctly: “Less government spending equals more private sector jobs.”

In the past I’ve often wondered whether they’re knaves or fools. Now I’m sure. Republicans wouldn’t mind a double-dip recession between now and Election Day 2012.

They figure it’s the one sure way to unseat Obama. They know that when the economy is heading downward, voters always fire the boss. Call them knaves.

What about the Democrats? Most know how fragile the economy is but they’re afraid to say it because the White House wants to paint a more positive picture.

And most of them are afraid of calling for what must be done because it runs so counter to the dominant deficit-cutting theme in our nation’s capital that they fear being marginalized. So they’re reduced to mumbling “don’t cut so much.” Call them fools.

If inviting a double-dip recession weren’t dumb enough – how about a second financial crisis? Just add more systemic risk and presto! The banks won’t have any problems because the Fed and the Treasury will provide another round of bailouts. Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns recently wrote an essay focused on Treasury Secretary Geithner’s belief that we need big banks to be even bigger.

Even if the Republicans nominate a Presidential candidate who espouses a strategy of simply relying on Jesus to extinguish fires at offshore oil rigs and nuclear reactors – Obama will still lose. May God help us!

2009 stimulus, 2012 elections, 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, ABC News, asset bubble, austerity lite, Australia, Australian economist, Australian employers, bank bailouts, big banks, big business, Bill McBride, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Bloomberg news, Bloomberg News survey of economists, Calculated Risk, campaign promise, cash grants, Clinton administration, Clinton playbook, Clinton strategy, Congressional Democrats, Credit Writedowns, crisis go to waste, deficit, deficit cutting, deficit reduction, double-dip recession, economic crisis, economic recovery, economic stimulus, economist, economy, Edward Harrison, Eric Cantor, Fed, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial stimulus, Geithner, government spending, Great Depression, House Majority Leader, inadequate stimulus, industrial countries, inflated stock prices, infrastructure, insolvent banks, interest rates, investments, Japan, jobless rate, Joseph Stiglitz, Kevin Rudd, Keynesian stimulus, knaves, Larry Summers, lost decade, Main Street, Michael Heath, money, money multiplier myth, no more trickle down economics, President Obama, Presidential candidate, prime minister, private sector jobs, QE 2, quantitative easing, Rahm Emanuel, recession, Republicans, Robert Reich, second financial crisis, second recession, Secretary of Labor, Steve Keen, stimulus package, stimulus program, Swedish solution, systemic risk, Team Obama, Temporary nationalization, temporary receivership, Terry Moran, The Wrong Playbook, Tim Geithner, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Geithner, triangulation, Turbo Tim Geithner, Wall Street, Wall Street Banks, wealth effect, White House, zero-interest-rate policy, ZIRP, zombie banks

Formula For Failure

December 2nd, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 02 2010

Comments Off

The Democratic Party is suffering from a case of terminal smugness. Democrats ignored the warning back in 2006, when the South Park television series ran the episode, “Smug Alert”.

I recently came across a dangerous manifestation of “The Smug” in a recent article written by Ed Kilgore for The New Republic, in which Mr. Kilgore complacently explained “why Obama won’t face a primary challenge”. We are supposed to forget about the “shellacking” taken by Democrats in the mid-term elections. We are to ignore the fact that “mischief-making pundits have seized on a couple of polls to burnish their narrative”. In an act exemplifying what my late father described as “tempting fate”, Mr. Kilgore proceeded to belittle the most serious criticisms of the President, while daring lightening to strike:

Above all, primary challenges to incumbent presidents require a galvanizing issue. It’s very doubtful that the grab-bag of complaints floated by the Democratic electorate — Obama’s legislative strategy during the health care fight; his relative friendliness to Wall Street; gay rights; human rights; his refusal to prosecute Bush administration figures for war crimes or privacy violations — would be enough to spur a serious challenge. And while Afghanistan is an increasing source of Democratic discontent, it’s hardly Vietnam, and Obama has promised to reduce troop levels sharply by 2012.

The timing of Kilgore’s supercilious disregard of a challenge to Obama’s presence atop the 2012 ticket could not have been worse. Thanks to the efforts of the late Mark Pittman, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Bloomberg News has forced the Federal Reserve to disclose the details of its bailouts to those business entities benefiting from the Fed’s eleven emergency lending programs initiated as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. The Fed’s massive document dump on December 1 (occurring right on the heels of the WikiLeaks publication of indiscretions by Obama’s Secretary of State — Hillary Clinton) has refocused criticism of what Kilgore described as the President’s “relative friendliness to Wall Street”. Although Mr. Obama had not yet assumed office in the fall of 2008, after moving into the White House, the new President re-empowered the same cast of characters responsible for the financial crisis and the worst of the bailouts. The architect of Maiden Lane III (which included a $13 billion gift to Goldman Sachs) “Turbo” Tim Geithner, was elevated from president of the New York Fed to Treasury Secretary. Ben Bernanke was re-nominated by Obama (over strenuous bipartisan objection) to serve another term as Federal Reserve Chairman.

In the 2008 Democratic Primary elections, voters chose “change” rather than another Clinton administration. Nevertheless, what the voters got was another Clinton administration. After establishing an economic advisory team consisting of retreads from the Clinton White House, President Obama has persisted in approaching the 2010 economy as though it were the 1996 economy. Obama’s creation of a bipartisan deficit commission has been widely criticized as an inept fallback to the obsolete Bill Clinton playbook. Robert Reich, Labor Secretary for the original Clinton administration recently upbraided President Obama for this wrongheaded approach:

Bill Clinton had a rapidly expanding economy to fall back on, so his appeasement of Republicans didn’t legitimize the Republican world view. Obama doesn’t have that luxury. The American public is still hurting and they want to know why.

The Pragmatic Capitalist criticized President Obama’s habitual reliance on members of the Clinton administration as futile attempts to bring about the same results obtained fifteen years ago. Obama’s appointment of Erskine Bowles (Clinton’s former Chief of Staff) as co-chair of the deficit commission was denounced as a recent example. Bowles’ platitudinous insistence that it’s time for an “adult conversation about the dangers of this debt” drew this blistering retort:

Yes. America has a debt problem. We have a very serious household, municipality and state debt crisis that is in many ways similar to what is going on in Europe. What we absolutely don’t have is a federal government debt problem. After all, a nation with monopoly supply of currency in a floating exchange rate system never really has “debt” unless that debt is denominated in a foreign currency. He says this conversation is the:

“exact same conversation every family, every single business, every single state and every single municipality has been having these last few years.”

There is only one problem with this remark. The federal government is NOTHING like a household, state or municipality. These entities are all revenue constrained. The Federal government has no such constraint. We don’t need China to lend us money. We don’t need to raise taxes to spend money. When the US government wants to spend money it sends men and women into a room where they mark up accounts in a computer system. They don’t call China first or check their tax revenues. They just spend the money.

* * *
Mr. Bowles finished his press conference by saying that the American people get it:

“There is one thing I am absolutely sure of. If nothing else, I know deep down the American people get it. They know this is the moment of truth”

The American people most certainly don’t get it. And how can you blame them? When a supposed financial expert like Mr. Bowles can’t grasp these concepts how could we ever expect the average American to understand it? It’s time for an adult conversation to begin before this misguided conversation regarding the future bankruptcy of America sends us towards our own “moment of truth” – a 1937 moment.

I hope it doesn’t take “a 1937 moment” for the Democrats to appreciate the very serious risk that the Palin family could be living in the White House in 2013.

1937 moment, 2008 Democratic Primary, 2008 financial crisis, 2010 mid-term elections, 2012 primary, adult conversation on debt, American public, bailouts, Ben Bernanke, Bill Clinton playbook, bipartisan deficit commission, Bloomberg news, change, China, Clinton administration, Clinton-era retreads, debt crisis, Democratic Party, Democrats, document dump, economic advisory team, Ed Kilgore, Erskine Bowles, European debt crisis, Federal Government, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman, floating exchange rate, Formula For Failure, Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, future bankruptcy of America, Goldman Sachs, Hillary Clinton, Labor Secretary, Maiden Lane III, Mark Pittman, New York Fed president, Obamas relative friendliness to Wall Street, Palin family in the White House, polls, President Obama, primary challenge, pundits, Republicans, Robert Reich, Secretary of State, shellacking, Smug Alert, South Park, tempting fate, terminal smugness, The New Republic, The Pragmatic Capitalist, The Smug, Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary, Turbo Tim Geithner, Wall Street, Wall Street Banks, White House, WikiLeaks

Betting Against Obama

November 22nd, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 22 2010

Comments Off

Most Congressional Democrats and supporters of President Obama are anxious to see an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Nevertheless, as of this writing, the President has yet to even vote “present” on this issue. Obama’s waffling throughout the tax cut debate has once again exposed his weak leadership skills, which are never overlooked by the people at Fox News:

“The players on the field want a game plan,” said one senior Democratic congressional aide who requested anonymity to be candid about caucus sentiment. “There’s an increasing frustration from members that there is not a plan … There is just tremendous frustration. I mean, where are they?”

The aide noted that Senate Democrats, meeting behind closed doors Wednesday and most likely Thursday, intend to discuss the tax cuts, but there is one notable absence.

“Where is the White House? There’s no one here talking to us today or tomorrow,” the aide fumed . . .

* * *

Democrats are waiting for an express statement from the President, despite the fact that Obama opened the window on a temporary extension just after the midterm elections.

“We should have done this already. Our bosses go home and are hounded about this. I don’t get it. Just extend the cuts for a few years and be done with it. There are way too many fingers in the wind on this from both sides (of the aisle),” another senior Democratic aide involved in tax policy for years told Fox.

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor for President Clinton, began a recent blog posting with this observation:

The President says a Republican proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts to everyone for two years is a “basis for conversation.” I hope this doesn’t mean another Obama cave-in.

Unfortunately, in all likelihood it does mean “another Obama cave-in” — and it probably won’t be the last. Professor Reich ended that piece with this rhetorical question:

If the President can’t or won’t take a stand now — when he still has a chance to prevail in the upcoming lame-duck Congress — when will he ever?

Answer: Never (unless it means taking a stand – once again – in support of the Wall Street banks).

In the mean time, while Obama dithers, a group of 40 “Patriotic Millionaires” has stepped forward after writing a letter to the President, in which they urged him not to renew the Bush tax cuts for anyone earning more than $1 million a year. Joe Conason included the text of that letter in a recent piece for Salon. The Patriotic Millionaires expressed an opinion, which the President apparently fears might not be shared by his top campaign contributors:

We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.

A similar stance was taken by billionaire financier Warren Buffet, during an interview conducted by Christiane Amanpour on the ABC News program This Week. When confronted by Amanpour about the claim that those tax cuts for the very wealthy are what energize business and capitalism, Buffet gave this response:

“The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on,” Buffett explained.

Writing for The Hill, Alexander Bolton discussed the frustrations experienced by Congressional Democrats, who are often left twisting in the wind while the President works out a strategy for traveling up a fork in the road:

Senate Democrats want President Obama to take a more hands-on role in legislative battles next year, when Republicans will have additional clout on Capitol Hill.

Democratic lawmakers say Obama could have done more to connect his legislative agenda to the concerns of voters — a shortcoming the president himself has admitted.

As the moment approaches for 2012 Presidential aspirants to declare their candidacy, Mr. Obama’s shortcomings are widely understood. If the Democrats want to hold the White House, somebody with some guts should step forward pretty soon.

2012 Presidential campaign, ABC News, Alexander Bolton, another Obama cave-in, Betting Against Obama, Bush tax cuts, campaign contributors, capitalism, Capitol Hill, Christiane Amanpour, Congressional Democrats, deficit, Democrats, Fox News, Joe Conason, lame-duck Congress, legislative agenda, midterm elections, Obama supporters, Patriotic Millionaires, President Clinton, President Obama, Republican proposal, Republicans, Robert Reich, Salon, Secretary of Labor, Senate Democrats, taxpayers, The Hill, The White House, This Week, trickle down, vote present, voters, Wall Street Banks, Warren Buffet, weak leadership skills

Maria Cantwell For President

November 4th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 04 2010

Comments Off

I was going to hold off on this and give President Obama the benefit of a doubt – at least for a few months. Nevertheless, after reading the magnificent piece by Barry Ritholtz, entitled: “The Tragedy of the Obama Administration”, I decided that it was time to start discussing leadership alternatives for the next Presidential term.

On October 30, the Associated Press published the results of a poll it conducted with Knowledge Networks. Forty-seven percent of the Democrats surveyed expressed the opinion that Obama should be challenged for the 2012 Democratic Presidential nomination. In the wake of the mid-term election massacre, I expect that more Democrats will be anxious to find a new standard-bearer for their party in 2012. The AP article concerning the AP-KN poll, mentioned the theory that the public’s opinion of Obama could change if the economy improves. Unfortunately, most American consumers will not observe any significant improvement in the economy during the next two years. There is a greater likelihood that the Chicago Cubs will win next year’s World Series.

We currently find ourselves bombarded with a wide spectrum of opinions, which purport to explain what the results of the 2010 elections really mean. The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from this event is that the voters resent being taken for chumps. Obama’s supporters were promised change they could believe in by a President and a party that sold its soul to the Wall Street megabanks at the cost of America’s future economic health. When he had the opportunity to do so in early 2009, Obama refused to put those too-big-to-fail, zombie banks through temporary receivership. As a result, we are now approaching a situation which – according to financial risk management expert Chris Whalen – will necessitate another round of bank bailouts. When President Obama had the opportunity and the public support (not to mention Democratic control over both houses of Congress) to enact an adequate stimulus program to save the economy from a decade(s) – long, Japanese-style recession, he refused to so. If an extra $600 billion had been added to the $787 billion in 2009 (as part of a better-thought-out, infrastructure-based stimulus program) we would be experiencing significant economic growth and a recovering job market right now. Australia keeps reminding us of this. (Oops! Australia just did it again!) Instead, America finds itself in a situation wherein the Fed is now appropriating that $600 billion toward another round of quantitative easing, which will serve no other purpose than to push investors into the stock market. According to economist Andy Xie, those stock investors will have an unpleasant experience when Chairman Bernanke’s latest asset bubble pops in 2012.

While many Senate Democrats (along with operatives from the Treasury Department) were busy removing all of the teeth from the financial reform bill, Maria Cantwell was fighting those efforts as one of the few advocates for the American taxpayers. Back on May 19, Arthur Delaney and Ryan Grim of The Huffington Post described how Senator Cantwell stood up to the efforts of Harry Reid to use cloture to push the financial reform bill to a vote before any further amendments could have been added to strengthen the bill. Notice how “the usual suspects” – Reid, Chuck Schumer and “Countrywide Chris” Dodd tried to close in on Cantwell and force her capitulation to the will of the kleptocracy:

There were some unusually Johnsonian moments of wrangling on the floor during the nearly hour-long vote. Reid pressed his case hard on Snowe, the lone holdout vote present, with Bob Corker and Mitch McConnell at her side. After finding Brown, he put his arm around him and shook his head, then found Cantwell seated alone at the opposite end of the floor. He and New York’s Chuck Schumer encircled her, Reid leaning over her with his right arm on the back of her chair and Schumer leaning in with his left hand on her desk. Cantwell stared straight ahead, not looking at the men even as she spoke. Schumer called in Chris Dodd, who was unable to sway her. Feingold hadn’t stuck around. Cantwell, according to a spokesman, wanted a guarantee on an amendment that would fix a gaping hole in the derivatives section of the bill, which requires the trades to be cleared, but applies no penalty to trades that aren’t, making Blanche Lincoln’s reform package little better than a list of suggestions.

* * *

“I don’t think it’s a good idea to cut off good consumer amendments because of cloture,” said Cantwell on Tuesday night.

Senator Cantwell has proven herself worthy of our trust. Her nomination as the 2012 Democratic Presidential candidate will revive the excitement and voter enthusiasm witnessed during the 2008 campaign. On the other hand, if President Obama decides to seek a second term and wins the nomination, we will likely find a greater enthusiasm gap than the example of November 2. As a result, by January of 2013 we could have a new administration in the White House, espousing what economist Nouriel Roubini describes as “the economic equivalent of creationism”.

Here’s to a bright future!

2008 campaign, 2009, 2010 elections, 2012 Democratic Presidential candidate, 2012 election, 600 billion dollars, 787 billion dollars, American consumers, American economy, American taxpayers, Andy Xie, AP-KN poll, Arthur Delaney, asset bubble, Associated Press, Australia, bank bailouts, Barack Obama, Barry Ritholtz, Ben Bernanke, Blanche Lincoln, Chicago Cubs, Chris Dodd, Chris Whalen, Chuck Schumer, cloture, Congress, Countrywide Chris Dodd, Democratic Presidential nomination, Democrats, derivatives, economic equivalent of creationism, economic growth, economic stimulus program, economists, enthusiasm gap, Fed, Federal Reserve, financial reform bill, FOMC, Harry Reid, infrastructure, January of 2013, Japanese-style recession, job market, kleptocracy, Maria Cantwell For President, mid-term election massacre, Nouriel Roubini, President Obama, quantitative easing, recession, recovery, Robert Reich, Ryan Grim, Senate, Senate Democrats, Senator Cantwell, stock investors, stock market, temporary receivership, The Huffington Post, too-big-to-fail banks, Tragedy of the Obama Administration, Treasury Department, voter enthusiasm, voters, Wall Street megabanks, White House, World Series, zombie banks

Turning Point

November 1st, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 01 2010

Comments Off

As we approach Election Day, many commentators are confirming an observation used as the theme of my posting from September 6:

The steps taken by the Obama administration during its first few months have released massive, long-lasting fallout, destroying the re-election hopes of Democrats in the Senate and House.

Too many people whom the President thought he could count among his supporters have become his biggest critics. One might expect that after eight years of outrage over the antics of the Bush administration, Maureen Dowd would be thrilled about the work done by the Obama White House. Nevertheless, her most recent discussion of Obama’s performance was less than flattering:

In 2008, the message was him. The promise was him. And that’s why 2010 is a referendum on him.

With his coalition and governing majority shattering around him, President Obama will have to summon political skills — starting Wednesday — that he has not yet shown he has.

* * *

With the exception of Obama, most Americans seemed to agree that the “right” thing to do until the economy recovered was to focus on jobs instead of getting the Congress mired for months in making over health insurance and energy policy. And the “right” thing to do was to come down harder on the big banks for spending on bonuses instead of lending to small businesses that don’t get bailouts.

Contrary to the President’s expectations, the voting public has not overlooked the administration’s refusal to heed the advice of Bill Black, Robert Reich, and the roster of economists that included Adam Posen and Matthew Richardson advocating the use of the so-called “Swedish solution” of putting the zombie banks through temporary receivership. To the dismay of everyone in the world (outside of Obama’s inner circle) the new President chose to follow the advice of Larry Summers and put the welfare (as in corporate welfare) of those insolvent, too-big-to-fail banks ahead of the nation’s economic health. When President Obama appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on October 27, Stewart began the discussion by asking Obama to explain the rationale underlying his appointment of Larry Summers (a retread from the Clinton administration) as director of the National Economic Council. President Obama fell back on his two-year-old claim that to follow any course other than that recommended by Summers, would have resulted in the failure of at least 100 banks. Obama’s claim that the cost of the financial crisis was less than 1% of GDP did not slip past Yves Smith of the Naked Capitalism website. Ms. Smith (who voted for Obama in 2008) didn’t pull any punches in refuting that claim:

I’m so offended by the latest Obama canard, that the financial crisis of 2007-2008 cost less than 1% of GDP, that I barely know where to begin. Not only does this Administration lie on a routine basis, it doesn’t even bother to tell credible lies. And this one came directly from the top, not via minions. It’s not that this misrepresentation is earth-shaking, but that it epitomizes why the Obama Administration is well on its way to being an abject failure.

* * *

The reason Obama makes such baldfacedly phony statements is twofold: first, his pattern of seeing PR as the preferred solution to all problems, and second, his resulting slavish devotion to smoke and mirrors over sound policy.

* * *

But Team Obama is no doubt rationalizing this chicanery: if they can keep from recognizing losses until the recovery takes place, then the ultimate damage will be lower. But Japan’s post bubble record shows that doesn’t work. You simply don’t get a recovery with a diseased financial system. You need to purge the bad assets, only then will meaningful growth resume.

Financial risk management guru, Chris Whalen, recently expressed his anguish over the administration’s unwillingness to restructure the zombie banks:

The reluctance comes partly from what truths restructuring will reveal. As a result, these same large zombie banks and the U.S. economy will continue to shrink under the weight of bad debt, public and private. Remember that the Dodd-Frank legislation was not so much about financial reform as protecting the housing GSEs.

Because President Barack Obama and the leaders of both political parties are unwilling to address the housing crisis and the wasting effects on the largest banks, there will be no growth and no net job creation in the U.S. for the next several years. And because the Obama White House is content to ignore the crisis facing millions of American homeowners, who are deep underwater and will eventually default on their loans, the efforts by the Fed to reflate the U.S. economy and particularly consumer spending will be futile.

The idea that Obama sees “PR as the preferred solution to all problems” surfaced again in a great piece by Peter Baker of The New York Times, which included this observation:

Rather than entertaining the possibility that the program they have pursued is genuinely and even legitimately unpopular, the White House and its allies have concluded that their political troubles amount to mainly a message and image problem.

Baker’s article focused on the most recent gripe made by Obama at another one of his highbrow fundraisers. Remember the blowback from the President’s recent diatribe at a fundraiser hosted by the appropriately-named Rich Richman? Well, something similar happened again. The setting this time was a $15,200-per-ticket affair for doctors at the home of a wealthy hospital executive in Boston. While addressing this audience, the President explained that the reason why the voters have not embraced the Democrats during this election cycle is because the voters are having trouble thinking clearly, as they are “scared”. Not surprisingly, this re-ignited the controversy focused on Obama’s elitism.

The Tea Party spokespeople aren’t the only ones who are accusing President Obama of elitism. The Progressive-oriented TruthDig website, recently published an interesting essay by Chris Hedges, author of Death of the Liberal Class. Hedges points out that elitism is exactly the problem afflicting not only Obama, but the entire group, referred to as “the liberal class”. Consider his argument:

The liberal class, which once made piecemeal and incremental reform possible, functioned traditionally as a safety valve. During the Great Depression, with the collapse of capitalism, it made possible the New Deal. During the turmoil of the 1960s, it provided legitimate channels within the system to express the discontent of African-Americans and the anti-war movement. But the liberal class, in our age of neo-feudalism, is now powerless. It offers nothing but empty rhetoric. It refuses to concede that power has been wrested so efficiently from the hands of citizens by corporations that the Constitution and its guarantees of personal liberty are irrelevant. It does not act to mitigate the suffering of tens of millions of Americans who now make up a growing and desperate permanent underclass. And the disparity between the rhetoric of liberal values and the rapacious system of inverted totalitarianism the liberal class serves makes liberal elites, including Barack Obama, a legitimate source of public ridicule. The liberal class, whether in universities, the press or the Democratic Party, insists on clinging to its privileges and comforts even if this forces it to serve as an apologist for the expanding cruelty and exploitation carried out by the corporate state.

* * *
As long as the liberal class had even limited influence, whether through the press or the legislative process, liberals were tolerated and even respected. But once the liberal class lost all influence it became a class of parasites. The liberal class, like the déclassé French aristocracy, has no real function within the power elite. And the rising right-wing populists, correctly, ask why liberals should be tolerated when their rhetoric bears no relation to reality and their presence has no influence on power.

As Maureen Dowd pointed out, Wednesday is going to be a big day. If President Obama thought he had his hands full going into this election . . . wait until the aftermath.

2008 campaign, 2010 election, Adam Posen, bad assets, bad debt, bailouts, big banks, Bill Black, Boston hospital executive fundraiser, Bush Administration, Chris Hedges, Chris Whalen, Clinton administration, Congressional Democrats, corporate welfare, cost of financial crisis, Death of the Liberal Class, Dodd-Frank legislation, elitism, financial recovery, GDP, health insurance, housing crisis, housing GSEs, insolvent banks, Japanese recession, job creation, Jon Stewart, Larry Summers, lies, loan defaults, Matthew Richardson, Maureen Dowd, misrepresentation, Naked Capitalism, National Economic Council, Obama Administration, Obama White House, Peter Baker, phony statements, power elite, President Obama, restructure zombie banks, Rich Richman, right-wing populists, Robert Reich, scared voters not thinking clearly, Senate Democrats, Swedish solution, Tea Party, temporary receivership, The Daily Show, The New York Times, too-big-to-fail banks, Truthdig, Turning Point, Yves Smith, zombie banks

Double Bubble

October 18th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 18 2010

1 Comment »

I’m sure there has been a huge number of search engine queries during the past few days, from people who are trying to find out what is meant by the term: “quantitative easing”. My cynical, home-made definition of the term goes like this:

Quantitative easing involves the Federal Reserve’s purchase of Treasury securities as well as mortgage-backed securities from those privileged, too-big-to-fail banks.

The curiosity about quantitative easing has increased as a result of the release of the notes from the most recent meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) which boosted expectations that there will be another round of quantitative easing (often referred to as QE II). On October 15, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke delivered a speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. After discussing how weak the economic recovery has been (as demonstrated by lackluster consumer spending and the miserable unemployment crisis) Bernanke pointed out that the Fed’s current predicament results from the fact that it has already lowered short-term, nominal interest rates to near-zero. He then noted that the federal funds rate will be kept low “for longer than the markets expect”. Bernanke finally got to the point that people wanted to hear him discuss: whether there will be another round of quantitative easing. Here is what he said:

In particular, the FOMC is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation over time to levels consistent with our mandate. Of course, in considering possible further actions, the FOMC will take account of the potential costs and risks of nonconventional policies, and, as always, the Committee’s actions are contingent on incoming information about the economic outlook and financial conditions.

In other words: They’re still thinking about it. Meanwhile, former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, wrote a great essay telling us that the Fed will go ahead with more quantitative easing. After defining the term, Professor Reich added this important tidbit:

Problem is, it won’t work. Businesses won’t expand capacity and jobs because there aren’t enough consumers to buy additional goods and services.

I’m sure that was a helluva lot more common sense than many people were expecting from a professor at Berkeley. Beyond that, Professor Reich gave us the rest of the bad news:

So where will the easy money go? Into another stock-market bubble.

It’s already started. Stocks are up even though the rest of the economy is still down because money is already so cheap. Bondholders (who can’t get much of any return from their loans) are shifting their portfolios into stocks. Companies are buying back more shares of their own stock. And Wall Street is making more bets in the stock market with money it can borrow at almost zero percent interest.

When our elected representatives can’t and won’t come up with a real jobs program, the Fed feels pressed to come up with a fake one that blows another financial bubble. And we know what happens when financial bubbles get too big.

Another bubble currently under expansion is the “junk bond” bubble. Sy Harding wrote an important article for Forbes entitled, “Fed Still Blowing Bubbles?“. Here is some of what he said:

The economy’s problems at this point don’t seem to be the level of interest rates, but the lack of jobs, dismal consumer confidence, and the unwillingness of banks to make loans.

However, just the anticipation of additional quantitative easing and still lower long-term interest rates has already potentially begun to pump up the next bubbles, as investors have moved out the risk curve in an effort to find higher rates of return. Money has been flowing at a dramatic pace into high-yield junk bonds, commodities, and gold. And the stock market has surged up 12% just since its August low when talk of another round of quantitative easing began. Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar has been trashed further on expectations that the Fed will be ‘printing’ more dollars to finance another round of quantitative easing.

Nevertheless, Sy Harding isn’t so sure that QE II is a “done deal”. After making his own cost-benefit analysis, Mr. Harding reached this conclusion:

It’s a no-brainer. Blow another bubble and worry about the consequences down the road.

Yet in his speech Friday morning Fed Chairman Bernanke did not go all in on quantitative easing, stopping short of announcing a new policy, saying only that the Fed contemplates doing more, but “will take into account the potential costs and risks.”

So uncertainty remains for a market that has probably already factored in a substantial new round of stimulus.

This raises an important question: How will the markets react if the consensual assumption that there will be a QE II turns out to be wrong?

Bond guru, Mohamed El-Erian of PIMCO, recently wrote a piece for the Financial Times, in which he asserted his conclusion that judging from the FOMC minutes, “it is virtually a foregone conclusion” that the Fed will proceed with QE II. El-Erian described this anticipated action by the Fed as an effort to “push” investors “to move out on the risk spectrum and buy corporate bonds and stocks”.

Getting back to my earlier question: If the Fed decides not to proceed with QE II, will the bubbles that have been inflated up to that point make such a large pop as to drive the economy toward that dreaded second dip into recession? On the other hand, if the Fed does proceed to implement QE II: What will be the ultimate cost to taxpayers for something Robert Reich describes as a “fake” jobs program “that blows another financial bubble” and accomplishes nothing else?

As Professor Reich has pointed out, the Fed itself is the one being “pushed” to take action here because “our elected representatives can’t and won’t come up with a real jobs program”. Unfortunately, any “jobs program” initiated by the government has become a “third rail” issue with mid-term elections looming. As I stated previously, if the economic crisis had been properly addressed two years ago, when the political will for an effective solution still existed, the Fed would not be faced with the current dilemma. But here we are . . . just blowing more bubbles.

aero interest rate policy, asset bubble, banks, Ben Bernanke, Boston Fed, bubbles, consumer confidence, consumer spending, corporate bonds, deflation, Double Bubble, double-dip recession, economic crisis, economic recovery, fake jobs program, Fed Still Blowing Bubbles, federal funds rate, Federal Open Market Committee, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, FOMC, FOMC minutes, Forbes, inflation, junk bond bubble, junk bonds, loans, Mohamed El-Erian, mortgage-backed securities, nominal interest rates, Pimco, QE 2, QE II, quantitative easing, risk curve, risk spectrum, Robert Reich, second dip into recession, short-term, stimulus, stock market, stock market bubble, stocks, Sy Harding, taxpayers, too big to fail, too-big-to-fail banks, Treasury bonds, Treasury securities, unemployment crisis, Wall Street, ZIRP

Those First Steps Have Destroyed Mid-term Democrat Campaigns

September 6th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 06 2010

Comments Off

September 6, 2010

The steps taken by the Obama administration during its first few months have released massive, long-lasting fallout, destroying the re-election hopes of Democrats in the Senate and House. Let’s take a look back at Obama’s missteps during that crucial period.

During the first two weeks of February, 2009 — while the debate was raging as to what should be done about the financial stimulus proposal — the new administration was also faced with making a decision on what should be done about the “zombie” Wall Street banks. Treasury Secretary Geithner had just rolled out his now-defunct “financial stability plan” in a disastrous press conference. Most level-headed people, including Joe Nocera of The New York Times, had been arguing in favor of putting those insolvent banks through temporary receivership – or temporary nationalization – until they could be restored to healthy, functional status. Nevertheless, at this critical time, Obama, Geithner and Fed chair Ben Bernanke had decided to circle their wagons around the Wall Street banks. Here’s how I discussed the situation on February 16, 2009:

Geithner’s resistance to nationalization of insolvent banks represents a stark departure from the recommendations of many economists. While attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last month, Dr. Nouriel Roubini explained (during an interview on CNBC) that the cost of purchasing the toxic assets from banks will never be recouped by selling them in the open market:

At which price do you buy the assets? If you buy them at a high price, you are having a huge fiscal cost. If you buy them at the right market price, the banks are insolvent and you have to take them over. So I think it’s a bad idea. It’s another form of moral hazard and putting on the taxpayers, the cost of the bailout of the financial system.

Dr. Roubini’s solution is to face up to the reality that the banks are insolvent and “do what Sweden did”: take over the banks, clean them up by selling off the bad assets and sell them back to the private sector. On February 15, Dr. Roubini repeated this theme in a Washington Post article he co-wrote with fellow New York University economics professor, Matthew Richardson.

Even after Geithner’s disastrous press conference, President Obama voiced a negative reaction to the Swedish approach during an interview with Terry Moran of ABC News.

Nearly a month later, on March 12, 2009 — I discussed how the administration was still pushing back against common sense on this subject, while attempting to move forward with its grandiose, “big bang” agenda. The administration’s unwillingness to force those zombie banks to face the consequences of their recklessness was still being discussed — yet another month later by Bill Black and Robert Reich. Three months into his Presidency, Obama had established himself as a guardian of the Wall Street status quo.

Even before the stimulus bill was signed into law, the administration had been warned, by way of an article in Bloomberg News, that a survey of fifty economists revealed that the proposed $787 billion stimulus package would be inadequate. Before Obama took office, Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, pointed out for Bloomberg Television back on January 8, 2009, that the President-elect’s proposed stimulus would be inadequate to heal the ailing economy:

“It will boost it,” Stiglitz said. “The real question is — is it large enough and is it designed to address all the problems. The answer is almost surely it is not enough, particularly as he’s had to compromise with the Republicans.”

On January 19, 2009, financier George Soros contended that even an $850 billion stimulus would not be enough:

“The economies of the world are falling off a cliff. This is a situation that is comparable to the1930s. And once you recognize it, you have to recognize the size of the problem is much bigger,” he said.

On February 26, 2009, Economics Professor James Galbarith pointed out in an interview that the stimulus plan was inadequate. Two months earlier, Paul Krugman had pointed out on Face the Nation, that the proposed stimulus package of $775 billion would fall short.

More recently, on September 5, 2010, a CNN poll revealed that only 40 percent of those surveyed voiced approval of the way President Obama has handled the economy. Meanwhile, economist Richard Duncan is making the case for another stimulus package “to back forward-looking technologies that will help the U.S. compete and to shift away from the nation’s dependency on industries vulnerable to being outsourced to low-wage centers abroad”. Chris Oliver of MarketWatch provided us with this glimpse into Duncan’s thinking:

The U.S. is already on track to run up trillion-dollar-plus annual deficits through the next decade, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office.

“If the government doesn’t spend this money, we are going to collapse into a depression,” Duncan says. “They are probably going to spend it. . . . It would be much wiser to realize the opportunities that exist to spend the money in a concerted way to advance the goals of our civilization.”

Making the case for more stimulus, Paul Krugman took a look back at the debate concerning Obama’s first stimulus package, to address the inevitable objections against any further stimulus plans:

Those who said the stimulus was too big predicted sharply rising (interest) rates. When rates rose in early 2009, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled “The Bond Vigilantes: The disciplinarians of U.S. policy makers return.” The editorial declared that it was all about fear of deficits, and concluded, “When in doubt, bet on the markets.”

But those who said the stimulus was too small argued that temporary deficits weren’t a problem as long as the economy remained depressed; we were awash in savings with nowhere to go. Interest rates, we said, would fluctuate with optimism or pessimism about future growth, not with government borrowing.

When in doubt, bet on the markets. The 10-year bond rate was over 3.7 percent when The Journal published that editorial; it’s under 2.7 percent now.

What about inflation? Amid the inflation hysteria of early 2009, the inadequate-stimulus critics pointed out that inflation always falls during sustained periods of high unemployment, and that this time should be no different. Sure enough, key measures of inflation have fallen from more than 2 percent before the economic crisis to 1 percent or less now, and Japanese-style deflation is looking like a real possibility.

Meanwhile, the timing of recent economic growth strongly supports the notion that stimulus does, indeed, boost the economy: growth accelerated last year, as the stimulus reached its predicted peak impact, but has fallen off — just as some of us feared — as the stimulus has faded.

I believe that Professor Krugman would agree with my contention that if President Obama had done the stimulus right the first time – not only would any further such proposals be unnecessary – but we would likely be enjoying a healthy economy with significant job growth. Nevertheless, the important thing to remember is that President Obama didn’t do the stimulus adequately in early 2009. As a result, his fellow Democrats will be paying the price in November.

2010 elections, ABC News, bailout of financial system, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, big bang agenda, Bill Black, blog, Bloomberg news, Bloomberg survey of 50 economists, Bond Vigilantes, centrist, Chris Oliver, CNN poll, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressional Democrats, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, economic crisis, economics, economist Richard Duncan, economists, equities markets, Face The Nation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial reform, Financial Stability Plan, financial stimulus bill, George Soros, government guarantees, inflation, insolvent banks, interest rates, investment banks, James Galbarith, job growth, Joe Nocera, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joseph Stiglitz, liberal, lobbyists, MarketWatch, Matthew Richardson, mid-term elections, moral hazard, New York Times, News, Nouriel Roubini, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Paul Krugman, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Reich, Senate Democrats, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, temporary bank nationalization, temporary receivership, Terry Moran, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Those First Steps Have Destroyed Mid-Term Democrat Campaigns, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, Treasury Department, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street Banks, Wall Street Journal, Wall Street lobbyists, Washington Post, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Still Wrong After All These Years

June 21st, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 21 2010

Comments Off

June 21, 2010

I’m quite surprised by the fact that people continue to pay serious attention to the musings of Alan Greenspan. On June 18, The Wall Street Journal saw fit to publish an opinion piece by the man referred to as “The Maestro” (although – these days – that expression is commonly used in sarcasm). The former Fed chairman expounded that recent attempts to rein in the federal budget are coming “none too soon”. Near the end of the article, Greenspan made the statement that will earn him a nomination for TheCenterLane.com’s Jackass of the Year Award:

I believe the fears of budget contraction inducing a renewed decline of economic activity are misplaced.

John Mauldin recently provided us with a thorough explanation of why Greenspan’s statement is wrong:

There are loud calls in the US and elsewhere for more fiscal constraints. I am part of that call. Fiscal deficits of 10% of GDP is a prescription for disaster. As we have discussed in previous letters, the book by Rogoff and Reinhart (This Time is Different) clearly shows that at some point, bond investors start to ask for higher rates and then the interest rate becomes a spiral. Think of Greece. So, not dealing with the deficit is simply creating a future crisis even worse than the one we just had.

But cutting the deficit too fast could also throw the country back in a recession. There has to be a balance.

* * *

That deficit reduction will also reduce GDP. That means you collect less taxes which makes the deficits worse which means you have to make more cuts than planned which means lower tax receipts which means etc. Ireland is working hard to reduce its deficits but their GDP has dropped by almost 20%! Latvia and Estonia have seen their nominal GDP drop by almost 30%! That can only be characterized as a depression for them.

Robert Reich’s refutation of Greenspan’s article was right on target:

Contrary to Greenspan, today’s debt is not being driven by new spending initiatives. It’s being driven by policies that Greenspan himself bears major responsibility for.

Greenspan supported George W. Bush’s gigantic tax cut in 2001 (that went mostly to the rich), and uttered no warnings about W’s subsequent spending frenzy on the military and a Medicare drug benefit (corporate welfare for Big Pharma) — all of which contributed massively to today’s debt. Greenspan also lowered short-term interest rates to zero in 2002 but refused to monitor what Wall Street was doing with all this free money. Years before that, he urged Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and he opposed oversight of derivative trading. All this contributed to Wall Street’s implosion in 2008 that led to massive bailout, and a huge contraction of the economy that required the stimulus package. These account for most of the rest of today’s debt.

If there’s a single American more responsible for today’s “federal debt explosion” than Alan Greenspan, I don’t know him.

But we can manage the Greenspan Debt if we get the U.S. economy growing again. The only way to do that when consumers can’t and won’t spend and when corporations won’t invest is for the federal government to pick up the slack.

This brings us back to my initial question of why anyone would still take Alan Greenspan seriously. As far back as April of 2008 – five months before the financial crisis hit the “meltdown” stage — Bernd Debusmann had this to say about The Maestro for Reuters, in a piece entitled, “Alan Greenspan, dented American idol”:

Instead of the fawning praise heaped on Greenspan when the economy was booming, there are now websites portraying him in dark colors. One site is called The Mess That Greenspan Made, another Greenspan’s Body Count. Greenspan’s memoirs, The Age of Turbulence, prompted hedge fund manager William Fleckenstein to write a book entitled Greenspan’s Bubbles, the Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve. It’s in its fourth printing.

The day after Greenspan’s essay appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Howard Gold provided us with this recap of Greenspan’s Fed chairmanship in an article for MarketWatch:

The Fed chairman’s hands-off stance helped the housing bubble morph into a full-blown financial crisis when hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and other unregulated derivatives — backed by subprime mortgages and other dubious instruments — went up in smoke.

Highly leveraged banks that bet on those vehicles soon were insolvent, too, and the Fed, the U.S. Treasury and, of course, taxpayers had to foot the bill. We’re still paying.

But this was not just a case of unregulated markets run amok. Government policies clearly made things much worse — and here, too, Greenspan was the culprit.

The Fed’s manipulation of interest rates in the middle of the last decade laid the groundwork for the most fevered stage of the housing bubble. To this day, Greenspan, using heavy-duty statistical analysis, disputes the role his super-low federal funds rate played in encouraging risky behavior in housing and capital markets.

Among the harsh critiques of Greenspan’s career at the Fed, was Frederick Sheehan’s book, Panderer to Power. Ryan McMaken’s review of the book recently appeared at the LewRockwell.com website – with the title, “The Real Legacy of Alan Greenspan”. Here is some of what McMacken had to say:

. . . Panderer to Power is the story of an economist whose primary skill was self-promotion, and who in the end became increasingly divorced from economic reality. Even as early as April 2008 (before the bust was obvious to all), the L.A. Times, observing Greenspan’s post-retirement speaking tour, noted that “the unseemly, globe-trotting, money-grabbing, legacy-spinning, responsibility-denying tour of Alan Greenspan continues, as relentless as a bad toothache.”

* * *

Although Greenspan had always had a terrible record on perceiving trends in the economy, Sheehan’s story shows a Greenspan who becomes increasingly out to lunch with each passing year as he spun more and more outlandish theories about hidden profits and productivity in the economy that no one else could see. He spoke incessantly on topics like oil and technology while the bubbles grew larger and larger. And finally, in the end, he retired to the lecture circuit where he was forced to defend his tarnished record.

The ugly truth is that America has been in a bear market economy since 2000 (when “The Maestro” was still Fed chair). In stark contrast to what you’ve been hearing from the people on TV, the folks at Comstock Partners put together a list of ten compelling reasons why “the stock market is in a secular (long-term) downtrend that began in early 2000 and still has some time to go.” This essay is a “must read”. Further undermining Greenspan’s recent opinion piece was the conclusion reached in the Comstock article:

The data cited here cover the major indicators of economic activity, and they paint a picture of an economy that has moved up, but only from extremely depressed numbers to a point where they are less depressed. And keep in mind that this is the result of the most massive monetary and fiscal stimulus ever applied to a major economy. In our view the ability of the economy to undergo a sustained recovery without continued massive help is still questionable.

As always, Alan Greenspan is still wrong. Unfortunately, there are still too many people taking him seriously.

Alan Greenspan, American capitalism, asset bubble, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Bernd Debusmann, Bill Fleckenstein, blog, budget contraction, CDOs, centrist, collateralized debt obligations, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Comstock Partners, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, deficit reduction reduces GDP, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, derivatives trading, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economic stimulus package, economics, economists, equities markets, Estonia, federal debt explosion, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, Frederick Sheehan, Glass-Steagall Act, government guarantees, Greenspans Body Count, Greenspans Bubbles, housing bubble, Howard Gold, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Ireland, Jackass Of The Year Award, John Burke, John Mauldin, John T Burke Jr, Latvia, LewRockwell, liberal, lobbyists, MarketWatch, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Panderer to Power, Political, Politics, President of the United States, recession, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters, Robert Reich, Rogoff and Reinhart, Ryan McMaken, securities, socialized loss and privatized gain, Still Wrong After All These Years, stock markets, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Age of Turbulence, the center lane, the economy, the Greenspan Debt, The Maestro, The Mess That Greenspan Made, The Real Legacy of Alan Greenspan, The White House, thecenterlane, This Time is Different, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unregulated derivatives, Wall Street, Wall Street Journal, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William Fleckenstein, zombie banks

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

Wisconsin Bogeymen Could Save Democrats From Themselves

Obama Fatigue

The Wrong Playbook

Formula For Failure

Betting Against Obama

Maria Cantwell For President

Turning Point

Double Bubble

Those First Steps Have Destroyed Mid-term Democrat Campaigns

Still Wrong After All These Years

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com