he events of the past year have been breathtaking. We now have Republican John McCain swinging wildly from long held tenants of deregulation to a new found populist montra of regulation (at least in finance). Meanwhile the capital markets and businesses large and small across the country and around the world wait anxiously to see how all of the volatility in both the financial and political marketplaces will affect them. What is really going on here?
The now infamous Republican icon Ronald Reagan ushered in an era of deregulation and tax cuts with unrestrained government spending particularly on favored conservative welfare recipients in the defense industry and commercial agriculture. The idea often muted was to load up the government with so much debt and such limited revenues that there would simply be no money left over to spend on society in general. Individuals with means would somehow take care of themselves and we could ignore everyone else in good conscience as deadbeats. This idea has now been utterly discredited by 8 years of the failed policies of the Bush administration. But I think it would be easy to take away the wrong lessons from the experience.
The real issue is that Republicans either don't understand or don't care to engage the complexities in the balance of incentives and disincentives in the proper functioning of capitalism. Businesses may say that they don't like taxes or government regulations but what they really find hard to cope with is uncertainty. It is arguable that cutting taxes aids the individual shareholder. But if that leaves government unable to fund public education or health care in the end the same businesses and shareholders will have a hard time finding and retaining competent workers in order to grow and prosper. Similarly deregulation is appealing up until it stimulates underpriced environmental degradation and unrestrained risk taking that not only threatens long-term earnings but even the on going viability of businesses and whole sectors as presently seen on Wall Street.
While the profit motive is an important incentive to business, the fact is that taxes and regulations are also necessary components of the societal framework for capitalism to grow and flourish. American capital, hard work and ingenuity have proven time and time again to respond to this framework for the benefit of investors, competitors, workers and the environment alike.
The Republican Party lost its way when it decided for short-term political advantage under the chimera of small government to take a sledge hammer to this proven framework by attempting to remove the disincentives of taxes and regulations. We were told that by focusing purely on the needs of individual investors that somehow the markets and society would take care of themselves. Again American capital, hard work and ingenuity responded to this policy redirection but with a plethora of unintended consequences. The immediate result was moral hazard and an orgy of risk taking unrestrained by even the slightest fear of regulatory accountability. In some sense the $700B bailout has even validated this belief by ultimately rescuing many of the American and global investors who were invited to the party. And now as the Federal Reserve wrecklessly ramps up the printing presses; society, investors, workers, taxpayers and the environment alike will all suffer grievously as a direct result.
Capitalism isn't threatened by sensible regulatory, tax and social spending policies that reflect the common stake that we all have in markets and society as a whole. On the contrary, it is precisely the absence of these considerations in a misguided indulgence of individual self interest that has proven disastrous for all concerned.
Bill O'Reilly -> http://gawker.com/5055097/bill-oreilly-loses-it-over-bailout
Mark Levin -> http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/25/counterstrike-mark-levin-goes-nuclear-on-oreilly-over-bailout-rant/
he events of the past week are truly difficult to put into perspective. While the content of the proposed bailout of the American financial services sector are still being debated, pundits are already talking about hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars of private debt being transferred magically into the ether of the US government and the American taxpayers. What does all of this really mean?
Well let's first keep in mind that the US government doesn't have any money to pay for this bailout. As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion and even before the current bailout the U.S. Federal Budget Deficit for 2008 was estimated to add another $400B. Some say the bailout may push this years deficit to over $1 trillion. And remember we are not even counting the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or unfunded commitments to the Social Security Administration or Medicare which some estimate will contribute another $47 trillion dollars in mandatory obligations to future U.S. taxpayers. Currently $261 billion dollars of the $2.66 trillion dollar US budget goes solely to interest accrued on the existing national debt. And today the Bush Administration is asking once again for Congress to amend the debt ceiling to allow the debt to grow to $11.3 trillion. [1]
The bottom line is that we are headed back to dollar devaluation after a brief respite over the past couple of weeks as global capital ran for temporary shelter in dollar denominated assets. And as I have long predicted on this blog inflationary dollar devaluation is unavoidable in a country where neither the government nor the people are willing to live within their means. The price of oil and everything else that is priced in dollars will explode and interest rates will rise pushing the country back into the stagflation of the 1970's.
And what about the bailout? Forget about it. If the politicians actually managed to agree on some final terms the bailout is nonetheless doomed to fail at the primary order of the day--stabilizing home prices. This is because ex-Goldman Master of the Universe and currently Treasury Secretary Czar Henry Paulson is proposing to price the government's mortgage purchases through a reverse auction. In effect, banks will compete with each other to take the biggest haircut on their toxic mortgage portfolios in order to get the government to pick them first. Your foreclosed neighbor's reverse auction price will in effect become the market price for all properties in your neighborhood. If you haven't defaulted on your underwater mortgage yet you may as well.
Why are they doing this you may ask? I think it all goes back to that burgeoning $9 trillion dollar debt already on the books. The government appears to be terrified that if it appears we plan to screw all those Japanese, Chinese, Arab and UK investors out of billions of dollars in toxic Mortgage Backed Securities then maybe, just maybe they might become more reluctant to keep refinancing the still growing US National Debt. And who could blame them? I can't think of a bigger subprime mortgage than the one your government has taken out on you and your children's future.
his is what I believe. The President can't fix all of the serious and complex problems that afflict America. Only the American people can do that. So as a candidate for President either you can inspire the people to get involved and debate and decide how to make the tough choices for a better future. Or you can suggest simplistic palliatives that serve the purpose of merely perpetuating your self-serving interest in the status quo. Obama has inspired me to donate hundreds of dollars to his campaign and I have been a life-long Republican.
ppearing on the Miami-based Union Radio this week, Presidential candidate McCain suggested that he may not be willing to meet with Jose Luis Zapatero, the Prime Minister of US ally and NATO member Spain. [1] It appears that either McCain is taking a much more hawkish line than even the Bush Administration or perhaps he doesn't even know who Zapatero is or that Spain is a NATO ally. Folks this is scary. Listen to the whole interview --> here.QUESTION: Senator, finally, let's talk about Spain. If you're elected president, would you be willing to invite President Jose Luiz Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House to meet with you?
MCCAIN: I would be willing meet, uh, with those leaders who our friends [sic] and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion, and by the way, President Calderon of Mexico is fighting a very very tough fight against the drug cartels. I'm glad we are now working in cooperation with the Mexican government on the Merida plan. I intend to move forward with relations, and invite as many of them as I can, those leaders, to the White House.
QUESTION: Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government, to the president itself?
MCCAIN: I don't, you know, honestly I have to look at relations and the situations and the priorities, but I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America.
QUESTION: So you have to wait and see if he's willing to meet with you, or you'll be able to do it in the White House?
MCCAIN: Well again I don't, all I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us, and standing up to those who are not, and that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America, and the entire region.
QUESTION: Okay... what about you, I'm talking about the President of Spain?
MCCAIN: What about me what?
QUESTION: Okay... are you willing to meet with him if you are elected president?
MCCAIN: I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom, and I will stand up to those that do not
.
Obama:
Biden:
McCain:
Palin:
t is the conventional wisdom of the Red Meat crowd that Republicans are better stewards of the economy. This assumption is apparently based on their near religious conviction in trickle down economics and the view that Republican administrations are reliably more sympathetic to big business and the rich. In this article I show that at least as a matter of economic performance that the Republicans are no better stewards of the economy. On the contrary, the evidence indicates slightly higher economic returns under Democratic administrations. What wealthy Republicans voters are doing of course is trying to balance their personal desire for tax cuts with the fictitious economic stewardship argument so that they can feel less guilty about their own greed.
Over the years, stock analysts have suggested that the stock market prefers Republicans in the White House. The following table shows stock market returns under Republican and Democratic Administrations 1901 to 2004 according the Stock Trader's Almanac.
In short, a $10,000 investment compounded during Democratic presidencies since 1901 would be worth $279,705 after 48 years. The same $10,000 investment during the 56 Republican years would have been worth just $78,699. Adjusted for inflation the difference is less significant but still favors the Dems. [1]
Well you might say maybe the Democrats spend more money in the public sector, improving economic performance in the private sector by bloating the Federal Budget Deficit. Previously I blogged on this exact issue. [2]
(Click on the chart above to enlarge.)
What this chart clearly shows is that whereas National Debt has continuously risen, without exception, every Republican administration since 1977 has increased the national debt as a percentage of GDP while every Democratic administration has reduced it. For me this is a moral issue. Borrowing from future generations to pay for the greed of the top 10% of Americans is both economically senseless and immoral.
What about overall federal spending? Growth in federal spending has averaged 6.96% under Democratic Administrations compared to 7.57% under Republicans. [3]
What about unemployment? On the day that US unemployment hit 6.1% it is worth noting that from 1962 to 2001, unemployment averaged 5.1% under Democratic Administrations and 6.75% under Republicans. [4]
GDP Growth? GDP growth from 1962 to 2001 has averaged 3.9% under Democratic Administrations and 2.9% under Republicans. [5]
Inflation? You guessed it. Inflation under Democratic Administrations at 4.26% between 1962 to 2001 trailed average inflation rates under the Republicans at 4.96% [6]
This article contains excerpts from the 2008 Republican Platform as well as my notes as indicated.
Above: Locations of current spent-fuel and high-level nuclear wastes sites according to the Department of Energy. Click on the image to enlarge.
ohn McCain has made a big deal out of his objection to pork barrel spending through an appropriations procedure called earmarks. He's even gone so far as to publish "pork lists" attempting to shame other legislators who use them to fund projects in their home districts.
Three times in recent years, McCain's has criticized earmarks requested by Mayor Sarah Palin for Wasilla, Alaska including:
In total, Wasilla received $11.9 million in earmarks from 2000 to 2003. This year, Palin, who has been governor for nearly 22 months, defended earmarking as a vital part of the legislative system. [1] In fact, Governor Sarah Palin sent a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million to Sen. Ted. Stevens, Alaska's Republican Senator who is currently under indictment. This is more earmark funding per person, than any other state. [2]
The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship.
Sarah Palin in a March 5, 2008 op-ed in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
arah Palin's sister Molly is embroiled in a child custody dispute with he ex-husband Mike Wooten an Alaska State Trooper. The Palin clan allege that Wooten tased his step son (who apparently wanted to know what it felt like), hunted moose out-of-season and drove drunk amongst other things. Wooten says the taser was on the "test setting", that Palin's own father accompanied him on the infamous illegal moose hunt and that the family is basically stalking him. In the end, Wooten was investigated and reprimanded but kept his job. This all sounds like the usual divorce court kind of stuff to me.
Now it really gets interesting. On July 11th of this year, Gov. Palin fired Walt Monegan, the Department of Public Safety Chief (and Wooten's boss). Actually Sarah offered him a job as head of the Alcoholic Beverage Control board. Monegan turned it down. Monegan went to the press alleging that he was fired as retaliation from the Palin clan for not firing Wooten when ordered to do so. Sarah initially denied ever having talked to Monegan about Wooten, or that anyone on her staff did. As you might imagine the telephone logs and email trail are now indicating distinctly otherwise. Monegan says that there were dozens of such communications and he plans to turn over the records to the special prosecutor hired to investigate the matter by the State Legislature. Not to be out done, Sarah has preempted the special prosecutor by ordering her own investigation conducted by the state's Attorney General so that “she could find out for herself.”
But wait there is more. After Monegan's abrupt departure, Sarah then appointed Chuck Kopp to replace him at the Department of Public Safety. Unfortunately, Chuck is now the center of his own little scandal. Apparently, he was reprimanded and reassigned after sexual harassment allegations by a former coworker. Needless to say, Kopp has stepped down and received a $10,000 severance package. Monegan got nothing.
McCain's operatives are of course attempting to play down Trooper Gate but I think their arguments against Wooten's character miss three very important points.
And it is this last point that is most disturbing. Apparently, McCain had only talked to Palin twice before putting her on the Republican ticket. It has now come to light that the McCain campaign didn't even access newspaper archives in Alaska in the vetting of Palin. America certainly doesn't need four more years of shoot-from-the-hip Republican incompetent decision making.
Considering all of the other more experienced women in the Republican Party, it is disturbing that McCain would select Palin to be a "heartbeat away" from the most powerful position in the most powerful country on earth. And for what? To solidify his fascist base and attract Hillary voters? Well he may have accomplished the former, though in a year of declining Republican voter registration I am not sure to what end. With respect to the latter, it is apparently not working at all. Initial Gallup polling among Democratic women (including many who supported Hillary Clinton) 9% say that Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, and 15% less likely a net negative of 6%.
he Alaska Legislature voted unanimously last month to investigate allegations that Gov. Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate, may have abused her office in trying to pressure Walt Monegan, the state's public safety commissioner to fire her sister's ex-husband, an Alaska State Trooper. The Legislature has hired a former district attorney to investigate and have asked him to issue a report by October 31st. [1] Palin fired Monegan on July 11th.
Monegan, a respected former chief of the Anchorage Police Department, said in an interview with the Washington Post that despite initial statements to the contrary Palin and her husband had in fact contacted him repeatedly concerning the matter. Monegan says that he has emails from Palin that he plans to turn over to the prosecutor.
Above: Miss Congeniality
Reprinted from: Jimmy Orr, The Christian Science Monitor
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/08/18/mccain-cone-of-silence-or-no-cone-of-silence/
Thar’s a conspiracy a bubblin’ out in the land-of-the-tubes…
Well, there’s two. But one has to do with the alleged finding of Bigfoot. One conspiracy at a time…
Seems that when John McCain was supposed to be in a soundproof vault Saturday night or as Saddleback church pastor Rick Warren put it, a “cone of silence,” he was actually in his motorcade.
The deal going in to the high-profile first meeting of the two candidates was that while Barack Obama was being questioned by the best-selling author, John McCain would be in a disclosed - but soundproof - location in the building unable to hear the exchange between the two.
Not so. Yesterday on CNN, Warren confirmed that McCain was not in the building when the forum began. So how do we know if McCain listened or watched any of the discussion beforehand?
Warren told CNN Sunday evening, “we flat out asked him” if he heard any of the questions. The McCain campaign “confirmed that McCain did not hear or see any of the broadcast” in the motorcade or after he arrived.
There had been speculation before the CNN interview that John McCain perhaps might have heard something. NBC’s Andrea Mitchel brought it up on Meet the Press.
“The Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that — what they’re putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.
This exchange got the McCain folks pretty upset. So upset, campaign manager Rick Davis requested a meeting with the president of NBC news stating that it is “abandoning non-partisan coverage of the presidential race.” Politico has the full letter here.
The New York Times’s Elizabeth Bumiller got a hold of McCain spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace who took umbrage at the charge.
“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.
Regardless, bloggers - like folks over at the DailyKos - don’t buy it.
CNN says they talked to McCain’s camp and they said no one in his camp was listening. The honor system, are you kidding me? I think it is pretty clear at this point McCain did indeed know the questions in advance.
Preparing its readers for Warren’s appearance on Larry King Live tonight, FiveThirtyEight.com lays the foundation for what they say is factual.
If McCain was in the motorcade, then there would be absolutely nothing, other than his honor, that would prevent him from hearing Obama’s questions. However, it is probably impossible to verify whether McCain had in fact heard any of the questions. The only people who could say for sure were the people in the motorcade with John McCain.What we can possibly verify is whether the McCain people had violated an implied or expressed promise to have arrived at the venue by the time that Barack Obama’s interview began. Warren implied to a national audience that McCain was in a quarantined area at the time Obama’s interview began, but in fact McCain was not.
If McCain was in the motorcade, then there would be absolutely nothing, other than his honor, that would prevent him from hearing Obama’s questions. However, it is probably impossible to verify whether McCain had in fact heard any of the questions. The only people who could say for sure were the people in the motorcade with John McCain.
What we can possibly verify is whether the McCain people had violated an implied or expressed promise to have arrived at the venue by the time that Barack Obama’s interview began. Warren implied to a national audience that McCain was in a quarantined area at the time Obama’s interview began, but in fact McCain was not.
So, big deal or not? Larry King should get a big audience tonight.
1976 -- Jimmy Carter elected President of the United States.
1977 -- General Zia-ul-Haq's overthrew ruling Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (Benazir Bhutto's father) in a military coup d'état on July 5th. Bhutto was later executed by Zia following a controversial trial.
1979 -- On January 16, 1979, the Iranian Revolution overthrew the US supported Shah of Iran and installed the Muslim theocracy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
1979 -- Beginning on November 4th, 52 U.S. diplomats were held hostage for 444 days in the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran.
1979 -- On Christmas Day, the large scale invasion of Soviet ground and airborne forces begins in Afghanistan.1979 -1989 -- The Mujahideen (Arabic: مجاهدين, muǧāhidīn, literally "strugglers") battled the occupying Soviet Forces and Afghan regime of Najibullah. The Mujahideen were funded, armed and trained by the US CIA under Carter and Reagan, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran and Zia-ul-Haq's military regime in Pakistan. Hamid Karzai was a member of the Mujahideen and a CIA agent in the movement.
1979 -- Osama bin Laden leaves King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia to join the Mujahideen in the fight against the Soviet Invasion.
1980 -- Ronald Reagan elected President of the United States.
1984 -- Ronald Reagan reelected President of the United States.1988 -- Rambo III (1988) portrays the Mujahideen as "freedom fighters" in ousting Soviet forces.
1988 -- On August 17th, Zia-ul-Haq was killed along with several of his top generals and the United States Ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Lewis Raphel in a plane crash.
1988 -- George H.W. Bush elected President of the United States.
1988 -- On December 2, Benazir Bhutto is sworn in as Prime Minister of Pakistan.
1988 -- Pan Am Flight 103 is blown up over Lockerbie Scotland on December 21st. The U.S. blames Libyan intelligence agents.
1989 -- Soviet Troops pull out of Afghanistan.1992 -- The Afghan regime of Najibullah falls. The Mujahideen splinter into many groups.
1992 -- Bill Clinton elected President of the United States.1996 -- With funding from Pakistan (which was itself being funded by the US), the Taliban begin to consolidate power from Mujahideen splinter groups. Osama bin Laden moves back to Afghanistan from Sudan. One of Osama's sons is reported to have married Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar's daughter. Benazir Bhutto supports the Taliban in their quest to bring "stability" to Afghanistan.
1996 -- Bill Clinton reelected President of the United States.1997 - 2001 -- al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army.
1998 -- Pakistan under the direction of lead scientist A.Q. Khan conducts 5 nuclear tests at the Chagai Hills test site. A.Q. Khan later admits to sharing nuclear technology with Iran, Libya and North Korea.
1998 -- Benazir Bhutto goes into self-imposed exile in Dubai.1999 -- On October 12, 1999 Pervez Musharraf became de facto Head of Government of Pakistan following a coup d'état.
1999 -- On November 29, 1999, Mohamed Atta (leader of the 9/11 terrorist plot and highjacker of American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles which was the first plane to hit the World Trade Center) flew from Hamburg to Istanbul and on to Karachi, Pakistan. Atta then traveled to his final destination, an al-Qaeda training camp in Tarnak Farms, near Kandahar, Afghanistan.
2000 -- George W. Bush elected President of the United States.
2001 -- On September 9, 2001, al-Qaeda assassinates Northern Alliance leader and Taliban opponent Ahmad Shah Massoud.
2001 -- On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda with the support of the Taliban attack the U.S. in the greatest terrorist attack of modern times. Osama bin Laden cites the U.S. military presence at Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan Air Base as a justification. (Inset: Mohamed Atta entering Portland International Jetport in Maine for a flight bound for Boston).2001 -- With U.S. military aid, the Northern Alliance ousted the Taliban and formed a new government under Hamid Karzai.
2002 -- John McCain votes to authorize the 2nd Iraq War.
2003 -- Libya offered US$2.7 billion to settle claims by the families of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing. Libya also agreed to give up nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction including technology acquired from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.
2003 -- The U.S. begins to remove its large military presence at Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan Air Base.
2004 -- George W. Bush reelected President of the United States.
2007 -- Charlie Wilson's War (2007) portrays the Afghan Mujahideen as "freedom fighters".
2007 -- On December 27, 2007, Benazir Bhutto is assassinated in Rawalpindi, Pakistan
am tired of the debate. We are reaching the precipice now and the time for everyone to take sides has truly passed. I could never call myself a Republican again--and I could never vote for any politician who associates themselves with the Republican Party because they are all 1) greedy, 2) hypocritical, 3) lying 4) cowards.
Greedy
At the end of the day, the true ideological driver of the Republican Party has always been nothing other than pure greed. There is no better illustration of how greed has permeated the thinking of this Administration than was exposed in The Price of Loyalty (and a 60 Minutes interview) with Paul O'Neill who was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing with the president's policy on tax cuts.
The president, having promised to cut taxes pushed over a trillion dollars of tax cuts through Congress in his first 6 months in office. Then despite the widening budget deficit, Bush proposed additional tax cuts after 9/11. O'Neil recalls a poignant comment by Vice President Dick Cheney:
“‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”
What about Social Security, the uninsured, education and border security you may ask? Well as Tony Soprano would say, "Forget about it."
Hypocritical
At this point it would seem unnecessary to expound upon the pervasive hypocrisy of the rabid, Judeo-Christian fascists in the Republican Party--both their turgid holy rollers waddling through the halls of Congress and their crusading mega-preachers with their rancid liturgies of hate for select minorities.
Hardly a week can go by now without another closeted, self-hating, "I am not gay" Republican Congressman or Minister of Hate being caught with their pants down in a men's toilet or gay bordello. And virtually all of these individuals have been leaders in the right wing culture war including (but not limited to):
Meanwhile the case evolving around Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), and the murder/"suicide" of ex-Marine Jason Drake and Republican consultant Ralph Gonzalez and his "roommate" David Abrami grows stranger by the day [1].
Lying
In this space I have previously accused George Bush of being a pathological liar [2], [3], [4]. Actually, mythomania (i.e., pathological lying) is a condition involving compulsive lying for no obvious motivation. This is a misdiagnosis in the case of George Bush and his sycophants. A more careful examination reveals that these people have a culture that condones all lies as justifiable means for virtually any end. And the fish rots from the head down. From questionable trading while on the board at Harken Energy [5] to the missing WMDs in Iraq, George Bush has been a lying, silver-spoon-in-his-mouth underachiever for his entire life. And let's be clear, the reason that Scooter Libby resigned as Chief of Staff to Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales resigned as Attorney General is because they were both caught telling bare-faced lies.
Cowards
It goes without saying that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Jeb Bush, Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert and so many other neocolonialist, "other-people's-oil-grabbing" Republican militarists have successfully avoided personal military service themselves. I remind you that In May of 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, Bush received what many consider to be preferential admission to the Texas National Guard thereby avoiding any actual combat. And in 1974 he was honorably discharged despite having failed to satisfy his military commitment in order to attend Harvard Business School.
Young college Republicans also appear to be lacking in military aspirations. Merely one member of the board of the College Republican National Committee has any military experience or plans to acquire any. [6] And out of the 535 members of Congress, I have only been able to identify 5 (less than 1%) that have any children serving in Iraq: four Republicans and 1 Democrat: Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, and Sen. Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota. It is so easy to advocate a global war on Muslims and using our military as mercenaries for American oil companies when you yourself are unwilling to "fight the good fight". But in the end, it is their war. I only ask, "Why they aren't fighting it?"
ealth care is one of those issues that brings out idealogical and philosophical stances in the American political dialog like no other. Whether or not you feel that access to quality health care is a basic human right that must be provided by all civilized countries there are a few basic facts about the American health care system that cannot be ignored. First and foremost, the American health care system is the most costly and inefficient in the world. It also has the lowest return on investment (ROI) when health care expenditure is measured as a function of average life expectancy. (Click on the graphs to enlarge.)
The health care expenditure statistics come from the United Nations Human Development Report, 2007. The average life expectancies come from the CIA World Factbook.
So what is the significance of runaway American health care costs? I guess there are two points. First of all, there is no reason to believe that the American health care system is underfunded. We don't need to spend any more money. In fact, I would suggest that with respect to the 40 million Americans currently uninsured it is arguable that the only way to bring them into the system is to reduce the cost of access to health care. Let me say that again. The reason we have so many uninsured in the United States is because we spend to much money on health care in the first place. This is easy to see. If I open a new private clinic no one who is currently uninsured will be able to afford to pay for my cost recovery and so I will go out of business. Why is health care in America so expensive then you may ask.
I remember seeing the following chart in the Economist that compared relative spending on information technology across different industries. The health care sector spends less money on automation and information technology than virtually any other segment of our economy.
People fully expect that when they roam from state to state that their cellphone will continue to work and that they can go online and check the delivery status of their FedEx packages. And yet, there is no system in place to electronically transfer your medical records or prescriptions from physician to physician or pharmacy to pharmacy. And anyone waiting on the private sector to create its own information management and data transfer standards will be waiting a long time indeed.
This graphic is from the Gartner Worldwide IT Benchmark Service New Trends & Findings for 2007. While there is not clear causality, sectors spending more on information technology as a percent of total operational expense are realizing higher operating profits. It appears that IT increases economic efficiency probably through greater process automation and leverage of existing employees.
Health care is a 3-way value chain with providers (i.e., physicians and hospitals), customers (i.e., patients) and payors (i.e., employers and insurance companies). All of these counterparties need standards to be defined for sharing financial data (e.g., bills and payments), patient data (e.g., medical records), provider data (e.g., capacity, utilization and pricing) as well as medical knowledge (e.g., drug indications, research trials, etc.) In the financial services sector there are numerous standards to facilitate financial transactions, settlements and risk management. In addition, heavy government accounting standards and regulations have given financial institutions greater tools to measure their own internal performance in order to better adjust to ever changing market conditions. We need greater information innovation in health care in order to reduce costs, improve efficiency and increase access. When will America wake up an bring the health care industry into the 21st century?
his is a rather illuminating and humorous portrayal of the origins of the current subprime mess. May God bless Wall Street.
--> Download The Subprime Primer: Part I <--
(Click on the image above to enlarge.)
This is truly a complex issue that was unfortunately made worse by Bush's wreckless disregard for the existing FISA law. The whole issue is a red herring for a couple of reasons.
#1. The existing FISA law granted the Administration all of the authority that it needed to obtain warrants to put anyone under surveillance for any reason at anytime. It appears that the whole issue was really based on seperation of powers--can the Executive Branch be limited in its national security endeavors by Congress? Of course the real question was does the Executive Branch have to obey the Constitution. Oh nevermind.
#2. Long before Bush, 9/11 and FISA, the US government including both Democratic and Republican administrations have always put US citizens under surveillance without court issued warrants. You will have to take my word on this one. The only regard the NSA, FBI and CIA have ever had for the Fourth Amendment was whether or not evidence gathered illegally (i.e., without warrants) would be admissible in court. Generally speaking, they are much more concerned (at least initially) in detecting wrong doing than being able to prove it. Remember this the next time you pick up your cell phone or surf the internet. Telephone companies are required to keep years of all such electronic traffic online just for such purposes.
So actually Obama voting in favor of the FISA amendments really doesn't change any facts on the ground regarding protections of US citizens from warrantless surveillance. Actually, I support Obama's vote if in fact it will encourage the current Administration to obey the FISA laws. It is important to me that there be some process and procedures in place which will at least produce a paper trail in the event that someone does need to prove harm from wreckless government surveillance and deliberately damaging leaks by intelligence agencies.
The on-going credit cruch and mortgage default crises that are buffeting our economy have a common origin in the lax monetary policies and easy credit environment fostered by the Federal Reserve and Alan Greenspan in the post-internet/telecom bubble period. And for those who believe we have passed the crest of the flood be advised that a second tsunami is coming in all forms of retrenchment in consumer, small business and developer lending by regional banks whose stocks are now beginning to plummet. And of course cities and states are facing their greatest financial crises in decades as their cost of borrowing continues to spiral ever higher as their bond ratings sink. This is not a credit crisis--this is a debt crisis. Saying this is a credit crisis is like suggesting that a crack addict could ever have a drug supply crisis.
The bottom line is that both the public and private sectors in this country have been living beyond the capacity of our economy for a long time. This is easy to see in the exploding Federal Budget Deficit, the high US Current Account Deficit (basically the differences between inbound and outbound trade and investment) and low consumer net worth. And we have just seen literally trillions of dollars wiped off the balance sheets of both banks and consumers in falling real estate values. This is an enduring crisis that must be addressed by the next administration. And let's not be mistaken, the market will not right itself. A perfect example of the folly of a market-only solution can be seen in Japan where a similar bubble burst and a tepid government response left the nation with zero growth and periodic deflation for over 10 years.
America and Americans need 2 things. First, we need to restructure the debts and balance sheets of both the financial services sector and individual consumers. The overhang in unsold properties must be cleared as quickly as possible. A perfect example of where we did this right was the Savings and Loan Crisis in the mid 90's. The government backed Resolution Trust Corporation bought up the assets of defunct S&Ls (mostly in the form of real-estate and mortgages) and sold them off on the court house steps.
This was certainly a painful solution in the short term but it served the purpose of clearing the overhang at prices the market would bear rebalancing the real-estate supply-demand curve giving both buyers and sellers the confidence they needed to move back into the market. Otherwise, real-estate toxic waste on bank balance sheets would continue to weigh down the rest of the economy almost indefinitely.
This time around the government has so far refused to get involved except the Federal Reserve handing money hand-over-fist to the Frat Boys in the investment banking community. And the Bear Stearns "workout" with taxpayers now backing the give away of bank assets for pennies on the dollar to JP Morgan while opening a veritable box of pandoras in respect to risky government involvement in the sector has not and will not do anything to clear the market of excess inventory.
Furthermore I was just astounded that both Democrats and Republicans backed the "economic stimulus" legislation that handed over $160B in deficit spending to allegedly stimulate the economy. While any stimulus effects are debatable, the impact on the Federal Budget Deficit certainly is not. The deficit for May reached an all-time high of $165.9B reflecting $48B in payments under the stimulus plan. The annual deficit for 2008 is projected to reach $410B almost equal to the previous Republican "borrow and spend" record of $413B in 2004. [1]
And for what? If there is any stimulus affect at all it will be most evident in swelling the trade deficit as US consumers buy more expensive foreign oil and job-destroying, cheap Asian consumer goods. If someone was as indebted as Americans, wouldn't you advise them to use any "stimulus" funds to pay down their existing debts? Americans must pay their debts, save more and spend less. US household savings (disposable income less expenditures) is now effectively zero and considerably lower than our OECD competitors.
Above: US vs. OECD Household Savings Rates (%). Click on the graph to enlarge.
[Source: OECD Factbook 2008]
And we will never grow our way out of the existing debt crisis. Expect interest rates to rise to both reprice credit risk higher and hopefully protect new savings from the rising threat of out-of-control inflation. This is the only way to start growing our economy and creating jobs again. The cheap money crack party is now well and truly over. We need tax policies that encourage savings and not high risk investments. I hope that the candidates will start addressing these economic issues in a serious way before the November election.
