The President "did something unusual" today as he engaged the opposition at the Republican GOP House Issues Conference. I caught bits and pieces on the radio and television, and I plan to record and watch the event in its entirety over the weekend. I have to admit that I'm a bit impressed with Obama on what I've seen/heard thus far.
The GOP House delegation invited Obama for a Q&A today in Baltimore, MD, and the cameras were rolling. In what became an American version of Prime Minister's Questions (of which I am a big fan), Obama took questions from GOP House members. A bit of political wrangling mixed with solid debate led to a few honest answers from Barack Obama which put his intelligence and oratory on display without a teleprompter.
From what I've been able to dissect thus far, both sides scored some points. But, to me, while Obama toed the line between playing politics and denouncing politics, he scored some big points tonight. This is the Obama that I favored over John McCain. This is the Obama I wished we would have seen more of in the last year.
Let's be clear. I'm no huge fan of many of Obama's policies. Admittedly, I've always had an open ear to his anti-Washington populist message. Let's also be clear that I'm not so naive that I'd immediately assume that he has changed. However, his change of tone since the election of Scott Brown opens the door for a second chance.
The President now stands at a crossroads. Despite a poor State of the Union Address and a poor record of deficient action as it is measured against his populist rhetoric, his personality affords him the opportunity to prove Americans (like me) wrong. I'm skeptical of his commitment to cooperation and bipartisanship, his stance against the financial elite and powerful lobbies, and his willingness to support true reform and budget control. I'm very skeptical.
Actions speak louder than words. Let's watch.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Citizens United Decision and Free Speech
The Supreme Court issued a significant ruling this week on the subject of campaign financing. It is a complex subject and the opinions authored by the Court illustrate this complexity checking in at 183 pages (read here if you dare). I have read most of them and will offer my thoughts.
In the 2008 election cycle, a group called Citizens United produced a film called Hillary: The Movie which was apparently quite an unfavorable depiction of the Presidential hopeful. Citizens United intended to distribute the film as an on-demand pay-per-view on DirecTV. The commercials which supported the film were deemed an "electioneering communication" by the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia and the film was not shown. Citizen United is a non-profit 501(c)4 corporation which has special non-profit status in that, unlike standard non-profit 501(c)3 charitable corporations, they can participate in the political process via lobbying and and campaigns. If this sounds complicated already, then welcome to the world of campaign finance in the United States.
This decision set up the Supreme Court battle which was decided on January 21. In what appears to be a unique decision, the Court decided 5-4 in favor of Citizens United overturning precedent in previous cases and ruling parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) as unconstitutional. The effect of this decision is that corporations (and unions) may now use unlimited funds directly from the general treasury to engage in electioneering communications. However, such funds (still) may not be used to contribute directly to candidates or to other political committees (political parties and political action committees known as PACs). Further, contribution limits and regulatory disclosures are left unchanged in the decision.
An electioneering communication is one that clearly advocates the support or defeat of a particular candidate (follow the link above to get a complete definition) before an election. Corporations and unions were previously prohibited from such communications, but no restriction existed for individuals or various groups such as political committees or "527" groups. This nuance is essentially what led the Court to its 5-4 decision. They felt that Citizens United should not be prohibited from electioneering communications as it restricts free speech and argued that any relaxation of the prohibition must lead to the sweeping decision they ordered.
Justice John Paul Stevens authored the dissent. He lambasted the majority on two key points. First, he felt that the majority overstepped its bounds in the tradition of the Court by providing such a sweeping decision which essentially overturned two previous decisions and a major piece of recent Congressional legislation. Second, he felt that the consequences of allowing corporations to engage in unlimited spending on electioneering communications would be detrimental to democracy and inconsistent with the Founders' vision. Justice Antonin Scalia offered a concurring opinion which focused largely on a rebuttal to the dissent's view of the Founders' intent.
There is a lot of big money in politics. Certainly, the electorate is aware and skeptical of how big money can lead to big corruption. It will be interesting to see how this ruling will change the political landscape of the 2010 elections. The fear expressed by those who disagree with the Court is that this will lead to more corruption and allow corporations to dominate the political discourse. A more philosophical opposition to the decision is on the nature of corporate personhood.
I am not going to devote a lot of effort here to the debate on corporate personhood. However, briefly, we must recognize that corporations engage in contracts, can litigate, pay taxes, and are subject to criminal, civil, and financial liability. Also, corporations are ultimately comprised of individuals. This allows for an interesting tangent of debate which I will not pursue. I will point out that limiting the free speech of media corporations or even non-profit corporations would seem to be anathema to most. I would find it difficult to objectively draw that line to prevent large for-profit corporations from exercising free speech.
Money gives power in many aspects of society. There is no doubt to that. Corporations have a lot of money and thus have a lot of power. Power in the political discourse allows for views and opinions to be expressed, candidates to be laud and vilified. Exercising power also comes with a price. While most of the electorate will be unlikely to monitor great sites like OpenSecrets.org to determine who is paying for campaigns and ads, the disclosure requirements of the FEC enable such organizations to educate and inform. The media, advocacy groups, and interested individuals are empowered more than ever by the internet to report perceived improprieties and report on the relationship between money and politicians.
Our system is not perfect and democracy is a dirty business. Corruption will always exist, but it is the duty of the electorate to be informed and educated in a functional democracy. We cannot force this upon voters, but that should not force us to restrict free speech. This may lead to more corruption or at least the perception thereof, so interested opponents should take steps to counter this.
Be active and hold your elected officials and candidates responsible for their actions. Vote with your dollars if you disapprove of a corporation's political activities. Sell their stock. Boycott their products. Tell others to do the same. Last, but not least, be an advocate for better representation in government. Members of the House today represent about 700,000 citizens on average. Increasing the size of the House would lead to greater accountability, more equitable representation across the States, and less money involved in each race. This would be a far better remedy than restricting free speech.
In the 2008 election cycle, a group called Citizens United produced a film called Hillary: The Movie which was apparently quite an unfavorable depiction of the Presidential hopeful. Citizens United intended to distribute the film as an on-demand pay-per-view on DirecTV. The commercials which supported the film were deemed an "electioneering communication" by the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia and the film was not shown. Citizen United is a non-profit 501(c)4 corporation which has special non-profit status in that, unlike standard non-profit 501(c)3 charitable corporations, they can participate in the political process via lobbying and and campaigns. If this sounds complicated already, then welcome to the world of campaign finance in the United States.
This decision set up the Supreme Court battle which was decided on January 21. In what appears to be a unique decision, the Court decided 5-4 in favor of Citizens United overturning precedent in previous cases and ruling parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) as unconstitutional. The effect of this decision is that corporations (and unions) may now use unlimited funds directly from the general treasury to engage in electioneering communications. However, such funds (still) may not be used to contribute directly to candidates or to other political committees (political parties and political action committees known as PACs). Further, contribution limits and regulatory disclosures are left unchanged in the decision.
An electioneering communication is one that clearly advocates the support or defeat of a particular candidate (follow the link above to get a complete definition) before an election. Corporations and unions were previously prohibited from such communications, but no restriction existed for individuals or various groups such as political committees or "527" groups. This nuance is essentially what led the Court to its 5-4 decision. They felt that Citizens United should not be prohibited from electioneering communications as it restricts free speech and argued that any relaxation of the prohibition must lead to the sweeping decision they ordered.
Justice John Paul Stevens authored the dissent. He lambasted the majority on two key points. First, he felt that the majority overstepped its bounds in the tradition of the Court by providing such a sweeping decision which essentially overturned two previous decisions and a major piece of recent Congressional legislation. Second, he felt that the consequences of allowing corporations to engage in unlimited spending on electioneering communications would be detrimental to democracy and inconsistent with the Founders' vision. Justice Antonin Scalia offered a concurring opinion which focused largely on a rebuttal to the dissent's view of the Founders' intent.
There is a lot of big money in politics. Certainly, the electorate is aware and skeptical of how big money can lead to big corruption. It will be interesting to see how this ruling will change the political landscape of the 2010 elections. The fear expressed by those who disagree with the Court is that this will lead to more corruption and allow corporations to dominate the political discourse. A more philosophical opposition to the decision is on the nature of corporate personhood.
I am not going to devote a lot of effort here to the debate on corporate personhood. However, briefly, we must recognize that corporations engage in contracts, can litigate, pay taxes, and are subject to criminal, civil, and financial liability. Also, corporations are ultimately comprised of individuals. This allows for an interesting tangent of debate which I will not pursue. I will point out that limiting the free speech of media corporations or even non-profit corporations would seem to be anathema to most. I would find it difficult to objectively draw that line to prevent large for-profit corporations from exercising free speech.
Money gives power in many aspects of society. There is no doubt to that. Corporations have a lot of money and thus have a lot of power. Power in the political discourse allows for views and opinions to be expressed, candidates to be laud and vilified. Exercising power also comes with a price. While most of the electorate will be unlikely to monitor great sites like OpenSecrets.org to determine who is paying for campaigns and ads, the disclosure requirements of the FEC enable such organizations to educate and inform. The media, advocacy groups, and interested individuals are empowered more than ever by the internet to report perceived improprieties and report on the relationship between money and politicians.
Our system is not perfect and democracy is a dirty business. Corruption will always exist, but it is the duty of the electorate to be informed and educated in a functional democracy. We cannot force this upon voters, but that should not force us to restrict free speech. This may lead to more corruption or at least the perception thereof, so interested opponents should take steps to counter this.
Be active and hold your elected officials and candidates responsible for their actions. Vote with your dollars if you disapprove of a corporation's political activities. Sell their stock. Boycott their products. Tell others to do the same. Last, but not least, be an advocate for better representation in government. Members of the House today represent about 700,000 citizens on average. Increasing the size of the House would lead to greater accountability, more equitable representation across the States, and less money involved in each race. This would be a far better remedy than restricting free speech.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thoughts on Scott Brown
I suppose I wouldn't be much a of a political blogger if I didn't comment on the Scott Brown election. It's certainly the hottest topic in politics today and will have implications on policy and action in Washington until November. In order to take a closer look at the real story behind the election, I'll turn to the data. Rasmussen Reports conducted exit polling last night and I've broken down some of the results in the table below.
Source: Rasmussen Reports
I heard on the radio this morning that health care was the most important issue to voters in Massachusetts last night. We've all heard the talk the Brown's election will likely lead to the end of the currently contemplated health care legislation. This is pretty much true. But, interestingly enough, Coakley had a seven point edge over Brown amongst voters who cited health care as the most important issue. This translates to 30% of the electorate voting for Coakley because of health care and 26% voting for Brown because of health care.
It is more interesting to me that Brown held a five point advantage for voters who believe the economy is the most important issue. This is a marked difference from the 2008 election where Obama dominated McCain 61% to 36% for the 63% of voters who named the economy as the most important issue (visit the link, select Massachusetts as the region and issues for vote preference).
Given that Brown voted for and supports the existing state health care plan in Massachusetts, it seems to me that the economy is the big deal here. (By the way, Brown did a pretty solid job of explaining his views on health care on the Today show this morning.) Brown also had a landslide victory over Coakley amongst the 11% of voters who said that either national security or taxes was the number one issue. Notably, his edge from this small constituency alone accounts for his overall margin of victory.
I see this as a true indication that Obama's support on economic issues has horribly deteriorated. He spent a large amount of political capital on bailouts and stimulus. He has attempted to claim success on the basis of stock market gains and modest GDP growth in Q3. Wall Street and the talking heads care about this; Main Street does not care. Most Americans see huge debt burdens, foreclosures and unemployment. To them, Washington has failed and Massachusetts has sent the message.
Source: Rasmussen ReportsI heard on the radio this morning that health care was the most important issue to voters in Massachusetts last night. We've all heard the talk the Brown's election will likely lead to the end of the currently contemplated health care legislation. This is pretty much true. But, interestingly enough, Coakley had a seven point edge over Brown amongst voters who cited health care as the most important issue. This translates to 30% of the electorate voting for Coakley because of health care and 26% voting for Brown because of health care.
It is more interesting to me that Brown held a five point advantage for voters who believe the economy is the most important issue. This is a marked difference from the 2008 election where Obama dominated McCain 61% to 36% for the 63% of voters who named the economy as the most important issue (visit the link, select Massachusetts as the region and issues for vote preference).
Given that Brown voted for and supports the existing state health care plan in Massachusetts, it seems to me that the economy is the big deal here. (By the way, Brown did a pretty solid job of explaining his views on health care on the Today show this morning.) Brown also had a landslide victory over Coakley amongst the 11% of voters who said that either national security or taxes was the number one issue. Notably, his edge from this small constituency alone accounts for his overall margin of victory.
I see this as a true indication that Obama's support on economic issues has horribly deteriorated. He spent a large amount of political capital on bailouts and stimulus. He has attempted to claim success on the basis of stock market gains and modest GDP growth in Q3. Wall Street and the talking heads care about this; Main Street does not care. Most Americans see huge debt burdens, foreclosures and unemployment. To them, Washington has failed and Massachusetts has sent the message.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
When Magic Bullets Fail
I recently read an article written by former Fed economist Richard Alford over at Naked Capitalism. He focused his criticism on the zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) currently deployed by the Fed under the watch of Chairman Ben Bernanke. There has been increasing noise surrounding ZIRP and more mainstream suggestions that interest rates were too low for too long between 2001 and 2006.
Alford's article gets into quite a bit of detail, but it is worth a read if you enjoy geeky economics stuff. Mainstream macroeconomists believe that the economy can be explained and managed with mathematical formulas. In fact, the formulas are really quite simple and do not capture the dynamics of the millions of "irrational" actors therein. One favorite is the Taylor rule which suggests a target for the Fed funds rate - the key interest rate set by the central bank. Alford points to a Taylor op-ed which states that rates were too low from 2002-2005.
Bernanke has suggested that rates necessarily had to be low (and must stay low) to fend off the threat of deflation. When analyzing Bernanke's definition of deflation, however, Alford suggests deflation was never a threat. Thus, interest rates were lower than they "should have been" for no good reason.
I don't believe that the Fed should be setting short term interest rates or any interest rates at all for that matter. It is fun to watch the various economists who think they have a magic bullet to optimize the economy take shots at each other. None of these men (or women, but mostly men) can outsmart the market dynamics of a multi-trillion dollar economy. All of these men think they are smarter than you. What is worse is that such hubris causes damage.
The Austrian school of economics (which is not accepted in the mainstream) teaches us that low interest rates lead to malinvestment. Malinvestment leads to over-production, inflation, and asset bubbles. These factors ultimately collapse when the rates are raised or, worse, when credit expansion leads to bankruptcies and unemployment.
The Fed has implemented disastrous policies for decades. Big Wall Street institutions who benefit have created a system to lobby and support policy makers in Washington. Our Congress, Executive Branch, and the Federal Reserve have been all too willing to play right along.
Alford's article gets into quite a bit of detail, but it is worth a read if you enjoy geeky economics stuff. Mainstream macroeconomists believe that the economy can be explained and managed with mathematical formulas. In fact, the formulas are really quite simple and do not capture the dynamics of the millions of "irrational" actors therein. One favorite is the Taylor rule which suggests a target for the Fed funds rate - the key interest rate set by the central bank. Alford points to a Taylor op-ed which states that rates were too low from 2002-2005.
Bernanke has suggested that rates necessarily had to be low (and must stay low) to fend off the threat of deflation. When analyzing Bernanke's definition of deflation, however, Alford suggests deflation was never a threat. Thus, interest rates were lower than they "should have been" for no good reason.
I don't believe that the Fed should be setting short term interest rates or any interest rates at all for that matter. It is fun to watch the various economists who think they have a magic bullet to optimize the economy take shots at each other. None of these men (or women, but mostly men) can outsmart the market dynamics of a multi-trillion dollar economy. All of these men think they are smarter than you. What is worse is that such hubris causes damage.
The Austrian school of economics (which is not accepted in the mainstream) teaches us that low interest rates lead to malinvestment. Malinvestment leads to over-production, inflation, and asset bubbles. These factors ultimately collapse when the rates are raised or, worse, when credit expansion leads to bankruptcies and unemployment.
The Fed has implemented disastrous policies for decades. Big Wall Street institutions who benefit have created a system to lobby and support policy makers in Washington. Our Congress, Executive Branch, and the Federal Reserve have been all too willing to play right along.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Justice for Balloon Dad
The entire "balloon boy" spectacle was a bit of a waste of time in my opinion. Although, I do admit it was an interesting story. I didn't know about it until a day later and found the family's morning interviews to be a bit disturbing. In November, balloon boy father, Richard Heene, plead guilty to falsely influencing authorities (that's an interesting charge) and began serving his 90-day jail sentence this week. You can read a recent story here from the LA Times.
This story now strikes me as interesting since Heene has come out saying that he only plead guilty to avoid putting his family through a trial and for fear that his wife could be deported. I don't know all the ins and outs of this particular legal situation. If I tried to research it, I'd probably never get around to writing this. But, it just does not seem right. Heene might be innocent; he might be guilty. If he truly believes that he is not guilty and copped a plea out of convenience, then I think something is wrong with our justice system.
I recognize from the article that the prosecution could choose to go forward now that Heene has made this statement. It seems that they will not. I also heard it suggested that Heene also adopted this strategy to avoid the legal fees that he might incur if he were to fight the court battles for himself and his wife.
It seems unjust to me that the legal system has evolved to a point where anyone avoids litigation or defense due to fees. The Sixth Amendment protects citizens by providing what can basically be described as a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is considered widely to be an essential feature of a modern society. The notion of a fair trial may be considered to include a "sufficient and equal amount of legal counsel for all parties" - this is not in the Sixth Amendment.
I do not believe that all lawyers should be considered a public utility. Clearly, some lawyers are better than others and they should be able to command a higher wage for such talent. However, when it gets to the point that wages and other court costs are so high that the average citizen or small business can't compete, then something is probably wrong.
I don't have any solutions on this one. I haven't thought about it all that much. Just seems like interesting food for thought...
This story now strikes me as interesting since Heene has come out saying that he only plead guilty to avoid putting his family through a trial and for fear that his wife could be deported. I don't know all the ins and outs of this particular legal situation. If I tried to research it, I'd probably never get around to writing this. But, it just does not seem right. Heene might be innocent; he might be guilty. If he truly believes that he is not guilty and copped a plea out of convenience, then I think something is wrong with our justice system.
I recognize from the article that the prosecution could choose to go forward now that Heene has made this statement. It seems that they will not. I also heard it suggested that Heene also adopted this strategy to avoid the legal fees that he might incur if he were to fight the court battles for himself and his wife.
It seems unjust to me that the legal system has evolved to a point where anyone avoids litigation or defense due to fees. The Sixth Amendment protects citizens by providing what can basically be described as a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is considered widely to be an essential feature of a modern society. The notion of a fair trial may be considered to include a "sufficient and equal amount of legal counsel for all parties" - this is not in the Sixth Amendment.
I do not believe that all lawyers should be considered a public utility. Clearly, some lawyers are better than others and they should be able to command a higher wage for such talent. However, when it gets to the point that wages and other court costs are so high that the average citizen or small business can't compete, then something is probably wrong.
I don't have any solutions on this one. I haven't thought about it all that much. Just seems like interesting food for thought...
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Tim Geithner Must Resign
It is now long overdue. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner must resign his post. A story broke earlier this week on Bloomberg which details what appears to be an attempted cover-up by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and AIG. Let's take a quick trip in the time machine.
On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. This triggered a freeze in the credit markets, which, in turn, exacerbated a brewing crisis at insurance giant AIG. The Federal Reserve stepped in the next day with an $85M loan facility which effectively nationalized the company. This was not the end of the government's largess. Additional credit lines were created by the Federal Reserve and TARP money was used to provide a capital infusion. Tim Geithner was President of the NY Fed during this time.
Two key controversies emerged over the following months. First, AIG awarded large bonuses to employees despite the massive failure of the firm. These retention bonuses were executed despite populist discontent and anti-bonus rhetoric from Obama. However, Geithner effectively shrugged his shoulders and said nothing could be done. Second, AIG settled credit default swap contracts at par (one hundred cents on the dollar). This was controversial since AIG was effectively bankrupt and the counter-parties would likely have received much less in either bankruptcy or any other rigorous renegotiation. Again, Geithner effectively shrugged it off.
It was this second issue which is at the center of the aforementioned Bloomberg article. It has now been reported that the NY Fed suggested that AIG might limit its disclosure in regards to the payouts. Darrell Issa (R-CA) obtained correspondence as part of his investigations on the issue as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Issa has made the rounds this week on various news shows and penned an op-ed in the Huffington Post. More details and commentary on the story can be read here at Zero Hedge.
The White House has already begun its defense of Geithner (see the press briefing from today). Essentially, the argument is that (so far) none of the emails involve Geithner directly and that he was not aware of the details. However, he was President of the NY Fed. This happened under his watch. He is responsible.
Geithner has used these incidents and the rest of the financial crisis as a call for more government power and control. This should not be a surprise. He is a firm believer in the partnership of government and big business. His first job out of school was with Kissinger Associates. This is a firm founded by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, which employs high ranking former government officials and advises large multinational corporations. It is not hard to connect the dots that such a firm is paid big money to use its connections and knowledge to achieve public-private partnerships. Their number one goal is to exploit and expand corporatism. He continued on to serve in various roles in the Treasury Department in the Bush (41) and Clinton years. He then worked for the IMF (where he misreported his taxes) and finally the NY Fed. His entire worldview is based on corporatism and the significant role of the banking elite in world affairs.
Geithner will not change. There are likely more skeletons in the closet. He will continue to defend his actions since he believes that the government and large financial institutions must work together. In times of crisis, this means that the rules don't matter and taxpayers don't matter. His rhetoric may state otherwise, but his actions singularly serve the financial system. He embodies corporatism and cannot survive as Democratic populism strengthens while unemployment stays above 10%. Obama will ultimately have to make a choice between Geithner and his base. While I believe that Obama will continue to kowtow to the financial powers-that-be, he can make Geithner a sacrificial lamb to serve the progressives taste for blood. For this reason, my disapproval of his policies, and his reckless arrogance, Geithner should resign immediately.
On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. This triggered a freeze in the credit markets, which, in turn, exacerbated a brewing crisis at insurance giant AIG. The Federal Reserve stepped in the next day with an $85M loan facility which effectively nationalized the company. This was not the end of the government's largess. Additional credit lines were created by the Federal Reserve and TARP money was used to provide a capital infusion. Tim Geithner was President of the NY Fed during this time.
Two key controversies emerged over the following months. First, AIG awarded large bonuses to employees despite the massive failure of the firm. These retention bonuses were executed despite populist discontent and anti-bonus rhetoric from Obama. However, Geithner effectively shrugged his shoulders and said nothing could be done. Second, AIG settled credit default swap contracts at par (one hundred cents on the dollar). This was controversial since AIG was effectively bankrupt and the counter-parties would likely have received much less in either bankruptcy or any other rigorous renegotiation. Again, Geithner effectively shrugged it off.
It was this second issue which is at the center of the aforementioned Bloomberg article. It has now been reported that the NY Fed suggested that AIG might limit its disclosure in regards to the payouts. Darrell Issa (R-CA) obtained correspondence as part of his investigations on the issue as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Issa has made the rounds this week on various news shows and penned an op-ed in the Huffington Post. More details and commentary on the story can be read here at Zero Hedge.
The White House has already begun its defense of Geithner (see the press briefing from today). Essentially, the argument is that (so far) none of the emails involve Geithner directly and that he was not aware of the details. However, he was President of the NY Fed. This happened under his watch. He is responsible.
Geithner has used these incidents and the rest of the financial crisis as a call for more government power and control. This should not be a surprise. He is a firm believer in the partnership of government and big business. His first job out of school was with Kissinger Associates. This is a firm founded by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, which employs high ranking former government officials and advises large multinational corporations. It is not hard to connect the dots that such a firm is paid big money to use its connections and knowledge to achieve public-private partnerships. Their number one goal is to exploit and expand corporatism. He continued on to serve in various roles in the Treasury Department in the Bush (41) and Clinton years. He then worked for the IMF (where he misreported his taxes) and finally the NY Fed. His entire worldview is based on corporatism and the significant role of the banking elite in world affairs.
Geithner will not change. There are likely more skeletons in the closet. He will continue to defend his actions since he believes that the government and large financial institutions must work together. In times of crisis, this means that the rules don't matter and taxpayers don't matter. His rhetoric may state otherwise, but his actions singularly serve the financial system. He embodies corporatism and cannot survive as Democratic populism strengthens while unemployment stays above 10%. Obama will ultimately have to make a choice between Geithner and his base. While I believe that Obama will continue to kowtow to the financial powers-that-be, he can make Geithner a sacrificial lamb to serve the progressives taste for blood. For this reason, my disapproval of his policies, and his reckless arrogance, Geithner should resign immediately.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Housekeeping
I am going to write another entry tonight (or at least start it), but wanted to get some housekeeping out of the way first. I haven't been writing much lately. I have a myriad of excuses, but it's time for action instead. So, I'm hoping this will kick off some regularly scheduled writing going forward.
A fair bit has transpired over the last couple of months. Health insurance reform is close to passing, although it is not entirely a forgone conclusion. 2010 is here which means elections for the House and over 1/3 of the Senate. We've had an attempted terrorist attack, more frequent Ron Paul sightings in the mainstream media, plenty of news on the economy, and much more.
The Indiana General Assembly is in session where property tax caps and ethics reform will be at the heart of the debate. The Daniels administration has continued to make cuts as revenues have failed to keep pace with the budget.
I'll cover all this and much more over the coming weeks. Enjoy!
A fair bit has transpired over the last couple of months. Health insurance reform is close to passing, although it is not entirely a forgone conclusion. 2010 is here which means elections for the House and over 1/3 of the Senate. We've had an attempted terrorist attack, more frequent Ron Paul sightings in the mainstream media, plenty of news on the economy, and much more.
The Indiana General Assembly is in session where property tax caps and ethics reform will be at the heart of the debate. The Daniels administration has continued to make cuts as revenues have failed to keep pace with the budget.
I'll cover all this and much more over the coming weeks. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)