Tag: obama

Dean Baker AND Ron Paul

An interesting read in which Dean Baker agrees with Ron Paul’s idea:

…the Fed has bought roughly $1.6 trillion in government bonds through its various quantitative easing programs over the last two and a half years. This money is part of the $14.3 trillion debt that is subject to the debt ceiling. However, the Fed is an agency of the government. Its assets are in fact assets of the government. Each year, the Fed refunds the interest earned on its assets in excess of the money needed to cover its operating expenses. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion to the Treasury. In this sense, the bonds held by the Fed are literally money that the government owes to itself.

Unlike the debt held by Social Security, the debt held by the Fed is not tied to any specific obligations. The bonds held by the Fed are assets of the Fed. It has no obligations that it must use these assets to meet. There is no one who loses their retirement income if the Fed doesn’t have its bonds. In fact, there is no direct loss of income to anyone associated with the Fed’s destruction of its bonds. This means that if Congress told the Fed to burn the bonds, it would in effect just be destroying a liability that the government had to itself, but it would still reduce the debt subject to the debt ceiling by $1.6 trillion. This would buy the country considerable breathing room before the debt ceiling had to be raised again. President Obama and the Republican congressional leadership could have close to two years to talk about potential spending cuts or tax increases. Maybe they could even talk a little about jobs.

In addition, there’s a second reason why Representative Paul’s plan is such a good idea. As it stands now, the Fed plans to sell off its bond holdings over the next few years. This means that the interest paid on these bonds would go to banks, corporations, pension funds, and individual investors who purchase them from the Fed. In this case, the interest payments would be a burden to the Treasury since the Fed would no longer be collecting (and refunding) the interest.

More detail at the link. I’m no economist, but it sounds like dodging the interest alone is worth doing in exchange for a fairly minor “bank tax” down the road as the reserve rate requirements would necessarily ratcheted up slightly to offset the eventual inflationary pressure caused by The Great Bond Shredding of ‘11.

Were I Obama, I’d get out on the hustings this very second talking about how under no circumstances should the Fed order these bonds be destroyed. Go have lunch with Joe Biden. Come back out and say “well, it is with a heavy heart I have to bow to the demands of my GOP overlords. We shall shred the bonds effective immediately. Bipartisan!”

After all, the only way to get something done in this government is for Obama to come out against it and wait for the GOP’s reflexive adoption of the opposite position no matter what the issue. That the Democratic leadership in DC haven’t yet figured this out is why they fail.

Dean Baker AND Ron Paul

Obama’s Other Card

Even as the political battle mounts over federal spending, the end result for federal policy is already visible — and clearly favors Republican goals of deep spending cuts and drastically fewer government services.

President Obama entered the fray last week to insist that federal deficits can’t be reduced through spending reductions alone. Federal tax revenue also must rise as part of whatever deficit reduction package Congress approves this summer, he said. Obama has been pushing to end a series of what he calls tax loopholes and tax breaks for the rich.

But even if Obama were to gain all the tax-law changes he wants, new revenue would make up only about 15 cents of each dollar in deficit reduction in the package. An agreement by the Republicans to accept new revenue would be a political victory for Obama because “no new taxes” has been such an article of faith for the GOP.

I think this analysis leaves out a critical piece of the calculation: the December 2012 expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Recall that Obama, above all else, is the “outcomes” President. He’s more than willing to take a temporary political setback or even a seeming political loss in the short term if that in turn leads to the long-term policy outcomes he prefers.

So: to get a deal on the debt ceiling he gives the GOP a fatter ratio of cuts to revenues for now. Keep in mind, these “cuts” are really a framework that then plays out over most of a decade and will ultimately be changed and tuned by several Presidents and Congresses (and that’s assuming they stick to the framework at all).
Next year though, assuming Obama’s reelected, everything changes on the revenue front. If the Congress simply fails to act, the full set of cuts expires. If they act, but the GOP includes extension of the cuts for those making more than ~$200k/yr, Obama vetoes it. And, really, if we assume that the GOP will fail in its efforts to destroy the economy in the next few weeks, Obama likely prefers one of those two outcomes. Why? Again, it’s because they are the best long-term outcomes for the country. That both reflect poorly on the GOP is a bonus side benefit going into the 2014 midterms. To be sure, a tax rise represents real short term pain for the less well off, but that pain yields long term stability and, let’s face it, sanity in the revenue structures of the United States.

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a key pillar in the “do nothing” solution for our current deficit/revenue issues. The assumption that all or most of them are going to expire if Obama is reelected needs to be included in any meaningful political calculus regarding the ratio of cuts to revenue increases in the current negotiation. Assuming expiration, you ultimately end up with a number of difficult but doable fixes that can be handled one at a time. If those “fixes” are, you know, paid for, the country will once again be on firm financial footing, complete with a reasonably robust social safety net for as far as the eye can see. This is precisely the outcome Obama is playing for.

Obama’s Other Card

What Ezra Said

Mitt Romney: We have all been distressed by the policies that this administration has put in place over the last two years. We have seen the most anti-investment, antigrowth, antijob strategy in America since Jimmy Carter. The result has been it’s harder and harder for people to find work.
Ezra Klein: By any measure, this is absurd. Taxes are at a 50-year low. The Dow has staged a roaring recovery. Business profits are near record levels. And the economy has gone from losing 780,000 jobs a month to gaining about 160,000 jobs a month. That is to say, it’s getting easier and easier for people to find work, even if it’s not nearly easy enough.

Almost 60,000 average Americans had the courage to go out and charge those beaches on Normandy, to drop out of airplanes who knows where, and take on the battle for freedom. Average Americans. The very Americans that our government now, and this president, does not trust to make a decision on your health care plan. Those Americans risked everything so they could make that decision on their health care plan.

Rick Santorum, mulling the true evil of Hitler: an under-appreciated penchant for wanting to provide affordable health care.
Source: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com

In a Decent World

jeffmiller:

lemkin:

“…in a decent world, conservatives would be forced to acknowledge that these are the [employment] results they claim to want. The private sector’s not being held back by the grasping arm of big government. Government is shrinking. And the shrinking of the government sector isn’t leading to any kind of private sector explosion. It’s simply offsetting meager private sector growth. Indeed, I’d say it’s holding it back. Fewer state and local government layoffs would mean more customers for private businesses and even stronger growth on the private side.”

— **Matt Yglesias**, pining for a decent world. That sort of attention to detail would require the media to leave critical questions about Weiner’s penis on the cutting room floor. I don’t think *anyone* wants to live in an America that’s like that.

What’s sad about this is that Yglesias knows he’s being disingenuous.  He knows the the size of government isn’t measured by the number of people it employs.  He knows that federal spending has increased substantially during Obama’s presidency.  He knows that federal contractors are counted in the private sector employment numbers.  He knows that there are more, not fewer, regulations now than there were two years ago.  He knows that there are more, not fewer, laws on the books now than there were two years ago.  

Democrats had control of this country for two years, and things are terrible.  I understand it’s the job of the political hack to spin this as a Republican failure, but it isn’t one.  In a decent world, Yglesias would acknowledge this.

Indeed, our troubles began on Jan 19, 2009 and haven’t improved a whit since. Goddamned Democrat monsters:

The Kitchen Table

I’ve said before that the “kitchen table” meme needs to die. But before it shuffles off this mortal coil, President Obama should put it to use one more time:

“My fellow Americans, we in the United States are like so many of you, sitting at your kitchen table and wondering where to come up with money to cover an unexpected expense while still keeping the lights on and food on the table. As you may have heard, the National Bureau of Economic Research recently reported that most Americans couldn’t produce $2000 on short notice without selling possessions or finding a lender to borrow it from. The government faces these questions all the time; like right now, with some members of Congress moving to prevent us from providing emergency funds to help the victims of the terrible tornado in Joplin, Missouri.

"In some ways, the problems of deficits and the debt that the federal government accumulates are no different from you, at your kitchen table, trying to come up with that desperately needed $2000 on short notice. As you all know, the United States has seen historic shortfalls over the last several years as government income has dropped dramatically as a direct result of the downturn in the global economy. At the same time, of course, we’ve had to increase various outlays and spending just to maintain existing programs or fund new recovery efforts and, of course, continue fighting two wars.

"Now, because of all this, we in the government find ourselves sitting around our kitchen table talking about the budget and our debts. The Democrats in Congress and I have suggested various cuts and other ways to tighten our belts, just like all of you have had to do through this time of economic hardship and struggle; but we also believe that since the government can currently borrow at historically low rates, we should take advantage of that capability while it’s here. More to the point: we think it would be foolish not to. It’s the difference between spending on large, unnecessary purchases and recognizing a genuine opportunity that also carries with it a long-term but sustainable debt. Much like when you bought your first home, or a car, or started a small business and the bank ensured that you could actually meet the payments at the interest rates offered; in the same way, the world market believes that the US government will remain solvent and thus continues to offer money at very low interest. This will not always be so, but we Democrats believe we should take advantage of it while we can and that we should use that extra buying power to empower the American economy on its road to recovery.

"The Republicans, on the other hand, are suggesting that we sell the furniture at whatever price the first person offers us, put the children to work at dangerous jobs, eat tainted food and dirty water to save a few cents, and finally default on our existing financial obligations such that we can pay down that mortgage on the house as quickly as possible, even if that action means incurring penalties, and they want to do all of this despite the fact that we have access to stable, reasonable long term interest rates and also have the wherewithal to make payments long into the foreseeable future. It’s like they want us to finance a car on a high interest credit card instead of through a traditional bank loan just because they want to give the people at the credit card company some more money. It doesn’t make any financial sense for the country and only functions to create wealth for the handfull of people at the very top of the financial system.

"I think I know which road you as Americans want us to take. So why not sit down at that kitchen table of yours and write or call your Congressperson and let them know?

"Thank you for listening. Good night, and good luck.”

The Inherent Foolishness of “War Powers”

Pity the poor War Powers act:

If nothing happens, history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking.

The President has the unilateral authority to end life on Earth at any moment of his choosing with our nuclear arsenal. Unless and until Congress takes that authority away and ties it to normal, Constitutionally regulated war declaration mechanisms then none of the other details really matters (and this is why even the GOP House doesn’t get too worked up about it: War Powers stuff (60 day limits and etc…) is, in essence, a meaningless distraction and Congress knows it). It also seems likely to be unconstitutional, or, at the very least of questionable legality.

Whatever their reasoning on the War Powers Act and its applicability and/or enforcement is, Congress has a simple recourse that’s clearly enumerated in the Constitution: defund Libyan operations and demand the President request a formal declaration of war if he wants to continue. Same goes for Iraq and Afghanistan. There should have been just such a declaration on or about September 12, 2001.

Either hold the country to formal declarations of war in all cases or don’t; but let’s be consistent and honest and admit that holding to a strict Constitutional standard means removing “The Button” from the Oval Office once and for all.
As a bonus, doing so also gives you an excuse to clean up the rampant classification of everything that is currently carried out under the same “imminent and existential nuclear disaster” model of national security. This plainly anti-democratic power, again, was conferred as some sort of necessary evil in Our Nuclear Age. End it now and forever; make the President and anyone else have to prove to a judge or some similar panel that something should be classified because it poses a clear and measurable risk to National Security if revealed, and even then only classify it for a short time period with regular review for declassification.

The Inherent Foolishness of “War Powers”

…over the past week I’ve been watching the almost pathetic desperation with which conservatives are trying to denigrate Obama’s part in the bin Laden operation. Really, it’s been awesome. On radio, TV, blogs, op-eds, pretty much everywhere, they’ve been virtually in a lather insisting that Obama himself played no real role; that he’s arrogantly hogging the spotlight; that he screwed up by announcing the operation so soon; that the entire success is really due to Bush-era torture policies; that he shouldn’t have killed bin Laden; that he’s being churlish by not giving George W. Bush enough credit; etc. etc. etc. It’s been a virtual feeding frenzy, and the stink of fear that Obama is appropriating the traditional Republican role as killer of bad guys is palpable.

[…] But Republicans already have a message that they want to stay laser-focused on: tackling the deficit. The fact that they’re taking so much time out from that to denigrate Obama’s role in the bin Laden operation suggests that they think this is a big deal. And if they think it’s a big deal, then maybe it is. They’re usually pretty good at reading the public mood, after all.

Kevin Drum
I’d say it has more to do with the GOP’s lockstep use of the bogeyman approach to 9/11: using Osama bin Laden as the unique personification of international terrorism on Earth and their implicit agreement that, until this particular bogeyman is caught, the War on Terror must continue without recourse to question or even reason, along with attendant military spending, shoot-from-the-hip wars in any country be they “ally” or ally, endless civil liberties roll-backs, and etc… They’ve pumped their followers and the country at large so full of this super-villain schtick that now, when a Democrat they constantly tar as weak, indecisive, ineligible, and “dangerously inexperienced” is the man who ordered a direct, face to face assassination inside a sovereign nation ostensibly our ally and but also who were notably not informed of said operation is decidedly inconvenient. Even Sainted Reagan never dared such a thing, preferring to invade largely defenseless islands or lob in a few bombs in vain hope of catching his particular bogeyman (a tactic Obama recently trotted out in Libya as well).
So, if you’re a Republican, this event cuts at both your go-to bogeyman of the last decade (and the reaction in the streets certainly was more on the order of that seen at the demonstrable end of a long war rather than an infamous international criminal finally being brought to justice; I’ll grant them that their noise machine definitely works) and simultaneously cuts against your beloved hobby horse about weak-kneed Democrats and their inability to “do” national defense. Pile on that Obama the campaigner said words along the lines of “bin Laden should be our priority,” Obama the President said the same, and Obama the results man delivered exactly that result. There’s simply no way to spin it away. Their inability to take this political lump, let Obama have a win in their home court, and just let it drop is all that’s keeping the “story” side of this event going.
Rarely do you see the GOP victimized by its own noise machine tactics, but every so often they seem to forget they run the noise machine and if they stop talking about it, the noise machine along with the broader MSM will go on to some other shiny penny in about 16 minutes. Doesn’t happen often, but it does happen.
Source: Mother Jones

Their happiness will turn into sorrow, and their blood will be mixed with their tears. We call upon our Muslim people in Pakistan, on whose land Sheikh Osama was killed, to rise up and revolt.

al Qaeda, responding to and admitting the death of Osama bin Laden.
They are apparently unaware that he a) has been dead for years and kept on ice until Obama needed him for reelection b) is still very much alive c) never existed in the first place and/or d) never concerned us much anyway.

It is important to make sure that very graphic photos of [bin Laden] who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool.

[…]

We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies. The fact of the matter is, this is somebody who was deserving of the justice that he received.

[…]

…we [are] monitoring worldwide reaction. There is no doubt that Osama bin Laden is dead. Certainly there is no doubt among al Qaeda members that he is dead. So we don’t think that a photograph in and of itself is going to make any difference. There are going to be some folks who deny it. The fact of the matter is, you will not see bin Laden walking on this earth again.

President Barack Obama, in remarks to Steve Kroft for an upcoming 60 Minutes.
I agree, and I find that bit about al Qaeda members lack of doubt to be particularly interesting, but I still think this course of action only invites a whole new wave of “Deathers.” Not that they’d believe anything up to and including bin Laden’s head on a pike in the middle of a DC roundabout (he was dead ages ago and kept on ice; this is an elaborate biological replicate of what appears to be his head; where’s the body!?!). Still, something has got to be put out there such that this crap is mostly shut down. The nonsense with the birth certificate fairly proves that it will never, ever go away until the MSM and specifically FOXnews is just too embarrassed to mention it anymore.
Why not video of the raid up to the frame before he is shot? Surely this would be proof positive and seems likely to exist. Assuming that’s not forthcoming, I’d say it’s only days before House and Senate Republicans start in with the “well, I take him at his word but…” crap.