Read it and Weep

Doom doom doom. And as always follow the trail back to "the island of misfit toys" called Washington.

"the Federal Reserve will [feel great] pressure to “monetize” our debt — that is, print new money to buy our bonds. In fact, the Fed is already suggesting that it will buy long-term Treasury securities in order to lower borrowing costs. If it does, then our money supply, which has already increased substantially over the past year, will grow even faster . . .

As Milton Friedman noted, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” It is a situation in which too few goods are being chased by too much money.

To American families, inflation is a destroyer of savings, a killer of wealth, a crusher of confidence. It calls into question the value of our money. And while we all share in the pain, the people whom inflation hits hardest are elderly people who live on fixed incomes, those in the middle class who are struggling to save for retirement and college and lower-income people who live paycheck to paycheck."

Time to buy some gold.

A worthy video & an unworthy sitmlus bill.

Funny and awesome.




The stimulus bill that will inevitably pass is, being kind, extremely disappointing. What is the goal here?

If it is purely short term relief of suffering then yes much of it goes toward that goal, but so much of it is just a Democrat Party stimulus. Nation before party people!

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan office of congress that analyzes upcoming legislation, estimates that,

"CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing."

What is the point then? To get the economy back on track or to demonstrate one's compassion?

I also read this interview with a Harvard economist. In answer to his assessment of the legislation:

This is probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s. I don't know what to say. I mean it's wasting a tremendous amount of money. It has some simplistic theory that I don't think will work, so I don't think the expenditure stuff is going to have the intended effect. I don't think it will expand the economy. And the tax cutting isn't really geared toward incentives. It's not really geared to lowering tax rates; it's more along the lines of throwing money at people. On both sides I think it's garbage. So in terms of balance between the two it doesn't really matter that much.

Garbage.

There are so many other options that will create real long term jobs in the real productive economy than this porktastic train wreck.

How about:

1. A temporary lifting of the capital gains tax until 2 consecutive quarters of economic growth.
2. $20 - 30k tax credit to each net increase in a business' payroll in 2009.
3. $20 - 30k tax credit for each new home purchased in 2009.
4. Directly fund every infrastructure project green lighted to go in 2009 (meaning they've passed all requisite planning and review processes and just need funds).
5. Reduce corporate tax rate enough to shock people and get the attention of the business world.

In short get people working now! Not later, and not on completely temporary projects. When the housing and financial industries recover so will the rest of the economy. The above will cost so much less than what is on the table now, and it will avoid the long term consequences of so much debt.

A Reluctant Post

I have been avoiding commenting on the ongoing Obama nominee fiasco. Trying to maintain a less partisan atmosphere on this blog is a constant goal. But, with the third shoe to drop it is too big not to comment on.

Nearly every new Obama appointment has been front page material. Three haven't paid their taxes. Beginning with Peter Geithner, his tax problems did stop him from receiving his nomination. This was followed by Tom Daschel's unpaid taxes, who would have faced additional scrutiny as a lobbyist (he has now withdrawn his nomination). Now a new tax problem is on the books of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis' husband. If the entire vetting team is not fired after this I don't know what more they can do to get fired. Hopefully Obama's team can get their act together; our country needs some effective leadership. I honestly hope this isn't indicative of their effectiveness in other areas of governance.

In other administration appointment news.

This is Painful:



He reminds me of Bush's Scott McClellan just before Tony Snow (may he rest in peace).

Horrifying, could you look anymore like you are spinning, and then that reporter from ABC (no not Fox) just owns him.

Anyway, more to the point. The reporter's question concerning waivers for lobbyist to serve in Obama's administration is very pertinent. One of the first things Obama did as president was issue an executive order barring lobbyist from serving in his administration.

Yet this seems to be a very loose ban. Apparantly the president can waive the ban if it is in the public interest. The following have been granted exceptions:

• Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
• Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
• William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
• William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
• David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
• Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
• Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
• Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
• Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
• Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
• Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
• Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

I had hoped that his lobbyist ban would spur a cultural change in Washington, but it doesn't seem to be the case.