It looks like the Treasury is making about a $7 Billion profit from bailing out CitiGroup. Now if they only do something useful with the gains like pay down the debt...
The odds favor they'll use it on something stupid.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Back to 40 : Thinking and promoting long-term policy
The United States faces multiple long term crises.
If we don't start creating long-term policies to solve these issues now the crises in the long term will be unimaginable.
Health care costs are continuing to rise and will only be worse as the Baby Boomer effect gets more steam. The environmental issues are already facing a point of no-return according to many sources.
In a recent posting by Donald Marron, former CBO director and former economic advisor to President George W. Bush, suggested a multi-decade approach that focused on reducing our debt-to-GDP ratio (which on its current trajectory will reach 85% by 2020) to first 70% (by 2018), then 60%, then graduating down to 40%.
He suggested that we're going to have to go for the triple montage of:
The budget issue is the easiest and most immediately critical of these issues. If we don't have the money or leverage, we can't do much about the other two. We'll be looking at a national collapse in more ways than one.
Imagine if you made $100,000 per year but had credit card debt of $80,000 (an 80% Debt-to-GDP ratio). Depending on your rate you would be paying over $1,000 a month just in interest on $8,333 in pre-tax income. If you had to go buy another car, no one is going to give you a loan. If you had a financial emergency, you'd be out of options. What happens if you get a pay cut (the economy hits a bump and tax revenues drop)? With that kind of debt load you wouldn't have much in savings or investments or retirement funds. Even credit card debt of $60,000 (a 60% Debt-GDP ratio) would be well beyond your means.
Politically, this is going to be a tough sell. We need to start thinking beyond the next quarter and the next election. As Americans we need to support the politicians who are willing to push for this kind of long-term strategy.
- Health care, which we've finally started to address
- The Economy, the Budget, and the National Debt
- Environment, which we're still effectively ignoring
If we don't start creating long-term policies to solve these issues now the crises in the long term will be unimaginable.
Health care costs are continuing to rise and will only be worse as the Baby Boomer effect gets more steam. The environmental issues are already facing a point of no-return according to many sources.In a recent posting by Donald Marron, former CBO director and former economic advisor to President George W. Bush, suggested a multi-decade approach that focused on reducing our debt-to-GDP ratio (which on its current trajectory will reach 85% by 2020) to first 70% (by 2018), then 60%, then graduating down to 40%.
He suggested that we're going to have to go for the triple montage of:- Reducing spending - this is the number one priority - at least reducing the growth rate of spending, which is completely out of control. Reducing spending would have a more positive effect on the economy than increasing taxes.
- Increasing taxes - A lower flat tax would widen the tax base (Gerry Brown, Attorney General, D-CA is running for Governor of California again - he proposed a flat tax when he ran for President in 1992) and a VAT tax (national sales tax) would eliminate a lot of the pain of increasing our already broken income tax system.
- Promoting growth - We have to continue promoting growth, including increasing it areas that are going to further other goals like R&D in Health Care and Energy (like the National Ignition Facility's fusion reactor that finally seems like it's going to reach parity next month)
The budget issue is the easiest and most immediately critical of these issues. If we don't have the money or leverage, we can't do much about the other two. We'll be looking at a national collapse in more ways than one.
Imagine if you made $100,000 per year but had credit card debt of $80,000 (an 80% Debt-to-GDP ratio). Depending on your rate you would be paying over $1,000 a month just in interest on $8,333 in pre-tax income. If you had to go buy another car, no one is going to give you a loan. If you had a financial emergency, you'd be out of options. What happens if you get a pay cut (the economy hits a bump and tax revenues drop)? With that kind of debt load you wouldn't have much in savings or investments or retirement funds. Even credit card debt of $60,000 (a 60% Debt-GDP ratio) would be well beyond your means.
Politically, this is going to be a tough sell. We need to start thinking beyond the next quarter and the next election. As Americans we need to support the politicians who are willing to push for this kind of long-term strategy.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
AN IRISH FRIENDSHIP WISH
May there always be work for your hands to do;
May your purse always hold a coin or two;
May the sun always shine on your windowpane;
May a rainbow be certain to follow each rain;
May the hand of a friend always be near you;
May God fill your heart with gladness to cheer you.
May your purse always hold a coin or two;
May the sun always shine on your windowpane;
May a rainbow be certain to follow each rain;
May the hand of a friend always be near you;
May God fill your heart with gladness to cheer you.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Salvaging Health Care Reform
I laughed this morning when I heard Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) say this morning that (because the Democrats now only have a 59-41 lead in the Senate) they're in the driver's seat. I laughed at first because it demonstrated how delusional folks in Washington are that they can't do simple math. Then I realized sardonically that he may be right. With the massive all-or-nothing approach to health care it's pretty easy to get senators together to filibuster.
We need health care reform, but did we need it to be such a massively stupid bill that it took over a year to pull together? Couldn't we have had smaller, more manageable bills that are easier to negotiate? Easier to have up/down votes on?
If the Democrats want a strategy to pass health care reform, break it into those manageable chunks. Maybe 4 separate pieces - one for the controls including not denying people with existing coverage, one for the national exchange, and one for the public option. Present them individually. If the Republicans want to filibuster each and every one, they'll be globally viewed as the obstructionists they've been all year. In the mid-terms they'll be slaughtered.
We need health care reform, but did we need it to be such a massively stupid bill that it took over a year to pull together? Couldn't we have had smaller, more manageable bills that are easier to negotiate? Easier to have up/down votes on?
If the Democrats want a strategy to pass health care reform, break it into those manageable chunks. Maybe 4 separate pieces - one for the controls including not denying people with existing coverage, one for the national exchange, and one for the public option. Present them individually. If the Republicans want to filibuster each and every one, they'll be globally viewed as the obstructionists they've been all year. In the mid-terms they'll be slaughtered.
Democrats and Republicans: Time for a reboot
For the last decade, Hollywood has been doing a lot of "reboots" where venerable series like Batman and James Bond have either gotten so silly or their roots are so far in the past that they need to go back to the beginning of the series and tell it from scratch. They need to get back to their roots.
The special election in Massachusetts yesterday was proof that both Republicans and Democrats need to reboot their own parties. I've been a centrist Democrat all my life - I'm just not sure I know what that means anymore. Maybe I'm just a centrist. My fellow Republicans are in the same boat. No one knows what it means to be a Republican anymore. The Democrats may be dazed and confused, but they have a platform. They're fragmented over the details, but they have a platform. The Republican party has ideals - somewhere - but they have no platform. They've been the party of "No" all year.
So now we're faced with two parties running the country that don't know what they want to be when they grow up. Maybe they even have an idea, but they definitely have no plan to get there.
We could always follow George Washington's idea - first things first, let's get rid of all the parties and vote on individual issues.
The special election in Massachusetts yesterday was proof that both Republicans and Democrats need to reboot their own parties. I've been a centrist Democrat all my life - I'm just not sure I know what that means anymore. Maybe I'm just a centrist. My fellow Republicans are in the same boat. No one knows what it means to be a Republican anymore. The Democrats may be dazed and confused, but they have a platform. They're fragmented over the details, but they have a platform. The Republican party has ideals - somewhere - but they have no platform. They've been the party of "No" all year.
So now we're faced with two parties running the country that don't know what they want to be when they grow up. Maybe they even have an idea, but they definitely have no plan to get there.
We could always follow George Washington's idea - first things first, let's get rid of all the parties and vote on individual issues.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Impeach Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi is a threat to the Republic and should be impeached.
Even before she took the helm of the House of Representatives, Pelosi made clear her position about impeachment of the President.
Whether or not you agree about impeachment of George W. Bush, it is a basic and fundamental DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY of the House of Representatives to consider impeachment.
Several variations of articles of impeachment against W. have been drafted, citing real High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Crimes that - if proven true - represent a real clear and present danger to the United States of America.
Representative John Conyers (D-MI, Chair House Judiciary Committee), whose job it is to initiate the consideration, had made clear his intention to begin investigations that could - if evidentiary hearings proved substantively in favor of impeachment - lead to it. His approach (HR 635-2005) was reasoned and not a knee-jerk to gaining power - as he himself said that that type of approach would lead to a political backlash just as it did for the Republicans when they made it their primary mission to impeach President Clinton in 1995 when they gained power. Conyers is following the investigation that a half of Americans want. (Which was far more than the 36% that favored hearings to impeach Bill Clinton.)
Pelosi made it clear that his approach was doomed to failure before it ever got started - before finding out whether there was sufficient grounds for impeachment, she killed the possibility of it. By refusing to consider the possibility of impeachment - by "removing it from the table" (paraphrased), she has made it clear that she has ABROGATED HER DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5).
This is in fact old news. Her continuing transgressions include the poo-pooing of the Democratic reconcilation through the "Dream Team" and telling the super-delegates (from a position of authority as House Speaker) how they should be voting - essentially increasing the polarity of the party. Pelosi is as far to the left of the Democratic Party as you can be without being a Communist eco-terrorist. Clinton is as far as you can be to the right of the party without being a Republican. [I also am in the latter category.]
Pelosi is attempting to influence the remaining nomination race by repeatedly killing the only real chance the party has of guaranteeing victory in the general election, despite the fact that it is what most Democrats want. Most polls put either Obama or Clinton ahead of McCain in the general election by only 1.5-3%. The same lead Kerry had in 2004 against W - and far more than the lead Al Gore won the 2000 election with. That should be disturbingly close for anyone. We can't afford another election that is anything but a decisive slam dunk. A dream ticket is exactly that: Clinton-Obama polls a win at 53%-40% over McCain, and an Obama-Clinton win at 49%-45%.
Similarly, she's made statements on how they should vote - following the delegate count and ignoring their own individual criteria. If they follow that directive then even if Hillary closes the gap to 2 pledged delegates then all the super delegates should vote for Obama. There becomes no point in running the remaining primaries - and their votes, like Michigan and Florida, count for nothing.
As a key super-delegate - one in an authoritative position over many other super-delegates making statements like that is basically telling them how to vote.
Every time Pelosi opens her mouth, she is essentially working to split the party and destroy our chances of victory in the general election.
Even before she took the helm of the House of Representatives, Pelosi made clear her position about impeachment of the President.
Whether or not you agree about impeachment of George W. Bush, it is a basic and fundamental DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY of the House of Representatives to consider impeachment.
Several variations of articles of impeachment against W. have been drafted, citing real High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Crimes that - if proven true - represent a real clear and present danger to the United States of America.
Representative John Conyers (D-MI, Chair House Judiciary Committee), whose job it is to initiate the consideration, had made clear his intention to begin investigations that could - if evidentiary hearings proved substantively in favor of impeachment - lead to it. His approach (HR 635-2005) was reasoned and not a knee-jerk to gaining power - as he himself said that that type of approach would lead to a political backlash just as it did for the Republicans when they made it their primary mission to impeach President Clinton in 1995 when they gained power. Conyers is following the investigation that a half of Americans want. (Which was far more than the 36% that favored hearings to impeach Bill Clinton.)
Pelosi made it clear that his approach was doomed to failure before it ever got started - before finding out whether there was sufficient grounds for impeachment, she killed the possibility of it. By refusing to consider the possibility of impeachment - by "removing it from the table" (paraphrased), she has made it clear that she has ABROGATED HER DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5).
This is in fact old news. Her continuing transgressions include the poo-pooing of the Democratic reconcilation through the "Dream Team" and telling the super-delegates (from a position of authority as House Speaker) how they should be voting - essentially increasing the polarity of the party. Pelosi is as far to the left of the Democratic Party as you can be without being a Communist eco-terrorist. Clinton is as far as you can be to the right of the party without being a Republican. [I also am in the latter category.]
Pelosi is attempting to influence the remaining nomination race by repeatedly killing the only real chance the party has of guaranteeing victory in the general election, despite the fact that it is what most Democrats want. Most polls put either Obama or Clinton ahead of McCain in the general election by only 1.5-3%. The same lead Kerry had in 2004 against W - and far more than the lead Al Gore won the 2000 election with. That should be disturbingly close for anyone. We can't afford another election that is anything but a decisive slam dunk. A dream ticket is exactly that: Clinton-Obama polls a win at 53%-40% over McCain, and an Obama-Clinton win at 49%-45%.
Similarly, she's made statements on how they should vote - following the delegate count and ignoring their own individual criteria. If they follow that directive then even if Hillary closes the gap to 2 pledged delegates then all the super delegates should vote for Obama. There becomes no point in running the remaining primaries - and their votes, like Michigan and Florida, count for nothing.
As a key super-delegate - one in an authoritative position over many other super-delegates making statements like that is basically telling them how to vote.
Every time Pelosi opens her mouth, she is essentially working to split the party and destroy our chances of victory in the general election.
Does Hillary's Big-State Argument hold water?
Even as a Hillary supporter, I found the big-state argument to be a bit of a stretch. Would the big states that voted for Hillary NOT vote for Barack if (when) he ran in the general election?
There is no question that the Democratic party's system for counting delegates is broken. The Republican party makes more sense in that it's based on the electoral college system that will be used in the general election. If that system was used, there would be no question about Hillary being the candidate now. (I personally think the electoral college is very broken - designed for a time when horse-and-buggy was the fastest means of communication from far off states - but that *IS* the system laid out in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, et al).) The key piece of the Democratic primary version is more fair and democratic (although I believe both caucuses and super-delegates are even more anti-democratic than the electoral system.)
If Hillary has a chance of pushing her nomination, it will be based on the obvious broken-ness of the system (the counter-argument is that those are the rules we've based the primaries and caucuses on that everyone's been tacitly following). It will be based on the popular vote argument, which requires Michigan and Florida to be counted somehow. It will also require some serious mis-steps by Barack.
I've addressed the Michigan/Florida thing before. The Big-State argument has already been used indirectly by the party in disproportionate delegate awards to traditionally Democratic counties (most recently in Texas and Pennsylvania). Barack is doing his missteps himself, and will likely continue doing so now that he's under the normal (rose-colored-glasses removed) media attention.
But even if that card gets played, do the numbers make sense? I've pulled some of this data from Professor Tannenbaum's Electoral Vote site (one of my indirect professor's web sites - Andy taught an online OS Design class of 50,000 of us at a time - in 1990/1991. Amongst his other students was Linus Torvalds (the originator of Linux). Andy was and still is way ahead of his time...), and CNN Politics.
From http://www.electoral-vote.com/
What is the smallest number of states you have to win to be president? By sorting the spreadsheet on EVs, you get the answer easily: 11. A candidate who wins the following 11 states gets 271 electoral votes and thus wins:
[The first 11 states in the first paragraph answer Andy's question above. I've sorted the states by EV size and added in the CNN recorded margins of victory, winner first, then my notes. The second and third paragraphs I've added to include all states with 10 or more EVs. Note Michigan and Florida are in the FIRST paragraph.]
(55) California (Clinton 52%, Obama 43%)
(34) Texas, (Clinton 51%, Obama 47%) - expected Republican in GE
(31) New York, (Clinton 57%, Obama 40%)
(27) Florida, (Clinton 55%, Obama 33% (Edwards 14%)) - Swing State
(21) Illinois, (Obama 65%, Clinton 33%)
(21) Pennsylvania, (Clinton 55%, Obama 45%)
(20) Ohio, (Clinton 54%, Obama 44%) - Swing State
(17) Michigan, (Clinton 55%, Obama 45% est)
(15) New Jersey, (Clinton 54%, Obama 44%)
(15) North Carolina, (TBD, expected Obama - expected Republican in GE
(15) Georgia, (Obama 55%, Clinton 27% (Edwards 18%) - expected Republican in GE
(13) Virginia (Obama 64%, Clinton 35%) - possibly Republican in GE (becoming Swing State)
(12) Massachusetts (Clinton 56%, Obama 41%)
(11) Tennessee (Clinton 54%, Obama 41%) - Swing State
(11) Missouri (Obama 49%, Clinton 48%) - Swing State
(11) Washington (Obama 68%, Clinton 31%) (Caucus)
(10) Arizona (Clinton 51%, Obama 42%) - expected Republican in GE
(10) Wisconsin (Obama 58%, Clinton 41%)
(10) Minnesota (Obama 66%, Clinton 32%) (Caucus)
(10) Maryland (Obama 60%, Clinton 37%)
Looking at those largest 11, we're probably going to lose Texas and North Carolina in the GE (general election). It's not a foregone in today's wacky upside-down political world where everyone gets that Republicans aren't Republican any more and the Democratic party is confused and disoriented about what it wants to be when it grows up (what else is new? :-). We will probably loose Florida if its primary isn't counted and Barack is on the ticket alone - it's already a swing state as it is - that will push it in favor of the Republicans. Ohio is similar - I think if Hillary wins the nomination (or is somehow on the ticket), we'll take Ohio. I don't think we will if Barack is on it by himself. I think Michigan will Go Blue regardless, but not having Hillary on that ticket puts what should be a "slam dunk" into the category of "probably". Georgia is usually Republican - but if Barack is on the ticket I think we'll take it. Those are obviously my guesses.
If all or most or half of those guesses end up being correct, that leaves the rest of the race in far too close of a contention. The scenario without Barack is equally if not more gloomy - and disenfranchisement may be the least of our problems by that point. Psychohistorically, I can't eliminate the possibly of riots - and if they occured I'm not sure it would be unjustified.
The entire race should have been "slam dunk". Now it's "possibly". "Maybe".
The both need to suck it up and accept each other on the ticket. Mario Cuomo is right.
There is no question that the Democratic party's system for counting delegates is broken. The Republican party makes more sense in that it's based on the electoral college system that will be used in the general election. If that system was used, there would be no question about Hillary being the candidate now. (I personally think the electoral college is very broken - designed for a time when horse-and-buggy was the fastest means of communication from far off states - but that *IS* the system laid out in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, et al).) The key piece of the Democratic primary version is more fair and democratic (although I believe both caucuses and super-delegates are even more anti-democratic than the electoral system.)
If Hillary has a chance of pushing her nomination, it will be based on the obvious broken-ness of the system (the counter-argument is that those are the rules we've based the primaries and caucuses on that everyone's been tacitly following). It will be based on the popular vote argument, which requires Michigan and Florida to be counted somehow. It will also require some serious mis-steps by Barack.
I've addressed the Michigan/Florida thing before. The Big-State argument has already been used indirectly by the party in disproportionate delegate awards to traditionally Democratic counties (most recently in Texas and Pennsylvania). Barack is doing his missteps himself, and will likely continue doing so now that he's under the normal (rose-colored-glasses removed) media attention.
But even if that card gets played, do the numbers make sense? I've pulled some of this data from Professor Tannenbaum's Electoral Vote site (one of my indirect professor's web sites - Andy taught an online OS Design class of 50,000 of us at a time - in 1990/1991. Amongst his other students was Linus Torvalds (the originator of Linux). Andy was and still is way ahead of his time...), and CNN Politics.
From http://www.electoral-vote.com/
What is the smallest number of states you have to win to be president? By sorting the spreadsheet on EVs, you get the answer easily: 11. A candidate who wins the following 11 states gets 271 electoral votes and thus wins:
[The first 11 states in the first paragraph answer Andy's question above. I've sorted the states by EV size and added in the CNN recorded margins of victory, winner first, then my notes. The second and third paragraphs I've added to include all states with 10 or more EVs. Note Michigan and Florida are in the FIRST paragraph.]
(55) California (Clinton 52%, Obama 43%)
(34) Texas, (Clinton 51%, Obama 47%) - expected Republican in GE
(31) New York, (Clinton 57%, Obama 40%)
(27) Florida, (Clinton 55%, Obama 33% (Edwards 14%)) - Swing State
(21) Illinois, (Obama 65%, Clinton 33%)
(21) Pennsylvania, (Clinton 55%, Obama 45%)
(20) Ohio, (Clinton 54%, Obama 44%) - Swing State
(17) Michigan, (Clinton 55%, Obama 45% est)
(15) New Jersey, (Clinton 54%, Obama 44%)
(15) North Carolina, (TBD, expected Obama - expected Republican in GE
(15) Georgia, (Obama 55%, Clinton 27% (Edwards 18%) - expected Republican in GE
(13) Virginia (Obama 64%, Clinton 35%) - possibly Republican in GE (becoming Swing State)
(12) Massachusetts (Clinton 56%, Obama 41%)
(11) Tennessee (Clinton 54%, Obama 41%) - Swing State
(11) Missouri (Obama 49%, Clinton 48%) - Swing State
(11) Washington (Obama 68%, Clinton 31%) (Caucus)
(10) Arizona (Clinton 51%, Obama 42%) - expected Republican in GE
(10) Wisconsin (Obama 58%, Clinton 41%)
(10) Minnesota (Obama 66%, Clinton 32%) (Caucus)
(10) Maryland (Obama 60%, Clinton 37%)
Looking at those largest 11, we're probably going to lose Texas and North Carolina in the GE (general election). It's not a foregone in today's wacky upside-down political world where everyone gets that Republicans aren't Republican any more and the Democratic party is confused and disoriented about what it wants to be when it grows up (what else is new? :-). We will probably loose Florida if its primary isn't counted and Barack is on the ticket alone - it's already a swing state as it is - that will push it in favor of the Republicans. Ohio is similar - I think if Hillary wins the nomination (or is somehow on the ticket), we'll take Ohio. I don't think we will if Barack is on it by himself. I think Michigan will Go Blue regardless, but not having Hillary on that ticket puts what should be a "slam dunk" into the category of "probably". Georgia is usually Republican - but if Barack is on the ticket I think we'll take it. Those are obviously my guesses.
If all or most or half of those guesses end up being correct, that leaves the rest of the race in far too close of a contention. The scenario without Barack is equally if not more gloomy - and disenfranchisement may be the least of our problems by that point. Psychohistorically, I can't eliminate the possibly of riots - and if they occured I'm not sure it would be unjustified.
The entire race should have been "slam dunk". Now it's "possibly". "Maybe".
The both need to suck it up and accept each other on the ticket. Mario Cuomo is right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)