For the Democrats in Congress, winning in November isn’t rocket science; it’s about having the will to pursue survival ruthlessly. The key to winning is giving the American people what they’ll like, and not allowing any of the normal Washington obstacles to stand in the way. But, for Dems to act that way depends on them changing both their beliefs and their behavior. Let’s start with the beliefs.
The first belief that has to change is the idea that deficits are a problem for the Federal Government, that Democrats have to minimize to show that they are responsible. This is a myth, a lie, a scare, or a fraud. Deficits are only a problem when inflation begins to appear. If there is no inflation, Democrats should not even give lip service to the idea that deficits are important.
The reasons why deficits are not a problem are the following. First, the Government of the United States can never go broke, because it has unlimited authority to create money to use for whatever purposes it cares to. It cannot run out of money. It can never become insolvent, or fail to pay its debts, so long as it chooses to create more money. Second, the Government doesn’t have to borrow money to repay its debts, or to spend more than it does now. If it does borrow money that is its choice dictated by false ideas, not dictated by real need. Nor does the Government have to increase taxes to collect money to pay for its spending. It doesn’t need accumulated tax revenues to pay for what it spends unless it it needs to withdraw money from the economy to reduce inflation. As long as there’s no inflation, without needing to resort to either taxation or increased taxation to reduce it, there is no Governmental need for the tax money.
The belief that the Federal Government can’t, or should not run, a deficit, is just a mistaken belief, a hangover from the days of the gold standard, that prevents Democrats from acting in ways that people will like and that will get them votes. It prevents them from advocating for enhanced Medicare for All and making it effective within a year. It prevents them legislating an effective jobs program that will work quickly and end the recession before the elections in the Fall. It prevents them from moving quickly to fund a rapid transformation to an economy based on alternative energy sources. It prevents them from rapidly improving our educational system or rapidly repairing our deteriorating infrastructure. It prevents them from spending the money needed in order to reconstruct our mass transportation system. In short, the belief that deficits are important and that we really have to worry about them, and take care not to spend too much money, is a major obstacle in the way of creating an effective Government and implementing real change. It is a needless obstacle, and its acceptance and advocacy amounts to progressives tying their hands behind their backs during the heavy lifting required for real change. This mistaken belief is at the heart of both progressive and Democratic failures over the past 35 years or so, because it has limited their willingness to advocate for Government-facilitated social change over this long period of time.
The second belief that Democratic Senators have to change is the idea that the filibuster is good for them, and that they need to retain it against the Day when the Republicans will regain power. The filibuster is not good for them, however, because in making it difficult for Democrats to pass legislation that will actually solve problems, it destroys their legislative performance and they become targets for the broader failure of their Party. A case in point is Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Senator Boxer entered the Senate with a pronounced anti-filibuster attitude, but over the years, she became convinced of its usefulness in preventing Republicans from working their will when the Democrats were in the minority. However, perceived Democratic failures on the stimulus package and health care are now imperiling Senator Boxer’s re-election in 2010. A national wave for the Republicans could well sweep her aside. And what is creating that national wave? It is the failure of Democrats to effectively fulfill their promises and deliver change people can believe in. And that failure is due, in part, to the presence and influence of the filibuster in the Senate. Democrats need to recognize that the filibuster as an institution discriminates against Democrats, because they are the activist Party. So, the vast majority of the time, they, and not the Republicans are having their objectives, and also the needs of the majority of people thwarted by it.
Democratic Senators continued belief in the usefulness of the filibuster is about these Senators retaining individual prerogatives and power. It’s not about increasing the effectiveness of the Senate, or increasing both the power and the accountability of the Party in the Senate. But what we need now is both increased power for the political party that wins an election, and also increased accountability for that political party which comes with unambiguous authority to pass legislation. It is only with increased power and accountability that even a significant part of the enormous legislative agenda facing the Democrats can be passed by election time this Fall.
There are other ways of attempting to legislate the Democratic agenda. Some suggest that Senators be required, once again, to implement physical filibusters, thinking it likely that those filibustering will get tired and key bills will be brought to a vote. Others, advocate reconciliation, or reconciliation sidecars, to short-circuit the filibuster. I think it’s plausible that using these methods may succeed in passing a bill or two, but I also think that it’s too late in the game for Democrats to rely on them. The truth is that the first year of the Obama Administration has produced very little popular legislation for the Party to run on in the Fall. The year has been wasted from that point of view. Now the Democrats need a second round of legislation that is likely to be both effective and popular. And they have very little time to produce that legislation. There’s no time to fool around with filibusters, reconciliation, and a fruitless quest for bi-partisanship. There is only time for crafting bills that people will like and passing them.
The time urgency has become even more serious since the recent Supreme Court decision removing funding limits on what corporations and other aggregate social constructs can spend directly on campaigns in support of one or another candidate. If the Democrats don’t pass legislation neutralizing the effects of this Supreme Court decision in the next couple of months, they will face a flood of corporate spending designed to block their legislative agenda that may well sweep them out of office in the 2010 elections.
Once the Democrats change these critical beliefs, here’s what they need to do avoid a blood bath in 2010, and perhaps even win the election.
– Don’t do anything to cut back on projected deficits, and block all initiatives to do so. If you don’t, any reductions in deficits that result will only introduce further drag on the economy. The News is breaking this evening that the President is planning to call for a spending freeze in “discretionary spending” beginning in fiscal 2010 in order to save $250 Billion. In light of what I said at the beginning of this Diary, it should be clear that this is a monumentally stupid move. It is the kind of mistake that FDR made in 1937 which halted the recovery and intensified the Great Depression. Obama has been warned against it time and again. Unemployment is still 10%. It is likely that it will still be 10% in the Fall. Freezing spending, means withdrawing money from the economy, which is bound to cost jobs. If the Democrats in Congress allow the President to to push through this freeze and other moves toward budget balancing, it is they who will pay the price in both 2010, and also, along with Obama, in 2012, because the effects of this freeze will echo through both elections in higher unemployment rates than would otherwise be the case.
Congressional Democrats: don’t listen to balancing budget and deficit fairy tales and fables any longer! With no inflation deficits aren’t important. What is important is slack demand and a deteriorating economy that is losing real wealth and ruining American lives every day. The deficit in economic activity is the real issue. Not the paper deficit, nor the usual tall tales about how going further into debt to the Chinese, or incurring debts that our grandchildren will to have pay, will ruin America, unless we tighten our belts, starve our economy, and further increase the gap between the rich and everyone else.
– For God’s sake, exercise the nuclear option, and get rid of the filibuster, once and for all. Make the Democratic Party as a whole stronger in the Congress, so that it has both the unambiguous power to pass its agenda, and also the responsibility if it fails to do so, or if it passes bad legislation.
– Next, enforce Party discipline in both Houses of Congress. Make it clear that all Democrats will either vote with the leadership of the House and Senate on key bills, or will lose all Seniority and Committee Chairmanships. No exceptions. No Joe Liebermans, no Mary Landrieus, no Blanche Lincoln, playing their little games without consequences. The Leadership has to make it clear that if they break Party discipline, they go to the bottom of the heap. Who knows? If Harry Reid showed guts like that maybe he’d have a chance at re-election.
– Develop and pass bills in both Houses to counteract the Supreme Court’s recent decision. The best approach to this may be a variation of a proposal by prometheus6 to pass a Federal Law that changes the definition of a legal person to specify that it is an economic unit constituted by contract with the right to itself enter into legal contracts, and other rights necessary to secure the right to enter into contracts. Also, other rights may be granted to legal persons or classes of legal persons, but in no case will rights granted to legal persons be:
interpreted such that they supersede, impede or obstruct the constitutional rights of citizens and legal residents of the United States of America, its territories, and possessions.
– develop and pass a new jobs bill with 51 votes that makes the Federal Government the employer of last resort. Use New Deal programs as models. It doesn’t matter how much it costs. Get it done so that people can go back to work in the next 9 months. Sure people will be worried about the deficit. But educate them about that. Don’t keep reinforcing the old false memes about balanced budgets, and the national debt, and ruinous deficits, and debts to the Chinese, and our Grandchildren, as the President just did this evening with his announcement of a “spending freeze.”. Stop talking and practicing Hooverism. Stop pandering to Judd Gregg and Evan Bayh, and teach people that in the present fiat money system, the United States cannot go broke because it lacks money. It can always create that. Instead, it can only go broke if it curtails economic activity, because it’s afraid to use its ability to make money, lest someone charge it with “big spending.”
– Next, pass a new health care reform bill. And if you really want to win the election in 2010, don’t even worry about what the Insurance companies and Pharma want. Also, don’t pass any bills that will create new and complex Government-run entities, or private sector organizations whose ability to compete with insurance companies is dubious, at best. Rather, just expand Medicare and Medicaid as much as you can, consistent with the ability to get a majority in both Houses. At a minimum, expand Medicare to those over 45, and under 18, and Medicaid to people whose income is up to 200% of the poverty level. Also, make people automatically eligible for Medicaid as soon as their share of medical costs incurred while ensured privately, exceeds 10% of their income. In addition, allow Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate drug prices with Pharma, and close the Medicare donut hole.
– Once that health care reform bill is passed, pass another health insurance industry regulatory bill, constraining annual price increases to the general rate of inflation in the United States, prohibiting denial of coverage due to preconditions, prohibiting rescissions, outlawing discriminatory pricing based on age, gender, preconditions, or past illnesses, and waiving ERISA restrictions enabling States to implement single-payer health insurance programs, if they are so inclined. And when you pass this bill make it clear to people that the War between the American people and the insurance industry is nearly over, and that the people are winning. Either the insurance companies can sue for peace, or the next step, next year, will be enhanced Medicare for All.
– Next, pass true financial reform. Make the banks recognize their toxic assets, by requiring mark-to-market evaluations again. Take banks that are insolvent into resolution, and after cleaning up their balance sheets, lending money to businesses needing credit, and breaking them up, then spinning them off to private ownership Prevent banks other than investment banks from gambling in using the newer financial instruments that proved so devastating in the recent crisis. Also, establish regulations requiring new inventions in financial instruments to go through an exacting risk assessment by regulatory agencies before permission is granted to investment banks to trade in them. Finally, break up the big banks and regulate them so that they can never get too big to fail again.
– Go back to credit reform reform. Limit interest rates on consumer credit cards to 5 percent above the prime rate, beginning two months after enactment.
Other bills, such as Educational Reform, A Carbon Tax, and Energy legislation come next, if there’s time before the Congressional election. But even if there’s not, passage of the bills I listed will prove to the country that the old Democratic Party legislating on behalf of the people is back. The people will like the various measures I listed above, because they provide benefits for people and not for corporations. They are examples of legislation that people will like. Sure, the bills will cost the Government a lot of money and the Republican and blue dogs will scream about the deficit. But, remember, that it’s only money which the Government can create at any time. Remember also, that the Republicans won’t be attacking the Democrats as the Wall Street Party anymore. They won’t be claiming that they, themselves, are the Main Street Party anymore. And the people are not about to vote against Democrats in 2010, because, at long last, they would have passed legislation that benefits people and the economy so substantially.
By 2012, the additional stimulus provided by the jobs bill, health care reforms, the lowering of credit card interest rates, and the freeing up of lending to business, will create a renewed economy, which will begin to reduce the deficit naturally as growth, and an approach to full employment increase tax revenues. As inflation begins to become a danger, the Government can short-circuit it by raising taxes on the wealthy, which will begin to restore the progressive tax structure that will increase social and economic equality over time, once again. As time goes by, the pressure from the deficit hawks will ease. And, if the Democrats take care to drive home the lesson that deficits are not important during slack demand and are only something to be concerned about when inflation becomes a factor, then perhaps the ubiquity of Pete Peterson can finally be laid to rest, along with the deficit hawkism that never fails to threaten the hopes and dreams of regular people whenever anyone even senses there is a possibility of emerging from a recession.
Finally, after writing this, I can just hear the critics now, telling me how unrealistic this all is. How the Democrats will never do anything like this because they’re bought and paid for. How there’s not even a majority in the House to do what I’m suggesting, and their certainly aren’t 51 votes in the Senate to pass a substantial expansion of Medicare. In addition, there’s no way the Democrats will have the guts to regulate corporate personhood, or to pass real financial reform that takes the big banks off their pedestals, and makes them act like real banks rather than gamblers playing in that great international casino in the sky. All this may be true, I may be totally unrealistic in providing this unsolicited advice to Democrats, especially in the face of Obama’s announced move right this evening into blatant Hooverism. So, perhaps there’s no way they can move to implement what I’ve suggested before this coming Fall.
However, I believe strongly that if the Democrats fail to do something like this, to pass a raft of legislation that really benefits people, and does not benefit big corporations, then there is no way that they can avoid a major Republican sweep this Fall. That sweep will occur not because people turn to the Republicans out of hope, or because they really think that the Republicans can help them solve their problems. But, instead, they will turn to the Republicans and/or to third Parties out of anger and hate, and out of a desire to punish, because they will have decided that the Democratic Party is a Party of liars, cheats, and frauds who say that they represent the people, but who never do anything except to tighten the bonds of Wall Street over Main Street, the chains of corporatism binding individual liberty. It is time for the Democrats, and for the President, to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. It is time for them to decide. Is it to be Wall Street or Main Street? Is it to be Corporatism or Freedom? Is it to be the People, or the Plutocrats? There really is no choice for them, because if they don’t choose Main Street, Freedom, and the People, then come Fall and 2012 thereafter, no one will care if they continue to exist or not. They will be a dying or dead political Party. Ready to go the way of the Whigs and the Federalists into oblivion.
(Also posted at the Alllifeisproblemsolving blog and Correntewire.comwhere there may be more comments)



21 Comments







Bravo, Lets.
this is bold thinking – but what if right now we are in a deflationary period preceding an asymptotic, hyper-inflationary systemic crisis?
while you may be correct that the USG can simply create money by fiat, without going through the steps of selling debt instruments, nonetheless they have already issued trillions of these instruments, and are unlikely to stop soon.
therefore, a rise in interest rates demanded could ramp the whole game up drastically.
and there’s this chart graphing the debt to GDP ratio, standing now at around 360% of GDP.
it may be a fallacious reduction, but a household cannot service a debt 3x its income for long, and doing so for however long basically puts it clearly into Ponzi finance territory.
and, Forbes has the frighteners about global sovereign debt.
so, in a sense I hope you are right that USGOV can simply print, rather than borrow. and that they might do so, in extremis, to save States and cities that are buckling under their own financial obligations.
But I am of the viewpoint of your penultimate paragraph, but that ground is thoroughly trod, so I hope you get a discussion going on yr other points.
Thanks spork, You said:
Well, first, I don’t think these thinsg happen by magic. The deflation is caused by lack of currency in circulation in turn causing lack of demand and idel supply capacity. If supply capacity is idle and there are ample goods to be bought and producible in the short term. How can there be inflation. Inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. But now there is an abundance of goods in the marketplace and no demand to take them up. Look at the Housing supply, just as one example.
You go on:
They can stop whenever they want to. My prescription says stop and just issue the credits to private accounts by fiat.
Why would be there be a rise in interest rates? Only if the Fed decides to raise rates. Bernanke or his successor will not do that with unemployment at 10%. Also, if interest rates rise deflation is much more likely than hyper-inflation.
The debt to GDP ratio chart is a fraud. It shows the ratio of debt that we are committed to to current GDP. But the real question is what will GDP be like in the unnamed year they’ve used in the Chart to compute the total debt liability they show. I believe that year in 2060, or perhaps 2050. Let’s take 2060 as an example. That’s 50 years out. If GDP grows in the next 50 years as it did in the previous 50 years, then GDP will be roughly equal to 483 T and the ratio of the debt shown in the chart to will be roughly 11.4%, nearly negligible. Of course both my counter-argument and the argument implicit in the Chart are meaningless, because neither takes into account the additional public debt we’ll undoutedly have incurred by then.
But literally, this whole discussion is nonsense because it doesn’t address the question of why the debt, which is the accumulated gap between cash income and cash outflow by the Government is economically important in the face of the fact that the Government can just pay all the creditors instantly with fiat money if it chooses to do so. The debt may have been meaningful when the currency was backed by a commodity like gold. But now the debt is just an artifical creation of teh Government which chose to borrow to fund expenditures rather than just to issue the money by fiat.
Finally, the Forbes article is a foolish scare piece, also based on the idea tha Governments need real resources to repay debts. Of course, they don’t. All they have to do is to issue more currency, and since that is true, they can never become insolvent, and therefore will never have to repay their debts at all, just as we never have to repay our national debt.
Spork, this whole area is just replete with “Deadly Innocent Frauds, Myths, Scares, and Lies.”
This is why we need New Deal jobs. Everything is liquid except the job engine. Without an alternative basis for creating jobs all of the cards come down on any modern economic system. FDR found the way out with the CCC and the WPA, and a little help from Hitler and Japan.
He did. And I really don’t understand why Democdatic Administrations since the War have shied away from his intiatives. They worked in desperate circumstances. They would have worked now had we legislated that at the beginning of last year.
Up until today, I might have agreed with you.
But now, will the “Democratic leadership” be pushing Obama’s lame-brained spending freeze?
Will they support the Senate health care bill?
The biggest problem for Progressives now is there’s no one on “our side.” With whom do we caucus? Whom do we “support,” if our “lesser of two evils” choice is between Blue Dog Democrats and Bat-shit Crazy Republicans?
Mauimom, I have these same fears. nevertheless, I think we have to look beyond the immediate. The problem with our political system is that the Parties have avoided real accountability. The promises they make in campaigns have no relationship to what they do in office. The relationship doesn’t exist, because once in office the Congresspersons and Senators get to act as individuals on single issues that are dear to them for any reason including bribery. Party discipline and getting rid of the filibuster will create greater accountability and close the gap between promises and legislative actions as it has in other Democracies. That is what we should be aiming for here.
Let the Party Leadership be entirely responsible for the policies that will come out. Then they will have nowhere to hide, whether Democrat or Republican, and they are much more likely to deliver on their promises. In any event, I think Democracy can hardly be successful if it is not democratic in its operation. The Congress is not, and that’s why it so infreuently produces results that are in line with what people want.
Interesting post and a good road map.
Please elaborate though, how a simple increase in taxes on the rich can stop the inflation steamroller. Thanks, Let’s
Hi GDC707, taxation draws money out of the economy and is deflationary because it withdraws consumption power. Of course, the reverse multiplier effect is less if you tax wealthier people than if you tax poorer people because their marginal propensity to consume is much less. However, poorer people can’t afford the taxes because their spending is on necessities. Also, since the 1970s we have had a steady decline in equality here in the United States, a trend that has not been good for the middle class, or for the operation od democracy which relies on the middle class for stability. I think we need to flatten out the pyramid again and bring it back to the levels we saw in the ’50s and 60s of the last century. So, I want to serve two purposes by taxation. Cooling off inflation and some economic leveling.
When Obama can find some time to stop pandering to the base of the Reich wing party ( GOPERS) and his Corp. pals maybe he’ll be ready for prime time. In the mean time the Dems. are riding a wave of electoral disaster behind the sheer stupidity of this WH and its advisors. The proposed spending freeze is them swallowing the bile of the same blue dogs leading us to defeat. After we lose the Congress in the fall I can already hear these same pricks crowing about how bi-partisanship is a good thing and how he can work with the new GOper majority just like Clinton did. Get ready for 8 yrs. of Divine Sarah and her VP S.Brown.
The selection of Sara to run for the GOP is the only way Obama might win, if the GOP selects a moderate republican Obama is toast. Look guys, lets face it, we screwed up big time by electing Obama and all the ranting and raving in the world cant change that. Obama is going to run the dems and the country into the ground and we might as well accept this and prepare for it. All the appeals to him and his administration are for naught bcz he is going to tack to the right regardless of how insane it seems to us. Instead of creating job programs he comes up with extended child care credits- for when you do have a job. The bright side is after 4 years of following Obama there will be a lot of job openings in the democratic party, which cld be filled by progressive candidates to run against incumbent republicans instead of entrenched democratic officials. Obama is going to be a one term president who will make history by being the first person to win and lose the office in a landslide. Instead of getting upset with him I have accepted that he was not qualified for this job and his low job approval ratings reflect that. After he loses the congress he will come back as a roaring progressive to save his own skin but it will be too late.
Hi robbep, I disagree about his being unqualified. He was qualified, but his decisions are all wrong. I’m sitting here becoming afraid that every time he makes a big decision it will be a screw-up. Everything else you said I agree with, including being sorry I supported him.
Bluto, maybe so. I too, I also find I have to resort to words like “stupidity,” to describe their behavior.
The choice is lower deficits or jobs. It’s really a no-brainer.
That it is, Jason. Too bad that Obama didn’t major in economics. Or, maybe he did…
Great post, Lets…
It’s not as if any of your suggestions are really all that difficult. They just require simple political will. And willingness. Two attributes that appear to be singularly lacking in the halls of congress these days.
I recently noticed that you are one of my two (just two!) admirers at HuffPost, unless it was someone else using your screen name.
No, KarenM it’s me at Huff Post. Thanks for your commenton this post. I’m getting so angry, I spent all day yelling about Obama’s stupidity. I have little hope that the opinions expressed here will get through. Here’s hoping. . .
Nope the choice is lower deficits and job programs, or higher deficits and program cuts. Everything we know about economics says that the continued fall of federal tax revenues is due to the failure to end the recession which, in trun, was due to the fact that the Government didn’t do enough to lift slack demand.
But even this again talks within teh fraame. The deficits are literally of no economic importance. Their importance is all olitical and psychological because we can’t get out of the deficit hawkism intellectual frame. The only thing that counts is ending the depression. The real gap is the one between the supply of money and the available goods. Cutting spending ends this gap by causing an eventual destruction of supply capacity along with the liquidation of inventories. In other words it causes the destruction of real wealth.
Increasing Government spending without taxing or borrowing will increase demand and cfreate wealth because it will encourage new supply and continuing wealth-producing work.
Lgid,
I got to your post a little late. You put a lot of work into this one and I found it an excellent remedy for the last year of Democratic capitulation. Will they listen? Probably not, but we will know soon. I will be interested in what you think should be done in the event that the Dems can’t see their way out of the normative glide path they are riding to annihilation. Give it some thought and prepare for the inevitable. I wonder what odds Nate Silver would give a Democratic rebirth as you would have it, based on their years of performance deficit? But you know that Obama’s exemption of the defense budget in his cuts is a loud signal to the direction they will take.
It is. It looks like he’s turning to the right, just when he had a great excuse to go left. This means there’s an opening on the left. My advice is that we form that Justice Party and go for the destruction of the Dems. If they won’t represent the interests of ordinary people their historical function is gone. They have no reason to exist. Let them pass into history like the Whigs, the Party they have come to resemble the most.
Viva la Revolucion! The Watchtower is getting a bit more crowded, and that is a good thing.
What I like about the piece, is it calls to mind the short memories of people. How quickly the 20th century has been forgotten!
1) Wage and price controls were not unusual. They happened during wartime, and in the Nixon Administration. The government set the price of practically every good or service traded.
2) The idea that surplus labor was immediately employable by the Federal Government. The World War II draft comes to mind.
3) That there is a whole thread of precedent in favor of strong Federal action against economic stagnation. It is only those who religiously follow the Conservative Geeks of 1978 who deny this.
(I wish the 1970′s were taught as a specific topic of American history, by the way. A lot of the fallacies, shorthands, and lingos we deal with today were born in that decade.)
4) That the power of Money has been debated in America, and has been controversial in America, not just in the last century but the one before. It should be no surprise that it would be in the 21st, either. Although I wish you would lighten up on the banks. It isn’t so much whether there is a lender as to whether the lender is being fair and accurately assessing the risks. Why stop at regulating credit card interest rates? Isn’t the real problem that living standards fell to the point where the credit card became part of survival for many?
All in all, good piece. It makes people think about the proper role of government in a bad recession, and how much received “wisdom” we take for granted.
Hi Hoofin, Very nice comment and I’m glad you liked the piece. It was germinating for at least a few days before it just came out, as it were. You said:
I agree that the issue is “. . . whether the lender is being fair and accurately assessing the risks.” However, I think the bigger the banks are and the more involved they are in Casino behavior, and given the present incentive structure they have, the more they will be motivated by profits and individual greed rather than by fairness and accurate risk assessment.
I think that turning this around through regulation is going to be very difficult because of the continuing political power of the banks. We may be able to overcome their influence at a moment in time through a substantial political effort, but I don’t think we can maintain control through regulation without breaking their 24/7 influence over the political process once and for all. I think this means, in turn, breaking up the big banks, and then regulating to ensure that concentration sufficient to undermine the political process doesn’t occur again.
While I also agree that the disappearance of decent wages for many people is a greater problem than the level of interest rates on credit cards, I think that allowing those usurious interest rates is a serious political problem for Democrats, as well as a serious economic problem for the millions who are over-extended in credit card debt, cannot pay their debt off, because they can no longer dig into their housing equity, and now find themselves subject to draft as involuntary foot soldiers in the fight to restore solvency to the banks.
There’s a tremendous problem of unfairness here, along with a continuing drag on the economy because not only is the further borrowing power of the people in this situation destroyed, but they suddenly find that interest rates which in some cases are 6 times what they were 9 months ago, are cutting into their current consumption power considerably. The unfairness and resulting political problem however, comes in because 1) the banks have been “bailed out” by the Government, but 2) these debtors are not only not bailed out themselves, but their interest load is increased by many times, because the Government has decided to allow the banks to realize gross profit margins as high as nearly 30% on their debts. It’s one thing for the public to bail out the banks using the full faith and credit of the United States; but it’s quite another to also have large and less well-off parts of it be subject to what are essentially discriminatory hidden taxes assessed on them to facilitate that bail-out.
No, I think that Bernie Sanders in advocating interest rate limits on credit card was right. The only problem with his proposal is that it wasn’t thoroughgoing enough. He should have asked that interest rate limits be pegged to the prime rate and be no more than a “fair” gross profit of 5% above that rate.