The White House "floated" a lead balloon Monday by telling everyone that Obama’s next budget proposal, due February 1, will include a "spending freeze" on several categories of discrectionary spending. It’s a complete head fake: there’s no freeze, and all they’re doing is playing to the unrelenting stupidity of those, like Sen. Evan Bayh, who think the way to put people to work is to spend less money.
Someone please give Bayh the Washington Post’s unread copy of any economic text book on what happened during the Great Depression when FDR’s economic advisers foolishly convinced him the Depression was over and that he needed to worry about balancing the budget — or just send him this from Krugman or watch this. The result of cutting spending was to send the economy back into deep depression. Fool me once . . .
But the President’s economic and political advisers are being too clever by half; they’re not really planning anything remotely approaching a spending freeze. Most of the budget — including the military/defense, Veterans, the massive bureaucracies at Homeland Security, and lots of other stuff will be entirely exempt. The remaining items, which constitute about $447 billion out of a [$3.5] trillion plus budget, will not be frozen either.
What the Administration will do is what all administrations do: reallocate spending priorities, increasing some items and reducing or eliminating others. And even then the net change in the aggregate budget [for these affected items] will be about $25 billion per year, less than mere pocket change in the massive US economy.
But Rachel Maddow was correct in her give-no-quarter humiliation of the otherwise sensible Jared Bernstein. Every competent macro economist (well, excluding some freshwater folks) tells us that during a serious, high unemployment recession and "jobless recovery," like the one strangling our economy, government should be spending more to create jobs, not less.
We’ve got 10 to 18 percent unemployment, depending on whom you count, and there isn’t anyone who says our present policies will substantially reduce that for at least another year and probably longer. We’ve got at least a score of states marching off budget cliffs and taking essential public services, teachers, firefighters/police and health workers with them. They’re cutting health care, closing schools, parks, libraries and public facilities. We’ve got millions deep underwater on their mortgages, and the Administration’s mortagage restructuring efforts have dismally failed.
And there are no meaningful signs that the private sector can, within the foreseeable future, pick up the slack, put people back to work and start paying taxes.
What part of the critical need for massive federal spending and jobs programs do these people not understand?
But instead of showing some courage, and proposing what needs to be done, and explaining it to the American people, this pathetic, cowardly Administration sends an embarrassed Jared Bernstein onto our screens to talk nonsense about a freeze that isn’t a freeze and a modest middle class agenda that will do nothing to prevent America’s middle class from shrinking and falling further into the ditch.
Shameless. Stupid. Unforgiveable.
More:
Paul Krugman Schools George Will on the Great Depression
Brad DeLong, Barack Herbert Hoover Obama?
The Hill, House Dems oppose Obama spending freeze, cuts
Paul Krugman, Obama Liquidates Himself
Yglesias, Reflects on the WH briefing
Joan Walsh, Dead Wrong, or Deeply Cynical



144 Comments







How unimaginably stupid and cowardly. Pete Peterson won’t love him no matter how much he kowtows.
Can I scream now?
Pretty much covers it.
How stupid is this? Even Jed Lewison, a prominent Obama apologist, is incensed over it — and rightly so:
They want to lose; it’s the only thing I can think of. I guess they hope that by 2012 the country will be so trashed that Republicans won’t want it. 11 dimensional chess.
You don’t keep Bernake and Summers around while coddling the Peterson crowd… and expect anything different than this.
So predictable. If this isn’t shock doctrine in action… I don’t know what beside mass torture is.
Rachel was way to easy on Him.
I would like to have five minutes with Him, and I would have Him wanting to commit suicide.
He tried to sell the bullshit as hard as He could, but cutting spending is a farce when You want to try and cut just a few things. While expanding spending on many more things.
If they actually created some jobs people would pay more in taxes then they could pssibly save.
Rachel Maddow- Batman, thank you so much for being on the show.
Batman- Glad to be here Rachel.
Rachel- Now Batman, you announced today that you and Mr. Freeze are joining forces. Isn’t he a villain?
Batman- Well, he’s going to be targeting villains actually.
Rachel- But history shows him to be bad for crime statistics since he’s committed so many crimes.
Batman- If you’re talking across the board yes, but now he’ll be carefully targeting his actions. He won’t be freezing jobs or the middle-class. He won’t be freezing education or veterans.
Rachel- It just seems crazy to me for you to be proposing an alliance with someone that just about every expert in the country says is a very bad guy. It seems like you’re trying to get criminals to like you and I don’t think, no matter what you do, they ever will.
Batman- I call it bipartisan crime fighting. I’m holding out an olive branch.
Rachel- But you tried that with the Joker and all he did was kill Robin.
Batman- And that still hurts Rachel. Still hurts.
This is going to be a good thing in the end. Obama needs to learn that no matter what he does, the right is still going to hate him. Might as well happen now. His poll numbers will tank, Fox News will still hate everything he does and everything he is, and he’ll finally convince Congress that they need to just ditch him and his insanity and go their own way if they want to save themselves. He won’t be able to pull the bullshit we heard he was pulling with healthcare, telling them they needed him to survive 2010 so to stick with his agenda. At the same time, some Obamabots will wake up and every WTF?! moment wakes up a few Americans who will then fight for cuts in wars instead of SS and Medicare, etc. He’ll either straighten up or he’ll be powerless and either way, it will be better than being dragged through this abusive relationship slowly and painfully. If it takes a big beating to finally figure out that he’s not going to change, he’s going to kill us one day, better it happen sooner than after more little smacks that hurt but not enough to make a big change.
This was hilarious! I liked how Rachel told him flat out it’s insane and politically and policy-wise a really stupid thing to do. I’m really glad we’re gonna have those child care credits for all the people who don’t have jobs, though. That’s really going to make a difference.
You said it, Scarecrow.
They should just cut out all these middlemen spokesmen and just talk to the people actually setting government policy:
President Dimon
Vice President Blankfein
Treasury Secretary Padit
Labor Secretary Immelt
Press Secretary Murdoch
Transportation Secretary Tillerson
But seriously, a spending freeze with official unemployment over 10% is pure right wing economics. It’s not centrist, it’s not center right, it’s pure right wing reactionary economics.
Hey, it worked for Pres. Hoover didn’t it? As I re-call in his 2nd term America boomed!! Well, ok that’s the Fox news version, but it could have happened that way if only FDR hadn’t gotten in the way.
yeah if we wanted a spending freeze we wouldve voted for mccain no? i dont get why obama feels a need to become ever more centrist and alienate his core supporters over and over. i think its a problem with the democratic party establishment and the elite media pundits… i believe obama in his heart and in his past record is much more liberal but he is facing a LOT of pressure to ‘tone it all down’ and ‘appease the middle’.
2000 lb. gorilla in the room. NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Stegall.
Some folks are giving bad advice and unfortunately Obama is listening to them. The I-rather-be-a-good-one-termer-rather-than-a-mediocre-two-termer attitude is helping him to be a mediocre one termer prez.
What is Obama tninking? Sounds like a Hooverism again.
So while O has us all in a tizzy over the spending freeze shiny object, what really bad thing is he doing while we’re not looking there?
The one really big hole that is not being called into evaluation are the backdoor policies of the Fed and the Treasury. This is where the big money gets sucked out of the economy. TARP and TALF being just a few of the public faces to the bailouts. Nobody really knows what either agency has as debts or assets. Since Obama’s guys Bernanke and Geithner have no intentions of telling anyone how that money is being spent, one can say that Obama seems certain that our economic Titanic will be fine as long as we only deal with the part of the iceberg we can see.
I thought you were gone???
OT but I can’t help but think that despite being an immoral strategist Karl Rove always made sure that Bush kept his base in his corner. Rahm is just the opposite, willing to throw the base under the bus. If this doesn’t change Obama is shaping up to be a one term mediocrity. It’s not just the base but independents that wanted to see strong leadership.
I’ve begun to think “winning” is not, and may never have been, the goal. It looks more and more like Obama’s on a kamikaze-commando mission to get on the ground and systematically achieve a checklist of objectives for big corporations/wallstreet, and get HIMSELF out safely in a space of four years.
Your Snark is that strong:)
Quarter of 10. What, can’tcha wait? *g*
There’s a lot of money to be made being a figurehead on a few corporate boards. Just ask Bush the elder, Clinton and Tony Blair. If that is the goal then this might be the price for getting the golden ring.
I have to say that for once I am completely gobsmacked by the insanity of this announcement. Of course it’s all kabuki, but who in the hell are they kabuki’in? I believed from the campaign that the Obama camp had a good sense of politics, and what it takes to keep afloat. This is simply beyond pathetic. What’s wrong with these people? They have squandered our one chance in a generation to get closer to being back on track. I don’t see any way out after this.
What is it about most Democrats that they have no emotional intuition?
Obama is more a “celebrity” than a leader. In a celebrity culture that will sell for awhile but eventually even the uninformed voter can see through the BS.
Now there’s an interesting question…
It’s time for progressives, populists and independents to begin rallying around a primary challenger to Obama. Grayson, Dean, Sanders, Kuccinich, Feingold……….. There has to be someone out there that can begin mounting a movement that can at the least pressure Obama and at the most replace him as the agent of “change.”
Rachel it seems has been reading the Me, the Lake, the Econ Blogs or at least has taken Econ 101. Jared Bernstein however well its no wonder the economy is in trouble.
Every competent macro economist (well, excluding some
freshwater folksfuckin’ idiot poseurs) tells us that during a serious, high unemployment recession and “jobless recovery,” like the one strangling our economy, government should be spending more to create jobs, not less.Fixed it.
Spending freeze in 2011, Not an across the board freeze.
“Some things will go down somethings will go up more things will go down than up”
Rachel did a great job. But she should feel quite a bit of “shame” herself. Clearly she is following her owners orders or is a PEP (progressive except for Palestine). Olbermann, Rachel, Ed, Matthews not one of them even whispered anything about the Goldstone. Rachel has covered the Iranian people protesting their government while completely ignoring the pro Iranian government protesters.
Will cover human rights issues in Uganda but not in Palestine HMMMM
Shame Rachel shame
Clean Energy when will he spend the money and will he call Nuclear Plants clean energy? Or as I like to call it a Bailout for General Electric ( Jack Welch their ex chair is on my list )
Budget committees can’t cut spending because of the lobbyists? Holy shit. Members of budget committees pissin’ their pants because they might piss off a lobbyist’s client? Fuck that.
My, but you is cynical and suspicious, eCAHN.
However, you does have a purty good prognostification record.
But Obama is all about trust, doncha know?
Still, ya got me thinkin’.
*g*
Cut military spending to twice what Russia spends! Then use that for an FDR sized Stimulus! We need to spend in ways that produce value. Roads, bridges, Clean Energy obviously wars for oil don’t pay for themselves with oil revenues.
Poll the voters more war or jobs!
Now, SD, Congress is effin’ everything they can manage at the moment (they ain’t ole Tiger ya know?), but they’ll get around to servicing the desperate need you express just as soon as they are able, and they won’t even need Gideon’s bible.
Just be patient.
Patience is.
;~DW
If the GOP or Cokie says we are weak on defense we say what you don’t think we can beat the Commies unless we spend more than twice what they spend on weapons?
It seems then that WH is unwittingly diminishing the Greatness of America?
Or is god no longer blessing america as it did for 250 yrs?.
So i suggest US calls for a prayer day across america; imploring god to keep his blessings.
After all god can fix everything; includes the economy.However, s/he/it may not be any longer be fooled by empty promises to be good.
S/he may now demand the promises be earnest. It seems god now wants his beloved soldiers back in US. S/he even may want healthcare for everybody.
tnx
So simple.
This is crap, but not because we need more spending. The Keynesian policies aren’t working. There have been shell games with the numbers to make people think there is a recovery, but we’re nowhere near it. GDP from 2009 was negative every quarter if you exclude cash for clunkers and recognize inventory reductions. And if we use the same formula for unemployment that was used in the 1930′s (recognizing all job seekers, including those whose benefits have run out), unemployment is actually ~17%, which is pretty close to the 1930′s high of 25%.
If Obama is serious about spending cuts, a discretionary spending freeze is ok but just a drop in a bucket. Over 10 years, we’re going to “save” (aka “not spend”, but still deficit spend. Not what we call “saving” at my house) $250 billion, or 1/3 of what we spent on TARP? Not impressive.
The real spending cuts need to come from two key places. First is military spending. We were promised out of these wars, and that should cut spending dramatically. Time for Obama to make good on his promises, and get us out. Once that happens, military spending needs to reduce by 30% to pre-Bush levels (where Clinton had a budget surplus).
Second, we need to make some sort of a debt reduction effort. Debt service (aka interest) is nearly 15% of the budget. That is rapidly approaching the amount we spend on the big three (military, social security, or medicare). It is also approaching a tipping point where foreigners will stop buying treasuries (China has already stopped rolling treasuries, and is letting them come to maturity). If we can’t sell treasury bonds, we can’t deficit spend (when necessary, like in a recession).
So that’s it. Cut 20-25% of the budget by reducing military spending and debt service costs. That’s the only way out. As a libertarian I hate to say this, but this is going to need to include across the board tax increases as well (they can be progressive, but this is everyone’s debt. We’re all citizens). Personally, I want to see the boomers paying off some of the debt they have incurred for my generation, and my kids generation, before they get to retirement and stop paying meaningful taxes. That’s the plan. It’s politically terrible if you only care about today, but I think Americans are smart enough to understand that a responsible budget is going to mean some sacrifice for all of us.
On the bright side Obama does now have the perfect excuse to fire Summers Geithner and Helicopter Ben now.
1) I heart Rachel
2) Note to Administration Shitheads: “you don’t have a PR problem, you have truckload of policy problems. All the turd-polishing in the world isn’t going to change that.
Some more details from Jared Bernstein. Some more nuance we should keep in mind.
The so-called “across-the-board” freeze in discretionary spending is really an “aggregate” freeze in discretionary spending. That means that it is a net over all discretionary programs.
The mechanism for delivering this is the President’s budget. That means that Congress and the President will fight over exactly which line items will be frozen during a given year.
It begins in the 2011 budget and goes through the 2014 budget. That means that the freeze does not start until October 2010, and given the failure of Congress to pass budgets but offer continuing resolutions until December of each fiscal year, will not actually begin until January 2011. If the economy is still stalled then there will be more things to worry about than an $11 billion cut (the first year target).
The fact that national security and entitlements are not included means that the President retains flexibility in these areas. He in fact could trim waste in DoD by more than 3% of aggregate without the screams that “you only said you were cutting 3%”. It is still up to the President and not a legislative obligation.
There are a lot of business give-aways in the discretionary budget. Bernstein claims that some of these will be frozen or cut but that there are significant lobbies opposing each cut. We will see what happens.
Also excluded are the Recovery Act and new jobs initiatives. Which means that the freeze most likely is a way to diddle the outyear numbers to avoid the appearance of out-of-control spending in the years 2012-2014.
The way the press reported it was a definite pander, not as much to Republicans, but to Democrats like Bayh and Conrad.
The anger on the left may or may not be warranted, but I think it might prove to be helpful as the budget moves through Congress.
Putting the corporate giveaways on the block before the election might help get a mandate to actually cut those giveaways.
For the first year, the estimate of $11 billion in cuts looks like (after multiplier effects) an impact on the economy of $66 billion. Which means that the impact of other items on the job creation agenda will have to create more than a $66 billion impact (after the multiplier effect) before there is net growth in aggregate. Those are rule-of-thumb multiplier numbers.
Looking more like a wash and a pander, than the fiasco it first looked like.
In his piece entitled “The Sanctity of Military Spending,” Glenn “Glennzilla” Greenwald best expresses how I feel about how Washington in cahoots with Wall Street and the Pentagon are all doing their level best to nuke Our Land of the Free with its Peaceful Shores into a warmongering police state:
“I’m sure if we just buy some more fighter jets, create some better underground bombs, invade a few more Muslim countries, keep more Muslims imprisoned forever with no charges, give the Pentagon, the CIA and their private contractors a lot more unaccounted-for cash and stay out of their way, expand our domestic spying networks even further through private sector telecom contracts, pour tens of billions of dollars more into the coffers of our Middle East client states, and kill a few more civilians with drones, this problem will be handled. It’s just a matter of making sure we bulk up our military budget — and Look Forward, not Backward to what was done in the past — and we’ll be able to Stay Safe from this Terrorist-WMD menace.”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/26/defense/index.html
When has Obama done anything Keynesian?
Not right. Not left. It’s corporate center
According to Wikipedia the US spent $607 billion last year on the military. Russia was at $59 billion and China went up to $85 billion. If the last estimate I remember reading was true and the Pentagon misplaced a trillion dollars worth of purchases over the last ten years, then they are losing track of more money than Russia spends. Whatever the case, getting this particular obese overeater to slim down is probably never going to be on Obama’s list.
The 607 does not, I believe include weapons given to client states or black budget spending.
Obama needs a progressive “Gergen.”
I believe his presidency is in a shambles and he is grasping at straws.
My guess is he is a true believer in “The American Dream” and the myth (a nod to knowbuddha)that scripts the current version. He ran for office in a state of hubris and now that he is in the belly of the beast and discovering, or needs to discover that, his whole mental constructions have been wrong.
I know of no better proof of how embedded this economics of idiocy has become in our entire culture, not excluding many Democrats either.
I can see no other explanation for mindlessly resorting to failed remedies, now so blatant all can see.
He can’t be an evil man carrying out a conspiracy. He would do a better job at it. His bubble of “irrational exuberance” has burst.
Freezes always work so well
Are not the wars also off budget?
The rest of your piece I’m ok with except the taxes taxing the rich like FDR did would be my tax policy if I was pres.
Clean energy is complicated.
Remember how Cheney made some bucks thru Halliburton?
Same thing with Larry Summers and clean energy. He has been a managing director of D E Shaw Group which almost half owns a wind energy corporation, First Wind. The only thing that ME has seen of the stimulus bill so far is the illegal building of a wind farm by First Wind, Larry’s corporation. Stimulus funds were to go to existing wind farms.Larry stated he got out of it after it became known how much money he was making over minimal work. It was his political pull he was getting paid for.
Rep Eric Massa from NY has been fighting it. Matt Taibi says cap and trade(energy) will be the next bubble.Only difference , no middle man. Money goes straight to Wall Street. Electricity prices affect the economy and individuals a lot! We need to go back to regulated utilities.
Larry Summers went to Ca. with Ken Lay to try and get Grey Davis to ease environmental laws for Enron. Guess he didn’t and was replaced. Larry’s wind farm corporation has a lot of ex Enron executives. Still use same ruthless tactics. Taken to court a lot, never a conviction.
its another myth that the government can spend the country into prosperity. it can only reposition money. in order to spend more it has to tax more. the government doesn’t create profit for wealth. you cannot have prosperity without profit. the only thing that saved the country for FDR was the war effort.
Good Catch this could be a diary.
~6,000 hedge funds (most of them off-shore from USA) in an entirely world-wide “Casino Economy”: “Blair to cash in working for hedge fund” http://www.americablog.com/2010/01/blair-to-cash-in-working-for-hedge-fund.html
It might be that Russia’s spending doesn’t include things like Georgia, Chechnya or Karzistan either.
Yes producing goods like tanks that produce nothing back to our economy was so helpful unlike roads or bridges which make commerce possible./s
Yes those tanks kept us free but if we have a choice turing swords to plows is better for the economy.
Every budget has two sides-revenue and expenditure. If you wish to eliminate or reduce deficits you raise revenue (increase taxes) or decrease expenditures or both. Freezing the government is not an awful idea unless you reach a point where you freeze everything but military expenditures. Decreasing military expenditures is an excellent idea as is prohibiting double dipping (work for the govt 20 years qualify for a pension, then get another govt job). Any change causes pain. One problem of capitalism is that it locks us in the status quo as people fight to retain their jobs when those jobs are either unnecessary or harmful (ie building internal combustion engines.
Obama’s problem is that he looks in the wrong places for budget reduction (ie cut social security rather than defense spending)Don’t know why. He showed such promise going in.
It’s naive to think that Obama is going to have an epiphany. It’s time to begin supporting a primary challenger.
Also government could stop spending on 2 wars put half the money into jobs and healthcare and the rest into retiring debt.
My understanding was the the war effort was a huge loss. It was the industries, jobs and homes that had not been destroyed that made the US the winner after the fighting had concluded. War is a destroyer of economies so the country that is least harmed is the biggest winner. Since the US had the most functional manufacturing they profited more. That industrial manufacturing base was traded away a long time ago and now resides in places like China and India. That is where the growth would come from.
Anarchists hate government. All Republicans hate government. All Republicans are anarchists. All anarchists are Republicans.
agreed, i didn’t want to imply that war is good…..just that government spending without the private sector prospering is futile.
A-m-a-z-i-n-g.
Using the language of “getting at special interest lobbyist spending and cutting it,” out of one side of the mouth, and failing to address that same issue on health care reform?
And while talking big lobbying interests… Those areas not taking on freeze, have some of the biggest lobbying efforts for privatization and the waste from such privatization, like DOD. I would be happier with an announcement of going line by line through every budget and determine where the waste is, including DoD. The ideal is to find waste and the increase effective stimulus at the same time.
How does this kind of thinking happen?
Cool
Obama wants to run against a republican congress in 2012, it is the only way he can possibly win. He is willing to lose a branch of the congress to save his own skin. If he has both branches of goverment and still cant get anything done it will be hard to ask voters to give him another shot at running the country. But, if the dems lose the house he can place blame on the republicans for his not getting anything done. I know this sounds insane but is it? As a leader Obama is extremely incompetent and extremely ego driven, although his job approval ratings are amongst the lowest of all presidents in their first year he gave himself a b plus for his performance. Despite his posturing that he does not mind being a one termer his ego is too large to accept that smear on his legacy. He will do anything it takes to win reelection and if a few hardworking low level democratic congress people have to be sacraficed – that is how the game works. Blaming republicans is the only way he might win and he cant do that with democratic control of the senate and congress.
You forgot the therefore clause and the conjunction.
Anarchists hate government, all Republicans hate government, therefore all Republicans are anarchists and all anarchists are Republicans.
Bernanke and dropping the ball on health reform. Also Geithner’s in deep yoghurt. I don’t think this Administration has enough shiny objects.
Your wrecking the Sex Pistols for me:( just kidding
HA!
Obama’s been working on that “war” thingie from day one.
But do YOU think it a viable (not to mentioin “proper”) solution to our current problems?
There are “collateral consequences”, afterall, and the greatest generation have mostly shuffled off and you’ve got a lot of disgruntled Vietnam-era folks, but they are mostly ignored anyhoo, so maybe endless war is the only viable future?
Maybe it’s only me, but I don’t think I can really support such a thesis.
Organized mayhem just doesn’t appeal to me, it’s been that way for me for a long time. Why I even annoyed one lady on my draft board to the extent that she told me, “I hope you are drafted, sent to Vietnam, and killed.”
I could only thank her for her good wishes and vow NEVER to have ANYTHING to do with such people, so I’m kinda prejudiced, you see, as regards the notion of bombing our way out.
I’d rather wage unrelenting peace, but, I know, the President (and I guess, a bunch of other folks) who make the decides don’t agree with me.
I just wonder what THEY are getting out of it?
Sorry, that is not a polite question, but there it is.
DW
agreed again, my point being that the more avenues for personal prosperity that are opened up in the private sector will and always has lead to national economic prosperity. welfare and unemployment checks and food stamps are only rickety bridges that will someday become of little use if not rebuilt with prosperity and personal responsibility. no one has any chance to better themselves on the government handouts of welfare or social security or unemployment comp alone. and as seen the stimulus has had veryu little positive effect by spending the vast majority of the money on other government projects.
So, do you suggest we band together?
Or should we each defend our own interests and property?
What you think?
Together or alone?
Just curious, sparky.
What’s your “walk” look like?
Yes, there’s a good argument that this was just triangulating against the left, to fool the stupid and provide cover for the “centrists.” That just leaves the dishonest head fake, the dangerous pandering to Republican frames, the failure to be honest, the undercutting of arguments for even stronger jobs/spending programs, and the cyncism that he can continue to insult the left and expect their support. And they wonder why everyone is so angry at them.
I wish I could LOL, but if he hasn’t learned this yet he’ll never learn it. I’m inclined to think that he’s decided to pull the disguise off entirely and declare he’s a Republican, and not a particularly bright one at that.
They think we’re angry because we are stupid, Scarecrow, not because we understand.
Why drag Palestine into a discussion about a budget freeze? It is a worthy discussion to have — write a diary, don’t just change the subject in the middle of a thread.
ot
Lierbermann and Collins up at C-span. Homeland Security Commission asking questions of Blair, Napolitano about potential terrorist attacks and what has all ready taken place. You can bet your ass no one will get around to asking about the core reasons having to do with the “motivations” of those willing to blow themselves up trying to take out Americans
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/01/26/HP/R/28871/Fmr+911+Commissioners+Testify+on+state+of+intelligence+reform.aspx
Put up a thread to talk about the hearing at Seminal
Nixon’s “freeze” wasn’t the budget; it was a price freeze on goods/services that you and I buy, and it required a new government agency to implement price controls on the economy. IIRC, they feared rampant inflation, which was about 3% or something? Today, prominent economists are pleading with Bernanke to raise the inflation target to 3% or so to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment, but Bernanke refuses, fearing the Fed would lose credibility as an inflation fighter. The fear of even very modest inflation is deep in the DNA of our business elites.
Well, you just don’t understand non-dimensional chess.
Not talking about during that interview. That would have been way out of line. Talking about her general coverage and her willingness to shine the light on selective human rights abuses and not others. So apparent she is willing to go along with her owners marching orders.
In case anyone hasn’t seen it, here’s Krugman on the freeze.
Obama Liquidates Himself
I think you’re wrong, but in any case your comment is clearly way OT.
The freeze would not apply to “entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” “would not restrain funding for the $787 billion economic stimulus package Obama pushed through Congress early last year,” would not “apply to a new bill aimed at creating jobs,” and would be “unlikely to affect the approximately $900 billion health-care bill.”
Faux freeze.
But all the calls to cut Social Security or Medicare are misdirected at best since they are funded by a very specific and dedicated revenue stream – payroll taxes. You could cut both those programs to the bone, but all that would happen would be that those deductions would stop coming out of your paycheck(in theory at least.) They wouldn’t have much of an effect on the deficit at all.
Unfortunately, the comment is not totally off target when we are spending so much on wars in the ME.
So right after a disastrous Mass. Senatorial seat loss we have the Admin. come out w/ a “proposal” to reign in the banks which seems to be Graham – Steagull (sp) lite. Now we have another populist type initiative of cutting out waste in the budget which appeases the tea partiers / Blue dogs movement.Obama is now too worried about making everyone happy (and saving the 2010 elections) instead of fullfilling campaign promises. Wheres the focus?!?!? Reminds me of B. Clinton trying to make everyone happy!
Oh dear, Scarecrow, that is true, I confess.
And now … everybody knows.
(Chagrin moment, just give me minute, have to re-compose myself)
Yes I Can!
by pursuing our own interests we create a band together. i cannot possibly get everything i need on my own. maybe u can make something i need. so in your pursuit of your interest you make my item. but to make the item for me you need something from john, john pursuing his interest will need someone else. as for defending our own interest and property….to not defend it goes against any personal interest. you can’t have a personal interest if you are not willing to defend it.
I don’t know about you, amigo, but I’ve got very little debt, what there is of it is mostly concentrated in my mortgage, and that will be payed off in the not too distant future.
So when you say that boomers have incurred a lot of debt, which boomers do you mean, precisely, and what was the nature of the debt they took on?
This sounds an awful lot like saying the rich pay most of the (income) taxes: well, maybe they do. But they also get their share and then some back, which makes that statistic a rather disingenuous one.
The ARRA — the stimulus bill — was a Keynesian — just not well designed and not enough. But it had some beneficial effects. There are those who wish to deny that spending helps, and all we can do is organize emergency air drops of used Samuelson text books. The economist bloggers battled this out early last year, epitomized by Krugman’s columns on The Great Forgetting, when he realized a whole army of Chicago School economists had lost another generation of knowledge — like the burning of the Library at Alexandria.
Not the first thing that Krugman didn’t see coming. Fortunately he still has some hope that Obama will do things he’s never hinted he would do.
Maybe Paul will acknowledge the problems with Bernanke one of these days too.
Thank you for the Krugman link; I’ll add to the post.
IF they went in with a gigantic broom, and swept all the corruption out of Washington, they would have TRILLIONS to spend. Not every bill needs a piece of pork attached to it. Stop doing it. No more pork. Period. Gut the military. Waste of money anyway. How do all these other nations survive without that huge military spending? If there is no money for healthcare or social security, then get rid of all the useless crap that’s passed as “bipartisan”. Simply put, take an axe to the junk. It only ends up in some fatcat’s pockets anyway. Way past time to stop this nonsense.
He’s already done so. His blog posts and columns on Bernanke have been damning with invisible praise. His basic argument for sticking with Bernanke is: we can’t get anyone better through this dysfunctional Senate, and we might get someone worse. Not exactly an endorsement.
Unlike the war against Nazi Germany, the war against Islamic terrorism is a war with no end, thus making it’s an unwinnable war. So Obama’s war efforts, unlike what FDR’s war efforts, will do more harm than good to our country, especially as it relates to our economy. Obama’s war(s) will bring goodness to our war profiteers who profit by keeping our unwinnable wars in a perpetual state, but will only bring harm to the rest of us.
I agree with some stimulus packages, a little tarp, major health care reform and some freezing (selectively) of spending. I do not think a mixture of these things is bad, I think they are good. The President is being the President and looking at the “long view”, as well as the short term view and I applaud his leadership.
Too late for that guy. The next two or three generations will be paying for Bush/Obama’s Three Trillion Dollar Wars (see Stiglitz), which remain unpaid for.
Thank you for stating your perspective.
It’s all rather simple, isn’t it?
sparky495 @ 53
Unlike the war against Nazi Germany, the war against Islamic terrorism is a war with no end, thus making it’s an unwinnable war. So Obama’s war efforts, unlike what FDR’s war efforts, will do more harm than good to our country, especially as it relates to our economy. Obama’s war(s) will bring goodness to our war profiteers who profit by keeping our unwinnable wars in a perpetual state, but will only bring harm to the rest of us.
He’s coming close to it, but I am not holding my breath.
Thanks for the link. Too bad that on this only the leftists agree with Krugman. Makes me wonder if Obama read Atlas Shrugged on vacation and was converted to Objectivism. Greenspan is prolly feeling validated this morning.
I was sorta haunting his blog this morning (my RSS feed) waiting to see what he’d say. Econ is far from my area of expertise, but I usually trust what he says.
You both have that way wrong. Republicans love the government. It lets them spend your money on their wars and arrest people they don’t like with their police state. Your proof fails on both your basic evidence and use of transference.
Maybe you missed. I’m a libertarian (with anarchist tendencies). I like civil liberties, and I like getting to decide how the money I earn is spent. I really don’t like it being spent on other people’s wars.
I am retarded, Rahm says so. I do not support the corporatist new world order which has been so generous to Rahm and and the other sell outs.
These people are isolated, arrogant, and they hate angry hippies such as myself. Rahm and the rest can hardly wait to go to work for K-Street. They think they can play people such as myself. DON’T COUNT ON IT!
For Krugman on Bernanke, see his blog and column titled The Bernanke Conundrum.
Blogg: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/obama-liquidates-himself/
column: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/opinion/25krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
I realize that, in America, questioning waste in the military budget is akin to questioning the divinity of Jesus, but…
would not an aggressive accounting of how our military dollars are spent probably bring in at least an equivalent amount of money to what we will allegedly ‘save’ here?
We always hear stories about how military contractors obscenely rip off the American taxpayer, but when has anything ever come of it? Does anyone think that the abuses are not continuing, unchecked?
They must have the best lobbyists of all.
If it hasn’t been pointed out by others, this freeze is supposed to save $250 billion over 3 years. That would be $83.3 billion a year not the $25 billion scarecrow alludes to.
My wife and I paid off our mortgage last year. I highly recommend it.
Since most progressives didn’t vote for any of the things that put the economy in the tank and tried, in our own feeble ways, to stop most of the spending on the military and Wall Street bailouts that has brought us to this point I see no reason that the current crop of failures should be handed over to those that had nothing to do with creating them.
The new meme that has come from people like anarchisttendencies that informs us that everyone of a certain age is guilty by association has become fairly popular recently. Interesting that a person that believes that individuals are responsible for their own fates, the path of a libertarian, would effectively say my fate is mine except for the parts that I blame others for controlling. They have debts to me but I recognize no debts to anyone else. Still I suppose that Ayn Rand would not disagree very much with the sentiment.
Iow, what most boomers “owe” is actually debt that has been incurred by someone else.
I like to relate the meme “the rich pay most of the taxes” with this little scenario: You go to lunch with your boss and he spends something like $70 on expensive well drinks, a huge steak, and the desert cart. You spend $10 on a grilled cheese and salad with water, plus another $20 for the $5 your boss was short on his bill and the tip for both of you, since he didn’t have the money for that either.
Now, back at the office he can tell everyone that he paid for most of your joint lunch. Yeah, he spent $70 to your $30. But without also saying you had to cover him, that’s a bit deceptive, wouldn’t you say?
Krugman’s take on Bernanke is as predictable as it is stupid. The idea that he shouldn’t be replaced because a bunch of know nothing Senators might give a new candidate a hard time is just weird. Is he admitting that the system is so broken that we have to retain all its failures because it is incapable of even finding replacements?
Too much of an endorsement to me. The list of failures and cost to the taxpayers for the efforts of Greenspan, Paulson, Bernanke and to a lesser extent Geithner are too large for a faint praise response. Obviously the previous list does not come close to the complete cast of crooks but they had a big hand in the result.
You may be individually responsible with your finances, but the govenment elected by the boomers for the last 40 years has not. There has been deficit spending throughout most of that time, creating public debt. Debt that will have to be paid by myself and my children in the form of increased taxes, while they enter retirement and pay lower taxes. And that was unnecessary deficit spending, seeing as how the US was in an economic boom for most of that time period.
As for the their personal debt, I’m going to leave that to an expert:
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2010/01/24/debtwatch-no-42-the-economic-case-against-bernanke/
Just about what the Pentagon admits to losing each year if true. Spooky.
Next up, how many actual jobs have been provably created with the stimulus to date.
That’s as may be. But bear in mind the boomers who elected those governments did so in part because they (mistakenly) thought their representatives were going to rein in government spending. Also, while those administrations may have spent excessively, they didn’t waste a lot of that excess on the boomers themselves.
At least, that’s my recollection. Just what was this money being spent on during these last thirty years, and how did it benefit the generic boomer?
Yeah Right!
fast on his way to being a gawd-awful one-termer prez.
Actually, what I heard was that the 3-year freeze would same $250 billion over TEN years — that’s the $25B per year figure.
No one denies the existence of the debt. Rather the question is who is responsible and as can easily be seen by the people responding here it was created by corporations, their lobbyists and their captive politicians. Of the millions of boomers still alive far less than one percent had any hand in either corporate or governmental policies.
As for helping people with debt, my wife and I have a nephew and his wife that are living in a house of ours rent-free since they both lost their jobs in a saw mill. Not very libertarian of us but there you go. What is your claim to fame on helping people in troubled times?
Jared said it was over 10 years, I thought.
Did Emanuel really sat that!? I wonder if it still counts now that things have changed.
Sorta, and Krugman isn’t the only one lamenting that the Senate is so dysfunctional that we can’t get competent people confirmed and that the country may be (or is becoming) ungovernable. It’s a common theme these days. It would be helpful if Bernanke just withdrew, with a statement saying he realized that the country might need someone with a different perspective, now that the concern is more about recovery than rescue. It would create a path for someone better.
Per the New York Times:
The “freeze” lasts for three years, but the projected savings over 10 years = $250 billion. E.g., if you freeze program X for three years, you lose the annual growth, and by the fourth year, you’re starting at a lower base for future increases.
And the attempts, to jack our opinions by manipulating the media narrative (better known as myth-jacking) just keep coming. It’s so much easier just to fake it. Too bad for them, their ideas, of how to jack public opinion, are behind the social-networking curve.
“Floating a trial balloon” describes field-testing a media-manipulating myth. One of my favorites, for its inclusion of patriotic imagery, is, “Running it up the flag pole to see who salutes.”
Thanks, Scarecrow.
one of the things that was most interesting to me here was a mention in the second video of increased student spending… can you guide me to site where I can follow this issue? I hope it will include provisions for math and sciences for the grade schoo and high school set. (better arts education for small towns like where grew … See moreup) and that it will enable those with bachelors degrees to secure federal aid to go back and remediate at the undergrad level iin science and/or math and technology/computers intensive subject areas.
The corporations don’t vote. Ultimately, they cannot put people in office. And to claim the boomers don’t own corporations is ridiculous. What do you think the stocks in their portfolios/401k’s/IRA’s are? They might not have taken the time to vote on proxy issues, but that’s like saying citizens that abstain from voting are not responsible for election results.
Nice strawman there. I never “claimed fame on helping people in troubled times”. And I’m not going to go bragging about any personal charity.
My interest is in seeing that my personal and economic freedoms are not constrained by our government. The economic side of that is what I have addressed. I want to see some amount of the public (government) debt paid for by the citizens who voted for it for the last 40 years. That allows my generation and my kids generation to pay off what’s left at a reasonable rate. I want to make sure that the interest on existing debt and unnecessary military spending do not lead to significant long term tax increases that constrain our economic freedom.
I have not been following the education reforms. However, one of Obama’s initiatives have been to end subsidizing student loans by private lenders and instead processing the loans exclusively through federal loan programs. That’s not just a budget issue; if you google student loans, fraud, corruption, investigations etc, you’ll find lots of stories of state attorneys general all over the country investigating abusive loan practices, bribing of college student aid offices, etc.
So the private lenders are all up in arms about losing these subsidies and the very profitable business — especially in e.g., Ben Nelson’s state. Surprise! On the other hand, there are non-profit entities that service these loans, and they want to keep that business; to carve out a promise that they can continue to do this for the government.
I know budget projections are by law supposed to be over 10 years. That’s what threw me with this 3 year plan. The question is how much would be “saved” in the 3 years. The out year stuff is usually worthless because projections lose all accuracy after the first year or two and the out years are in different Administrations and there is no telling what their priorities will be. I will give a quick look round to see if more detailed data can be found.
Shame will not cut a Sham
Corporation pay lobbyists. The members vote and pay politicians to solve problems for them.
Ah, but if I were in fact one of the people who actually voted for this and held to your views then my answer would be that I got mine and your problems are your own. You want a solution dig for your own. Self-serving cuts both ways.
The saddest part it that its become very clear to a much more people that its all one big joke (on them).
History gave us a moment when the “good” guys had to show their hand – and it was all slight of hand all along (the opposition – OK you can vote against this one since it will pass anyway).
The sick thing is, if it’s a reaction to the MA election, then it’s doubly stupid. What poll shows that Brown won because there is too much government spending? Why does EVERY LEADER since friggin… I don’t know… LBJ ALWAYS default to the Repub. position?
Odd when folks try to protect Rachel Maddow even thought it is so clear she follows her owners orders. She is clearly very selective about where she will shine her human rights spotlight. Very selective. She should feel “shame”
My take on the SOTU address is that Obama will announce the partial freeze starting next year. At the same time will announce some new WPA project. I think he will attempt to deliver a Roosevelt moment on Wednesday evening
Are you a troll? Or are you what Rahm might call a f–king genius?
This call for fiscal austerity is just another setting of the stage for Medicare and Social Security cutbacks/gutting. The “long view” you worship should be your worst mightmare.
Trying to keep this civil. You seem to have just said you are in favor of bribery and corruption. I certainly did not make that argument. I also do not argue in favor of generational theft (I consider passing a debt on to a future generation analogous to theft). Your “I got mine” comment would equate to condoning theft. That is not an argument I would make.
You have seemingly given up addressing the points and dropped to attempted character assassination.
I’ve begun to think something similar. Only, why would he give up the extra 4-12 years you could get going to term and getting Biden in? The only reason I can think of is that he knows something we don’t, something about the economy that guarantees that anything beyond for years wouldn’t be worth the effort. Maybe he knows that, at some point in the next three years, there won’t be anything left worth stealing?
Yeah. Maybe the Fed has given away all of the money and the Administration has decamped for Grand Cayman, leaving us like the passengers in the old joke:
“This is your captain speaking. Those on the right side of the plane will have noticed that the engines are on fire.
“Those on the left side of the plane may notice a small life raft bobbing on the waves. That is your crew.
“There is now no cause for alarm. This is a recording.”
FUCKING DUMB MOVE!!!
This will still fuck things up even more than they already ARE!!
It may be too late. In fact, it may already be time for 95% of the populace to emulate the ad hoc financial reformers of yore, visionaries like Willy Sutton who reputedly knew how to redistribute wealth during a Depression without smoke and mirrors: “Go where the money is…and go there often.” And remember that “you get more with a smile and a .45 than you do with a smile”.
I love Rachel and appreciated her tenacity in this segment. But she got it wrong. The people need more meat and the only way to get that is to cut fat.
I believe you are wrong. FICA taxes are more than enough to fund Social Security and Medicare for the foreseeable future if that is what they are used for. Unfortunately FICA taxes are invested in govt bonds and thereby put into the general fund. Increases in FICA taxes made income tax reductions for the rich possible. You may get reductions in social security and medicare but you won’t get a reduction in FICA taxes nor will you be able to use the reduction in benefits as a reason for paying less FICA taxes.
kos opposition to Obama is just a show. The purpose of that blog is to have liberals waste time letting off steam there, but as soon as there is any attempt to organize against the bad things being done to us, the kossacks verbally abuse, hunt down and destroy! It is an opposition management blog.
Rachel is right on, as usual, about this proposed spending freeze.
Obama, as a “New Dem”, is killing this country.
Psst! Pssst!
Pass it on: DKos is a Sunstein operation!