MediaCynic.com

Archives
Homepage
Linking to Us
Recent Headlines




Add to MyYahoo

Add to MyMSN

Add to Bloglines

Add to NewsGator

Add to Pluck





Categories

2008 Election
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Economy
John Edwards
Entertainment
Environment
Al Gore
Health Care
Immigration
International
Iraq
John Kerry
Media
Middle East
Miscellaneous
Plamegate
Politics
Polls
Religion
Condoleezza Rice
Donald Rumsfeld
Scandals
Science
Social security
Supreme Court
Taxes
Technology






MediaCynic.com Homepage | Economy

Fed Cuts Interest Rate

The Fed made a three-quarter percentage-point cut in the target for the federal-funds rate, in response to the stock market's early tumble.
The move shored up confidence, at least for the moment. U.S. and many global markets quickly rebounded from huge losses in response to the three-quarter percentage-point cut in the target for the federal-funds rate, to 3.5%.

But in a sign that risks to the U.S. and global economy remain strong, the Fed hinted another rate cut next week is likely. The central bank's moves may be too late to stop the U.S. from entering recession, as many economists now forecast, but it may make one milder and shorter.

By acting so explicitly in response to market developments -- just a week before a scheduled meeting to decide on rates -- the Fed is running a risk. Investors may view the steps as panicky, undermining the goal of the rate cuts. And investors may come to judge the Fed's success narrowly, by how the stock market, rather than the economy as a whole, performs.

Still, Fed officials agreed on the emergency move during a videoconference call convened hastily Monday evening by Mr. Bernanke. It came after Mr. Bernanke spent Monday in the office, despite the national holiday, watching the fallout as Asian and European markets plummeted and consulting with aides. Futures markets Monday were predicting a 4% plunge Tuesday in U.S. stocks.
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has reportedly been saying off the record that the economy in in much worse shape than he has been saying publicly, which is not terribly reassuring. The Dow was down 464 points this morning, but rallied to close down 128.11. After the interest rate cut, the European markets also rallied.

Usually a cut in interest rates will spur spending and house buying. But the housing market is in a free fall and foreclosures in California are rising at an alarming rate. Recession appears imminent, but it's too soon to tell how deep it will be.

Posted on January 22, 2008
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati



Pakistani Government Gives Conflicting Reports of Bhutto's Death

Photo of Parade magazine The tragic assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has plunged the country into chaos, with reports of mass rioting. The Pakistani government can't seem to get its story straight about the incident. Eyewitnesses say a man jumped on Mrs. Bhutto's car and shot her twice, then blew himself up. She died an hour later at the hospital. But now, the government has contradicted itself again with a ridiculous story that she died by hitting her head on the sunroof as she ducked gunfire. The report also claims that her car sped off to get help, which is absurd, since there were hundreds of people in front of the car at the time, none of whom were injured.

So, to sum up: the government now says that Mrs. Bhutto was shot at point blank range yet suffered no bullet wounds and that she was not injured from any shrapnel although a bomb blew up right next to her car. No autopsy was performed, but her doctor says she had a huge wound. An eyewitness in the car with the prime minister also said she was shot, as did a Getty photographer who had been with her all day.

Apparently, the government of Pakistan wants the world to believe that she just hit her head -- sort of by accident -- and that it really wasn't anyone's fault. Hillary Clinton, who knew Mrs. Bhutto for years, has called for an international inquiry into her death, as have other political leaders. The goal of her detractors is to keep her from being named a martyr, by saying she did not die a martyr's death. Pretending that Mrs. Bhutto wasn't murdered isn't going to quell the violence in Pakistan or diminish Mrs. Bhutto's accomplishments. All it does is make Musharraf's government look like it is masterminding a coverup.

Posted on December 28, 2007
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati



Alan Greenspan Rocks the Boat

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan lets down his hair in his new memoir, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World. In the book he says everyone knows the Iraq War was just for oil, that Bush has a profligate spender who never met a spending bill he didn't love and whose entire economic policy is driven by politics and that Bill Clinton was incredibly well-informed about just about everything. Oh, and he blasts his old friend Dick Cheney for saying that deficits don't matter, because they really, really do.
"The Bush administration turned out to be very different from the reincarnation of the Ford administration that I had imagined. Now, the political operation was far more dominant," Greenspan, 81, wrote.... In the 531-page tome, which ranges from Greenspan's childhood in New York to his 18 years at the Fed, he recounts his relationships with the six presidents he served.

Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were the most intelligent, he wrote, while he found Ford the most normal and likeable. Ronald Reagan was the most devoted to free markets, though his grasp of economics "wasn't very deep or sophisticated." George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, was very cordial, though Greenspan's relationship with him was complicated by differing views on monetary policy, he wrote. Bush blamed high interest rates, in part, for his 1992 election loss to Clinton.

Greenspan saved his harshest analysis for the current president. Soon after Bush took office in 2001, the president set about implementing a campaign promise to cut taxes, a policy Greenspan said he believed at the time wasn't well conceived. "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he wrote. In 2001 testimony before Congress, Greenspan was widely interpreted to have endorsed Bush's proposed tax cuts. In the book, he characterized his testimony as politically careless and said his words were misinterpreted. Greenspan also expressed disappointment in Bush's reluctance to antagonize then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other congressional Republicans by vetoing spending bills. "There is a remedy for legislative excess," wrote Greenspan, "it's called a presidential veto."
Snap! Greenspan also said that Hillary Clinton wouldn't make a bad president, which is interesting. But the most personally revealing snippet of the book is where Greenspan described his first date with his wife. Instead of asking her back to his home to see his etchings, he asked her back to his pad to read his latest economic paper. He actually read it to her, presumably while she adoringly gazed at him in her best Nancy Reagan imitation.

Posted on September 19, 2007
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Barbie's Toxic Dream House

Photo of Barbie toysOk, this is getting ridiculous. How many more toys and other products made in China need to be recalled before the U.S. government regulatory agencies get on top of this and do their jobs? The most recent disaster is the recall by Mattel of 800,000 toys, many of which involve their flagship product, Barbie. Apparently, Barbie's home is a toxic waste dump of lead-contaminated paint. All those cute little accessories that round out the Barbie Dream House? Totally toxic. This is the third recall for Mattel, and shareholders are not happy.
Right now, Mattel is facing a crisis of monumental proportions for both its brand and its bottom line. The costs of the recalls still have to be calculated and will probably extend out for many years, particularly from lawsuits that will linger on. Of more immediate concern is the coming Christmas holiday and convincing consumers that its products are safe.

Mattel isn't alone in the recall category, as rivals Hasbro (NYSE: HAS) and RC2 (Nasdaq: RCRC) have also initiated recalls. And many other companies outside the retail world are being negatively affected from China's tainted goods. Yet the size of Mattel's recalls and the fact that they continue to crop up every few weeks are a concern.
The recall problem is so bad that Disney just announced that it will test all its own toys from here on out.
Problems with Chinese-made goods first appeared with the recall of Thomas the Tank Engine products made by RC2. Parents were initially outraged, and probably promised to swear off any tainted brand indefinitely. But as the list of recalled products grew, even to include well-known products such as Barbie and Disney's "Cars" line of toys, alternatives are shrinking. Mattel and its Fisher-Price division are considered particularly vulnerable, after recalling millions of toys because of lead paint concerns or pieces of toys that might be hazardous to children. Hasbro (NYSE: HAS), too, had to recall its popular Easy-Bake Ovens because of injury concerns.

Disney licenses its characters to some 2,000 companies, and it says it will test the 65,000 toys already on the shelves at a cost of several million dollars. In future, when the cost will run the company several million dollars annually, Disney intends to pass along those fees to toymakers in contract negotiations.

With the critical holiday period coming up fast, companies are working hard to reassure parents that its toys are safe to buy. Viacom's Nickelodeon announced in July it was adopting similar independent testing procedures in the wake of the Thomas & Friends recall. And retailers like Wal-Mart are also hiring independent laboratories to check the toys they sell.
The problem here is twofold. First, China is a developing country which has minimal health and safety standards, for products or for workers. They work for pennies a day. Because of outsourcing, a majority of U.S. products are made in China. When you buy that toy for your grandchild, remember, it's most likely a Chinese child who made it. It's a case of children making toys in sweatshop conditions -- for children. The New York Times had an especially horrifying investigative piece on the subject last year. But no one seems to care.

The second problem is that the regulatory agencies under the Bush administration aren't doing their jobs. Budget cuts and partisan policies have hurt the American consumer. Heck, we don't even inspect our own food properly, much less the stuff coming in from China. Tainted spinach, peanut butter or beef, anyone? Somehow, I've lost my appetite.

Posted on September 10, 2007
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Liquidity Fears Rattle Market

The Dow Jones Industrial average dropped almost 2.8% today, its second worst drop this year. The drop is being attributed to the collapse of the subprime mortgage lending market and liquidity problems. Things got so back today that the European Central Bank and the Fed had to intervene and try to ease liquidity problems.
The troubles demonstrated both the global reach of the crisis and its impact on a widening circle of markets and companies. The first jolt came from French bank BNP Paribas, which said early in the day that it was freezing three investment funds once worth a combined $2.17 billion because of losses related to U.S. housing loans. That prompted the U.S. and European central banks to inject cash into money markets to keep interest rates down.

The unease accelerated in the U.S. with news that several hedge funds were in the red and selling off assets. Apartment and condominium builder Tarragon Corp. raised doubts about its ability to remain in business amid weak demand and an inability to raise new financing. After markets closed, mortgage-lender Countrywide Financial Corp. said "unprecedented disruptions" in credit markets could affect its financial condition.

The stock market, which on Wednesday had risen sharply on hopes credit problems were being contained, swooned as hedge funds, many of which borrowed increasing amounts of money in recent years to boost returns amid placid markets, scrambled to sell holdings and cut their borrowings. The Dow Jones Industrial Average ended down 387.18 points, or 2.8%, at 13270.68.

After the close of trading, Renaissance Technologies Corp., a hedge-fund company with one of the best records in recent years, told investors that a key fund has lost 8.7% so far in August and is down 7.4% in 2007. Another big fund company, Highbridge Capital Management, told investors its Highbridge Statistical Opportunities Fund was down 18% as of 8th of the month, and was down 16% for the year. The $1.8 billion publicly traded Highbridge Statistical Market Neutral Fund was down 5.2% for the month as of Wednesday.

Meanwhile, Countrywide, of Calabasas, Calif., said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it was shoring up its finances and had "adequate funding liquidity." (SEC filing3) But the company, the nation's largest home-mortgage lender in terms of volume, warned that "the situation is rapidly evolving and the impact on the company is unknown." Reduced demand from investors is prompting Countrywide to retain more of its loans rather than selling them.

The statement could send shivers through financial markets today. It came just a week after Bear Stearns Cos., the Wall Street trading giant, had to reassure investors that it had ample cash on hand amid concern that it faced funding problems because of deteriorating credit-market conditions and the implosion of two of its hedge funds.
The domino effect of the collapse of the subprime lending market is hardly a surprise to anyone who has been following the irrational exuberance investors have been showing for mortgages that have little or no chance of being repaid. Governments are clearly worried: Japan's central bank added $8.39 billion into money markets, the European Central Bank injected $130 billion and the Federal Reserve had to cough up $24 billion to stop a liquidity panic. It's not over yet and the market jitters are already spreading to non-mortgage-related stocks.

Posted on August 9, 2007
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati



China Threatens Massive Dollar Devaluation

Talk about blowback from our stupid economic policies. China is now threatening to sell off its massive horde of U.S. dollars, which would trigger a landslide devaluation of the dollar.
Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.

Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels. It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds. Xia Bin, finance chief at the Development Research Centre (which has cabinet rank), kicked off what now appears to be government policy with a comment last week that Beijing's foreign reserves should be used as a "bargaining chip" in talks with the US.

"Of course, China doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order," he added. He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went even further today, letting it be known that Beijing had the power to set off a dollar collapse if it choose to do so. "China has accumulated a large sum of US dollars. Such a big sum, of which a considerable portion is in US treasury bonds, contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency. Russia, Switzerland, and several other countries have reduced the their dollar holdings. "China is unlikely to follow suit as long as the yuan's exchange rate is stable against the dollar. The Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars once the yuan appreciated dramatically, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar," he told China Daily.

The threats play into the presidential electoral campaign of Hillary Clinton, who has called for restrictive legislation to prevent America being "held hostage to economic decicions being made in Beijing, Shanghai, or Tokyo". She said foreign control over 44pc of the US national debt had left America acutely vulnerable. Simon Derrick, a currency strategist at the Bank of New York Mellon, said the comments were a message to the US Senate as Capitol Hill prepares legislation for the Autumn session. "The words are alarming and unambiguous. This carries a clear political threat and could have very serious consequences at a time when the credit markets are already afraid of contagion from the subprime troubles," he said.
This is what happens when you borrow billions of dollars from China to finance a losing war. We've handed China a very powerful weapon against us and they are now using it. It's an infuriating situation for us to be in -- this never had to happen. We had a surplus when Bush took office, which the current administration quickly squandered. By giving China this economic weapon, Bush has put the U.S. economy at severe risk -- and that is totally unacceptable.

Posted on August 8, 2007
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

World Bank Finds Wolfowitz Guilty

In a humiliating turn of events, Paul Wolfowitz has been found guilty of a conflict of interest by a committee of World Bank Directors. The Directors ruled that Wolfowitz was guilty because he arranged a pay raise and promotion for his girlfriend Shaha Ali Riza.
The contents of the panel's findings were not made public. People who are familiar with the panel's report said that it reviewed extensive documents and testimony before concluding that Mr. Wolfowitz breached his obligations in arranging for Ms. Riza's reassignment from the bank to the State Department.

The report, as transmitted to Mr. Wolfowitz, did not recommend a punishment for Mr. Wolfowitz. Bank officials, speaking anonymously because the proceedings are supposed to be confidential, said that the special committee was still working today on what to recommend. It was not clear whether the committee, consisting of 7 of the bank's 24 board members, would remove Mr. Wolfowitz from his post or, more likely, express a loss of confidence in his leadership in a manner that might persuade him to resign. Bank officials say that a majority of the bank board has concluded that he should go.

In another sign of Mr. Wolfowitz's difficulties, his top communications aide, Kevin Kellems, resigned today, saying that "the current environment surrounding the leadership" at the bank made it "very difficult to be effective in helping to advance the mission of the institution." Mr. Kellems said in a written statement that he had "tremendous respect and admiration" for the bank's staff. He made no mention of Mr. Wolfowitz, with whom he had a close association when the bank president was deputy secretary of defense. European officials at the bank said that if Mr. Wolfowitz resigns, either now or some time in the future, Europeans may be willing to let the United States continue to exercise its customary prerogative of choosing the next bank president.
His aide has resigned in disgrace. The entire Board of Directors has ruled that he is guilty of conflict of interest. Wolfowitz needs to resign, now.

Posted on May 7, 2007
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Paul Wolfowitz and Girlfriend Infuriate World Bank Officers

Paul Wolfowitz is in big trouble at the World Bank for hiring his girlfriend, then giving her a big raise. The rest of the bank directors are not happy and want him to resign. But Wolfie is digging in his heels and refusing to budge.
Paul D. Wolfowitz's struggle to remain as president of the World Bank was dealt a crippling setback on Sunday when its most powerful oversight committee delivered an unusually public rebuke of his leadership, expressing "great concern" about the institution's future and the need to preserve its credibility and staff morale.

*****

The extraordinary exchange between Mr. Wolfowitz and the oversight committee, which consists of 47 of the world's finance ministers and leaders of other international organizations, deepened the uncertainty over Mr. Wolfowitz. His future had earlier been thrown into doubt by the disclosure that he played a direct role in granting a pay raise and promotion to a female companion when she was transferred in 2005.

Bank and finance officials said they could not recall any time in the history of the bank when there was such an open and rancorous rift between its president and the people who are supposed to run the institution in cooperation with him. The events of the day, in which top officials took time out from discussing issues like poverty and development strategies, set up a clear impasse between Mr. Wolfowitz and the leadership of the bank, as represented by what seemed to be most of the world’s finance ministers and most of the members of a separate 24-member executive board that governs its day-to-day affairs.

The rebuke of Mr. Wolfowitz came in the form of bureaucratic language in a series of sentences in the board's communiqué that asserted "the current situation is of great concern to all of us," an unusually blunt statement for a circumspect institution. "We have to ensure that the bank can effectively carry out its mandate and maintain its credibility and reputation as well as the motivation of its staff," the committee said. "We expect the bank to adhere to a high standard of internal governance." Though the language was indirect, the message it sent was unmistakable, according to officials who have been meeting in Washington the last few days. "Words like 'concerned,' 'credibility' and 'reputation' are pretty unprecedented for a communiqué from a place like the World Bank," said an official involved in the drafting of the statement.

At issue in these statements was a crisis arising from Mr. Wolfowitz's involvement in decisions to transfer his companion, Shaha Ali Riza, to a new job and give her a raise. Officially, Mr. Wolfowitz and the bank are now to wait for a full report by the bank's board on his leadership and charges of favoritism in dealing with Ms. Riza, who was employed at the bank until 2005. But bank officials said that in delaying a finding, the board seemed to be buying time for Mr. Wolfowitz to consider resigning.
In a stuffy instituion like the World Bank, such a communique is the equivalent of a major smackdown. They want Wolfowitz out and think he's sleazy. But Wolfowitz is so far refusing to resign, which puts the ball back in the other directors' court. Will he be fired? It's looking more and more likely.

Posted on April 16, 2007
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati



Dollar Falls to 15 Year Low

The U.S. dollar fell to a fifteen year low today, because of recent remarks by the fed chairman about inflation and the slow housing market.
US house prices fell 3.5pc to an average $221,000, the third month of declines. Stocks of unsold homes rose to 7.4 months' supply, the highest since 1993. The US consumer confidence index fell sharply to 102.9. The "truckers index" of tonnage shipped by US haulage companies was down 1.8pc in October, a leading indicator of contraction. Merrill Lynch called the fall "borderline recessionary".

The dollar continued its slide against the euro, dropping to $1.3194 after the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, said the housing slump "would be a drag on economic growth into next year". Mr Bernanke said official figures did not pick up the "sharp increase" in cancellations on house deals and might understate the inventory glut. "Any significant effect on consumer spending arising from further weakness in housing would have important implications for the economy," he said.
The European papers are full of gloom and doom about the ever-weakening dollar, and reports of financial leaders' calls not to panic. Yet strangely, the headlines in the U.S. media gloss over this fact. There is quite a disconnect here, which is quite interesting. Oil is up and related stocks are up. Housing prices are down and falling fast.

Chairman Bernake is worried about inflation and signalled that more interest rate hikes are a possibility. But with the reports today of declines in consumer confidence and in durable goods orders, raising interest rates hardly seems prudent.

Posted on November 28, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

A Scare For Halloween: The AMT is Sneaking Up on You

A New York Times editorial takes the Bush administration to task for failing to repeal or totally revise the Alternative Minimum Tax or AMT, which is going to catch a lot of the taxpayers on their 2006 income tax returns.
One of President Bush's be-very-afraid lines this campaign season is that Democrats, if elected, will raise taxes. What he doesn't say is that if you are one of tens of millions of Americans who make between $75,000 and $500,000 a year, your taxes are already scheduled to rise starting next year — because of laws that Mr. Bush championed and other actions he failed to take. The higher taxes stem from the alternative minimum tax, a levy that is supposed to snare multimillionaires who would otherwise get away with using excessive tax shelters to wipe out their tax bills. But these days, the alternative tax is snaring many upper-middle-income filers.

Mr. Bush set the trap in 2001 — and in 2003, 2004 and 2006. In each of those years, he flogged for new tax cuts without requiring corresponding long-term changes in the existing rules for the alternative tax. It was well known that failure to update the alternative tax would create perverse interactions with the new tax cuts, causing filers' tax bills to drop because of the cuts, only to shoot back up again from the alternative levy.

Mr. Bush said he would vanquish the problem through tax reform. Didn't happen. Congress never wrestled with lasting solutions. The truth is, the president and lawmakers are paralyzed. To fix the alternative tax while keeping the Bush tax cuts on the books would result in the loss of some $800 billion in revenue over 10 years, blowing a hole in the federal budget and exposing how utterly unaffordable the tax cuts of the last five years really are.

The taxpayers wrongly afflicted by the alternative tax are not tax dodgers. For the most part, they are couples with children who have broken into the ranks of six-figure earners, and who live in high-tax states like New York and California. They are being penalized, in effect, for claiming everyday deductions — like write-offs for dependents and property taxes — which, under the alternative tax rules, are viewed as excessive shelters.
The AMT should be repealed. And to make the cut revenue neutral, all the tax breaks given to corporations for outsourcing American jobs should be reversed.

Posted on October 31, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Slow Economic Growth in 3rd Quarter

The U.S. economy grew more slowly in the third quarter than any time since 2003. The crashing housing market is the main factor for the slowdown.
A major question hanging over both the economy and the political campaign this fall has been just how severely the slump in housing would drag down growth. The Commerce Department’s report, which will be revised twice in coming months as more complete data becomes available, shows that the drag was indeed substantial.

Residential construction plunged by nearly one-fifth in the quarter, the steepest decline in 15 years. That trend alone knocked 1.1 percentage points off the overall figure for economic growth. As recently as the spring of 2005, that sector was a major motor of growth, adding more than one percentage point to the overall figure. With the economy shifting into a lower gear, analysts believe that the Federal Reserve will be unlikely to resume raising interest rates any time soon. The Fed paused in August after a two-year campaign of steady increases in its benchmark overnight lending rate, meant to combat inflation. It has kept the rate steady at 5.25 percent through three policy-setting meetings since then, even though the inflation rate has remained stubbornly high.

The majority view at the Fed is that the economy is already on a slowing trend that will bring inflation to heel, and the new report supports that view. A closely watched measure of inflation in today’s report, the G.D.P. price index, rose at a 1.8 percent annual rate in the third quarter, seasonally adjusted, compared with 3.3 percent in each of the first and second quarters. Falling fuel prices helped bring the rate down.

With midterm Congressional elections less than two weeks away, the new figures offer something for both Republicans and Democrats to cheer. The weak growth rate suggests that the economy is not as robust as it once was, bolstering Democrats’ criticism of the administration’s economic policies. But the report also finds consumer spending gaining strength, rising by 3.1 percent in the third quarter, compared with 2.6 percent in the second.
As the mid-terms approach, politicians are arguing about the state of the economy and the effect of the Bush tax cuts. Most of what is being argued is nonsensical, as if all "tax cuts" are the same. Tax cuts, in general, are a good thing: they do spur investment. Cutting the capital gains rate does spur investment. It also helps seniors who have their money in the stock market and other long-term investments. Allowing 100% of the health insurance premiums to be deducted by self-employed persons helps small businesses. These tax reforms all made sense.

The problems with the Bush tax cuts were threefold: 1) the tax incentives to multinational corporations for outsourcing hurt the U.S. middle class and the job market, and did not spur any investment or hiring by those companies; 2) Congress was unable to make the estate tax repeal permanent, which severely impacts small business owners and family business owners; and 3) the tax cuts were financed by massive borrowing from China while the U.S. was taking on an immensely expensive war in Iraq.

Borrowing to pay for tax cuts is just asking for fiscal disaster down the road. It's just delaying the pain. It also causes a diplomatic nightmare when you really need to lean on China and can't because you owe the country billions of dollars. That explains why we're tap dancing around in our response to Kim Jong-il's nuclear plans.

Posted on October 27, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Middle Class Spending Slows

The Wall Street Journal reports that middle class spending is finally starting to slow. The housing bubble is starting to burst, and that means the end of new home equity loans which have been financing a great part of the past few years of consumer spending. High gas prices are also taking a toll. The segment that is now feeling the crunch is solidly middle class. That economic demographic is now starting to cut back on everyday luxury items such as Starbucks and upscale cooking items from Williams Sonoma.
Amid the broader prosperity of the past decade, Americans grew far more willing to shell out for $4 cups of coffee and $400 handbags. Retailers such as Starbucks Corp., Whole Foods Market Inc. and Williams-Sonoma Inc. -- operator of Pottery Barn and its own kitchen stores -- expanded by appealing to the aspirations of middle-class shoppers.

Now, many of those retailers are feeling pinched. In recent weeks, Starbucks, Whole Foods and Williams-Sonoma -- along with others such as boat maker Brunswick Corp. and specialty-sandwich chain Panera Bread Co. -- have reported disappointing sales that sent their share prices lower. Restaurants catering to middle-income consumers are seeing a sales slump too. Growing evidence suggests the chief culprit is gasoline prices in the $3-a-gallon range -- up 71 cents from six months ago, according to federal data. Buyers "are spending a lot of money on gas," says Brunswick Chief Executive Dustan McCoy. "The sort of people who boat don't drive around in compact cars. They drive around in big cars or fast cars."

But Wendy Liebmann, president of consulting firm WSL Strategic Retail in New York, finds evidence in a recent survey of 1,500 consumers of a broader shift in consumer behavior after almost a decade in which most were "trading up" for high-end items. Many are now cutting back, she says, with low-income households becoming more likely to stick to dollar stores and supercenters and middle-income families visiting more mass merchants and grocery stores than specialty outlets.

Especially surprising, Ms. Liebmann says, is evidence that households earning as much as $75,000 a year are changing their habits. Survey responses among this group were more similar to those of low-income households than those of wealthy families, she says. The types of spending most likely to be chopped: fashion accessories, clothing, home décor, electronics and entertainment.
The wealthy so far haven't changed their spending habits. But it is the middle class which drives the engine of the U.S. economy, and the double whammy of high gas prices and a slow housing market doesn't bode well for the economic future.

Posted on August 29, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Senate Committee Takes Aim at Offshore Companies

The New York Times reports on Congress' latest target: businessmen who (legally) use offshore companies and bank accounts to lessen or avoid paying U.S. income taxes. The Senate Permanent Investigations Committe, headed Senator Levin, has approved a report which basically takes aim at any offshore transactions done in the Caymen Islands, Nevis, the Isle of Man and Panama.

In a clear indicator that the joy of doing business offshore is about to become a nightmare, the report suggested that the underlying legal assumption that transactions are legal be overturned. Senator Levin said the law "should assume that any transaction in a tax haven is a sham." That would be a sea change in the tax law, if implemented.
So many superrich Americans evade taxes using offshore accounts that law enforcement cannot control the growing misconduct, according to a Senate report that provides the most detailed look ever at high-level tax schemes. Among the billionaires cited in the report are the owner of the New York Jets football team, Robert Wood Johnson IV; the producer of the "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" children’s show, Haim Saban; and two Texas businessmen, Charles and Sam Wyly, who the Center for Public Integrity found in 2000 were the ninth-largest contributors to President Bush. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Saban, who are portrayed as victims in the report, are scheduled to testify today before the Senate Permanent Investigations subcommittee. They are expected to say that professional advisers assured them their deals to avoid taxes were more likely lawful than not. The Wyly brothers told the committee that they would invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and thus were not called to testify. The report characterizes them as active participants in tax schemes.

*****

Both Mr. Johnson, the football team owner and scion of the Johnson & Johnson health care fortune, and Mr. Saban, the television mogul, are portrayed in the report as victims. The two men, through representatives, said yesterday that they relied on professional advisers who told them the transactions were lawful, and that they were now settling with the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Johnson, known as Woody, told Senate investigators two weeks ago that to buy the Jets in 1999 he had to sell assets, incurring the 20 percent tax on long-term capital gains in effect at the time. He said that a way to defer the tax was proposed by Larry B. Scheinfeld, who had been his accountant at KPMG until he joined Quellos, where he worked closely with Chuck Wilk, a tax lawyer.

The technique involved a complex set of circular transactions using what the Senate report characterized as sham corporations in the Isle of Man with shell corporations given names like Jackstones. Their ownership was kept secret.

*****

The report details a scheme created for Mr. Saban to avoid more than $300 million in taxes from sale of his half interest in the Family Channel and related properties. Mr. Saban told Senate investigators that he never understood the transactions but undertook them after asking two questions of Mr. Wilk and his personal tax lawyer, Matthew Krane. Mr. Saban said he asked whether the deals were legal and whether a major law firm would certify them as proper. The two lawyers, Mr. Saban said, answered "yes to both," so he went ahead.
So, what's this really all about? It's about a government that has a huge deficit because of the war in Iraq. When the deficit gets this big, Congress starts looking for targets. The new target is going to be any business person who sets up a company in an offshore tax haven, or uses those havens to (legally) avoid taxes. Because, if the Committee has its way, then the new rule will be "If you do business off shore, you're a crook. And you're going to spend millions of dollars defending yourself to the IRS, no matter how many law firms and accountants told you it was legal."

As the war in Iraq becomes more and more expensive, as oil becomes more expensive and the deficit grows ever larger, Congress will target more and more transactions and industries that -- if audited -- could possibly turn up some revenue for the ailing U.S. treasury.

Posted on August 1, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Dow Tumbles On Inflation Fears

The Dow fell 214.28 points, or 1.88 percent for the biggest decline in over three years. The Nasdaq also hit a new low for the year, with the release of the Consumer Price Index.
Behind the market's reversal is a growing concern among investors that inflation may not be as firmly under control as they had hoped. Even as most economic signals continue to point to a growing economy, the prospect that the Federal Reserve might still feel compelled to keep raising interest rates has unnerved many on Wall Street.

"Many investors have taken large positions in stocks and they are getting spooked," said James Glassman, senior United States economist for J. P. Morgan Chase & Company. "These investors are often hedge funds and foreigners, and if the Fed is going to raise rates more than they thought, that makes it less attractive for them to hold onto their big positions." Indeed, the sudden unwinding in the market began on May 11, the day after Fed policy makers raised interest rates another quarter-point, to 5 percent, and left open the prospect that more interest rate increases "might yet be needed to address inflation risks."

*****

Yesterday's government report was seen as the worst omen yet. The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced a jump of 0.6 percent in the Consumer Price Index for April, mostly because of gasoline prices, but also because, as the government calculates it, the cost of owning a house and renting an apartment was up smartly. The latest increase in consumer prices came on top of a 0.4 percent increase in March.
American consumers have tapped out their homes as a source of equity and we have a negative savings rate. The crash in the housing market will come, the only question is when and how hard will the crash be. If inflation spurs the Fed to raise interest rates faster, well, all I can say is: I hope you enjoyed the Jimmy Carter years, because here they come again.

Posted on May 17, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

The Consequences Of The Falling Dollar

If you're an American who has a lot of money in CDs who never travels abroad, never buys foreign goods and has no debt, the falling dollar is good news for you. For everyone else, it's not good at all. The Christian Science Monitor lays out the consequences of the dollar's recent freefall against other world currencies:
If the dollar were to continue falling, it could have wide ramifications:

  • It could imperil the economy next year because Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke might have to defend the currency with higher interest rates.

  • A lower-valued dollar makes imports more expensive, possibly ratcheting up the inflation rate. But it could also stimulate US exports, thus providing more jobs.

  • This summer, Americans traveling abroad will feel as if everything is expensive. However, foreigners coming to America will feel as if the country is one giant Wal-Mart.

    *****

    Behind the falling currency is a changing global economy. As the US Federal Reserve appears to be near the end of its round of interest-rate hikes, foreign banks are starting to hike their rates - which puts foreign currencies in higher demand, thus making the dollar less attractive. Thursday, in fact, the president of the European Central Bank indicated that rates could rise in Europe next month. At the same time, the giant US trade imbalance has produced a huge outflow of dollars to other countries, as well as the need to finance the ever-bigger US deficit. The deficit has attracted increasing scrutiny, most recently at a meeting of finance ministers in Washington last month.

    In addition, the central banks of some foreign countries, which are key in financing the US deficit by buying US Treasury bills, are now less willing to do so. Instead, they're diversifying their reserve holdings with euros and yen.
  • This is what happens when you 1) finance a costly, unnecessary war by borrowing billions from the Chinese; 2) give tax breaks to giant corporations for outsourcing American jobs thereby destroying our manufacturing base; and 3) fail to strike hard bargains at the worldwide trade negotiating table which require the "open markets" concept to go both ways. The U.S. must require foreign countries who want access to our markets to open their markets to U.S products: Ronald Reagan always drove a hard bargain at the trade negotiating table, unlike the current administration.

    Globalization is happening; it's an unstoppable force. But it should be managed and allowed to happen over time. By unnaturally speeding up the process, almost overnight American is quickly becoming a nation which produces nothing and yet has an insatiable appetite for foreign goods. This leads directly to the trade deficit and the inevitable rise in interest rates to prop up the dollar. Because if the dollar falls too far our Chinese and Saudi bankers will stop holding dollars and switch to another currency such as the Euro. That is the first step towards America becoming a second world country, not a first world country.

    Posted on May 15, 2006
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Bush Warns Americans Of Long, Tough Summer Ahead

    President Bush warned Americans that it's going to be a long, tough summer because of rising gas prices.
    But even as more Americans expressed discontent over the price of filling up their gas tanks, Bush suggested there was little his government could do in the short term about the problem. "We're going to have a tough summer because people are beginning to drive now during tight supply," Bush said as he toured a California facility developing hydrogen-powered vehicles. "The American people have got to understand what happens elsewhere in the world affects the price of gasoline you pay here."

    Bush spoke after a week of unremitting rises in prices in global crude oil markets and at gasoline (petrol) pumps across the country. Crude topped a record 75 dollars per barrel in New York trading Friday, five dollars up from a week earlier. At the same time, US retail pump prices were topping an average three dollars a gallon (3.8 liters) in many places in the country, up 60 cents -- 33 percent -- from a year ago. The sharp rises on the eve of the US summer, during which millions of people fly or drive on holiday, showed signs of becoming a major political issue for the struggling Bush administration ahead of November mid-term elections.

    But even as the president stressed Saturday that the government was making efforts to protect consumers from price-gouging, he said there was little he could do in the short term to alleviate the impact of higher oil prices. "We've got a real problem when it comes to oil. We're addicted, and it's harmful for the economy, and it's harmful for our national security," he said. "I understand the folks here, as well as other places in the country, are paying high gas prices. "The American people have got to understand what happens elsewhere in the world affects the price of gasoline you pay here," he said, referring to skyrocketing oil demand in the booming economies of India and China. Bush also blamed the higher prices on a shortage of refinery capacity in the United States, and also on an ongoing shift in fuel additives and mixes that has caused supply hiccups in certain areas. "When that price of gasoline goes up, it hurts working people. It hurts our small businesses. And it's a serious problem we've got to do something about. The federal government has a responsibility, by the way, to make sure ... there is no price gouging," he added.

    *****

    Dennis Hastert, the Republican head of the House of Representatives, and Senate Republican majority chief Bill Frist said they planned to write Bush a letter calling for an investigation into possibly price manipulation by oil companies.
    So, to sum up: 1) In 2003, Bush tells the American people that going into Iraq will lower oil prices; 2) In 2006, Iraq is enjoying a civil war and gas prices are over $4 a gallon in the Northeast; 3) Bush says he can't do anything about rising gas prices because they are a result of events happening abroad and 4) now Steve Forbes informs us that after we have the confrontation with Iran (translation: invade Iran) oil prices will go down again. This is starting to sound like a skit on Saturday Night Live. Only somehow it's not very funny.

    I'm just glad that retiring Exxon Mobil executive Lee Raymond is getting his $400 million dollar retirement package. I was really worried there for a minute there that he might get stiffed and only end up with a paltry $250 million or so. Now I can sleep easy.

    Posted on April 24, 2006
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Bush Visit No Fun For Hu

    Dana Millbank at The Washington Post discusses the diplomatic disaster that was Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to the White House today. The White House gave press credentials to a Falun Gong activist who loudly heckled the Chinese president shouting "President Hu, your days are numbered!" and "President Bush, stop him from killing!" The two presidents simply stood there with their mouths open for several minutes while she continued yelling. Awkward.
    Chinese President Hu Jintao got almost everything he wanted out of yesterday's visit to the White House. He got the 21-gun salute, the review of the troops and the Colonial fife-and-drum corps. He got the exchange of toasts and a meal of wild-caught Alaskan halibut with mushroom essence, $50 chardonnay and live bluegrass music. And he got an Oval Office photo op with President Bush, who nodded and smiled as if he understood Chinese while Hu spoke.

    If only the White House hadn't given press credentials to a Falun Gong activist who five years ago heckled Hu's predecessor, Jiang Zemin, in Malta. Sure enough, 90 seconds into Hu's speech on the South Lawn, the woman started shrieking, "President Hu, your days are numbered!" and "President Bush, stop him from killing!" Bush and Hu looked up, stunned. It took so long to silence her -- a full three minutes -- that Bush aides began to wonder if the Secret Service's strategy was to let her scream herself hoarse. The rattled Chinese president haltingly attempted to continue his speech and television coverage went to split screen.

    "You're okay," Bush gently reassured Hu. But he wasn't okay, not really. The protocol-obsessed Chinese leader suffered a day full of indignities -- some intentional, others just careless. The visit began with a slight when the official announcer said the band would play the "national anthem of the Republic of China" -- the official name of Taiwan. It continued when Vice President Cheney donned sunglasses for the ceremony, and again when Hu, attempting to leave the stage via the wrong staircase, was yanked back by his jacket. Hu looked down at his sleeve to see the president of the United States tugging at it as if redirecting an errant child.

    Then there were the intentional slights. China wanted a formal state visit such as Jiang got, but the administration refused, calling it instead an "official" visit. Bush acquiesced to the 21-gun salute but insisted on a luncheon instead of a formal dinner, in the East Room instead of the State Dining Room. Even the visiting country's flags were missing from the lampposts near the White House.

    But as protocol breaches go, it's hard to top the heckling of a foreign leader at the White House. Explaining the incident -- the first disruption at the executive mansion in recent memory -- White House and Secret Service officials said she was "a legitimate journalist" and that there was nothing suspicious in her background. In other words: Who knew? Hu did. The Chinese had warned the White House to be careful about who was admitted to the ceremony. To no avail: They granted a one-day pass to Wang Wenyi of the Falun Gong publication Epoch Times. A quick Nexis search shows that in 2001, she slipped through a security cordon in Malta protecting Jiang (she had been denied media credentials) and got into an argument with him. The 47-year-old pathologist is expected to be charged today with attempting to harass a foreign official.
    President Bush had to apologize for the incident, but the damage was done. We lost face in front of our bankers who have us by the wallet. So, how much do we owe the Chinese now? At last count it was about $800 billion. Talk about bargaining from a position of weakness. No wonder they just laugh at us every time we try to bring up human rights, trademark and copyright protection and opening up their markets to U.S. goods.

    Posted on April 20, 2006
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Fed Raises Interest Rates

    The Wall Street Journal reports that the Fed raised interest rates again and signaled that this may be only the beginning of another series of interest rate hikes.
    The Fed raised its target for the federal-funds rate, charged on overnight loans between banks, to 4.75% from 4.5%. In a statement released after the two-day meeting ended Tuesday, the Fed said: "Some further policy firming may be needed to keep" the risks to both growth and inflation "roughly in balance," identical to language in the statement released after Mr. Greenspan's last meeting, on Jan. 31.

    Bond and stock prices declined on the announcement, reflecting investors' increased certainty that more rate increases lie ahead. It was the Fed's 15th consecutive quarter-point rate increase since it began to raise rates from a then-46 year low of 1% in June, 2004.

    Mr. Bernanke was sworn in as chairman Feb. 1 and Tuesday was the first meeting of the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee that he chaired. In his confirmation hearings he pledged "continuity" with Mr. Greenspan's policies, and the similarity of the FOMC's actions and words to those on Jan. 31 may have in part reflected that priority.

    "Economic growth has rebounded strongly in the current quarter but appears likely to moderate to a more sustainable pace," the statement said in its most notable difference from Jan. 31. The inclusion of the Fed's view of where growth is going may reflect Mr. Bernanke's desire to more clearly demonstrate how the forecast is influencing monetary policy.
    This is great news for anyone who has a jumbo CD they're about to roll over, but not such good news for Americans with credit card debt. It's also not such good news for the housing market, which is starting to show some signs of a slowdown.

    Another reason that the Fed is signaling more interest rate hikes may the fear that China will move its reserve of American dollars into euros. The UAE has already said that it will move 10% of its dollar reserves into euros, because it's unhappy with the American resistance to the Dubai Ports deal. Raising interest rates will help prop up the dollar, which may be part of what's really going on here.

    Posted on March 28, 2006
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Debt Ceiling? What Debt Ceiling?

    Congress blew the lid off of the spending cap Thursday by voting to allow President Bush to borrow $781 billion in order to keep the government going.
    The Senate, on a 52-48 vote, sent to President Bush a bill raising the ceiling on the national debt to nearly $9 trillion and preventing a first-ever default on U.S. Treasury notes. When the government reaches the new ceiling, expected sometime next year, the debt will represent $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

    The House avoided an election-year vote on raising the debt limit by automatically sending the bill to the Senate when it passed a budget last year. The bill passed the Senate just hours before the House was expected to approve another $91 billion to fund the war in Iraq and provide more aid to hurricane victims. The partisan vote also came as the Senate continued debate on a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint for the upcoming fiscal year, beginning Oct. 1, that would produce a $359 billion deficit.

    In twin setbacks for GOP leaders, the Senate voted 51-49 to add $3 billion to the budget for heating subsidies for the poor and 73-27 to add $7 billion for education, health and worker safety accounts. The moves broke through President Bush's overall "cap" on agency budgets to be funded later in the year through appropriations bills. Congress has now increased the debt ceiling four times by a total of $3 trillion since Bush took office five years ago.

    *****

    Democrats blasted the bill, saying it was needed because of fiscal mismanagement by Bush, who came to office when the government was running record surpluses. "When it comes to deficits, this president owns all the records," said Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "The three largest deficits in our nation's history have all occurred under this administration's watch."
    This is a national disgrace. The core concepts of fiscal conservatism have been thrown out the window, and been replaced by gluttonous spending coupled with medieval social policies which are designed to strip away the gains made by women in the past hundred years. This administration has been liberal where it should have been conservative, and conservative where it should have been liberal. The results are a disaster.

    Posted on March 18, 2006
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Borrowing Money From China: The Blowback Begins

    This morning brings some bad news for the U.S. economy: China is going shift some of its foreign exchange reserves out of U.S. dollars and into either the Euro or the Yen. China currently holds more than $800 billion U.S. dollars; dumping even a fraction of those dollar is going to cause ripples in the U.S. economy -- the dollar is going to fall, interest rates will rise and the housing market bubble could collapse.
    As China's manufacturing industries flood the world with cheap goods, the Chinese central bank has invested roughly three-fourths of its growing foreign currency reserves in U.S. Treasury bills and other dollar-denominated assets. The new policy reflects China's fears that too much of its savings is tied up in the dollar, a currency widely expected to drop in value as the U.S. trade and fiscal deficits climb.

    China now boasts the world's second-largest cache of foreign exchange -- behind only Japan -- and is on pace to see its reserves climb past $1 trillion later this year. Even a slight diminishing of the dollar as a percentage of those holdings could exert significant pressure on the U.S. currency, many economists assert.

    In recent years, the value of the dollar has been buoyed by major purchases of U.S. Treasury bills by Japan, China and oil-exporting countries -- a flow of capital that has kept interests rates relatively low in the United States and allowed Americans to keep spending even as debts mount. Some economists have long warned that if foreigners lose their appetite for American debt, the dollar would fall, interest rates would rise and the housing boom could burst, sending real estate prices lower.

    The comments of the Chinese senior economist, made on the condition of anonymity because the government disciplines those who speak to the press without express authorization, confirmed an analysis in Monday's Shanghai Securities News stating that China is inclined to shift some its savings into other currencies such as the euro and the yen, or into major purchases of commodities such as oil for a long-discussed strategic energy reserve.
    This is the direct result of borrowing from China to finance the Iraq War, which is not (as was promised by the Bush administration) going to pay for itself. Recent reports show that United States consumers have a negative savings rate, that is, they are saving nothing but adding credit card debt at an alarming pace. This is a recipe for economic disaster, because the engine of the U.S. economy is fueled by the buying of the consumer.

    Posted on January 10, 2006
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    The Path of Fiscal Irresponsibility

    U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow issued a warning: if Congress doesn't raise our national debt limit, the government will run out of cash in two months.
    In a letter to Senate leaders Thursday, Snow said the statutory debt limit imposed by Congress of 8.184 trillion dollars would be reached in mid-February and the government would then lose its borrowing power. "At that time, unless the debt limit is raised or the Treasury Department takes authorized extraordinary actions, we will be unable to continue to finance government operations," said the letter, seen by AFP.

    Snow warned that even if the Treasury took "all available prudent and legal actions" to avoid breaching the ceiling, "we anticipate that we can finance government operations no longer than mid-March". "Accordingly, I am writing to request that Congress raise the statutory debt limit as soon as possible."

    The Republican-led Congress last voted to increase the debt limit in mid-November 2004, despite opposition from Democrats who demanded the free-spending federal government tighten its belt instead. The US debt limit sparked bitter partisan battles in the mid-1990s between a Republican-dominated Congress and the Democratic administration of president Bill Clinton, leading to shutdowns of the federal government. Once the US government hits the ceiling, it comes under threat of defaulting on its debts and can lose the ability to raise future credit on the capital markets.

    Snow underlined that the "full faith and credit of the United States" was a unique selling point on the markets. "A failure to increase the debt limit in a timely manner would threaten this unique and important position," he wrote in his letter.
    Raise the debt limit? That means we're going to try to borrow even more money from our biggest creditor, the Chinese government. The fiscally irresponsible decisions made by this administration over the past four years are starting to take a serious toll. Raising the debt limit is a short-term fix for our financial problems: it's like handing a heroin addict a small dose of the drug to "tide him over." But the dose will be used up and the addiction to spending remains. And what happens when even the Chinese won't lend to us any more?

    Posted on December 30, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Political Roundup 6-20-05

  • CIA Director Porter Goss has an excellent idea where Bin Laden is. From a recent Time magazine interview:
    Time: It sounds like you have a pretty good idea of where he is. Where? Goss: I have an excellent idea of where he is. What's the next question?
  • Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware is considering a presidential run.
  • There are several blogs and websites now supporting a Condoleezza Rice bid for president located here, here, here and here. Rice was recently seen at the 5th Annual World Refugee Day celebration with actress Angelina Jolie.
  • Public support for war is dropping says Left Coaster.
  • In a Financial Times interview Bill Clinton says close down Gitmo or clean it up:
    Bill Clinton has become the most prominent figure so far to add his voice to criticisms of the US prison camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.

    In an interview with the Financial Times, the former president called for the camp, set up to hold suspected terrorists, to "be closed down or cleaned up".

    Mr Clinton joined critics at home and abroad who have singled out the indefinite detention of prisoners without trial and widespread reports of human rights violations at Guantánamo. "It is time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused," he said.
  • Mark Felt, also known today as Deep Throat, has landed his own book deal.
  • Senator Chuck Hagel (R) doesn't think the situation in Iraq is getting better like the Bush administration claims. From a US News article
    "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
  • Warren Buffet told Lou Dobbs in a recent interview that the huge trade deficit will have consequences:
    Everyone says that what is going on can't go on forever. We had, you know, $618 billion trade deficit last year, and it's already grown a little bit this year. The standard line is, it can't go on forever, but no one seems to give an answer of what is going to be done about it. We exported $1.1 trillion last year, and we imported over $1.7 trillion. We are running up obligations to the rest of the word, and they are buying our assets at the rate of almost $2 billion a day. And that will have consequences.
    Buffet also said there might be a soft landing or there might not:
    Right now our net position versus the rest of the world is they own $3 trillion more of us than we own of them, and that number grows every day, and at some point economists talk about a soft landing. Maybe there will be a soft landing, but you know, who knows?
  • Blog Discussions: There are over 3,800 posts listed on Technorati discussing the Schiavo autopsy results. The autopsy showed that Schiavo's severe brain damage was irreversible and that she was blind. There are 2,501 posts discussing a plan by some Republican senators to raise the retirement age to 69. By comparison, there are over 18,900 posts discussing the not guilty verdict from the Michael Jackson Case.

    Posted on June 20, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

  • Bush Poll Numbers Continue Their Freefall

    The new CBS News/New York Times poll came out today and the news is bad for Bush. Six months into his second term, his "political capital" account appears about to be overdrawn.
  • Only 39 percent approve of his handling of the economy.
  • Only 39 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy.
  • Only 37 percent approve of his handling of the war in Iraq.
  • Only 25 percent approve of his handling of Social Security.
  • Only the campaign against terrorism gets the approval of more than half those questioned.

    The biggest drop off is among Americans aged 30 to 44. In just the past month, his approval rating in that group has fallen 14 points. In the most serious split over the president's Iraq policy, two Republican House members joined with Democrats Thursday urging President Bush to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq in October of 2006.

    [I]t is another crack in the once iron grip President Bush held over Congress. His Social Security plan is stalled, his energy bill languishing, his nominee for U.N. ambassador uncertain. And he's threatened to veto two measures passed by the Republican-controlled House -- on stem cell research and limitations to the Patriot Act.
  • Republican congressmen and women aren't stupid. They know that Iraq and the economy will loom large in the midterms. As will social security, stem cell research and an uneasiness over the Schiavo debacle. It's time to distance themselves from the White House's unpopular positions on these issues.

    Posted on June 16, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Poll Numbers Dropping for Bush and Congress

    MSNBC reports on the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, and the numbers are not good news for either President Bush or Congress. The American public is unhappy with Bush, Congress and the priorities they are pursuing. A majority of Americans think that Congress should be focusing on the economy, gas prices and healthcare, not privatizing Social Security or battling over judges. In fact, a majority of Americans want the Senate to decide the fitness of each nominee to be a judge on its own and not just rubber stamp the White House's nominations. That's not good news for Frist and the anti-filibusterers.
    The survey, which polled 1,005 adults from May 12-16 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, also has some troubling findings for President Bush. Just 20 percent of those polled say the economy has gotten better over the past 12 months, an 11- point decline since January; 51 percent believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power was not worth the cost and casualties of that war; and only 36 percent support Bush’s plan to allow workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market.

    Most don't support blanket approval for judges That Social Security figure, which is virtually unchanged from April, is significant because it suggests that Bush hasn’t moved the country any closer to supporting private accounts despite his months-long campaign for them.

    Regarding the contentious debate over Bush’s judicial nominees, just 34 percent say the Senate should generally confirm the president’s judicial picks as long as they are honest and competent, while 56 percent argue that the Senate should make its own decision about the fitness of each nominee to serve.

    Overall, according to the NBC/Journal poll, 52 percent believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, while 35 percent think it’s on the right track.

    All of these findings, Hart says, are signs of an angry electorate. "If you are a member of Congress and you got the poll back, you better be looking over your shoulder," he said. "The masses are not happy."
    This poll reports that 47% of Americans want the Democrats to take over Congress in 2006, versus 40% who want Republicans to stay in charge. It's still too early to say if those numbers will hold until the midterms. But one thing's for sure: if James Dobson continues his Svengali-like hold on Frist and the Senate's agenda, things could go ill for Republicans in 2006.

    Posted on May 19, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Supreme Court Boosts Interstate Direct Wine Sales

    Wine wholesalers and distributors fought against it, but The Supreme Court struck down the struck down Michigan and New York's bans on interstate wine sales.
    By a 5-to-4 vote, the court overturned state liquor laws in New York and Michigan that gave preferential treatment to in-state wineries. Both states permit in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers, bypassing both retailers and wholesalers.

    Michigan prohibited direct shipment by out-of-state wineries while New York nominally permitted it for out-of-state wineries that maintain a New York office, a requirement that no out-of-state winery has met and that the majority on Monday found so financially burdensome for small wineries as to amount to a prohibition.

    In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said both states were engaging in the kind of protectionism that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution forbids and that the 21st Amendment does not excuse. The 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition and granted the states much leeway in regulating alcohol. But "state regulation of alcohol is limited by the nondiscrimination principle of the Commerce Clause," Justice Kennedy said.
    So, the bottom line is that it goes back to the states. Each state can either allow direct wine sales to consumers for both in-state and out of state wineries, or it can ban all direct sales to consumers. 15 states now have bans on direct to consumer sales of wine: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah. The other states' laws are a confusing patchwork mess, and have all been invalidated by the ruling.

    So, look for lots of arguments about wine sales coming soon to your state legislature.

    Posted on May 17, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Bush's New Twist on Social Security: Cut Benefits for the Middle Class

    Well, that was a bit of an eye-opener. Last night, President Bush announced the fuzzy outlines of his plans to revamp social security. He doesn't have all the kinks worked out yet, but here are the linchpins of the plan: 1) tie benefits to prices (that is, inflation), not wages, which would produce a hefty cut in guaranteed benefits over time, 2) reduce benefits for the middle class and so-called wealthy Americans "to help the poor", and --you guessed it-- 3)private savings accounts coupled with yet more reductions in guaranteed benefits. It's certainly a novel approach. Cut benefits for the middle class; you know, the majority of Americans, those people who actually vote in elections. As Frank Newport of Gallup said, the more Bush talks about social security the more his poll numbers drop. But those in the echo chamber don't seem to hear what Americans are saying.

    Posted on April 29, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Bush's Poll Numbers Tumble

    Editor and Publisher reports on the latest Gallup poll, and it's not good news for the White House. 50% if all Americans now believe that the Bush administration deliberately misled the country about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
    "This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003," the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004."

    Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving. Last week Gallup reported that 53% now believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "not worth it."
    The Gallup poll, coupled with the pathetic state of the War on Terror is not good news for a president who said that he'd better get his favorite legislation pushed through early in 2005 or he'd be "quacking like a duck" before the first year of his second term ended.

    Posted on April 26, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Workers Feeling the Squeeze

    The Los Angeles Times leads today with a pithy little piece about how American workers are increasingly unable to afford the rising costs of gas, rent and food because of the stagnation of wages.
    This is the first time that salaries have increased more slowly than prices since the 1990-91 recession. Though salary growth has been relatively sluggish since the 2001 downturn, inflation also had stayed relatively subdued until last year, when the consumer price index rose 2.7%. But wages rose only 2.5%.

    The effective 0.2-percentage-point erosion in workers' living standards occurred while the economy expanded at a healthy 4%, better than the 3% historical average.

    Meanwhile, corporate profits hit record highs as companies got more productivity out of workers while keeping pay increases down....

    But higher wages could hurt the economy by stoking inflation further. Employers might pass the costs on to consumers in higher prices, and that in turn might prompt the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates more aggressively, possibly slowing the recovery or even triggering a recession.
    The official unemployment rate of 5.2% is not bad, although it fails to count the large number of underemployed and those that have dropped out of the job market entirely. And employers are screaming about how much it costs to hire new people. So what's the real problem here? You guessed it: the out of control healthcare costs.
    With benefits factored in, workers' total compensation did outpace inflation in 2004, even if they didn't see it in their paychecks. But employers also are requiring workers to pay a greater share of their premiums.

    "Healthcare has eroded the wage base," said Janemarie Mulvey, chief economist with the Employment Policy Foundation, a business-funded think tank in Washington.
    Of course, some common sense ways to get healthcare costs under control, such as allowing the government to negotiate prices for Medicare prescription drugs, are unavailable because the drug company lobby made sure that a prohibition against the government negotiating drug prices was written into the new Medicare law. And rising drug prices are going to continue fueling the healthcare costs.

    As for private employers, they will simply shift more of the cost of health insurance to their employees -- or stop offering coverage at all. Meanwhile, look for gas prices to continue to rise at the pump. None of this bodes well for the American middle class.

    Posted on April 12, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Supreme Court Protects IRA's

    In a piece of good news this morning, the Supreme Court has ruled that IRA's are protected from creditors in bankruptcy proceedings.
    The unanimous decision sides with a bankrupt Arkansas couple fighting to keep more than $55,000 in retirement savings. As a result, IRAs now join pensions, 401(k)s, Social Security and other benefits tied to age, illness or disability that are afforded protection under bankruptcy law.
    Oh, but wait: there's a spoiler.
    Under bankruptcy law, the retirement savings won't be given blanket protection. A separate provision in the law shields the assets only to the extent the money is "reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent."
    And who decides whether the money is "reasonably necessary"? Well, it used to be the bankruptcy judge, but under the new bankruptcy law, look for creditors to argue that IRA money isn't necessary for the 1.6 million people who filed for personal bankruptcy last year. And who are these profligate spenders filing bankruptcy anyway? "Experts say much of that is being driven by people 55 and older who lose their jobs and cannot pay off debts."

    Posted on April 4, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    When It Comes to Social Security, Gridlock is a Beautiful Thing

    David Brooks takes a shot at analyzing the status of the current Social Security debate and gets it really wrong. Brooks starts out by saying that there is only a one in four chance that Social Security reform will happen this year. Fair enough; the polls show that only around 37% of Americans are buying into the idea of privatizing social security. He then tries to explain where both the Republicans and Democrats went wrong. He says that the Republicans underestimated Americans' love for the social security program and their willingness to take a cut in benefits. So far, so accurate. But where he goes terribly wrong is in saying that the Democrats and moderate Republicans who have opposed privatization at all costs are making a mistake by not meeting the privatization folks halfway. For the first time in a long time, Democrats are totally united against this absurd proposal to privatize Social Security, which even President Bush admits will not make the program fiscally sound. When a proposal is morally, ethically and logically wrong, you do not compromise. You say "No."

    Put simply, there is no Social Security crisis. A few adjustments need to be made because our population is aging. Today, even Alan Greenspan said that it's not a complicated fix. He suggested--hold on to your hats folks--that we put the Social Security monies in a Lock Box, and stop co-mingling it with other funds. (Al Gore probably fell out of his chair when he heard Greenspan put forth this sensible idea from his 2000 presidential campaign.) Second, if we didn't have such a horrendous deficit from a war that was supposed to be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues (remember that promise?), the cost of the risky social experiment of private accounts wouldn't require us to borrow trillions of dollars from the Chinese. Third, Greenspan said today that raising the retirement age by even one year would have a tremendous positive impact.

    Brooks says,
    If Social Security reform fails--and obviously I hope this obit becomes obsolete--it will be many years before any sort of big entitlement reform will come up again. The parties will keep playing chicken, and we will soon find ourselves catastrophically buried under our own debt.
    He makes it sound like Social Security is the reason for the current deficit, which is absurd. This so-called "reform movement" is anything but that. This is a movement to dismantle the New Deal and wean Americans off a retirement plan that is funded by taxpayers. That is a fundamental policy shift embracing the idea that each person is responsible for his own retirement and that the government does not need to provide a safety net for the elderly and infirm. Although I personally find that position to be unethical, morally bankrupt and quite impractical (even the most libertarian among us probably doesn't want to trip over homeless elderly people eating cat food while on the way to Nordstrom's), it is a recognized--if unpopular--political position to take. So, let the privatizers stand up and tell the American people what they're really trying to do to Social Security: destroy it, starting with small, incremental steps. And when they tell the truth, the American people will see that, sometimes, gridlock can be a beautiful thing.

    Posted on March 15, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Alan Greenspan and the Relaxing Bubblebath

    Now, here's something you don't hear about everyday. Rush & Molloy report on a GQ article about Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.
    Alan Greenspan doesn't turn to his wife, NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell, when he needs inspiration for a speech. Instead, GQ reports, the tight-lipped Fed chairman "heads straight to the bathroom, turns on a large fan to create a blast of white noise that blocks out sound, draws a hot bath, strips off his clothes and settles into the water for at least an hour and sometimes two."
    Sorry for the mid-afternoon mental picture jolt. I didn't want any of you falling asleep at work.

    Posted on March 14, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Credit Card Companies Demand Their Pound of Flesh

    It looks like the credit card companies are about to get their fondest wish: a total revamping of the federal bankrupcty code with some of the most anti-consumer, Draconian provisions ever seen in an American statute. The bankruptcy code does not need reforming. It works just fine, if you talk to anyone who actually knows anything about the subject -- like federal bankruptcy judges, for example. A recent Harvard University study showed that one half of all bankruptcies are filed because of overwhelming medical bills -- not because someone was irresponsible with his money. The study showed that most middle class families with insurance are just one illness away from bankruptcy court.

    Bankruptcy is not some fabulous treat, no matter what Rick Santorum says. It's a devastating mark on one's credit record that stays there for ten long years. Now, this new bill will make it almost impossible to file for Chapter 7 (the one where you get a fresh start at a high price on your credit report), will effectively eliminate the homestead exemption, sharply curtail consumers' ability to hire an attorney to represent them, and will force many people into Chapter 13 (the one where you pay and pay over time while a judge decides how much you can spend on your kid's medical bills each month) who have no business being there. This bill has been shot down many times since 1997, but the credit card companies keep pouring money into politicians' coffers -- and now it's payback time. With the threat of bankruptcy effectively removed, look for the credit card companies to raise rates, fees and penalties (already at around 31% for anyone who's lost a job and is behind on any payments) to levels not seen outside of a Mafia movie. The Puritans believed that lending money at interest was a sin; debtor's prison was one institution they left behind in England when they came to America. It looks like debtor's prison is about to make a comeback. And the credit card companies will get their pound of flesh.

    Posted on March 2, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

    Republican Senators Waffling on Social Security Privatization

    USA Today reports some bad news for President Bush: the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll conducted Friday-Sunday found that a paltry 35% of Americans approve of Bush's Social Security record, 56% disapprove and 9% have no opinion. After a week of hearing angry seniors gripe at them during town hall meetings, many Republican Senators have returned to Washington less than thrilled with the whole privatization thing. Senator Frist (who has apparently learned a thing or two about how to handle the unruly Senate) threw the whole issue squarely back in Bush's lap. "The president will have to stay out there and lead on it, when a lot of political figures want to run and hide and when you have a lot of people who say there's no problem." At least he recognizes that many people (read: economists and the majority of Americans) heard the president loud and clear when he admitted that private accounts will not improve the financial situation of social security. Frist may have thrown the hot potato back to Bush, but the president has a problem: the more he talks, the more people are opposed to his plan. Or, as Senator Chuck Schumer quipped; "In two months, the president has created a firestorm against [his own plan]." The Gallup Poll had some more bad news for Bush: his favorable rating is at 56%, but the AARP's favorable rating is at 75%.

    Posted on March 1, 2005
    Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: