Per Capital Government Spending Chat Draws Fire

Economist Mark Thoma, spurred by commentary from Paul Krugman regarding President Obama’s real government spending, created a graph to compare Obama’s annualized growth in real per capita government spending with that of the last six presidencies. The result, which reflects the Obama Administration’s comparatively low spending, created a small storm among partisan and non-partisan economists regarding the breakdown of the numbers and Obama’s perceived austerity in the face of economic crises. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View. 

Via email:

Seeing the Krugman commentary comparing real government spending under Obama and Reagan made me curious about what it looks like if you express it in per capita terms?  In particular, how does the Obama period compare with other presidencies in terms of penury/austerity versus spendthriftness?

To compare presidencies, I did the calculation two ways.  One starts in the quarter before the president was elected (e.g., 2008Q4), the other starts in the first quarter of the presidency (e.g., 2009Q1).  (The ARRA probably had some effect in Q1, but most of the change was simply economic conditions that the incoming president had nothing to do with, so I think I prefer the Q1 to Q1 method). Ranking since Johnson (starting in 1968), and using the first-quarter comparisons, and calculating growth under Obama through 2011Q4, Clinton is the most austere, followed by Obama.  The most spendthrift are (1) Nixon-Ford, (2) Reagan, and (3) Bush II.   The figure is pasted below:

This blog post was republished with permission from Economist's View.

US Fiscal Policy Fine, Experts Say

Partisan economics is nothing new and every administration faces complaints from opponents that it’s either spending too much or too little, depending on the desired media outcome. In 2013, many economists agree that the U.S. fiscal policy is finally shaping up and that it’s a lack of employment and rising health care costs that are the real issue. Deficit hawks complain that liberals in big government are spending too much, but a comparison in real dollars shows the Bush years increasing the most of the last three administrations. Some even argue that President Obama is cutting too much and that a recovery requires more investment. For more on this continue reading the following article from Economist’s View. 

Peter Orszag:

Healthcare is America’s real problem, by Peter Orszag, Commentary, FT: Healthcare costs are the core long-term fiscal challenge facing the US... This is why the recent deceleration of these costs is so encouraging...

The good news is that recent developments in health costs are better than many appreciate. Cost growth has slowed dramatically...

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the gap between revenue and expenditure in the next 75 years would amount to 8.7 per cent of GDP. Since then, enacted revenue increases and an improved underlying budget outlook have reduced the gap to perhaps 7.5 per cent.

Achieving the lower health-cost growth would knock another 2.5 per cent of GDP off, bringing the long-term fiscal hole down to 5 per cent of GDP – a greater impact than any policy change currently being debated in Washington. ...

Martin Wolf:

America’s fiscal policy is not in crisis: ...The federal government is not on the verge of bankruptcy. If anything, the tightening has been too much and too fast. The fiscal position is also not the most urgent economic challenge. It is far more important to promote recovery. The challenges in the longer term are to raise revenue while curbing the cost of health. Meanwhile, people, just calm down.

By the way, where were the deficit hawks during the Bush years? Here's what Martin Wolf means by "If anything, the tightening has been too much and too fast":

[via Kevin Drum]

The deficit hawks don't want you to know this, but our biggest problem right now is not the deficit, it's jobs.
This blog post was republished with permission from Economist's View.

Fiscal Cliff Deal Inadequate

The simple fact is that the deal that was reached to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” is nothing more than a postponement of the real negotiation, which will have to bear results if the country is to avoid across-the-board spending cuts in the form of sequestration. The March deadline looms larger than that of the cliff and Republicans and Democrats have already drawn lines in the sand. The GOP will refuse to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling unless Democrats agree to cuts to entitlement programs, and the entire drama will be played out again, although this time experts feel there is less chance of positive resolution. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research. 

My takeaways from the recent fiscal cliff deal.


First, thank God people will now stop talking about “going over the fiscal cliff”.  Fed Chief Ben Bernanke has done many terrible things at the central bank, but coining the phrase “fiscal cliff” was clearly one of the worst.

Second, anyone thinking that this is somehow the end of the story when it comes to the U.S. budget difficulties should be immediately absolved of that notion since, before you know it, there will be another catchy phrase to describe what is about to happen over the next two months.

Based on what I’ve been reading, it will be termed an “abyss” of some sort – the debt ceiling abyss, the sequestration abyss, the government funding abyss, or, my personal favorite appearing in the title above, sans the “abyss” moniker. This Bloomberg report summarizes what lies ahead:

If anything, the U.S. faces an even more ominous deadline in a few months. The debt ceiling was hit as of New Year’s Eve. The U.S. Treasury will dip into its tool bag to keep the country’s borrowing ability going, but that will last only about two months. Also in early March, the sequestration — $110 billion in across-the-board spending cuts, half in defense and half in domestic programs – springs back, unless Congress finds a way to offset it with other spending cuts. Weeks later, the law that keeps the government funded expires. It all means that, in late February and early March, Congress will face a sequestration, a government default and a government shutdown. Republicans say they’ll use the leverage created by the debt ceiling to force Obama to accept spending cuts, particularly in entitlement programs. Obama resisted that notion on Dec. 31, saying he wants more tax increases and won’t accept Republican plans to “shove” spending cuts past him. “If they think that’s going to be the formula for how we solve this thing, then they’ve got another thing coming,” he said.

Per this story at The Hill, the duo of Simpson and Bowles probably best characterized the result as follows:

“We have all known for over a year that this fiscal cliff was coming. In fact Washington politicians set it up to force themselves to seriously deal with our Nation’s long term fiscal problems,” Simpson and Bowles added. “Yet even after taking the Country to the brink of economic disaster, Washington still could not forge a common sense bipartisan consensus on a plan that stabilizes the debt.”

What does this mean for financial markets in general and precious metals in particular? These thoughts from the Bank of Nova Scotia appearing in this Globe & Mail report today provide a good summary:

The U.S. budget agreement is likely to prove [U.S. dollar] negative in the medium term as it averts the fiscal cliff today but fails to provide a credible medium-term fiscal plan and instead forces major issues, like the debt ceiling and $110-billion in spending cuts, out to March 1, and highlights how challenged the U.S. political system has become. In addition, it potentially lays the foundation for a rating agency downgrade.

Anyone who grew tired and angry about the fiscal cliff debate over the last couple months should enjoy the current reprieve while they can because it will be just days (maybe only hours) before we start hearing about the much more difficult (and dangerous) debate that lies ahead.

This post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Seniors’ Social Security Dwindles

The Social Security Administration announced that seniors will be getting a 1.7% increase (about $21 on average) in benefits to account for inflation, but experts say that’s not nearly enough to compensate for the costs of actual inflation. Increasing health care expenses and costs for everyday necessities like bread, cheese and milk are making it impossible for some seniors to make ends meet. Some economists argue that seniors do not benefit from low interest rates and things like cheaper electronics, so the so-called benefits that come from economic stimulus and quantitative easing do not really help those who need it most. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research. 

It’s hard not to feel for seniors in their plight to make ends meet every month in this era of freakishly low interest rates and inflation that, purportedly, is almost as low.

Our health insurance premiums have gone up by almost 20 percent per year in recent years (through no fault of our own – I can’t imagine what they’d be if there was something wrong with us), so, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the government’s official measure of health care costs, an increase of 4.5 percent  from a year ago as detailed here earlier, understate the actual increases that seniors see.

Well, the Social Security Administration announced today that seniors will get a 1.7 percent cost-of-living adjustment starting in January and, while this is surely better than no increase at all (a common feature in many pension plans), since seniors don’t buy near enough of the stuff where prices are falling (e.g., electronics), the average increase of $21 a month will fall short of the actual increase in their expenses.

The realities of some senior’s finances are presented in this CNN/Money story today:

Janis Mason is 94 and has been receiving Social Security benefits for nearly 30 years. Because she has outlived her savings, the monthly checks are her only source of income.
“I always cross my fingers that the money can last the whole month,” Mason said.
…
“We’re grateful for any small increase [in Social Security benefits], but believe me, any small increase doesn’t begin to cover the major increases we’re seeing in things like vegetables, fruits, bread and milk,” said Mason.

Part of the problem is a disconnect between the official inflation figure and what seniors actually pay, experts and seniors say.

The inflation number used to calculate the cost of living adjustment is based on spending patterns among workers of all ages and across hundreds of items. A more accurate calculation would put more weight on the items that seniors purchase most frequently — like food, gas and medical care, according to the American Institute for Economic Research.

“Some months I worry a check might reach the bank before my Social Security check is deposited on the 3rd,” she said. “Other months I might have something left over – lots depends on whether I treat myself to something special at the grocery store, had an emergency, or even bought something to wear.”

What’s maddening about this is that social security benefits are likely to be reduced by the use of a different inflation measure that – surprise! – results in a lower rate of inflation. Sadly, this is one of the few budget related issues that seems to have support from both Republicans and Democrats.

A couple years ago, when inflation in the U.K. was about five percent, the Telegraph calculated a more realistic inflation rate for “pensioners” was close to ten percent. If the U.S. is going to adopt a new, lower cost-of-living adjustment, they should at least change the name to properly reflect what it is accomplishing, say, to something like, PCOLA – Partial Cost of Living Adjustment.

This article was republished with permission from Tim Iacono. 

Ron Paul Slams Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan

Independent presidential candidate Ron Paul recently used the FOX News podium to bash Paul Ryan’s proposed budget plan. Ryan is presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s choice for running mate and Paul contends that the plan has no teeth, criticizing Ryan’s assertion that his approach would draw down U.S. debt within 30 years. Paul went on to tout his own plan, which focuses on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and using the saved money to fund domestic programs while also cutting back on the spending for some of those programs. For more on this continue reading the following article from Iacono Research.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) doesn’t seem to think too much of Paul Ryan’s budget plans, as expressed to Neil Cavuto the other day, since the goal of “maybe balancing the budget in 30 years” doesn’t fundamentally address the ongoing trouble the nation has in squaring its books (if that’s even possible anymore).

On a related note, Mineweb reports that Paul (Ron, not Ryan) has launched a new campaign to legalize alternate domestic currencies, citing Ludwig von Mises who noted, “sound money is an instrument that protects our civil liberties against despotic government. Our current monetary system is indeed despotic, and the surest way to correct things simply is to legalize competing currencies“.
It’s too bad he’s not running for another term in the House this fall – he will be missed.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Farmland Values Soar in Heartland

Tim Iacono comments on a Brian Williams news segment detailing the rising prices of farmland across America’s heartland, particularly in Iowa, where Republican presidential candidates so recently debated. Prices in the area have risen more than 30% in Iowa and 25% on average throughout the Midwest. One land auction featured in the report resulted in a sale for more than $13,000 per acre – more than double the value from five years ago. Experts say the increases are driven by the rarity with which farmland comes on the market and the growing demand for agricultural products, particularly corn for the surging (and subsidized) ethanol market. For more on this continue reading the following article from Tim Iacono.

After today, we won’t be hearing much about Iowa anymore as aspiring presidential candidates pack up and leave town following today’s caucuses, but, this NBC report on the farmland boom there puts things in a slightly different perspective than you may have heard after listening to talking heads on MSNBC and Fox News for the last few months.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There are some pretty impressive statistics associated with the boom – per acre prices in Iowa up over 30 percent from last year and, across the entire Midwest, up about 25 percent … and you thought the real estate bubble was over.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Ron Paul Talks Gold Standard

Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) spoke with Judge Andrew Napolitano, host of FOX Business News “Freedom Watch”, about his belief in the gold standard and the current state of U.S. monetary policy. Paul discusses the transition from fiat currency back to the gold standard by legalizing gold and silver tender without having a fixed exchange rate between the two currencies. Judge Napolitano questions whether there is a possibility of a true gold standard that allows exchange between the two, and Paul responds that while that scenario is a long way off, the current system cannot sustain itself and that an audit of the Federal Reserve is a good place to begin reform. For more on this continue reading the following article from Tim Iacono.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) appeared on Fox Business News yesterday to talk about the nation’s money and a return to the gold standard in the unlikely event that he’s elected president.

His discussion of the U.S. dollar throughout American history reminded me of a Wall Street Journal book review yesterday by James Grant that, from what I could tell, was a lot better than the book – Greenback Planet by H.W. Brands. From the book review:

“Greenback Planet” is the story of this amazing monetary transformation. The narrative begins in the 18th century and races to the present, pausing to catch its breath at some of the great American monetary landmarks: Andrew Jackson’s veto, in 1832, of legislation rechartering a predecessor to the Federal Reserve; Abraham Lincoln’s recourse to greenbacks, or fiat currency, to finance the Civil War; resumption of the gold standard in 1879, with which it once more became possible to exchange gold for paper and vice-versa at a fixed and statutory rate; J.P. Morgan quelling the Panic of 1907; the Federal Reserve not quelling, never mind preventing, the Great Depression; the crazy-quilt monetary improvisations of the 1930s; the halfway gold dollar of the post-World War II era; and the creation, in 1971, of the pure paper (later digital) model of today.

Mr. Brands is a paper-money man, though the subtitle of his book—”How the Dollar Conquered the World and Threatened Civilization as We Know It”—seems to betray some reservations.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Ron Paul ‘Faces Nation’

Ron Paul recently fielded questions from Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, and critics of the interview point out mainstream media’s tendency to put words in Paul’s mouth and otherwise find ways to undermine the GOP candidate’s message. Schieffer questioned Paul on his stance on U.S. foreign policy and military presence, Iranian nuclear proliferation, and the closing of several government agencies. Paul explained and defended his position despite Schieffer’s clearly argumentative approach, demonstrating why Iowa numbers have placed him in the running with contenders Mitt Romney and Herman Cain. For more on this continue reading the following article from Tim Iacono.

GOP hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) appeared on Face the Nation yesterday and host Bob Schieffer provided a very compelling display of how, for the most part, the mainstream media works against any fundamental reform for the U.S. government as Schieffer seems to only be interested in putting words in Paul’s mouth that, fortunately, are rejected.

Some media-watchers have called this a hit-job after Paul had risen to a statistical tie for the lead in some Iowa polls and it’s hard not to come away with that impression when you examine Shieffer’s words closely, as was done by Paul Mulshine of the New Jersey Star Ledger in the article No wonder these talking heads don’t like talking to Ron Paul.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Rick Perry’s Absent Economic Staff

More details emerge about GOP candidates as the field of contenders gets tighter, with focus finally beginning to shift from the individuals’ sound bites to their planned policies and the staff they are assembling to carry them out. Economist Tim Iacono notes that GOP frontrunner Rick Perry does not have one economist on his staff and relies on the economic successes of Texas to support his proposed performance in the White House, meaning to suggest he does not have anyone to help him craft the economic policy he will use to replace the one currently being used by the Obama Administration – a plan for which Perry and Republicans have no shortage of criticism. For more on this continue reading the following article from Tim Iacono.

There’s a lot not to like about Texas Governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, but, clearly, two of his redeeming qualities are his disdain for the Bernanke Fed and, based on the fact that his campaign team is, so far, devoid of economists, a seeming dislike for the entire dismal set. Prior to last night’s GOP debate, this story in Fortune discussed the latter.

The governor relies on the Lone Star State’s economic performance under his leadership over the last decade to make his case. But where is his economic plan for the nation? Or, at least, where is the economic team that will help him craft it?

So far, apparently, neither exists.
…
As he stands up his campaign, there is evidence Perry is reaching out to private-sector leaders for economic advice. He brought a handful of Washington hands who lead small business trade associations down to Austin last month for a lunch meeting that one participant described as a “pure policy session” on job growth.

And it may be that Perry would like to hold off on hiring economic eggheads for as long as he can. The governor has cultivated an anti-elitist image, distancing himself from his predecessor in the Texas governor’s mansion, George W. Bush, by noting the 43rd president went to Yale, while Perry was a Texas A&M man. On Fox News, he recently blasted Obama for surrounding himself with academics who claim prestigious degrees and no real-world experience. “They are intellectually very, very smart but he does not have wise men and women around him,” Perry said.

As for Tuesday night’s debate, according to this Housing Wire story, the nation’s chief economist – Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke – isn’t too popular with this crowd, both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney saying they would not reappoint Bernanke to another term as the Fed chief if they were elected president, Gingrich saying he’d “fire him tomorrow”.

Based on Newt’s position in polls, Bernanke can rest easy until the end of his term.

This post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

Americans Display Little Economic Confidence

A new Gallup survey shows that Americans are not nearly as confident about the country’s economic outlook as politicians and pundits in Washington, D.C. like to think. The Economic Confidence Index indicates that, aside from people enjoying an energy industry boom in northern states and federal government dollars flowing in and around Virginia and Maryland, there is very little positive sentiment in the country. The majority of states display “average” to “below average” levels of confidence. For more on this continue reading the following article from Tim Iacono.

A new Gallup survey on how Americans see the economy is not likely to sit well with Iowa Republicans as the nation’s capital is acting as a “confidence vacuum” for the rest of the country. Though it’s hard to see in the graphic below, it seems Washington D.C. has been hoovering up whatever good mood was left in the rest of the country, it being the only region posting a positive number in the survey, far outdistancing the 50 states.

Times are also good in the northern energy boom states and there is a clear federal government spillover effect in Virgina and Maryland, but, other than that it’s pretty grim.

This blog post was republished with permission from Tim Iacono.

President Trump...Seriously?

Is Donald Trump really thinking about running for President in 2012, or is he merely looking for some PR? Either way, it gives us something to talk about. The Donald, played the whole thing nicely, talking about how the country's economic struggles, and poor policies, are making him seriously consider running. Is Trump going to be our hero? Tim Iacono takes a closer look at Trump's run for the Presidency in his blog post below.

Real estate developer and TV star Donald Trump talks about the many ills of U.S. economic policy and his upcoming effort to change that via a run for President in 2012.

We are a laughing stock throughout the world … If oil prices are allowed to keep inflating, if the dollar keeps going down in value – which is not good because you’re going to pay $25 for a loaf of bread pretty soon – if you look at what’s happening with our food prices, they’re going through the roof. You know, we could end up being another Egypt – you could have riots in our streets also.

BTW: I don’t know where part 2 is, but, there are highlights of it in this item over at the Economic Collapse blog where this video was spotted.

Is The Obama Administration Covering Up What Really Happened In Treasury Meeting?

One watchdog group is accusing President Obama's administration of covering up what really went down during the major Treasury meeting that ended with 9 major banks selling equity stakes in their companies to the government for $250 billion. The Treasury originally stated that it had no documentation from the meeting, however, some documents were later obtained. The watchdog group insists some documents — potentially implicating current Treasury secretary Timothy Geitner — are being withheld. Who knows what is true and not in all this, but it will certainly be interesting to see how it all plays out. For more details about the meeting, along with what the watchdog group thinks happened, read the following article from Money Morning.

Despite promises of open government, the Obama administration tried to “cover up the very existence of smoking-gun documents” prepared for a meeting in which former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson allegedly coerced major banks to allow the government to take equity stakes, according to conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch said the Treasury initially said it had no records about the meeting. It didn’t release a transcript of discussions between government officials and bankers.

However, documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request confirm that Paulson and other Treasury officials gave nine major banks no options other than allowing the government to take $250 billion in equity.

Judicial Watch said on its Web site that after it made inquiries, the Treasury insisted on Feb. 4 it had no documents about the historic meeting.

Furthermore, “the cover-up continues, as the Obama administration protects Timothy Geithner by withholding a key document about his role in this infamous bankers meeting,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement.

The group says suggested edits of the “talking points” for the meeting by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, then President of the New York Federal Reserve are being withheld by the Obama administration.

Saying the nine U.S. banks were “central to any solution” of the credit crisis, Paulson told their leaders in the meeting in Washington on October 13, 2008, to take the government aid voluntarily or be forced to by regulators.

“We don’t believe it is tenable to opt out because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed,” the document said, citing Paulson talking points. “If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware your regulator will require it in any circumstance.”

Within four hours of the start of the meeting the CEOs wrote by hand the names of their institution and multibillion dollar amounts of “preferred shares” to be issued to the government, the documents show.

“These documents show our government exercising unrestrained power over the private sector,” Fitton said in a statement.

The banks were represented by Vikram Pandit of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Kenneth Lewis of Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC), John Thain of Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of BofA, Jaime Dimon of JP Morgan & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Richard Kovacevich of Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), John Mack of Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), Robert Kelly of Bank of New York Mellon Corp (NYSE: BK), and Ronald Logue of State Street Corp. (NYSE: STT).

A spokesman for the Treasury, Andrew Williams, didn’t return calls seeking comment from Bloomberg News.

The Treasury has invested $199.1 billion in the bank-preferred share program, with $1.2 billion since returned by 12 institutions, according to government data, Bloomberg reported.

Despite his heavy-handed nature, Paulson succeeded at stabilizing the financial services industry, J.P. O’Sullivan, an SNL Financial bank analyst in Charlottesville, Va., told Bloomberg.

“It was a calming mechanism,” O’Sullivan said.

This isn’t the first time Paulson has been accused of strong-arming bankers to bend to his will.

As previously reported in Money Morning, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis said in testimony before New York’s attorney general that Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke pressured him not only to move ahead with a merger with Merrill Lynch despite reservations, but also to stay quiet about the mounting losses at the crumbling investment bank.

Lewis went on to testify that he felt Paulson threatened him with losing his job if he didn’t go along with completing the Merrill Lynch deal.

“I can’t recall if he said, ‘We would remove the board and management if you called it [off]‘ or if he said ‘we would do it if you intended to.’ I don’t remember which one it was,” Mr. Lewis said.

This article can also be viewed on moneymorning.com.

Could The Yuan Become The World's Next Reserve Currency?

The U.S. dollar has faced some serious attacks lately, and our economy here in the U.S. is struggling, but have things really gotten so bad that the USD could lose its place as the world's reserve currency? And even if it did, wouldn't the Euro be next in line to take its place? According to Nouriel Roubini, the next world reserve currency could in fact be the Chinese Yuan, and the transition could happen sooner than we think. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma which looks at Roubini's recent article on the subject.

Nouriel Roubini is worried that the dollar will lose its status as a reserve currency if we don't change our ways:

The Almighty Renminbi?, by Nouriel Roubini, Commentary, NY Times: ...While the dollar’s status as the major reserve currency will not vanish overnight, we can no longer take it for granted. Sooner than we think, the dollar may be challenged by other currencies, most likely the Chinese renminbi. This would have serious costs for America, as our ability to finance our budget and trade deficits cheaply would disappear. ...

The... downfall of the dollar may be only a matter of time. But what could replace it? The British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc remain minor reserve currencies, as those countries are not major powers. Gold is still a barbaric relic whose value rises only when inflation is high. The euro is hobbled by concerns about the long-term viability of the European Monetary Union. That leaves the renminbi. ...

At the moment,... the renminbi is far from ready to achieve reserve currency status. China would first have to ease restrictions on money entering and leaving the country, make its currency fully convertible for such transactions, continue its domestic financial reforms and make its bond markets more liquid. It would take a long time for the renminbi to become a reserve currency, but it could happen. ...

We have reaped significant financial benefits from having the dollar as the reserve currency. In particular, the strong market for the dollar allows Americans to borrow at better rates. We have thus been able to finance larger deficits for longer and at lower interest rates, as foreign demand has kept Treasury yields low. We have been able to issue debt in our own currency rather than a foreign one, thus shifting the losses of a fall in the value of the dollar to our creditors. Having commodities priced in dollars has also meant that a fall in the dollar’s value doesn’t lead to a rise in the price of imports. ...

This decline of the dollar might take more than a decade, but it could happen even sooner if we do not get our financial house in order. ... For the last two decades America has been spending more than its income, increasing its foreign liabilities and amassing debts that have become unsustainable. A system where the dollar was the major global currency allowed us to prolong reckless borrowing.

Now that the dollar’s position is no longer so secure, we need to shift our priorities. This will entail investing in our crumbling infrastructure, alternative and renewable resources and productive human capital — rather than in unnecessary housing and toxic financial innovation. This will be the only way to slow down the decline of the dollar, and sustain our influence in global affairs.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

What Is The Likelihood Of The U.S. Losing Its AAA Credit Rating?

A few months back — after Moody's issued a warning — there was a lot of talk about the possibility of America losing it's AAA credit rating. Of course that never materialized. Now after a recent report on the health of Social Security and Medicare, the talk is resuming. The question still remains though of whether all this talk, is just talk, or if there is any merit to it. Kathy Lien looks closer at the question in her blog post below.

In today’s Financial Times, there is an op-ed article by David Walker, the CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation pondering the possibility of the U.S. losing its prized AAA credit rating. The paper focuses on a warning that was issued by rating agency Moody’s months ago. Moody’s has not issued a new warning, yet Walker and in turn, the FT has decided to re-inject uncertainty into the financial markets by resurrecting this fear. What has prompted this article is most likely the recent comments about the insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare systems. According to the trustees for the systems, the Social Security trust fund could be depleted by 2037 while Medicare could be insolvent by 2017. These dates of insolvency have been pushed up as the weak labor market reduces contributions. The Obama Administration has pressed the importance of gaining control of the growth in Medicare costs and their desire to tackle Social Security insolvency once health care reform is passed.

According to Walker, if the health care reforms strains finances further or if the federal government fails to monitor spending, tax or budget control, rating agencies could strip the U.S. of its credit rating.

Is Losing AAA Rating that Big of a Deal?

But is losing the AAA rating that big of a deal? Yes. A credit rating reflects the risk of default. Therefore a lower credit rating means that a country is at greater risk of defaulting on their debt. Some global funds are mandated to invest only in AAA debt and therefore if the U.S. loses its AAA rating, we could see a massive outflow of foreign investment. Also, a credit rating downgrade is the perfect excuse to push through an alternative reserve currency to replace the dollar because it would strip the confidence of sovereign funds like China that have been buying dollars to prop up the U.S. economy. Yes, investors will still buy U.S. Treasuries, but their purchases will be less. It could also have a spillover effect on corporate debt and will raise the cost of borrowing for the U.S. government.

How Real is the Risk?

Now with the risk in mind, I think that ratings agencies talk a good game but they will face problems following through. The consequences of downgrading U.S. sovereign debt is huge both politically and economically. Therefore Moody’s or any rating agency for that matter may be reluctant to the first to pull the trigger. Downgrading the U.S. is very different from downgrading Ireland. Based upon how the rating agencies have handled the credit derivatives bubble, chances are they will be behind the curve once again.

With that in mind, U.S. finances are deteriorating significantly, raising the concern of Asian nations. However if President Obama is successful at turning around the U.S. economy, America will be well equipped to meet its debt obligations.

This post can also be viewed on kathylien.com.

Obama Pushes For $17 Billion In Budget Cuts...That's It?

In what seems like joke, President Obama has sent lawmakers a proposal that aims to cut over a hundred programs, and save us $17 billion. When you look at the fact our deficit this year will be a projected $1.85 trillion, you can start to see that $17 billion in cuts is next to nothing. It's almost as if Obama is simply trying to appear like he is making an effort to trim spending. The worst part is that it appears Obama will be fought tooth and nail to get these cuts through. If he can't manage to get $17 billion cut off the budget, what hope does this country really have forbalanced budget? For more on this, read the following article from Money Morning.

President Barack Obama sent lawmakers a budget package today (Thursday) that proposes to shrink or eliminate 121 federal programs and save almost $17 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. But the budget plan contains cuts that will face vigorous opposition in Congress and fierce resistance from special interest groups.

The package of proposed reductions fills in the fine print of a $3.55 trillion budget outline approved by lawmakers in April that contains Obama’s top agenda items, including a health care overhaul, a push for renewable, clean-energy sources and changes in education funding.

The President wants to cut or end a number of programs that he feels are wasteful or ineffective to take the first toward getting spending under control. But the administration’s attempt at bringing fiscal discipline to Washington has already been met with skepticism by analysts.

“Every government program - no matter how wasteful - will be defended by its recipients and congressional champions,” Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based research group told Bloomberg News. “Unless Obama puts the weight of the White House behind his spending cuts, Congress will ignore them.”

The cuts are miniscule compared to the overall budget package and deficits that will be ushered in the next few years. The $787 billion stimulus package Obama pushed through Congress combined with the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bank bailout will come on top of the $1 trillion deficit the administration inherited when he took office in January.

Total savings from the cuts, even if they were accepted by Congress in their entirety, would represent a paltry 0.4% of the overall budget. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will be $1.85 trillion this year, about four times the previous record, and $1.38 trillion in fiscal 2010.

“Even if you got all of those things, it would be saving pennies, not dollars. And you’re not going to begin to get all of them,” Isabel Sawhill, a Brookings Institution economist who waged her own battles with Congress as a senior official in the Clinton White House budget office, told the Washington Post. “This is a good government exercise without much prospect of putting a significant dent in spending.”

Only about 80 of the proposed cuts are new - the others had been previously revealed. And most of the cuts will be from the “discretionary” budget, avoiding the so-called untouchable “third-rail” entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare.

Those two programs account for more than 40% of government spending, meaning the more difficult work on deficit reductions has been left for another day.
“More serious efforts at deficit reduction are going to require entitlement and tax reform - that’s where most of the money is.” Marc Goldwein, policy director of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget, a Washington-based research group, told Bloomberg. “To really get the deficit under control, we’re going to have to start thinking bigger,” he said.

But some in Congress defended the administration’s approach, saying the list of program reductions is just the start of a more comprehensive effort to cut spending and pull the reins on the skyrocketing deficit.

“It depends on what it means over the scope of five and 10 years.” Representative John Larson (D-Conn.) told Bloomberg. It’s a “deep, cavernous hole where we have been left, we’re looking a long way up but it’s a steady climb” using the budget plan agreed to by Obama and Congress, he said.

This post can also be viewed on moneymorning.com.

We Need A Root-And-Branch Reorganization Of The Financial System

Some people are open to the government handing over trillions of dollars to the banks, but no taxpayers want the money handed over without proper controls in place that will ensure it goes to good use. This has been one of the biggest issues the public has had with the bailout efforts thus far. For that reason Steve Waldman is calling for a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system. For more on this, read the following blog post from Mark Thoma.

Steve Waldman says "we need a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system":

Value for value, Steve Waldman: Would it have been better if Timothy Geithner had had the power to guarantee all bank debt early on? As James Surowiecki reminds us, that was part of the Swedish solution. Justin Fox plausibly suggests that we might have avoided a lot of pain with a fast, full guarantee.

But that's not the point. The question isn't whether we could have avoided this crisis, if only we had cut a big check. We could have, and that was not lost to any of us debating these issues more than a year ago. (See e.g. me or Mark Thoma.) Had we done so, the near-to-medium term fiscal costs might have been less than they probably will be now. So, with 20/20 hindsight, would it have been a good idea?

How you answer that question depends upon how you view the crisis. Is it an aberration, a shock to a basically sound financial system, or is it a painful symptom of an even more dangerous condition? ...

If you think that our financial system just needs some tweaks, some consolidation of regulators' organizational charts and sterner supervision, then you should prefer that we had just cut a check, passed Sarbanes/Oxley Book II, and moved on. But that is not what I, or most proponents of temporary receivership for insolvent banks, believe.

If you believe, as I do, that we need a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system, which must necessarily involve the dismemberment and intrusive restraint of deeply entrenched institutions, does that mean pain is the only way forward, "the worse the better" in the old revolutionary cliché? It need not mean that. But it does mean that palliative measures, like giving the banks money, would have to be attached to curative measures, like enacting capital requirements and imposing regulatory burdens that would force financial behemoths to break themselves up or become boring narrow banks. For almost two years, policymakers at the Fed and the Treasury, including Secretary Geithner, have offered bail-out after bail-out and asked for nothing serious in return.

Do I regret that Henry Paulson was not empowered to issue a blanket guarantee of bank assets early on, as the Swedes did? No, I don't regret that at all. Why not? Because I think that "Hank the Tank" was a crappy negotiator... He would have offered the financial system sugar without requiring it to make the medicine go down. He may believe, quite sincerely, that a cure would be worse than the disease. He may believe that, but he is wrong. ...

You may believe that we have learned our lesson, that if we can just get some stability and comfort for a while we are prepared to do what must be done. That's a respectable position. But I don't share it, and neither do the majority of Americans who are unwilling to allow their representatives to sign off on any more expensive aspirin. We want value for value, an ironclad commitment of root and branch reform in exchange for the unimaginable sums of money we are being asked to hand over. ... Congress would, because the public would, support large, explicit transfers, if they were attached to reforms sufficiently radical to prevent a recurrence, and suitably punitive towards the people who managed the system that brought us here. Value for value. ...

I ... would be willing to hold my nose and tolerate a Swedish-style guarantee of bank creditors. I'd acquiesce to that even without formal nationalization. Nationalization is ... a means to an end, and the desired end is a world in which too big to fail is too big to exist for any financial institution that originates or holds credit risk in any form. Secretary Geithner could send a bill to Congress today that would put all banks with a balance sheet of over $50B into run-off mode... I'd fax my Congressman and support a $2T on-budget buyout of bank creditors as part of that bill, as long as it had teeth. ("Teeth" would imply making sure that off-balance-sheet and derivative exposures were included in the size cap, etc.)

It's not that us pitchfork-totin' populists are unwilling to pay the bill. It's that we want to know that in exchange for writing a very, very large check, the people that we are paying will actually deliver the goods. Given the behavior of bankers before the crisis and of shifty policymakers during, we have every reason to watch warily and to insist upon every precaution while we hand over suitcase after suitcase of freshly printed Federal Reserve notes.

This post can also be found on economistsview.typepad.com.

Is $250,000 A Year Really "Wealthy?"

President Obama keeps saying he plans to pay for much of his new spending with taxes on the wealthy, but what should be considered "wealthy?" According to Obama's campaign speeches "wealthy" means families earning more than $250,000 a year, but $250,000 isn't worth as much in New York City as it is in Des Moines, Iowa. Many of these families are challenging Obama's assessment of what should be considered "wealthy," saying how they make more than that but are struggling to get by. Tim Iacono doesn't offer these families much sympathy, but looks closer at the situation in his blog post below.

There have been more than a few comments left here by readers over the years about families with big salaries and/or bonuses carping about how tough it is to get by on just a couple hundred thousand dollars a year in income.

Always of modest means, never having had to foot the bill for little ones around the house, and having avoided living and working in the Bay Area, my view of things is probably a bit slanted in the other direction but, to me, a quarter million dollars a year looks to be a huge opportunity to sock money away for retirement.

Via the Wall Street Journal comes this tale of the difficulty some have in making ends meet.

Ellen Parnell and her husband, Donald Parnell Jr., seem like the kind of well-off couple President Barack Obama has in mind when he suggests raising taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year. A surgeon at Fort Sanders Sevier Medical Center in Sevierville, Tenn., he drives an Infiniti. They vacation at a beach resort every year.

Yet, right now he is working seven days a week. The car is more than a decade old, the vacation home in Sandestin, Fla., comes at a moderate weekly rate because members of Ms. Parnell's extended family own it. Her family of five would like more room than they have in their 2,500-square-foot home, yet they can't afford anything larger. The downturn has them skittish about paying for renovations.

While not familiar with the local real estate market at all, clearly, you can get a lot of house for not too much money in Sevierville.

The story continues:

"I'm not complaining, but the reality is Obama may call me wealthy, but I thought we were just good old middle class," says Ms. Parnell. "Our needs are being met, but we don't have a load of cash to cover wants."
...
Wealth and comfort "depends on where you're coming from," said Lois Avitt, a sociologist and founding director of the Institute for Socio-Financial Studies in Charlottesville, Va. To a family earning $50,000, $250,000 is well off, but for the family earning $250,000, rising college and medical costs and dropping home values make the perception debatable.

The reasons for the insecurity are that net worth is declining at the same time that expenses like education and health care, two of the biggest concerns cited by members of that income group, are going up faster than wages and income, says Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. "Those are the biggies. They are huge parts of the set of middle-class aspirations, and the prices of those have increased way faster than income." The bursting of the housing bubble makes that more stark.
...
San Jose, Calif., Mayor Chuck Reed calls a family living in Silicon Valley earning $250,000 "upper working class." That is about what two engineers working at a technology firm can expect to make, but "a family earning $250,000 a year can't buy a home in Silicon Valley," he said.

James Duran owns a human-resources company in Silicon Valley and is president of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in California. He supported Mr. Obama, but is worried about the tax proposals. He has laid off some employees in recent months and has been wondering how he can fund an extension of those workers' health-care benefits.

Mr. Duran said he and his wife earn about $400,000 annually, but "I'm barely getting by." They have high property and state taxes, as well as college tuition and savings to cover. "I'm an Obama man, but this side of him is a difficult pill for me," he said.
...
For the Parnells, their perception of themselves is based on the math. The value of their house is down $60,000. Ms. Parnell says the couple's gross income last year was about $260,000. Taxes, premiums for medical care and deductions for Social Security and their 401(k) contributions cut the gross to about $12,000 per month. The family tithes $1,300 a month at their church. Their mortgage, second mortgage and payment on land they bought is nearly $4,000 a month. Other expenses, including their family car payment, insurance and college funds, as well as basics like food, utilities and donations to charities, leave them with about $1,200 left over each month.

"I'm not after sympathy. We are blessed. What I want is a reality check on what rich means," Ms. Parnell says. "I can pay my mortgage and I can buy some clothes. I'm not going without, but I'm not living a life of luxury."

The Parnells should probably take a basic personal finance class or two and many of their problems might quickly be solved - that $4,000 a month in mortgage payments for a house that's too small, and some other property, should have set off alarm bells long ago.

Also, that top line of $260K that erodes to $144K after 401k contributions, medical care premiums, and taxes sounds a bit excessive - you can quickly get to about $40K for the first two items leaving their tax hit at $75K.

Does that sound right?

It's a good thing Ms. Parnell is not asking for sympathy because she's not likely to get any.

This post can also be viewed on themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com.

Geithner's Bank Bailout Plan: Privatizing Gains And Socializing Losses

There is no shortage of opposition to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's new bank bailout plan, and while some arguments are unfounded, Joseph Stiglitz does make a good point. According to Stiglitz the worst part about the bailout plan is that it will privatize gains while socializing losses. With this in mind it makes it an overall losing proposition for taxpayers. In addition to this argument Stiglitz makes several others against the bailout plan in his article below as presented by Mark Thoma.

Joseph Stiglitz is not a fan of the Geithner bank bailout plan:

Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism, by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Commentary, NY Times: The Obama administration’s $500 billion or more proposal to deal with America’s ailing banks ... is based on letting the market determine the prices of the banks’ “toxic assets”... The reality, though, is that the market will not be pricing the toxic assets themselves, but options on those assets.

The two have little to do with each other. The government plan in effect involves insuring almost all losses. ... This is exactly the same as being given an option. ...

Under the plan by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the government would provide about 92 percent of the money to buy the asset but would stand to receive only 50 percent of any gains, and would absorb almost all of the losses. Some partnership! ...

But Americans are likely to lose even more ... because of an effect called adverse selection. The banks get to choose the loans and securities that they want to sell. They will want to sell the worst assets, and especially the assets ... the market ... is willing to pay too much for...But the market is likely to recognize this, which will drive down the price... Only the government’s picking up enough of the losses overcomes this “adverse selection” effect. ...

The main problem is not a lack of liquidity. ... The real issue is that the banks made bad loans... They have lost their capital, and this capital has to be replaced.

Paying fair market values for the assets will not work. Only by overpaying for the assets will the banks be adequately recapitalized. But overpaying for the assets simply shifts the losses to the government. In other words, the Geithner plan works only if and when the taxpayer loses big time.

Some Americans are afraid that the government might temporarily “nationalize” the banks... What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a “partnership” in which one partner robs the other. ...

So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it’s the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves — clever, complex and nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets. It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to Congress to ask for the money needed to fix our banks, and it provided a way to avoid nationalization.

But we are already suffering from a crisis of confidence. When the high costs of the administration’s plan become apparent, confidence will be eroded further. At that point the task of recreating a vibrant financial sector, and resuscitating the economy, will be even harder.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Obama's Stimulus Plan Won't Be Enough, And Could Even Ruin Him

Politics is a tricky game, and President Obama could be setting himself up for a tremendous fall. Right now his approval rating is sky high, but so too are his expectations. As famed economist Paul Krugman points out in his article, Obama's recent economic stimulus plan is much too small, and in all likelihood he is going to be forced to ask for more money. When that time comes people are going to assume the last stimulus package was a failure, and naturally Obama will take the brunt of the blame for it. He had a hard enough time garnering the necessary Republican support (3 votes) to get the first bill passed, and you can bet the next time around will be 100 times harder. For more on this, read Mark Thoma's blog post below:

I've heard people say the debate over the size of the stimulus package was misrepresented in the media, that the media rarely presented the view that the plan was too small.

President Obama’s plan to stimulate the economy was “massive,” “giant,” “enormous.” So the American people were told... Watching the news, you might have thought that the only question was whether the plan was too big, too ambitious.

Yet many economists, myself included, actually argued that the plan was too small and too cautious. The latest data confirm those worries — and suggest that the Obama administration’s economic policies are already falling behind the curve.

Why do you say that? Won't his plan create millions of jobs?

Mr. Obama’s promise that his plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 looks underwhelming, to say the least. It’s a credible promise... But 3.5 million jobs almost two years from now isn’t enough in the face of an economy that has already lost 4.4 million jobs, and is losing 600,000 more each month.

Ah, I see. Even though it's likely to create 3.5 million jobs as promised, it's still millions short of what is needed. So how do we improve the plan?

There are now three big questions about economic policy. First, does the administration realize that it isn’t doing enough? Second, is it prepared to do more? Third, will Congress go along with stronger policies?

What are the answers?

On the first two questions, I found Mr. Obama’s latest interview with The Times anything but reassuring.

“Our belief and expectation is that we will get all the pillars in place for recovery this year,” the president declared — a belief and expectation that isn’t backed by any data or model I’m aware of. ... And there was no hint in the interview of readiness to do more.

Do you mean he doesn't seem ready to do more in terms of fiscal policy, or that he's not ready to do more of anything, in particular, more to help the banking system recover?

A real fix for the troubles of the banking system might help make up for the inadequate size of the stimulus plan... But he went on to dismiss calls for decisive action... As I read it, this dismissal — together with the continuing failure to announce any broad plans for bank restructuring — means that the White House has decided to muddle through on the financial front, relying on economic recovery to rescue the banks rather than the other way around. And with the stimulus plan too small to deliver an economic recovery ... well, you get the picture.

Yep. It's like one of those bad dreams where your feet won't move fast enough to get away from the impending doom closing in on you. Will the administration wake up and get moving?

Sooner or later the administration will realize that more must be done. But when it comes back for more money, will Congress go along?

One side won't, that's pretty clear, and I'm not so sure about the Democratic side of the aisle either.

Republicans are now firmly committed to the view that we should do nothing to respond to the economic crisis, except cut taxes — which they always want to do... If Mr. Obama comes back for a second round of stimulus, they’ll respond not by being helpful, but by claiming that his policies have failed.

And if there are any small successes to point to Republicans will, of course, insist it was because of the tax cuts in the first round of stimulus. Where does the public stand at this point?

The broader public ... favors strong action. ... But will that support still be there, say, six months from now?

I wouldn't count on it.

Also, an overwhelming majority believes that the government is spending too much to help large financial institutions. This suggests that the administration’s money-for-nothing financial policy will eventually deplete its political capital.

I don't suppose we can borrow political capital from China?

So here’s the picture that scares me: It’s September 2009, the unemployment rate has passed 9 percent, and despite the early round of stimulus spending it’s still headed up. Mr. Obama finally concedes that a bigger stimulus is needed.

And at that point, he begins pushing a new plan?

But he can’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies has plummeted, partly because his policies are seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies are conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts. And as a result, the recession rages on, unchecked.

Would you bet some of your Nobel money on that prediction?

O.K., that’s a warning, not a prediction. But economic policy is falling behind the curve, and there’s a real, growing danger that it will never catch up.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.

Is Obama Killing Capitalism?

Most of Obama's recent moves have been heavily opposed by Republicans, but is he single handedly killing Capitalism — and Wall Street — as some are claiming? Economics professor Mark Thoma thinks that the claim is absolutely absurd, and in fact agrees with Robert Reich that Republicans are more responsible for the falling markets than Obama is. Thoma looks at a couple articles, and gives his input on the subject in his blog post below.

Republicans made the bed, now they want someone else to sleep in it:

Is Obama Responsible for Wall Street's Meltdown? Where Populist Rage is Heading, by Robert Reich: Is Obama responsible for the meltdown of the Dow? The consistently wrong-headed Wall Street Journal's editorial page says so, as does Republican Fox News, CNN's reliably demagogic Lou Dobbs, and now CNBC... CNBC's Jim Cramer, who bloviates nightly about stock picks, says Obama is pushing a "radical agenda" that's destroying investor's wealth. My friend Larry Kudlow, who rants nightly about nearly everything, says Obama is destroying capitalism. CNBC reporter Rick Santelli's ballistic nonsense about Obama's mortgage plan made him a pop-populist icon for a week or so.

The argument that Obama is somehow responsible for the collapse of Wall Street is absurd. First, every major policy that led to this collapse occurred under George W's watch (or, more accurately, his failure to watch). The housing and financial bubbles were created under Bush and exploded under Bush. The stock market began to collapse under Bush.

Second, it's inevitable that stocks, led by the bloated financial sector, would lose their remaining hot air as the new administration begins "stress-testing" the big banks, many of which are technically insolvent. After all, their share prices were built on a tissue of lies and dreams. Other sectors whose values were similarly distorted and distended by years of financial deception and regulatory disregard, such as housing and insurance, will also have to return to the real world before they can recover. Which could mean more stock losses.

Finally, none of the financial wizards who are now charging Obama with leading America into the abyss has offered an alternative plan for getting us out of the mess that, not incidentally, many of these same wizards happily led us into. For years, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the financial gurus of cable news cheered as Wall Street leveraged its way into oblivion.

This bizarre charge wouldn't be worth mentioning were it not a market test for a more intense attack from Wall Street and Republican media outlets next year as the nation moves into ... range of the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans have made no secret of their wish to blame Obama for the bad economy, and to stir up as much populist rage against his so-called "socialist" tendencies as politically possible. History shows how effective demagogic ravings can be when a public is stressed economically. Make no mistake: Angry right-wing populism lurks just below the surface..., ready to be launched not only at Obama but also at liberals, intellectuals, gays, blacks, Jews, the mainstream media, coastal elites, crypto socialists, and any other potential target of paranoid opportunity.

To complicate matters for Republicans, however, grass-roots populist rage is also building against Wall Street itself, and with some justification. Top Wall Streeters who raked in tens of millions of dollars a year for more than a decade have now effectively eviscerated the pension fund savings of millions of middle-class American workers and destroyed millions of Main Street jobs. The public is understandably appalled that its tax dollars are being used to pay and prop up the very people and institutions responsible for this debacle. And there seems to be no end in sight... Yet no one seems to know exactly where these dollars are going, or why. ...

The Wall Street and Republican media attack machine doesn't know exactly what to make of this. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, along with CNBC, alternates between attacking Obama for bailing out Wall Street and excusing Wall Street's excesses. But then again, Obama doesn't seem to know exactly what to make of it either. He seems to vacillate as well -- one moment scorning Wall Street, the next moment justifying further bailouts. I do hope he takes a firmer hand, drawing a clearer distinction and making a clearer connection between clearing up these financial balance sheets and helping average people. Otherwise, the next populist uprising will be born in this moneyed quagmire. It is here -- within the muck that was created by AIG, Citigroup, Fannie and Freddie, other giant financial institutions, now in combination with the U.S. Treasury and Fed -- that the public is most confused, bears its most serious scars, and is potentially most burdened in future years...

Why people should ignore Larry Kudlow:

The Housing Bears Are Wrong Again, by Larry Kudlow, NRO, June 2005: This tax-advantaged sector is writing how-to guide on wealth creation.

Homebuilders led the stock parade this week with a fantastic 11 percent gain. This is a group that hedge funds and bubbleheads love to hate. All the bond bears have been dead wrong... So have all the bubbleheads who expect housing-price crashes in Las Vegas or Naples, Florida, to bring down the consumer, the rest of the economy, and the entire stock market.

None of this has happened. ... Meanwhile, the homebuilders index has increased 76 percent over the past year, with particularly well-run companies like Toll Brothers up about twice as much. The bubbleheads missed all this because they haven’t done their homework. If they had put a little elbow grease into their analysis, they would have learned that new-housing starts for private homes and apartments haven’t changed much during the past three and a half decades. ...

Which leads to a final thought: Why not apply the same tax laws that have benefited home owners to stock market investors and home buyers? If this were to come about, even more wealth would be created in America, leading to even more new business and job creation. ...

Yes, too bad we didn't make the bubble even bigger. If capitalism is destroyed, something that's highly unlikely, it won't be Obama's fault. It will be the fault of people like Kudlow who "haven’t done their homework" and who opposed any and all attempts to temper the housing bubble through regulation or any other means - see the ridicule of "bubbleheads" above - and who continue to oppose such measures today. Capitalism may change, in fact it needs to change - the excesses that allowed the housing bubble to develop need to be tempered through regulation and other means - but if Kudlow and company have their way and continue to assert that what's good for the rich is good for America, that regulation was the problem not the solution, and that tax cuts are the answer to every problem, the change that is needed won't happen. It's easy to understand why they are so vocal in their opposition to the kinds of changes that are being proposed. The change that is needed to help stabilize the system will bring about destruction (creatively we hope), and people like Kudlow will likely be the ones who feel the brunt of that change as the advantages unregulated markets brought them disappear. But they shouldn't confuse the destruction of the elements that allowed them to take advantage of the system with the destruction of the system itself.

This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.