Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who never fails to remind me of an elderly Foghorn Leghorn, has been crowing for a couple of days now. Like a lot of other roosters, he doesn't restrict his crowing to the early morning hours, but keeps up the noise all day long.
Most recently, he's been going on about how how the sequester is no big deal, because it's just a tiny slice of the federal budget. Yes, too bad it's kind of haphazard, but what the hell. Budget's gotta be cut, ya know!
Personally, I don't at all mind the cuts to Defense although I feel sympathy for the people who might lose their jobs with defense contractors if the sequester goes on long enough. The Department of Defense (they really should go back to calling it the Department of War) enters into contracts that typically last for years, and no existing contracts will be cancelled — not even for the most useless weapons systems the military doesn't even want.
Foghorn Leghorn is right in that we probably can survive the sequester, although it will further slow economic growth and prolong what for many people feels a hell of a lot like a depression. The main hope I see for easing the gridlock in Washington is, believe it or not, Karl Rove. Rove has mounted a new campaign to push Tea Party wack jobs out of the Republican Party, and replace them with ordinary conservatives.
We'll see how successful he is in 2014.
Showing posts with label sequestration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sequestration. Show all posts
Monday, March 4, 2013
Thursday, February 28, 2013
So here it comes, I guess...
Along with other, more serious misdeeds, Phil Gramm can take credit for bringing the term "sequestration" into the Federal vocabulary. It appeared in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation of 1985, and you can search that on your own.
The people most likely to be hurt by the current sequestration are employees of the federal government, employees of federal government contractors, state workers supported by federal funding, and local government employees tossed aside to offset the loss of federal/state funding. The banks, of course, will be fine. The Dow is back up over 14,000 today, despite sequestration, chaos in Italy, and a hell of a lot of international stupidity. I guess everybody knows the genuine elite (a group a hell of lot smaller than the top 1%) will be protected.
Jack Lew was approved today for Secretary of the Treasury. Like Bernie Sanders, I wonder if we'll ever have a Treasury Secretary with no connection to Robert Rubin or Citibank. Let's face it — both parties are in the pockets of big finance. If they weren't, we'd have seen the revocation of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which was the Clinton Administration bill that ended Glass-Steagall.
Damn it, Phil and Wendy Gramm, you are evil! Well, maybe stupid rather than evil, but I'm going with evil. Unlike certain Republican members of the House, I'm pretty sure you knew what you were doing. You made a hell of a lot of money on your advancement of right wing ideology, and I haven't heard a word about how you're using it to help "all boats rise."
The people most likely to be hurt by the current sequestration are employees of the federal government, employees of federal government contractors, state workers supported by federal funding, and local government employees tossed aside to offset the loss of federal/state funding. The banks, of course, will be fine. The Dow is back up over 14,000 today, despite sequestration, chaos in Italy, and a hell of a lot of international stupidity. I guess everybody knows the genuine elite (a group a hell of lot smaller than the top 1%) will be protected.
Jack Lew was approved today for Secretary of the Treasury. Like Bernie Sanders, I wonder if we'll ever have a Treasury Secretary with no connection to Robert Rubin or Citibank. Let's face it — both parties are in the pockets of big finance. If they weren't, we'd have seen the revocation of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which was the Clinton Administration bill that ended Glass-Steagall.
Damn it, Phil and Wendy Gramm, you are evil! Well, maybe stupid rather than evil, but I'm going with evil. Unlike certain Republican members of the House, I'm pretty sure you knew what you were doing. You made a hell of a lot of money on your advancement of right wing ideology, and I haven't heard a word about how you're using it to help "all boats rise."
Friday, February 22, 2013
Crisis Fatigue
I guess I ought to say something about the sequester, but I'm not entirely sure why. According to various polling groups, most Americans are not paying a hell of a lot of attention. More than anything, that seems to be due to crisis fatigue. Americans have approached the edges of too many cliffs in recent years, and seem most inclined to close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears, and sing, "Lah lah lah lah lah I can't hear you!"
40% of those who might be paying attention, according to the pollsters, think we just should go over the cliff and see if we bounce. The economists say we won't bounce, but might not leave too deep a dent behind. The biggest losers are likely to be defense contractors, so a lot of liberals don't much care. A lot of conservatives just want less government, and they're not too particular about how it happens. The fact that sequestration was designed to be stupid and mutually destructive to both parties apparently has been forgotten.
Then there are the politics. It looks like more people will blame Republicans than Democrats for whatever damage is done, but the truth is that the battle was lost by the Democrats in 2010 — when Republican candidates won over so many state legislatures and control over redistricting. Far too many of those Republican House seats are far too safe now, and will be until 2020. Maybe, had Obama been less of a "compromise seeker" and more of a populist, that wouldn't have happened.
You can't "postdict" the past any better than you can predict the future. All we can say right now is that most Americans are sick of it.
40% of those who might be paying attention, according to the pollsters, think we just should go over the cliff and see if we bounce. The economists say we won't bounce, but might not leave too deep a dent behind. The biggest losers are likely to be defense contractors, so a lot of liberals don't much care. A lot of conservatives just want less government, and they're not too particular about how it happens. The fact that sequestration was designed to be stupid and mutually destructive to both parties apparently has been forgotten.
Then there are the politics. It looks like more people will blame Republicans than Democrats for whatever damage is done, but the truth is that the battle was lost by the Democrats in 2010 — when Republican candidates won over so many state legislatures and control over redistricting. Far too many of those Republican House seats are far too safe now, and will be until 2020. Maybe, had Obama been less of a "compromise seeker" and more of a populist, that wouldn't have happened.
You can't "postdict" the past any better than you can predict the future. All we can say right now is that most Americans are sick of it.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Beware the "Grand Bargain"
The general public seems to believe that what Bernanke called "the fiscal cliff" (and Krugman called "the austerity bomb") has been averted. It hasn't, of course. Sequestration and lifting the debt ceiling were kicked down the road a couple of months, but nothing, really, is settled.
During his first term, Obama seriously sought a "Grand Bargain" on tax increases and spending cuts with John Boehner — but Republicans, possibly convinced by too rich a diet of Fox News, declined, thinking they could take the Presidency and possibly the Senate as well in the 2012 elections. Well, they were wrong.
The problem now, though, is that Obama still wants a "Grand Bargain," and probably still is willing to make entirely too many concessions on what currently are called "entitlements," but which used to be called "the social safety net." (Yes, the progressives let the conservatives select the lexicon again. When Republicans talk about "reforming entitlement programs," what they mean, really, is "shredding the net.")
Well, there are some changes that could be steps in the right direction. The salary cap for FICA contributions could be lifted — or, better yet, entirely eliminated — to build the Social Security trust fund. Since that trust fund may be invested only in government bonds, perhaps the Fed could create a new instrument — available only to the trust fund — that actually pays a little interest. Since the Fed creates money out of thin air, it wouldn't cost taxpayers a cent, so beefing up the trust fund would not have any negative impact on the general economy.
What Medicare needs more than anything is what insurers call a more favorable experience rating — that is, it needs more members paying in who need less health care. Hence, it makes no sense at all to raise the age of eligibility to 67, since the youngest members use the fewest services. What should be done is to open up Medicare coverage to much younger participants. The best way I can see to do that is to allow Medicare to compete against the private companies on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Uh huh, that good old public option — but there's no doubt it would cut costs. The real solution, of course, is single payer for all. Don't miss Eduardo Porter's column in yesterday's Times!
Needless to say, eliminating corn subsidies and the corn-based ethanol requirement for gasoline would free up a lot of money for food stamps, and raising the minimum wage to a living wage would help increase all kinds of tax revenues while reducing income inequality. Yes, prices might have to rise, but poorer people tend to spend whatever extra income they receive, boosting sales. That means more profits for (real and alleged) small businesses, and more employment.
I could go on, but why bother? None of the above will happen. After all, as Will Rogers said, "We have the best Congress money can buy."
During his first term, Obama seriously sought a "Grand Bargain" on tax increases and spending cuts with John Boehner — but Republicans, possibly convinced by too rich a diet of Fox News, declined, thinking they could take the Presidency and possibly the Senate as well in the 2012 elections. Well, they were wrong.
The problem now, though, is that Obama still wants a "Grand Bargain," and probably still is willing to make entirely too many concessions on what currently are called "entitlements," but which used to be called "the social safety net." (Yes, the progressives let the conservatives select the lexicon again. When Republicans talk about "reforming entitlement programs," what they mean, really, is "shredding the net.")
Well, there are some changes that could be steps in the right direction. The salary cap for FICA contributions could be lifted — or, better yet, entirely eliminated — to build the Social Security trust fund. Since that trust fund may be invested only in government bonds, perhaps the Fed could create a new instrument — available only to the trust fund — that actually pays a little interest. Since the Fed creates money out of thin air, it wouldn't cost taxpayers a cent, so beefing up the trust fund would not have any negative impact on the general economy.
What Medicare needs more than anything is what insurers call a more favorable experience rating — that is, it needs more members paying in who need less health care. Hence, it makes no sense at all to raise the age of eligibility to 67, since the youngest members use the fewest services. What should be done is to open up Medicare coverage to much younger participants. The best way I can see to do that is to allow Medicare to compete against the private companies on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Uh huh, that good old public option — but there's no doubt it would cut costs. The real solution, of course, is single payer for all. Don't miss Eduardo Porter's column in yesterday's Times!
Needless to say, eliminating corn subsidies and the corn-based ethanol requirement for gasoline would free up a lot of money for food stamps, and raising the minimum wage to a living wage would help increase all kinds of tax revenues while reducing income inequality. Yes, prices might have to rise, but poorer people tend to spend whatever extra income they receive, boosting sales. That means more profits for (real and alleged) small businesses, and more employment.
I could go on, but why bother? None of the above will happen. After all, as Will Rogers said, "We have the best Congress money can buy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)