democrats

Outgoing NLRB Chair Sees ‘Silver Lining’ In Political Rancor

September 5, 2011

WASHINGTON — Wilma Liebman, the outgoing chairwoman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), can’t recall a time when the very idea of collective bargaining was so divisive in American culture and politics. Even so, the 61-year-old lawyer says that isn’t entirely a bad thing. “We’ve obviously had some very contentious strikes and labor disputes over the years, but this is something of a different nature,” Liebman said by telephone the other day while taking a break from packing up her office in downtown Washington after her term ended. “In some respects, all the controversy is welcome because it has brought these issues back into the public eye. That’s the silver lining.” If that is indeed a silver lining, then the labor board has certainly had a hand in bringing it about under the leadership of Liebman, who asked that she not be reappointed when her term expired a little over a week ago. Although the NLRB is an agency that many Americans have never even heard of, the charges and rulings that issued from it this year have helped stoke the debate about what kind of role unions and collective bargaining should play in American society. It’s a debate that Liebman believes to be vitally important, particularly in light of the recent rollback of collective bargaining rights for public workers in Wisconsin, as well as a similar, attempted rollback for workers in Ohio. Many of Liebman’s critics saw a distinct pro-union bent in the labor board’s recent decision-making. Just before she stepped down, the board issued a decision that will likely make it easier for health-care workers to unionize . It also recently issued a new rule that will require most private-sector employers to hang posters in the workplace informing workers of their rights under labor law. And earlier this year, it proposed new rules that would streamline the union election process , eliminating some of the hurdles to unionization. The response from the business community has not been kind. Even the more innocuous poster rule was assaulted as a gift to labor unions by the likes of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of Liebman’s fiercest critics. Corporations and their allies have decried the board as ” out of control ” during Liebman’s tenure as chairwoman. The vitriol hasn’t necessarily surprised Liebman, who served under three presidents and was appointed chair by Obama in 2009. She attributed the most heated rhetoric to people who still can’t come to grips with the National Labor Relations Act , the 1935 law defining collective-bargaining rights that the labor board is charged with interpreting and enforcing. Many of the same people can’t come to grips with the New Deal more generally, Liebman said. “This law has, from the beginning, been a product of fierce struggles, of deeply divided and competing views,” she said of the labor relations act. “I think there are elements of society and different groups that have never accepted the legitimacy of the law or the whole array of New Deal legislation. They don’t accept the legitimacy of labor unions.” The reaction to the poster rule, in particular, Liebman found “kind of silly,” given all the hoopla over 11-by-17-inch placards. And yet the rule is actually quite significant, at least symbolically. In an era when union membership has dwindled to about 12 percent of the American workforce — and when rank-and-file wages have remained stagnant despite rising executive pay — the posters are meant to inform workers not only of their rights to join a union, but more broadly of their rights to discuss workplace conditions and bring their grievances to superiors. It may be a sign of how far the pendulum has swung in favor of management that such a rule can be so openly lambasted by business trade groups. Despite the charges that she was shilling for big labor, Liebman says she wasn’t interpreting the law for unions per se, but for all employees. “This statute applies to all private-sector workers,” Liebman said. “Two or more people can get together and go to the boss, even in non-union workplaces. That’s a huge secret amongst most workers.” She points to the board’s cases on social media in the workplace as an example. In a move that surprised many, the board looked into several cases that involved workers being fired or otherwise disciplined for their ill-advised outbursts on Facebook. In some instances, the agency’s lawyers found the firings to be fair game; in others, they found them to be potentially in violation of labor law. Many of the cases didn’t involve unions whatsoever. Workers around the country flooded the agency with their woeful tales of Facebook firings. Employers — not to mention lawyers — took notice. The most contentious action from the NLRB this year had nothing to do with Liebman at all, although she wound up caught in the crossfire. In April, the board’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, who acts as something akin to a prosecutor, issued a complaint against The Boeing Company. Solomon accused the aerospace giant of violating labor law when it established a production line for its 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, a right-to-work state; Solomon said it was retaliation against Boeing’s unionized employees in Washington State for having gone on strike in the past. Liebman’s board did not issue the complaint, nor has it ruled on the matter. And yet conservatives have used it to tar the board as the union-loving, job-killing agent of an Obama administration intent on meddling in corporate decision-making. Liebman attributes much of the anger towards the board to a misunderstanding of its duties and procedures. “The members of the board have nothing to do with the issuance of a complaint, unless it comes up to us,” Liebman said. The politics swirling around the independent board, she added, has been “disturbing.” Those politics show no signs of abating. With Liebman gone, the board is down to just three members — two Democrats and one Republican — which barely makes a quorum. The term of one Democrat is set to expire later this year, and if Republicans refuse to confirm another Democratic appointee to the slot, as they’re expected to do, the board would be rendered inoperable. Some, including South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), are hoping to hasten that day by persuading the one sitting Republican, Brian Hayes, to step down. Liebman says she very much hopes that doesn’t happen, given that the board “provides the rule of law,” and that both labor and business seem “relatively comfortable” with the way the system functions. Although she doesn’t expect the politics surrounding collective bargaining to subside, she does hope to see a more civil and meaningful discussion. “The issues are too important and the problems too extreme to just have a lot of rancor and rhetoric,” she said. “I would love to see it become a real debate.” “Maybe this is a prelude to a real debate,” she added. “I can hope.”

Read the full article →

Fox News, Google To Hold Presidential Debate

September 1, 2011

Fox News and Google are expected to announce plans on Thursday to host a Republican presidential debate in Florida on September 22, The Huffington Post has learned. The forum will be moderated by network anchor Bret Baier. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace and anchor Megyn Kelly will be panelists at the event. Fox News has presented two debates already this election season. The first took place in South Carolina in May and the second was held in Iowa last month. The upcoming Fox News-Google debate is expected to incorporate an interactive element. HuffPost has learned that viewers will be able to participate by submitting questions through YouTube and Fox News. They will also have the ability to vote on questions they would like to see the candidates answer. UPDATE (11:33 a.m. ET): Below, full text of the debate announcement released on Thursday. FOX News and Google announced today that they will present a presidential debate on September 22nd from 9:00-11:00 PM/ET in Orlando, Florida, in conjunction with the Republican Party of Florida. In making the joint announcement, Michael Clemente, Senior Vice President of News Editorial, FOX News, said, “For access to news and information, it’s hard to imagine two more powerful brands than FOX News and Google, which is why we are proud to partner with a leader in global technology. The strength and reach of both should ensure a thorough and engaging debate that anyone can participate in.” Moderated by Special Report anchor Bret Baier with panelists Chris Wallace, host of FOX News Sunday and Megyn Kelly, anchor of America Live, the debate will incorporate video and text questions submitted by the public on YouTube.com/FOXNews. Viewers will be able to vote on the questions they want the candidates to answer, and FOX News will use the votes to help choose which questions are posed to the candidates. In addition, FOX News and Google will present public data and Google search trends on air to help provide context to the questions and inform the debate throughout the evening. Steve Grove, Head of News and Politics for YouTube, said, “We’re delighted to give voters across the country this opportunity to ask their questions of the GOP candidates. Through this joint debate with FOX News we hope to bring more voices into the arena to create an informed and lively dialogue about the future of our country.” The FOX News/Google debate will be presented live from the Orange County Convention Center on FOX News Channel (FNC) and live-streamed on YouTube.com/FOXNews, in addition to FOX News Radio, FOX News Mobile, and FOXNews.com. About FOX News FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. A top five cable network, FNC has been the most watched news channel in the country for nearly ten years and according to Public Policy Polling, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by News Corp., FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre. About Google Inc. Google’s innovative search technologies connect millions of people around the world with information every day. Founded in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. students Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google today is a top web property in all major global markets. Google’s targeted advertising program provides businesses of all sizes with measurable results, while enhancing the overall web experience for users. Google is headquartered in Silicon Valley with offices throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. For more information, visit www.google.com.

Read the full article →

White House Moves Plan To Ax Hundreds Of Regulations

August 23, 2011

VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass. — The White House is revealing plans to save businesses $10 billion by scrapping hundreds of government regulations found to be outdated, unfair or unnecessary. Administration officials say the savings will be realized over a five-year period. The plan was described Tuesday by Cass Sunstein, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, in a column in the Wall Street Journal in advance of a formal announcement as President Barack Obama vacations at Martha’s Vineyard, Mass. After last year’s election setback, Obama launched a concerted outreach to the business community, vowing to scrutinize federal regulations that companies consider to be an excessive burden. He at the time his goal was to scrap “dumb” rules without weakening ones that are needed to protect consumers and the environment.

Read the full article →

Mohamed el-Erian: How to Restore Economic Leadership in America

August 15, 2011

It is another hot and humid Washington summer and, understandably, most politicians would rather be on holiday elsewhere. Moreover, with today’s technology, they can easily stay in touch while escaping the sweltering weather. But this is not a typical summer given the economic difficulties facing the nation. We need politicians to do more than stay in touch from afar. In such uncertain times, we look to our elected representatives (and their appointees) to lead, and do so in a visible manner. We expect them to instill confidence. And we want them to lead by example, especially when they talk of “shared sacrifices” and “joint responsibilities.” So, why are our politicians not returning to Washington? Some claim that, by staying away, they get a better feel for the situation “on the ground.” Indeed, after the awful and damaging debt ceiling debacle, members of Congress were encouraged to do so in order for them to hear directly from their constituencies – and thereby get a better understanding of the nation’s anger and disappointment. Others argue that an unscheduled return to Washington would be viewed as sign of desperation — thus causing more harm than good. While I understand both arguments, they sound weak given that the American economy is stuck in what economists call a negative feedback loop of deteriorating economic conditions, inadequate policy responses, and volatile markets. Indeed, elsewhere in the world where this situation is admittedly most extreme — Europe — politicians are returning to work. Tomorrow there will even be a Franco-German Summit in Paris; and it is the middle of August! I think the real reason for the hesitation has a lot to do with crude political cost-benefit calculations. Over the last few years, our economy has slipped further away from “first best” solutions. We are not in a world where problems have relatively costless solutions. Instead, we now live in the world of second and third best where most solutions involve costs and imperfections. As such, they are immediately open to political attack. Not surprisingly, in today’s uncertain economy too many politicians would rather react than lead; and they would rather criticize the ideas of others than put forward their own. America, as a nation, cannot afford for this situation to continue for long. Remember, we are now in the grips of a negative feedback loop. The longer the policy paralysis continues, the bigger the shortfalls in economic performance; and this bigger the shortfall, the more daunting the policy challenges. It may take too long for politicians to find their mojo. Too many are tempted to hold off decisions until the “national referendum” in the form of the next year’s presidential and congressional elections. In the meantime, an already worrisome economic situation will deteriorate further. An alternative is to change the national economic narrative and, thus, the political dynamics and dialogue. After all, ongoing global economic realignments require a reassessment of the big picture. Rather than endlessly argue on individual measures, let us instead take it from the very top. And do so in five steps: First, start with a specific destination for the economy defined by transparent metrics for growth, jobs, inflation, financial soundness and, importantly, the key social indicators. I suspect that most can agree on a formulation that is both desirable and feasible. Second, translate these objectives into clear priorities for lifting the major structural impediments to our economy. Again, I suspect that there would be broad-based accord on key sectors where simultaneous and coordinated actions are needed. (My list would include housing, the labor market, banks, infrastructure and public finances, as well as immediate steps to unleash productive energies.) Third, put in place a mechanism and quantifiable variables for high frequency assessment of both the implementation of structural reforms and overall progress towards the overall objectives. Fourth, get the executive and legislative branches to commit to this trio (medium-term objectives, major areas of structural reforms and process for mid-course corrections). In doing so, America would secure the political air cover that is so critical to the successful implementation of measures over a number of years. Finally, get the technocrats to work out the details and present them as a package for political review and approval. Their focus would be on both immediate measures and those to be implemented over a number of years. I suspect that this reformulated approach would offer greater prospects for economic improvement. Indeed it could be pursued by the newly formed Congressional super committee, working closely with the Administration. And, by encouraging the coordinated implementation of a package of measures rather than a series of ad hoc steps, it would provide for a whole that is greater the sums of the parts. Households and businesses will tell you that many seemingly difficult problems have been overcome through the revamping of the solution seeking approach. The US provides a potential case for this. After all, the problems facing the country are much less of an engineering challenge and much more of a political one. By altering the basis of the political discourse, we would stand a better change of making progress on the economics.

Read the full article →

I’m Mad As Hell And I’m Not Gonna Write Any More Checks

August 15, 2011

The CEO of Starbucks wants Washington to wake up and smell the coffee. Infuriated by what he described as irresponsible behavior, Howard Schultz is calling on his fellow CEOs — and other would-be donors — to boycott all campaign contributions to either party until the nation’s elected leaders put aside their political posturing and find some common ground on long-term fiscal issues. Schultz wrote in a widely distributed email dated Monday that, like “so many common-sense Americans,” he wants elected leaders to consider “all options, from entitlement programs to taxes,” and reach a wide-ranging budget deal “long before the deadline arrives this fall.” Schultz concluded with a promise: “We today pledge to withhold any further campaign contributions to the President and all members of Congress until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing. ” It’s not clear who else he was speaking for — and Schultz is something of an unlikely populist. His 2010 compensation was nearly $22 million, according to Equilar, adding to a net worth of over three-quarters of a billion dollars. Then again, earlier Monday morning, the even richer Warren Buffett, in a New York Times op-ed , railed at Congress for being too billionaire-friendly. Fred Wertheimer, dean of Washington’s campaign-finance reform community, said his group, Democracy 21, will be working with Schultz to build national support for a donation boycott. “He asked for our help and we are happy to give it to him,” Wertheimer said. “We think it’s a bold move,” he added. “And we think the gridlock and deadlock and partisanship in Washington has reached such levels that it has to be broken through.” Wertheimer said the relationship between money and Washington politics is clear: “When you’re in a situation when you need sacrifices to be made from all quarters, the power exercised by political money makes it extremely difficult to achieve that result.” Republican intransigence on raising any taxes whatsoever, even on the wealthiest Americans, has been a major source of Washington’s gridlock. Schultz has not been a particularly generous political donor himself. And if he ends up being the only donor who actually goes through with the boycott, the losers will be Democratic candidates. The opensecrets.org website shows Schultz gave $70,000 to the Democratic National Committee between 1996 and 2000, but in the last four years has contributed less than $10,000 total, shared among Washington State’s two Democratic senators and President Barack Obama. In his email, Schultz made what he called a “second pledge” as well, after noting that “while the long-term fiscal challenge is serious, even more painful to millions of Americans today is the immediate crisis of jobs.” He vowed: “Our companies are going to hire. We are going to accelerate growth, employment, and investment in jobs.” Schultz’s boycott campaign was first reported over the weekend by New York Times columnist Joe Nocera . Nocera described how the boycott campaign was the outgrowth of an earlier email that Schultz sent last week to Starbucks employees and some fellow business leaders. In that email, Schultz described himself as “growing more and more frustrated at the lack of cooperation and irresponsibility among elected officials as they have put partisan agendas before the people’s agenda.” He told Nocera the response was so positive that it galvanized him to take the next step. Schultz was not immediately available for comment. READ the full text of Schultz’s email: August 15, 2011 Dear Fellow Concerned Americans: Our country is better than this. Over the last few weeks and months, our national elected officials from both parties have failed to lead. They have chosen to put partisan and ideological purity over the well-being of the people. They have undermined the full faith and credit of the United States. They have stirred up fears about our economic prospects without doing anything to truly address those fears. They have spent a resource even more precious than the dollar: our collective confidence in each other, in the future, and in our ability to solve problems together. As leaders in business, we have watched all this unfold, first with frustration and then with dismay. Like so many of our employees and customers, we are gravely concerned about the current situation. Today, with both humility and urgency, we propose to do something about it. First, we aim to push our elected leaders to face the nation’s long-term fiscal challenges with civility, honesty, and a willingness to sacrifice their own re-election. This means not kicking the can anymore. It means reaching a deal on debt, revenue, and spending long before the deadline arrives this fall. It means considering all options, from entitlement programs to taxes. This is what so many common-sense Americans want. That is why we today pledge to withhold any further campaign contributions to the President and all members of Congress until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing. And we invite leaders of businesses – indeed, all concerned Americans – to join us in this pledge. We also believe in leading by positive example. And we believe that while the long-term fiscal challenge is serious, even more painful to millions of Americans today is the immediate crisis of jobs. Tens of millions are unemployed and underemployed. Right now our economy is frozen in a cycle of fear and uncertainty. Companies are afraid to hire. Consumers are afraid to spend. Banks are afraid to lend. Record levels of cash are piling up in corporate treasuries, idling. That cash is not being used to expand operations, train new workers, underwrite new ventures, or spark innovation. The only way to break this cycle of fear is to break it. The only way to get the country’s economic circulatory system flowing again is to start pumping lifeblood through it. That is why we today issue a second pledge. Our companies are going to hire. We are going to accelerate growth, employment, and investment in jobs. We do this because we want to set in motion an upward spiral of confidence. We are not waiting for government to create an incentive program or a stimulus. We are not waiting for economic indicators to tell us it’s safe to act. We are hiring more people now. We invite leaders of businesses across the country to join us in this pledge as well – and to bring their stakeholders into the effort. Confidence is contagious. The best thing we can do now is to spread it. This is a time for citizenship, not partisanship. It is a time for action. We don’t pretend that our two pledges are quick fixes. We just believe that in this moment of great uncertainty, the government needs discipline, the people need jobs – and leaders need to lead. Our country is better than this. Let’s get things moving now. Respectfully, Howard Schultz

Read the full article →

Michael Sigman: Corporations Are a Mitt’s Best Friend

August 15, 2011

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP standard bearer (read: standard-lowerer) John McCain annoyingly addressed any gathering of more than one as “my friends.” In the second McCain-Obama debate alone, he used the phrase 21 times . Even at a time when millions of Americans were learning how to accumulate anonymous Facebook friends by the thousands, this gambit proved counterproductive, though it did create jobs for the enterprise that peddled “John McCain Is Not My Friend” T-shirts and hoodies. McCain lost his soul along with the presidency, so one had reason to hope that candidates would lose the bogus “friend” references this time around. But last week, to the delight of Democrats and comedians throughout the land, Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney managed to mash up “my friend” with an even hoarier sound bite. Picking up on the Supreme Court’s gargantuan gift to Republican candidates in the 2010 Citizens United decision , the Mittster went all Soylent Green on an Iowa heckler, opining , “Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are.” He even out-courted the court, adding, “Human beings, my friend.” While Steven Colbert and the DNC were having their fun, Iowa interloper Sarah Palin — no fan of Romney’s — backed Mitt with this silly-gism . And leave it to Republican senator Rand Paul to ratchet up the crazy by telling Think Progress , “All of us are corporations… everybody who has a 401k has parts of corporations, so in a sense we are.” The Romney/Rand reasoning means personhood would accrue not only to corporations but also to armies, baseball teams and dinner parties. (To be consistent, Paul would have to concede that 401K-deprived humans don’t pass muster.) Further, corporate mergers would be the equivalent of marriages, and Republicans would push for a Constitutional Amendment to codify once and for all that these transactions are legal only when one male corporation merges with one female. Joking aside, the impersonal (McCainish) and sarcastic (Romneyesque) appropriation of “friend” and the equivalence of “corporations” and “people” reflect the increasingly money-driven, technological dehumanization of what passes for American democracy in 2011. It’s been widely observed that the most depressing moment in last week’s Republican debate arrived when all the candidates — having signed Grover Norquist’s absurd “Not a penny of tax increases even if the world is coming to an end” pledge — simultaneously raised their hands to indicate that they would reject a deficit reduction plan even if it had a 10 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. As Kurt Anderson observed in a New York Times op-ed , “What these pledges do is make the robotic quality of politicians more transparent and explicit by installing in each one a few crude lines of code that can’t be overridden or rewritten.” This hair-raising hand-raiser hearkened back to a 2008 debate, when three Republican candidates — Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo — revealed that they didn’t believe in evolution. This, finally, was a bridge too far even for mavericky McCain, who haltingly supported Darwin’s theory. The fact that all the Republican candidates agreed this time in support of an equally absurd proposition indicates how far (right) the GOP has come. The only thing more degrading would be to associate those who support a robust public-sector with slavery. And Right on cue comes Rick Perry, the newest Republican superhero, capable of going toe-to-loony-toe with Michele Bachmann in linking government to slavery as spookily as Dick Cheney linked 9/11and Saddam Hussein. Perry made the connection this way to a TV host, “We’re going through [these] difficult economic times for a purpose, to bring us back to those Biblical principles of, you know, you don’t spend all the money. Not asking for Pharaoh to give everything to everybody and to take care of folks because at the end of the day, it’s slavery. We become slaves to government.” How many Republican candidates will salute at the next debate if someone asks, “Is everyone to the left of Rand Paul the moral equivalent of a slaveholder?”

Read the full article →

Worst Stock Market Crashes Since The Great Depression

August 14, 2011

When 24/7 Wall St. compared each period of market downturn with national unemployment, gross domestic product and the consumer price index, we indeed found that seven of the eight largest bear markets matched the start of recessions, periods of high unemployment, or sharp inflation.

Read the full article →

Obama Sets Sights On Rural America To Talk Jobs

August 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — Trading Washington’s hot house for states critical to his re-election prospects, President Barack Obama is headed to the Midwest after a summer of discontent over a protracted debt showdown with Republicans and the downgrade in the nation’s credit rating. Obama’s bus tour, his first as president, begins Monday and will take him to prairie communities in Minnesota and through Iowa and Illinois, with stops in the farmland and rural towns that launched his first White House bid. The former Illinois senator is expected to tell audiences that he agrees with their frustrations about a dysfunctional federal government. “What we’ve seen in Washington the last few months has been the worst kind of partisanship, the worst kind of gridlock – and that gridlock has undermined public confidence and impeded our efforts to take the steps we need for our economy,” Obama said Thursday in Michigan. “It’s made things worse instead of better.” Obama won a clean sweep in 2008 of Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan, a region that has supported Democratic presidential candidates since 2000, except for President George W. Bush’s narrow victory in Iowa in 2004. But Obama’s standing in these states, like elsewhere, has grown precarious as the economy has slumped. Republican governors are now in charge in three of those five states and Obama’s approval rating, as measured by Gallup, is hovering around 50 percent in most of the region. “We got a president who got a decrease in the credit rating of our nation, and that’s because our president simply doesn’t understand how to lead and how to grow an economy,” Republican hopeful Mitt Romney said in Thursday’s Iowa debate. Romney and his GOP rivals blamed Obama for the growth of the federal deficit and the credit downgrade by Standard and Poor’s, the first in the nation’s history. The GOP race intensified with Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s entry Saturday. When Obama arrives at a town hall meeting in Decorah, Iowa, on Monday afternoon, Perry intends to meet with voters in eastern Iowa, about 100 miles away. Nationally, Obama’s approval rating is comparable to President Ronald Reagan’s ratings in August 1983. But recent Gallup polls found that Obama’s approval rating was hovering between 44 percent and 49 percent in 10 states closely watched by his political advisers. Those states include Iowa, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida. Obama’s standing with independents, who helped him win in traditionally Republican states such as Indiana and North Carolina, has fallen, too. “The country is in an unbelievably angry mood,” said Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Most presidents like to get away from the nations’ capital, and this excursion couldn’t come at a better time. As a candidate, Obama said he would tame Washington’s gridlock. Yet it was political paralysis that scuttled his quest for a “grand bargain” with congressional Republicans on increasing the country’s borrowing limit and forced him to agree to smaller spending cuts without higher taxes on the rich, as he demanded. Days later, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S. credit rating and stocks on Wall Street plummeted, undermining confidence in an economic turnaround. The Federal Reserve said Tuesday that economic growth had been “considerably slower” than expected this year and outlined a glum forecast. Obama will have a tough sales job on the road. Unemployment is high, foreclosures are rampant and Wall Street is jittery. While considered official White House travel, the bus tour will put Obama in campaign-like settings with small-business owners and workers in rural areas. If 2008 was about hope and change, 2012 may be about hard-knuckle politics. Behind the scenes, Obama advisers are planning to draw sharp contrasts with some of the leading Republicans. Yet Obama also finds himself under pressure from the left to generate jobs and raise taxes on the wealthy. Most Democrats, said MoveOn.org’s Justin Ruben, “have not been offering a clear prescription for actually getting the economy moving.” Obama told workers in Michigan that he plans to roll out more economic plans “that will help businesses hire and put people back to work.” That’s an approach Democrats hope will set the tone for next year’s election in the Midwest and beyond. ___

Read the full article →

House Dems Accuse Issa Of Shilling For ‘Corporate Interests’ With NLRB Subpoena

August 12, 2011

This item has been updated with comment from Issa’s office. House Democrats accused Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) on Friday of overstepping his bounds in subpoenaing documents from the quasi-independent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), as well as going to bat for “corporate interests” in his role as House oversight chairman. On Sunday, Issa’s office issued a subpoena to the labor board seeking documents relating to a highly publicized complaint issued against the Boeing Company by the agency’s acting general counsel earlier this year. The complaint has put the future of a Boeing plant in South Carolina into limbo, and Republicans have repeatedly seized on it to attack the labor board and President Obama as anti-business job killers. In a letter to Issa’s office, Democratic Reps. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), George Miller (Cal.), and John Conyers, Jr. (Mich.) urged Issa to drop the subpoena, accusing him of merely carrying out the wishes of Boeing in his fight with the labor board. “You may personally disagree with the laws Congress enacted to protect workers against discrimination,” the Democrats wrote. “You may also disagree with the judge’s decision in this case upholding those laws. But it is not a legitimate use of the Committee’s authority to circumvent those laws on behalf of corporate interests.” In response to the Democrats’ letter, Issa spokesman Jeffrey Solsby said in an email, “The committee has issued a lawful subpoena and it expects NLRB to comply.” In its original complaint, the board’s general counsel accused Boeing of breaking labor law when it established a production line for its 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina. The complaint alleged that the move was retaliation against unionized workers in Washington state for having gone on strike in the past. If the parties cannot settle and the board sees merit in the complaint, it’s possible the Boeing production line will be moved to Washington. Labor advocates and many Democrats have praised the agency for issuing the complaint, while Republicans — particularly in the South — have called it an attack on right-to-work states, where unions have a weaker presence. Although the complaint delves into the minutiae of labor law, it has blown up into a much broader argument about workers’ rights and the federal government’s role in protecting and interpreting them. The labor board has clearly pivoted away from a more laissez-faire attitude under the Bush administration, and Republicans and business interests like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have pounced on its actions and rulings in recent months, accusing it of catering to unions and workers at the expense of corporations like Boeing. Issa issued the subpoena after the NLRB declined to turn over internal documents relating to its Boeing deliberations, which Issa requested back in May. Democrats have called the subpoena an “overreach” that meddles in a quasi-judicial, independent process. “We are aware of no precedent for your actions, and we are particularly concerned that they are taking us down a dangerous path of interfering directly with the decisions of prosecutors and even of judges who are charged with carrying out the laws Congress enacted,” Democrats wrote in Friday’s letter.

Read the full article →

Ken Allen: Say ‘Corporatization,’ Not ‘Privatization’

August 11, 2011

We should retire the word “privatization” in favor of its Big Brother, “corporatization.” “Privatization” can sound pretty good to conservative ears. To them, it means getting things out of government hands, away from the control (and assumed mismanagement and inefficiency) of bureaucrats. In the best case, the market will work its magic, efficiency will go up and costs will go down. Rewards will go to individuals. The role of the individual will be enhanced, and the control of “faceless government bureaucrats” over individuals’ lives will be reduced. Application of the word “privatization,” however, is almost always a misuse of the English language, albeit one that has become so common that it falls automatically off the tongue and flows unchecked past the ear. In fact, what happens in what we inaccurately call “privatization” usually has little or nothing to do with private individuals. Common usage is to say that functions are moved to the “private sector,” but they are almost invariably taken over by corporations. It is not truly a “private sector” to which they are moved, but the corporate sector. The functions are corporatized, not privatized. The distinction is important. Disagreements about the utility of “privatization” animate many controversies in our society, but corporatization and its accompaniment, corporatism (an excess of corporate influence on governments), should be widely recognized as one of the great dangers of our era. When they are properly understood, a wide array of interests, from progressives to Tea Partiers, may agree upon the need to limit corporatization and corporatism. Tea Partiers draw their very name from a revolt against a cozy arrangement between Britain, the most dominant government of the day, and a massive, powerful, global corporation, the East India Company. British law granted the East India Corporation tax advantages oppressive to colonial society and helped fuel the American Revolution. Progressives, on the other hand, need to recognize that it will be virtually impossible to make meaningful progress on most issues important to them, even existential ones, without weakening corporatism Human beings, whom we only seem to be talking about when we say something is “privatized,” have complex moralities and emotions with which we can empathize. No one, however, can empathize with a corporation, which is not a human being (even if it is legally treated as a “person”), cannot have emotions, and has only a very simple ethic calculated to maximize profit. The simplicity of that ethic makes corporations into shallow and unreliable tools, and sometimes treacherous masters, of representative democracy. Our language should reflect what we are actually doing when we turn our government over to them. The first purpose and motive force of the publicly traded corporation is profit. If a corporation is to take over some function of government, the function must, directly or indirectly, contribute to profit. The way in which the function is performed will tend to be that which maximizes profit. The individuals who do the work required by the function are still bureaucrats. They are just corporate bureaucrats instead of government bureaucrats. Functions may be performed more “efficiently,” but that usually means little more than that the individuals who directly perform them will receive lower pay and fewer benefits. Corporate managers, in contrast, will typically receive much higher compensation than is available for managers in the public sector. In today’s society, that usually means less money goes to middle- and working-class people and more goes to corporations and corporate elites. When that happens, inequality increases, and a sufficient degree of inequality of income and wealth threatens the survival of the American experiment. On some occasions, the cost to a government of a corporatized function may be less than when the function was performed directly by the government, but the total cost to most taxpayers (who are also consumers) can at the same time be more, because the corporation must drain off money to make its profit and pay high executive salaries. The quality of the work will be that which produces the most profit, constrained primarily by whatever regulation is put in place by governments, not so laudably relieving themselves of responsibility for direct performance of the corporatized function and the of blame for it. Thus, corporatizing typically reduces the accountability of governments and, paradoxically enough, requires greater regulation, exercised through contracts and regulatory agencies. There are clearly functions that are effectively and preferably carried out by corporations, but there are others that corporations carry out only poorly, so corporatizing indiscriminately can lead to great ineffectiveness and inefficiency from a society-wide perspective. There is a peculiarity of the English language that helps lead to approval of corporatization disguised as privatization. It is a great mistake to believe or to wallow in rhetoric that implies that only the entities we call “governments” govern. We are governed by all those things that restrict and channel our action. That includes things as diverse as family and friends, cultural norms, beliefs and religion, and, with ever-increasing prominence and intrusiveness, corporations. Most insidiously, corporations increasingly control our economies and the entities we call governments, thus governing us indirectly when they are not governing us directly. What Tea Partiers are revolting against is not just “government” but corporately controlled government — what we may call corporatism. Unfortunately, because most Tea Partiers (like most individuals generally) don’t recognize the nature or character of the controls operative upon them, what their flailing about frequently attains is not decreased governance but increased direct corporate governance, accompanied by increased corporate dominance of governments. Whereas the effects on the populace of corporate control of a government (exercised for the purpose of attaining profit) may be mitigated to some extent even by a government highly subservient to such control, direct corporate control is subject to no such humanizing mediation. The most frightening and destructive circumstances of all arise, however, when corporate power can be magnified by corporate recruitment of the coercive power of governments — when corporations can preempt that monopoly on the legitimate use of force that Max Weber once told us was the preserve of viable governments. Progressives are subject to their own illusions — distinctly different illusions. In their recognition of the need for government action to alleviate social and economic inequities and dysfunctionalities, they too often excuse or are blind to the existence of corporatism or to violations of economic rationality, individual rights and human needs that corporatism promulgates. If corporatism is to be defeated, a wide array of interests in our society, from progressives to Tea Partiers, despite serious disagreements about many things, must find common ground to work together against it. Policy proposals must be examined anew to discover whether they further a corporatist agenda. Corporatist politicians, whether they present themselves as liberals or conservatives, must be exposed and defeated. The dysfunctionality widely lamented in American government today is a symptom of political decay — the decreasing ability of American governments to cope with problems in today’s political, cultural, technological and physical environments. We must arrest that decay, but the first step to arresting it is to understand it. The terminology we have used in our past political conflicts can impede our understanding. Corporatization is only one element, although an important element, of the decay, but for decades, in the name of “privatization,” we have been removing impediments not to the exercise of individual free will, but to corporate control. If we can correct our misleading use of the language, it will go part of the way toward uniting us in pursuit of the immense and difficult tasks before us.

Read the full article →

Apple And America’s Other Most Valuable Companies

August 10, 2011

From 24/7 Wall St. : Apple became the most valuable company in America yesterday when its market cap passed Exxon Mobil’s. The move draws attention to what market capitalization means, and why it is important. The total value of a company is driven by market forces as investors fight over the value of a company’s assets, earnings, and future business prospects. The market cap of each company is skewed by how quickly the stock trades and within what range. At any time, one of the companies on this list could pass another if a stock moves enough. The list, therefore, is hardly permanent Read The Ten Most Valuable Companies In America 24/7 Wall St. assembled a list of the ten most valuable companies in the U.S. We asked why they are on the list and whether their overall direction is up or down. Here are the top ten most valuable companies in America according to 24/7 Wall St :

Read the full article →

GOP Senator: ‘I’m Embarrassed By All Of Us… I’ve Never Seen A Worse Congress’

August 10, 2011

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) talked to people in Saco, Maine about the debt ceiling negotiations Wednesday, and lamented the extreme partisanship that characterized the debate this summer. “I’m embarrassed by all of us,’’ Snow said , according to the Associated Press. “I’ve never seen a worse Congress in my whole political life.’’ Polls conducted after the debt ceiling deal have showed that Americans hold an increasingly negative view of Congress . A New York Times /CBS News poll last week showed Congress’ approval rating falling to 14 percent, with a record 82 percent of Americans disapproving of the way Congress is handling its job — the most since the Times first began asking the question in 1977. A CNN poll this week showed, for the first time in its history, that most Americans think their own representatives do not deserve reelection . Snowe, who served as Maine’s congresswoman from 1979 to 1995 and has been a senator ever since, is being targeted by the Tea Party for voting in favor of the debt ceiling deal despite that fact that it did not include a balanced budget amendment. “Just 25 days ago, Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe told us she would vote for a debt plan with a balanced budget amendment,” Scott D’Amboise, a conservative Republican who is challenging Snowe for her Senate seat, wrote in the fundraising letter just hours after the debt ceiling vote. “However, today Snowe betrayed us by voting with the Democrats for a debt deal that gives President Obama a blank check in exchange for only token spending cuts and no promise for a balanced budget amendment.”

Read the full article →

Jeff Reeves: Don’t Panic: The U.S. Credit Downgrade Changes Nothing

August 7, 2011

After the S&P downgrade of U.S. debt, America now carries a rating of AA-plus instead of the coveted AAA rating on its Treasury bonds. Austria, Norway, Germany and Australia are no longer our peers ratings-wise — we are, instead, in the company of Japan, China, Spain, Taiwan and Slovenia. Market watchers have suspected a downgrade was in the works for a while. Not to toot my own horn, but last week in my column about 5 ugly truths about the debt ceiling , one of my takeaways from the deal was that a credit downgrade was in the works regardless of the fact we avoided default. Looks like my prediction, and the prediction of other financial journalists who made the same call of a credit downgrade, didn’t take long to come true. But now that the inevitable has happened, what does it mean for the market and for regular Americans with 401ks and IRAs? Interestingly enough, not much. Washington is still useless. The stock market will continue the correction that began two weeks ago. And Treasury bonds, strangely enough, will remain a safe haven for investors. Why This Doesn’t Change the Narrative in Washington S&P ain’t breaking any news here. Its reasons for the downgrade include “political brinkmanship” in Washington. “America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective and less predictable than we previously believed,” said S&P. It went on to say $2.1 trillion in cuts “fell short” of the needed reforms. Shocking revelations, I know. While the downgrade is not to be taken lightly, it’s just a confirmation of spending problems that have been slowly eating away at the creditworthiness of America for some time. And for those of you who think this will shake our fat cat legislators by the lapels and wake them up… well, just look at the quotes that emerged over the weekend. Predictably, the GOP blames the Obama administration for the downgrade — with Sen. Jim DeMint even calling for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s resignation . The Democrats are pointing fingers, too, with those pesky Tea Party extremists to blame for everything. Sorry America, but the downgrade is just the latest development in this asinine game of chicken that Congress is playing to decide the White House in 2012. Why This Doesn’t Change the Stock Market Outlook And that outlook, in case you’ve been living under a rock, is ugly . The state of the stock market was already grim last week before the U.S. credit downgrade – and got worse after Thursday’s gut-wrenching slide that marked the worst decline since 2008. All told, we have endured an 11% rollback in the S&P across the last 11 trading days as investors headed for the hills. So the biggest question isn’t how much the S&P downgrade is going to affect the stock market on Monday, but how many dominoes will continue to fall as part of the broader crisis of confidence. The downgrade surely won’t help — but it’s just one more log thrown on the fire that is already burning pretty darn hot. Why This Doesn’t Change the “Safe Haven” Status of Treasury Bonds The U.S. credit downgrade shouldn’t have much of an impact on the perceived security Treasury bonds provide. Why? Well, consider the alternatives out there right now. Stocks? CDs that barely keep pace with the rate of inflation? Corporate bonds or muni bonds that rank even more poorly than the “AA plus” ranking Standard & Poor’s now applies to Treasuries? Not likely alternatives, any of these. Investors haven’t stopped buying T-Notes lately, and shouldn’t on Monday morning. Just take a look at Friday’s news that the 10-year Treasury yield dropped by the largest amount in one week since 2009 . In the last month alone, yields on the 10-year T-Note has plummeted from 3.2% to a bit over 2.3%. Those aren’t exactly junk bond rates. If folks were shunning Treasuries than the government would have to entice investors with bigger yields to offset the perception of bigger risks. Yes, the downgrade means that T-Notes are riskier than they were before. But relatively, they are a much safer bet in the minds of many investors considering this difficult economic environment. Of course, there’s always Canada to invest in … or move to. Jeff Reeves is the editor of InvestorPlace.com.Write him at editor@investorplace.com.

Read the full article →

Peter S. Goodman: No Change In Jobs Report Equals Bad News

August 5, 2011

The latest jobs report changes nothing. We had no engine of economic growth when we all woke up on Friday morning, and we still don’t have one. We have no operative plan to fix what ails us. We are in a bad place and sliding toward a worse one. The Republicans are banking on continuing economic disaster as their pathway back to the White House, sabotaging any and all efforts to address the decline. The Obama administration is so beaten up and despondent that it has apparently convinced itself that the Oval Office confers no authority to address the unraveling of American middle class opportunity. A modest nudge downward in the unemployment rate, from 9.2 percent to 9.1 percent, changes this narrative not one bit. Indeed, it stands as testament to the dismay that has characterized thinking about the economy in recent weeks that a jobs report that presents little change in any key area managed to register as good news on Friday, sending investors into paroxysms of buying. Before the Labor Department released its snapshot of the job market , the rest of the week had been unsettling to say the least. A slew of lousy data — a pullback on the factory floor , still-elevated new claims for unemployment benefits, and a fresh decline in consumer spending — had combined to bring a chorus of worrying about a double-dip recession . (In many cases, the worriers are the same people who were talking about vigorous recovery back in early 2010.) Meanwhile, the rest of the planet was looking weak, too. In Europe, for example, officials have been publicly fretting that Greece will still be unable to pay its debts, even with a second bailout. Spain and Italy could be next in line for rescues . All of this bad sentiment crystallized on Thursday to produce a global sell-off in stocks. But in the schizophrenic view of the trader, Friday’s jobs report fixed everything all up. The report that showed 117,000 net jobs added to the economy in July, not even enough to absorb new entrants to the workforce. Not that we needed it, but here was another sign of the yawning gap separating the people who manage money from the people who actually work for it, depending on paychecks to pay their bills. The comfort in the markets came courtesy of a jobs report that repeated the words “little changed” with great frequency. It is worth noting some of the things that stayed essentially the same: 13.9 million people are still officially unemployed, and 44 percent of them — more than six million — have been out of work for six months or longer. This at a time when 30 states are borrowing money from the federal government to keep paying regular unemployment benefits , and six states — Michigan, Florida, Illinois, South Carolina, Arkansas and Missouri — have rolled back the duration of unemployment checks. Also pretty much unchanged: The number of people who are working part-time because they can’t find full-time work, or because their hours have been cut, a group that numbered 8.4 million in July, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Ditto the rate of unemployment among African Americans, at 15.9 percent; among Hispanics, at 11.3 percent; and among teenagers, at 25 percent. So the report was terrific news in the same way that we might celebrate when a very sick patient ignored by their doctor and showing no sign of improvement manages to get through the night without contracting anything worse. The simple fact is that the economy is broken down. We used to be able to separate consumers — whose spending amounts to 70 percent of the economy — from workers. Even as wages stagnated for the vast majority of working people over the last quarter-century, Wall Street came up with gimmicks to get around this as a constraint on spending. We feasted on stock bubbles fueled by companies with no products but great stories that seemed to justify otherwise insane valuations. We enjoyed a real estate bubble boosted by exotic mortgages that allowed homeowners to turn extra value into cash. But today consumers and workers are pretty much the same people, and at the moment that means declining fortunes for most Americans. The only way to change that is to change the thing that didn’t change on Friday: the fact that huge numbers of people are unemployed or anxious about joining those ranks, while our leaders are doing little to nothing about it.

Read the full article →

Paul Krugman: Economy Was Never ‘On The Road To Recovery’

August 5, 2011

In case you had any doubts, Thursday’s more than 500-point plunge in the Dow Jones industrial average and the drop in interest rates to near-record lows confirmed it: The economy isn’t recovering, and Washington has been worrying about the wrong things.

Read the full article →

Patrick Sharma: Can We Focus on Unemployment Now?

August 4, 2011

Although the debt ceiling imbroglio is finally behind us, hard times are ahead. Having avoided a potentially catastrophic default on the national debt, Washington has set the economy up for a painful few years, and without a major change of course, we can expect to see higher unemployment and slower growth in the near future. In recent days we have seen a lot of talk about the group of 12 legislators who will be charged with coming up with at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the coming decade, as well as the automatic triggers that will ensue if Congress fails to heed the recommendations of this “super committee” when it reports in the fall. But the most important part of the debt ceiling bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday, Aug. 2 is its plan for $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. While many of these cuts won’t go into effect until after a new Congress is elected in 2012 (and, as such, might never come to pass), a significant portion are scheduled to take place within the next year and a half. This is a major problem, because austerity measures have the potential to throw the economy back into recession. As we learned during the Great Depression, cutting government spending in the midst of a downturn lowers aggregate demand and keeps businesses from expanding. This, in turn, depresses the economy and increases deficits in the long run. If this were not enough, it appears that many of the proposed cuts will come from Medicaid and education aid to the states . Combined with the fact that the bill fails to extend unemployment insurance or provide other forms of assistance for the growing number of jobless Americans, the debt ceiling “solution” will harm the most vulnerable members of society. And who’s to say we won’t see similar stunts over the coming years? Watching Republicans use an obscure legislative procedure to extract radical policy concessions will likely lead to more economic hostage-taking in the future. Unemployed Americans and our democratic system of government might not be the only victims of the debt ceiling debacle. Although the final bill was drastically skewed in Republicans’ favor, President Obama is poised to take the lion’s share of the blame. For better or worse, presidents are usually held responsible when the economy heads south, and with projections of high unemployment lasting through next year’s election, the White House is going to have a tough time convincing the electorate that they deserve another four years. Yet all is not lost. The silver lining to the debt ceiling resolution is that Washington can finally turn its attention to the major issue of the day: jobs. As Republicans in Congress continue to work themselves into a frenzy over spending cuts — witness their ongoing efforts to shut down the Federal Aviation Administration — President Obama and others interested in solving the nation’s main economic problem can take a number of steps to get Americans back to work. Here are three: 1. Speed Up The Stimulus Currently, a little over $100 billion from the 2009 stimulus bill has not been spent . Although many of these funds have been allocated to agencies and will be disbursed over the coming months, a good portion remains tied up by regulations. In California, for instance, over $300 million of stimulus funds for weatherizing homes and financing clean energy businesses have gone unspent because of federal regulatory delays. The lag time in getting projects off the ground has been one of the major drawbacks of the stimulus, and federal agencies should grant the states waivers to speed disbursement of funds before conservatives in Congress try to withdraw unspent money. 2. Loosen Monetary Policy With spending on the chopping block, the government’s main economic tool is monetary policy. The Federal Reserve has already taken a number of steps to increase the flow of money in the economy, but it could do more. As Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke stated in congressional testimony last month, by committing itself to keeping interest rates low and maintaining its large holdings of private assets (“quantitative easing”) for a specific period of time, the Fed could make credit more available throughout the economy. Eliminating the interest rate that banks get for keeping their excess reserves at the Fed would also encourage more lending. And, while it might trigger inflation, the Fed could pump more money into the economy by undertaking another large round of Treasury bond purchases. 3. Move Money Around In an age of austerity, the federal government must focus on getting the most bang for its buck. One way to do so would be to expand loan guarantee programs. As Bill Clinton recently argued , excess TARP reserves could be used to guarantee private loans for small businesses that have struggled to obtain credit since the financial crisis. Under such a scheme $15 billion of federal funding could lead to $150 billion in new loans. Such measures will require the resourceful thinking and political courage that have gotten the country through previous hard times. To be sure, these qualities have been in short supply of late. But if the president wants to avoid joining his fellow Americans in the unemployment line, he needs to abandon his penchant for bipartisan compromise and work with those who are interested in improving the economy to find creative solutions to the jobs crisis.

Read the full article →

Dow Jones Barely Avoids Longest Losing Streak Since The 1970s

August 3, 2011

NEW YORK — Stock indexes came back from deep losses in the morning and ended Wednesday with small gains. The Dow Jones industrial average avoided its longest losing streak since Jimmy Carter was president. The Dow rose 30 points – after being down 166 – to break an eight-day losing streak. Nine days would have been the longest since February 1978. The S&P 500 index rose 6 points and broke a seven-day streak. Markets have fallen recently because investors are becoming increasingly worried about the U.S. economy. Shortly after the market opened, the Institute of Supply Management said its index measuring the service sector of the U.S. economy grew in July at the weakest pace in 17 months. Economists had expected a slight increase. The report was the latest sign over the last week that the economy may be slowing. Consumer cut their spending in June for the first time in nearly two years; manufacturing slowed, and the government said that in the first half of the year the economy grew at its slowest pace since the recession ended in June 2009. “There has been too much at the same time for investors to hang in there and you’re starting to see some element of panic finally showing up,” said Andrew Goldberg, U.S. market strategist at JP Morgan Funds. The Dow, the Standard & Poor’s 500 index and Nasdaq were down more than 1 percent earlier in the day, but edged higher throughout the afternoon. The Dow Jones industrial average finished with a gain of 0.3 percent, to 11,896.44. The S&P 500 index rose 6.29, or 0.5 percent, to 1,260.34. The S&P had been down for seven straight days through Tuesday. It is up 0.2 percent for the year after being down 0.3 for the year on Tuesday. The Nasdaq composite added 23.83, or 0.9 percent, to 2,693.07. The broad S&P 500 index_ the index followed by most professional money managers and U.S. mutual funds – rose after it hit a low for the year of 1,234. Some investors saw it as an opportunity to buy the S&P 500 index. As a whole, companies in the index are expected to have record profits this year. Some of those gains might also be due to automatic buying triggered when an index reaches a certain level. Many traders use computer programs that buy or sell stocks once they break through their long-term averages. “It seems like the early money was based on fear and the market climbed back as computer-program trading took over,” said Mark Lamkin, the head of Lamkin Wealth Management in Louisville, Kentucky. Lamkin said the stock market was in a “tug of war” between strong corporate earnings and a “horrible economic backdrop.” Coca-Cola led the Dow average higher with a gain of nearly 2 percent. Companies that depend most on an expanding economy in order to make profits had the steepest losses. Caterpillar Inc. fell 0.9 percent, the most of the 30 stocks in the Dow average, followed closely by Chevron Corp. and Boeing. Along with the concerns about the U.S. economy, investors were also unnerved by a surge in bond yields to 14-year highs for Italy and Spain. High bond yields typically indicate that investors believe there is a greater chance that a country or corporation will be unable to make interest payments. “We’ve been so focused inwardly because of the debt ceiling debate that we’ve ignored Europe over the last couple of weeks,” said J.J. Kinahan, chief options strategist at T.D. Ameritrade. “We have problems, but if Italy falls the euro zone doesn’t look sustainable.” Italy and Spain are the third and fourth largest economies in Europe, respectively. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to another low for the year of 2.56 percent, from 2.62 percent Tuesday, as investors moved money into assets that hold up better during economic downturns. Gold, another traditional safe haven, rose 1 percent to $1,666 an ounce. Several large U.S. companies reported earnings before the market opened. MasterCard rose nearly 14 percent after the company beat analysts’ estimates. Clorox fell 2 percent after the company said higher commodity costs were eating into its income. And CBS gained 1.6 percent after it said a deal with Netflix Inc. had lifted profits. Payroll processor ADP said private companies added 114,000 jobs last month. The number was within Wall Street’s forecasts, but still well below the rate of growth that signifies a healthy jobs market. ADP’s employment figures do not always predict the government’s broader employment report, which will be released Friday morning. Last month, for example, ADP reported that private employers added 157,000 jobs in June. The government later said that private companies added just 57,000 jobs. Economists expect that 90,000 were created in the U.S. last month. That’s fewer than the 125,000 jobs per month that are needed just to keep up with population growth. At least 250,000 jobs need to be created every month to substantially bring down the unemployment rate. Analysts predict that the unemployment rate was 9.2 percent in July, unchanged from the month before.

Read the full article →

Congress Leave Aviation Workers Without Paychecks

August 2, 2011

WASHINGTON — The failure of Congress to authorize a budget for the Federal Aviation Administration has put some 4,000 agency employees and tens of thousands of contractors temporarily out of work . But even some FAA workers who haven’t been furloughed find themselves in a peculiar financial jam. Roughly 40 FAA inspectors have been asked to continue working despite the stoppage because their jobs are important for air safety. Yet since Congress hasn’t allocated money to the agency, these employees have to cover their own travel expenses until the shutdown is resolved. Although their wages and expenses will eventually be recouped, these workers will end up covering work-related credit charges — and possibly interest — until funding is freed up. The inspectors are among the thousands who will suffer the real consequences of congressional deadlock. “It’s incredibly unfair,” FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. “We can neither pay them nor compensate them” for their expenses until the shutdown ends. Babbitt and transportation secretary Ray LaHood had urged the Senate to pass a bill Tuesday before the chamber breaks for recess and lawmakers head home, leaving thousands out of a job until September. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) asked her colleagues to pass a House bill without its most controversial elements, but Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) objected to Boxer’s request. Largely lost in the all-consuming debt ceiling debate, the FAA shutdown is now closing in on two weeks. The agency hasn’t had a long-term funding plan since 2007, instead relying on a series of short-term extensions, the last of which expired July 22. House Republicans have left Democrats with few attractive options. The most recent short-term funding bill passed by the House cuts money for rural airports, including several that lie in states with Democratic senators . Meanwhile, the long-term funding bill passed by the House would make it harder for air and rail workers to unionize, a provision that could infuriate the labor community. With the process stalled, Democrats fumed over what they described as a shotgun approach to negotiating by Republicans. “The House Republicans’ insistence on attaching anti-worker provisions to an aviation bill has brought about a terrible stalemate that is hurting the economy,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said in a statement. “From day 1, House GOP leaders admitted openly — almost proudly — that they were doing this to gain ‘leverage’ toward a larger goal — undermining worker rights.” House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the FAA standoff is just the latest example of how House Republicans have put politics ahead of good faith efforts to pass legislation. “They were clearly prepared to let America default for the first time in history on its debts unless they got their way,” Hoyer said. And now, “They were prepared to leave Washington … with almost 4,000 federal employees out on the street.” As a result, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was “confronted with a terrible decision” of either passing the GOP bill or not reauthorizing the FAA, Hoyer added. LaHood said he has been in continuing talks with lawmakers and hoped Democrats would “swallow hard” and pass a bill that many of them found distasteful. “The only option that we have is the House bill that a lot of senators don’t like,” LaHood said, arguing that too many jobs were on the line. “We are smack dab in the middle of the construction season. We … have heard many, many grandiose speeches by members of Congress about creating jobs and putting people to work. This is not the way to put people to work.” President Obama called the impasse “another Washington-inflicted wound on America,” and on the Senate floor, Boxer said the Republican maneuvers amounted to “hostage taking.” Although the rural airport service cuts amount to a mere $16.5 million, the stalemate has already cost the federal government more than $250 million in airfare taxes that can’t be collected until legislation is passed. Worse yet, the stoppage has taken paychecks out of the pockets of thousands of public- and private-sector workers who were either furloughed or saw their projects temporarily shuttered. According to the FAA, the lawmakers’ spat has held up $2.5 billion that should be going to airport projects across the country. The trade group Associated General Contractors of America estimates that the stoppage has affected 70,000 workers, many of whom have been told to go home until the FAA money comes through and the stop-work orders are lifted. Most FAA employees have not been furloughed, since some workers’ funding is secure regardless of the reauthorization bill. But other workers aren’t so fortunate, like Michael Weatherby, a computer specialist who was furloughed 11 days ago. Weatherby, who normally works at the William J. Hughes Technical Center at Atlantic City International Airport in New Jersey, said the irony isn’t lost on him that congressional leaders might take flights home for recess without passing an FAA bill. “All I hear is jobs, jobs, jobs out of Washington, and here they are to put us out of work,” said Weatherby, who works on cybersecurity issues. Weatherby, 43, said the furlough has put serious financial strains on his family. Although his wife continues to work her job with Atlantic County, the two have to support not only themselves but her elderly parents as well. Weatherby said he’s already started dipping into his savings and doesn’t know how long it will last. His colleagues have started using their vacation time and have been told they should start applying for unemployment. “It’s getting desperate at this point,” he said. “The senselessness of all this is amazing.” Jennifer Bendery and Michael McAuliff contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

HuffPost TV: WATCH: Arianna Discusses The Debt Ceiling Deal With Piers Morgan

August 2, 2011

Arianna appeared Monday on CNN ‘s ‘Piers Morgan Tonight’ to discuss the recent deal to increase the nation’s debt ceiling. “Here we have a major crisis in this country, we have a growth crisis, which means a jobs crisis and a debt crisis. We do not have a debt ceiling crisis, that was a completely manufactured crisis that we spent an enormous amount of time and energy trying to resolve,” explained Arianna. The larger problem, Arianna said, is that “there are an enormous amount of people in this country, Democrats and Republicans, who don’t think that this deal is making the economy better.” WATCH ( via CNN ):

Read the full article →

Keli Goff: Can Your Congressman Balance a Checkbook? (No Seriously, You Should Ask)

August 2, 2011

I’ve often joked that people end up in politics or media because they can’t do math (yours truly included), but at the moment my joke is not looking like such a laughing matter. Though much of the coverage of the debt-ceiling debacle has focused on the political divisions it has reinforced, there appears to be at least one thing that this mess has probably helped Americans agree on: Many of our elected officials know a lot less about finance and economics than those responsible for the financial future of an entire country should. Even more terrifying, many appear to know even less about such matters than we do. (If you have managed to do things like pay your taxes and child support in full and on time, you’re already well ahead of a few of them.) As I noted on The Dylan Ratigan Show , both of the major political parties invest resources training promising candidates on the ins and outs of media interviews, fundraising and general politicking. But instead of investing in these types of classes (and the consultants who teach them), it appears that many of these candidates turned congressmen, would have been better served investing in, and enrolling in freshman level accounting and economics classes. I have previously written about the irony of elected officials with their own financial woes lecturing the rest of us on fiscal responsibility. (Here’s looking at you Rep. Joe “Tea Partier/Deadbeat Dad” Walsh. (Click here to see a list of the most financially challenged members of Congress.) So this latest round of political posturing has got me thinking. Maybe we’ve been asking candidates the wrong questions all of these years. Instead of asking questions like, “Have you ever cheated on your spouse?” or “Have you ever smoked pot?” how about asking “Have you ever bounced a check?” And instead of just having litmus tests for specific issues like gun control, maybe the time has come for us to administer more practical, real world tests to candidates seeking political office to gauge their knowledge of real world financial issues. I’m not joking. Maybe the test could be administered with a timer during a televised debate, perhaps providing us with some quality reality TV for a change. So what would such a test consist of? Well below are a few suggestions that could possibly help us establish whether or not a candidate for office is qualified to have any say on our financial matters, or at the very least whether or not they are smarter than a fifth grader. (Feel free to add your own additions in the comments section below.) Candidate Money Matters Pop Quiz Using only your current credit card balance, monthly minimum payment, and interest rate as a reference, please calculate exactly how long it will take you to pay off your current balance. (No cheating by glancing at your statement or calling a credit card customer service rep.) When was the last time you balanced your checkbook? How often do you do so? (Bonus points: An imaginary checkbook will be provided. You will be asked to balance it in the time allotted.) The median American income is 45,000. Pretend that you are not a six figure earning elected official or elected official-to-be. But instead pretend that you are earning a 45,000 base salary, like one of “average” Americans you are seeking to represent. How much do you need to set aside each month to have an adequate three-month emergency fund? How much does it cost to raise an American child from birth to adulthood? (Bonus points: Approximately how much do you need to set aside specifically for higher education for one American child?) Without using any sort of reference for assistance (such as google or a campaign aide), please define what a FAFSA form is. (If your first response is “What’s a FAFSA form?” Please put your pencil down and turn in this test. You are disqualified from seeking federal office. Or at least you should be.) What is the current value of the U.S. dollar compared to Euros? What am I missing? What financial questions do you think elected officials should prove themselves capable of answering before posturing that they know more about fiscal matters than the rest of us? Please share your thoughts. Keli Goff is the author of The GQ Candidate and a Contributing Editor for TheLoop21.com, where this piece was originally published. www.keligoff.com

Read the full article →

Gabrielle Giffords Returns To Congress To Vote On Debt Ceiling Deal

August 2, 2011

WASHINGTON — Seven months after she was shot in the head by a gunman in Tucson, Ariz., Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) made a surprise and emotional return to the House floor on Monday, casting a vote in favor of a bill to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. Giffords entered the chamber to sustained, standing applause, shaking hands with colleagues whom she had not seen since that January day. Her vote, a sideshow to the far more important and compelling personal drama, was in favor of the bill, which passed through the chamber by a margin of 269 to 161. “I have closely followed the debate over our debt ceiling and have been deeply disappointed at what’s going on in Washington,” Giffords said, in a statement from her office. “After weeks of failed debate in Washington, I was pleased to see a solution to this crisis emerge. I strongly believe that crossing the aisle for the good of the American people is more important than party politics. I had to be here for this vote. I could not take the chance that my absence could crash our economy.” Giffords’ office tweeted word of her return to Washington after the vote had begun. And as she showed up on the floor — smiling and with her hair cut short — the attention of lawmakers drifted from the vote tally to her presence. Her office, in a statement, noted that in December 2009 and again in February 2010, she had objected to raising the nation’s debt limit. This vote, the statement added, “was substantially different, with the strength of the U.S. economy hanging in the balance.” After the vote was cast, Giffords received multiple additional rounds of applause, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called her “the personification of courage.” “Her presence here in the chamber as well as her service throughout her career in Congress, brings honor to this chamber,” Pelosi said. “Thank you, Gabby.” Pelosi said she knew a Giffords visit “was possible” for a couple of days, but she urged the Arizona Democrat not to come unless she felt up for it. “I did not encourage her to,” Pelosi told reporters. “I told her first things first. But she was very eager to come.” Pelosi said she found out for sure that Giffords was returning from her chief of staff, John Lawrence, who is close with Giffords’ husband Mark Kelly. When she saw Giffords come in, she said no words were exchanged as they greeted each other. Just “girl hugs,” Pelosi said. “Suffice it to say, it was one of the most thrilling moments to see this heroine return home, to the House. And to do so at such a dramatic time.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), one of Giffords’ closest personal friends and one of the people who escorted Giffords into the chamber, said she was beside herself when she heard the House erupt into cheers as Giffords walked in for the first time since the January 8 shooting. “The reaction in the chamber was the most enthusiastic, exuberant, exhilarating — I mean we were all crying — thrilled — you know, we just knew she would make a triumphant return,” Wasserman Schultz said, becoming visibly upset. “It always felt like there were so many doubters and skeptics, but never doubt Gabby Giffords’ determination. This is the first of many votes she’s going to pass.” Wasserman Schultz, who is also the Democratic National Committee chairwoman, said she knew “sometime yesterday” that Giffords’ visit was happening. She said she spoke late last night to Giffords’ husband, Mark Kelly, about the plan. Giffords had been following the debt limit vote from Tucson and “was ready to come and do the pivotal vote if she needed to,” Wasserman Schultz said. “At the end of the day, it was probably the most important vote we’re going to cast this Congress. She wanted to make sure that her constituents were represented.” Vice President Joe Biden came to the Capitol to see Giffords, after being tipped off by Pelosi that she would be in attendance. “I told her she was now a member of the cracked-head club like me, with two craniotomies,” Biden told reporters. “You know what I mean? It was just so good to see her. But that’s a private conversation.” Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) found out about her return about an hour before the vote and helped to escort her into the chamber. Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he found out that Giffords would show for the vote when he saw her, hinting that Pelosi and others in the know played it close to the vest. “I just said, ‘I love you, glad to have you back, great to see you,’” he said. “I only found out when I saw her. [It was] a little emotional.” Below, a picture of the congresswoman on Capitol Hill from HuffPost’s Jen Bendery: Below, two additional photos via C-Span: Video of Giffords’ return: This is a developing story. More details to follow.

Read the full article →

Peter S. Goodman: Fiscal Insanity: Debt Ceiling Deal Trashes the Future

August 1, 2011

Considering the unpalatable choices, the deal to raise the debt ceiling passes for good news, or at least better than the alternative: no deal, a likely downgrade to the nation’s credit-rating, and then the once-unimaginable prospect of an American default that triggers global panic. Yet the deal that staved off this catastrophe is itself a disaster. It comes with some $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade — cuts that will weaken an already feeble economy. The deal is good news only in that we are happy to see that the guy who has been standing on the ledge and threatening to jump has instead gone back inside: He has not plunged to his end, yet the bitter circumstances that put him there have not changed. In our case, stepping back from the ledge entails a cost that will only make our circumstances worse. The unemployment rate reached 9.2 percent in June, and anyone who sees evidence of significant improvement anytime soon is straining to tell a story that involves religious faith in the self-healing properties of markets — the same sort of nonsense that delivered the financial crisis and economic downturn worthy of their collective moniker, the Great Recession. Pulling back on spending relegates the nation to a longer stretch of lean times that will feel most punishing to the people who never even shared in the bounty of the boom times: people who pay their bills not with exotic investment returns but with paychecks; people who sometimes need public assistance for health care, housing or groceries, or an unemployment check while they scramble to get back into the workforce. We are in a moment when the complex academic discipline of economics has become remarkably simple. For a quarter-century, the vast majority of working Americans have seen their wages stagnate while the cost of housing, health care and education have soared. We have contrived various schemes to work around this basic limitation on household finances. In the 1990s, much of the nation feasted on the effects of an unsustainable investment orgy in emerging technology, coupled with financial deregulation that allowed Wall Street to borrow against an infinitely bountiful future. Last decade, we papered over the fact that work did not cover the costs of ordinary life via exotic mortgages that allowed people to turn increased home values into cash. But all good fantasies eventually succumb to reality, and that’s where we are now: in dire need of a real economy, a genuine engine for growth, a plan to generate jobs by the millions. We have none of those things. Now, the ransom paid to the extremists who have hijacked the political process will only make it harder to recover. Washington has squandered the opportunity that came with the pain of the recession, a chance to reorder our priorities and construct a solid future. The Republicans cynically concluded that further damaging the economy would boost their electoral prospects, while President Obama naively assumed that his oratorical gifts could transcend the partisan fratricide that passes for American politics, never mustering a fight for a viable fix. The deal that emerged late Sunday reinforces that reality, eliminating with finality the possibility that our elected leaders might somehow find a way to invest in the future. Instead they have relegated us to more of the same — an unwinding of traditional American economic expectations. This is a disservice to taxpayers and working people. This is a disservice to democracy, the most advanced form of governance known to humanity, now turned into a craven spectacle. We have stepped back from the ledge, averted our gaze from the pavement below, yet find ourselves staring at something hardly more comforting: a bleak future.

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: Random Paid

August 1, 2011

Anyone who characterizes the deal between the president, Democratic, and Republican leaders as a victory for the American people over partisanship understands neither economics nor politics. The deal does not raise taxes on America’s wealthy and most fortunate — who are now taking home a larger share of total income and wealth, and whose tax rates are already lower than they have been in eighty years. Yet it puts the nation’s most important safety nets and public investments on the chopping block. It also hobbles the capacity of the government to respond to the jobs and growth crisis. Added to the cuts already underway by state and local governments, the deal’s spending cuts increase the odds of a double-dip recession. And the deal strengthens the political hand of the radical right. Yes, the deal is preferable to the unfolding economic catastrophe of a default on the debt of the U.S. government. The outrage and the shame is it has come to this choice. More than a year ago, the president could have conditioned his agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond 2010 on Republicans’ agreement not to link a vote on the debt ceiling to the budget deficit. But he did not. Many months ago, when Republicans first demanded spending cuts and no tax increases as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, the president could have blown their cover. He could have shown the American people why this demand had nothing to do with deficit reduction but everything to do with the GOP’s ideological fixation on shrinking the size of the government — thereby imperiling Medicare, Social Security, education, infrastructure, and everything else Americans depend on. But he did not. And through it all the president could have explained to Americans that the biggest economic challenge we face is restoring jobs and wages and economic growth, that spending cuts in the next few years will slow the economy even further, and therefore that the Republicans’ demands threaten us all. Again, he did not. The radical right has now won a huge tactical and strategic victory. Democrats and the White House have proven they have little by way of tactics or strategy. By putting Medicare and Social Security on the block, they have made it more difficult for Democrats in the upcoming 2012 election cycle to blame Republicans for doing so. By embracing deficit reduction as their apparent goal — claiming only that they’d seek to do it differently than the GOP — Democrats and the White House now seemingly agree with the GOP that the budget deficit is the biggest obstacle to the nation’s future prosperity. The budget deficit is not the biggest obstacle to our prosperity. Lack of jobs and growth is. And the largest threat to our democracy is the emergence of a radical right capable of getting most of the ransom it demands. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Mitchell Bard: The Debt Ceiling "Compromise" Is a Total Democratic Capitulation to the GOP

August 1, 2011

Imagine this scenario: You’re pro-choice and you attend a debate between two candidates for office on the issue of a constitutional amendment to criminalize abortion. The first candidate argues that abortion is murder, and if a doctor performs an abortion on a woman, both of them should be charged with first-degree homicide. The second candidate then rises in rebuttal, saying, “No, if a doctor performs an abortion, only he should be charged with first-degree murder. The mother should be charged with negligent homicide.” Would you feel represented? Of course not. But that’s what has happened with the debt ceiling negotiations. It’s easy to take shots at the Tea Party-controlled Republican leadership for holding the American economy hostage to fulfill their extreme-right, not-supported-by-the-American-people obsession with cutting spending, and how their alleged concern over debt is really a smokescreen to fundamentally change American society, returning the country back to the 1920s when corporations and the wealthy were allowed to run amok and there was no social safety net for everyone else (leading, of course, to the greatest depression of the 20th century). I did just that last week . But what has me so angry right now is the news of Harry Reid signing off on a compromise to the debt-ceiling clash that is, in essence, a complete capitulation to the Tea Party position . I have never been so pessimistic about the state of our political process and the future of the country. I have one simple question: Where are the Democrats? Isn’t the Democratic party supposed to be the institution in place to oppose the Republicans when they offer bad policy, especially when polls show that a majority of Americans don’t share the GOP obsession with spending cuts? (Not only did polls from CBS News and Gallup show that Americans favored revenue increases along with spending cuts to settle the debt ceiling impasse, but another Gallup poll on July 20 revealed that only 16 percent of Americans thought the deficit was “the most important problem facing the country today,” while 27 percent listed unemployment and 31 percent said the economy in general.) After all, you can’t blame the Republicans for advancing their agenda. And while using blackmail and putting the country’s economic condition in peril may be amoral, it’s pointless to expect the John Boehners of the world to stand up to that amorality. No, it’s on the Democrats, who, not incidentally, control two of the three institutions necessary to make a deal, to stand up to what Steve Benen called “extortion politics.” It’s the job of the Democrats to stand firm on the proposition that the debt ceiling (honoring past commitments democratically agreed to by a decade’s worth of Congresses and presidents) has nothing to do with decisions on how to handle future budgets, and to link them is just extortion politics. It’s the job of the Democrats to make the case that while fiscal responsibility is an important long-term goal (after all, it was a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who signed the last budget with a surplus, while a Republican president working with a Republican Congress proceeded to sign off on budget after budget with deficits), with the economy struggling and unemployment high, slashing spending now will only make things worse for most (that is, those not in the top one percent of wealth) Americans. It’s the job of the Democrats to stand firm that not one dollar of spending should be cut before tax cuts are rolled back for the wealthiest Americans, tax breaks are discontinued for corporate jets, and subsidies are discarded for large oil companies raking in copious profits. It’s the job of the Democrats to continually highlight that massive spending cuts, especially slashing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, have a human face. That while the Republicans were straight-out lying ( Politfact’s top lie of 2009 ) when they told tales of death panels and policies to discontinue care to seniors, cuts to Medicare and Social Security would actually send countless senior citizens into desperate financial situations. But what did the Democrats do? They accepted the Tea Party premise that it was vital right now to address spending instead of unemployment and the economy. They never held firm on the idea that the debt ceiling had nothing to do with future budgets. They never pressed the case that by not raising the debt ceiling, Republicans would be taking the unbelievably un-American step of forcing the country to renege on its already agreed-to obligations. They didn’t make a clear case to the American people that the GOP was holding the American economy hostage to fulfill their political motives. (For example, John Boehner admitted that many in his caucus wanted to let the debt ceiling deadline pass and “create chaos” in order to force through their far-right fiscal policies, including a balanced budget amendment, and yet the Democrats did nothing to publicize this fact.) They failed to make the case to the American people that the cuts being thrown around by Republicans would negatively impact their day-to-day lives, far more than deficits would this year. They never held firm on insisting on the wealthiest Americans, who profited most from the last decade of fiscal irresponsibility, paying their share toward the fiscal solution with rollbacks of the Bush tax cuts, standing with those looking to support the wealthiest Americans instead of the rest of us. In short, the Democrats did more than just cave. They actually adopted the Republican position, and then engaged in a debate on how extreme that Republican position would be (offering far-right crazy in opposition to the Tea Party’s all-out, society-changing crazy). Put another way, the Democrats didn’t fulfill their duty in a two-party system of representing the opposing point of view on the debt ceiling (especially, again, when polls show that the people don’t support the GOP’s draconian position on the issue). It has been argued that since the Tea Party members of the House, as David Brooks put it , “do not accept the logic of compromise,” “do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities,” and “have no sense of moral decency,” the Democrats had to be the adults, doing what was necessary to avoid a default and the calamitous results for the American economy that would come with it. Under this argument, the Democrats could not stand firm because their first allegiance had to be preventing default, no matter what it took, while the Tea Party Republicans irresponsibly ran around declaring that a default would not be a big deal. I don’t buy this argument. In fact, I find that approach weak and counter-productive. What would stop the Tea Party from holding the economy hostage again and again? The Democrats had a moral obligation to stand firm to protect the American people from the Tea Party zealots in the House (and the members of the Republican leadership that were too afraid of a primary challenge to stand up to their lunatic fringe). And they failed. As importantly, while a default and/or a credit downgrade would have been disastrous for the American economy, I’m not convinced that the drastic slashes in spending (with zero increase in revenues) in the “compromise” won’t be as bad or worse. As Paul Krugman said on This Week today : “We have 9 percent unemployment. These spending cuts are going to worsen unemployment. It’s even going to hold the long-run fiscal picture because we have a situation where more and more people are becoming permanent long-term unemployed. … I have nobody I know who thinks the unemployment rate will be below 8 percent at the end of next year. With the spending cuts it might be above 9 percent at the end of next year. There is no light at the end of this tunnel. We’re having a debate in Washington, all about, ‘Gee, we’ll make the economy worse, but will we make it worse on 90 percent of the Republicans’ terms or 100 percent of Republicans’ terms?’ The answer is 100 percent.” The debate over the debt ceiling was an epic test for leading Democrats, and each and every one of them failed miserably. Reid, as the majority leader of the Senate, had the ability to hijack the discussion in the same way Boehner did. Same goes for the president. But both chose to adopt the Republican position and, as Krugman said, fight over whether it would be 90 percent or 100 percent Republican. Who was fighting for the traditional Democratic position, the one that looked out for middle-class and working-class Americans? No Democrat in a position of power. (I want to acknowledge the argument many have made that this outcome is, in fact, consistent with the president’s policy preferences, in that he, like the Republicans in Congress, favors massive spending cuts. We don’t know what is inside the president’s mind. But as a Democratic president, I feel like he had an obligation to stand up to the Republican madness, and, as such, I will hold him accountable for not doing so.) So we got a “compromise” that was really a capitulation, and we had to endure sad-sack Democratic quotes, like Dianne Feinstein not being pleased , and Carl Levin pointing the finger of blame at the president . It’s unacceptable. If they’re not happy, why didn’t they stand firm against the GOP proposal? And what is especially galling about the whole sad affair is that the Democrats have seen over the past year how far-right Republican policies are pushing voters over to Democratic candidates. It began in 2010 when Republicans lost extremely winnable Senate seats in Nevada, Delaware, Colorado and West Virginia because voters rejected Tea Party-GOP nominees (something I discussed last November ). It continued through the emergence of buyer’s remorse in states electing Republican governors, including New Jersey , Ohio , Michigan , Florida and Wisconsin . It was on stark display in upstate New York when voters in a traditionally conservative district elected a Democrat in a special House election . And it is currently visible in the senate recall efforts in Wisconsin . Opposing draconian cuts, especially to Medicare, has been good political business for Democrats (something Republicans, of course, realize). So not only is standing up to Republican excesses the right thing for Democrats to do, it has also been demonstrated to be good politics. But the Demcorats still managed to completely capitulate to the Tea Party position. And in doing so, they potentially removed the Medicare issue as one they could use to hammer Republicans in 2012. The takeaway from the debt ceiling negotiations, for me, is that while the two-party system is alive and well in the United States when it comes to partisan bickering and political gamesmanship, when it comes to the powers in Washington deciding what to do for the country, the two-party system is dead. Democrats have abdicated the role of fighting for the interests of the American people, so that we now have Republicans and Democrats who will eventually accept the Republican position. Such a state of affairs is upsetting to me as a liberal/progressive. But it is far more of a blow to me as an American citizen. Who in Washington is presenting the argument for what is best for the whole country, not just corporations and the wealthiest one percent? Nobody I see, and certainly not Harry Reid and Barack Obama. The Republicans are the easy villains in this sordid affair. Their behavior in holding the country hostage to push a far-right agenda out of step with the beliefs of the American people has been disgraceful. But the Democrats can’t escape blame. When the moment of truth came, they showed no resolve. I’d honestly rather have faced a government default that would have been squarely on the shoulders of the Tea Party. At least then we would know exactly what happened and who was responsible. But when working class and middle class Americans, already hammered by a decade of increasing wealth disparity and an unemployment crisis, are further ground down by draconian and unnecessary budget cuts, while the wealthy enjoy tax cuts and oil companies continue to receive subsidies, it will be sad to know that the Democrats signed off on such an outcome. We will look back and know that when the debt ceiling issue was in play, the Republicans made their case, but nobody in a position of power made the opposing argument. The Democrats just went along. And Democratic leaders will have to live with the consequences, along with the rest of us.

Read the full article →

Democrats, GOP Have Now Rejected Each Other’s Debt Plans

July 30, 2011

WASHINGTON — With just three days left until the country is set to begin defaulting on its debt, the House rejected a debt proposal by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Saturday — a move Republicans designed purely for theatrics to show the bill lacked the votes to pass. The bill was rejected by a vote of 173 to 246. Eleven Democrats joined all of the House Republicans in opposing Reid’s bill. The defecting Democrats included Reps. John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Bruce Braley (Iowa), David Loebsack (Iowa), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Mike Ross (Ark.), Kurt Schrader (Ore.), Peter Visclosky (Ind.) and David Wu (Ore.). Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) headed to the White House to discuss the state of play with President Barack Obama shortly after the bill went down. House Republicans pushed Reid’s bill through via a restrictive voting process: The measure was taken up on the suspension calendar, which requires a two-thirds vote to pass, bars amendments and limits debate to 40 minutes. Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), who sits on the House Rules Committee, called the day’s business “a joke,” “a disgrace” and “an insult to the American people.” The effect of taking up Reid’s bill on the suspension calendar — a move typically reserved for noncontroversial measures — is “a $2.5 trillion bill being brought up under the same process used for post offices,” McGovern said. House Republicans maintained that the action was necessary to show that the Democratic plan can’t pass and key to moving overall negotiations forward. The vote comes a day after the Senate voted down a GOP debt plan put forward by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). So the result of Saturday’s vote is that the majority party in each chamber has rejected the other’s plan — and at least appeared to draw a line on what they won’t accept in a final deal. “This side of the aisle is committed to reaching a solution,” Rep. Scott Garrett (R-S.C.) said. “But at the of the day … let it be clear, with God as my witness, we will not compromise on our principles — our principles of defending the Constitution.” Partisan tensions boiled over at several moments in the debate. Pelosi said Boehner “chose to go to the dark side” by adjusting his debt proposal to win over conservatives. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), a GOP presidential candidate, accused President Barack Obama of having just “coolly stood on the sidelines” as Congress wrestled with a debt solution. At one point, Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) started a shouting match with House Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) over the point of holding Saturday’s doomed vote at all. “This is a disgraceful moment, Mr. Dreier,” Levin said. Dreier countered that the House vote will help move the process forward. The two went back and forth vying for recognition to speak until Levin stormed off after shouting into the microphone, “Mr. Dreier, that is pernicious nonsense!” For all the partisan sniping on Capitol Hill, the reality is that Reid’s and Boehner’s plans aren’t that far apart. Both make substantial spending cuts, both have some form of spending caps and both would establish a “super Congress” composed of 12 members from both parties and chambers that would be given the power to make major changes to entitlement programs. Most importantly, both allow for a debt ceiling increase before August 2, when the government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills and begin to default. There’s “not that much difference,” between the two, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) told The Huffington Post on Friday. Flake voted for Boehner’s bill and said he, for one, would have supported Reid’s plan if he attached it to a vote on a balanced budget amendment. But with both the Reid bill and the Boehner bill now off the table — at least in their current forms — House and Senate party leaders are heading back to the table to come up with another path forward. Some Democrats continued to call on Obama to go around Congress and use the Constitution to avert a debt default. “The president needs to pull the 14th Amendment,” Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said on the floor. “I think he should because the Republicans have shown no sign of compromise.”

Read the full article →

Answering The Big What-If Questions Of Debt Default

July 30, 2011

(Lauren Young) – The debt negotiations are getting down to the wire. Republican and Democratic lawmakers are scrambling to broker a deal to raise the country’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling before Tuesday, when the Treasury will no longer be able to borrow funds to meet all of its obligations. It all means the United States could face the possibility of defaulting on its debt and losing its prized triple-A credit rating. What does that mean for consumers? Here are some answers we compiled from Reuters Money experts: 1. Should I be worried that I won’t receive my Social Security benefit in August? Perhaps not immediately. Social Security’s coffers should be full enough to make the August payments. And cash flow should be positive — the system generates more from current revenue than it spends on benefits and its own administrative costs. The main source of revenue is the payroll tax paid by employers and employees (the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or FICA); other income sources include interest payments on bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) and taxes paid by higher-income beneficiaries. Last year, revenue totaled $781 billion, while outgo was $713 billion. And even if funds aren’t on hand in a given week to pay benefits for timing reasons, the SSTF can redeem bonds to make up the shortfall. But here’s the rub: the bonds are obligations of the U.S. Treasury back to the SSTF. A government debt default would put us in uncharted waters, and it’s entirely possible that the administration could refuse to redeem bonds or divert payroll tax receipts to meet other pressing obligations. Social Security advocates don’t agree on what might happen. “(Obama’s statement) was a foolish bluff,” says Eric Kingson, co-director of the Strengthen Social Security coalition. “There’s no excuse for checks not being issued, and the White House’s willingness to use the threat is symptomatic of their lack of regard for the institution. Their willingness to use it as a negotiating chip is unfortunate.” But Max Richtman, acting chief executive officer of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, worries that the government might decide not to fund the interest on Social Security’s bonds, which would leave the program short of funds. “We really don’t know — it’s completely uncharted territory. Social Security is cash flow-positive if you count interest on the bonds. But which obligations will the government put at top of list of priorities, and who decides that? Is it paying the interest on those bonds? Will it be paying the military? There’s so much uncertainty as to who gets paid, how much and when.” 2. What if I just filed for benefits, or plan to file next month? Could I lose my benefits in the event of a government default? No, but processing of your application could be delayed if the Social Security Administration is forced to lay off employees or shut down in the event of a government funding crisis. 3. Will interest rates on mortgages, car loans, student loans and credit cards rise? Yes. Like any average Joe or Jane who misses a credit card payment, the United States will be socked with higher borrowing costs if it defaults on its debt. If the country loses its coveted triple-A rating, which is expected to happen, the cost to service its debt will probably rise. And that will have a significant ripple effect. Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com, says either a ratings downgrade or debt default would result in higher borrowing rates for consumers and businesses alike. “More of a concern is that a prolonged default could cause credit markets to freeze altogether, and we will have real problems,” he says. It’s impossible to speculate how much rates will go up, he says. “There are a lot of variables at play. The downgrade will lead to a more modest increase in rates. However, that increase would be permanent.” Folks who have variable debt such as a credit card balance or adjustable-rate mortgage can take a little comfort in this: “You are going to see higher interest rates eventually, anyway, because rates are so low,” McBride says. Alas, consumers won’t see higher rates on saving products, such as certificates of deposit or money market accounts. “Those products won’t improve until loan demand picks up; any downgrade or default will only hold back loan demand,” McBride says. 4. What’s the outlook for the U.S. dollar? Fear that the United States will lose its AAA credit rating or even default on its debt is driving foreigners away from U.S. assets, and the dollar is taking the biggest hit. Recent trading in currency markets indicates overseas investors have been voting with their feet. They have also been giving short shrift to recent Treasury auctions. Traders say Asian central banks, among the world’s biggest dollar holders, have been steady buyers of alternatives to the dollar such as the Singapore dollar and other Asian currencies as well as the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand dollars. “Foreigners are at the vanguard of the drop in the dollar,” says Dan Dorrow, head of research at Faros Trading, a currency broker/dealer in Stamford, Connecticut. “I don’t think anyone expects a catastrophic U.S. default. But a downgrade will make them more aggressive in moving away from the dollar.” If global investors lose faith in the dollar, that could weaken its dominant position in global trade and its role as the world’s reserve currency. Over time, diminished demand for dollars would make it harder for the United States to finance itself at low interest rates. The bottom line? It will be more expensive to travel overseas, drink French wine or buy Japanese cars. 5. What’s the outlook for U.S. Treasuries? The Treasury market has held up better than the dollar, but bonds haven’t been let off the hook entirely. Foreigners, who hold nearly half of outstanding Treasury debt, have been less active buyers at auctions this month. Still, the 10-year yield has held below three percent for most of July, less than a percentage point from its multi-decade low. That’s partly because domestic investors have picked up the slack in recent debt sales, suggesting they see no alternative to U.S. government bonds even in the face of a default or possible downgrade. Indeed, analysts say even with a downgrade, Treasuries would remain the benchmark for world fixed income markets, as Fitch Ratings noted this week. Terry Belton, global head of fixed income strategy at JPMorgan Chase, said a downgrade would probably add just five to 10 basis points to yields in the short run. But it could cost the U.S. government up to 70 basis points, or about $100 billion, in added borrowing costs over time as foreigners look to invest their money elsewhere. 6. Will we still pay our soldiers? While a group of Congressmen pushed forward a bill this week to ensure that the active military servicemen still get paid in the case of default, there’s no firm plan yet. The White House hasn’t made any assurances and either has the Treasury Department. Some financial organizations that service military clients, like USAA and the Andrews Federal Credit Union, have stepped up to say that they will advance pay if there is a default. “Rest assured, USAA has continued to manage its financial resources to meet our commitments to members in their moments of need,” says CEO Joe Robles in a statement. What will a default actually mean for military members and their families? “The bigger concern has got to be interest rates,” says Sarah Gilbert, the wife of an army reservist and a personal finance writer who was formerly an investment banker. She says military families have been through pay stoppages before – during the last government shut-down, they actually halted all military pay a week early – but what will really hurt is if interest rates go up even a little bit. “There’s no wiggle room,” she says. “Military families are so dependent on debt because they have to move so much, they are living on small budgets and they are mostly young families that don’t have a lot of established savings. If interest rates go up, you’re looking at foreclosures, collections and not being able to pay bills.” 7. Is there an upside to higher interest rates? Barry Glassman, president and certified financial planner at Glassman Wealth Services in McLean, Virginia, says higher interest rates are good for retirees and folks who have fixed mortgages. “I don’t know anyone with a five-year Treasury bond who doesn’t believe they won’t get their interest and principal back. If yields do jump, my clients would love 10- year Treasuries with a five percent coupon,” Glassman says. But McBride of Bankrate.com says it’s going to be a bumpy ride for most folks. “There are no winners here. Your best bet is to sit tight and pull the seat belt a little tighter,” he says. (With reporting from Mark Miller, Steven Johnson, Beth Pinsker and Linda Stern.) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

LIVE UPDATES: Debt Ceiling Deadline Looms, Default At Stake

July 30, 2011

The Senate has killed an effort by the House to raise the government’s borrowing cap. Democrats and several Republicans killed the measure put forth by House Speaker John Boehner by a 59-41 vote Friday night, just minutes after it arrived from the House. Democrats opposed the measure because it would require another painful debt-limit debate early next year. The move continues a standoff over the debt limit but could set the table for negotiations this weekend on compromise legislation that could pass the Democratic Senate and the GOP-controlled House before an Aug. 2 deadline to prevent a potentially disastrous default on U.S. obligations like interest payments and Social Security checks. Check back here for the latest developments. What happens if the U.S. defaults? See the slideshow below.

Read the full article →

Weak GDP Report Suggests Economic Recovery Will Be Painfully Slow

July 29, 2011

The American economy grew anemically during the spring, the government reported Friday, and prior growth was even slower than initially grasped, dealing a considerable setback to hopes for rapid improvement. Gross domestic product — the national output of goods and services — increased by only 1.3 percent between April and June 2011, the Commerce Department announced on Friday . Economists had expected to see growth of 1.8 percent. Worse, revisions to past numbers suggest that growth as far back as 2007 has been more sluggish than previously believed. GDP estimates for the first quarter of 2011 were revised downward to 0.4 percent growth, a sharp drop from the previous estimate of 1.9 percent. And GDP for 2007 through 2010, previously thought to have grown by an average of less than 0.1 percent each year during that period, was also revised downward, to show an average decrease of 0.3 percent per year. “It’s not a recession,” said Josh Bivens, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, in an interview with The Huffington Post. “It doesn’t panic people the same way. But it is a disaster if you’re really concerned about joblessness.” The numbers arrive amidst an already discouraging economic climate. At the beginning of July, a report from the Labor Department showed weak job growth and rising unemployment for the third month in a row. Consumer confidence has fallen to a two-year low , according to a closely-watched survey from the University of Michigan. And in Washington, a Congressional standoff over the U.S. Treasury’s ability to borrow money has led to widespread fears of market shocks, missed government payouts, and a national credit downgrade. Given these circumstances, Friday’s listless GDP numbers are particularly unwelcome. They don’t necessarily suggest that the U.S. will backslide into another recession, says Bivens, but they don’t point to rosy days ahead either. “I think we could bounce along for a couple of years at this really miserably slow growth rate,” Bivens told HuffPost. “So we’d never technically enter a recession, but we would still have high and maybe even rising unemployment.” Last month, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke predicted that the recovery would accelerate in the second half of 2011 , noting that high oil prices and disruptions from the natural disasters in Japan have likely played a role in suppressing growth this year. But Lakshman Achuthan, co-founder and chief operations officer at the Economic Cycle Research Institute, told The Huffington Post that the economy is likely to remain underwhelming for some time. “Today, I think if you turn on the TV, they might blame everything on the debt debates in Washington,” said Achuthan. “But the slowdown started a long time ago. It didn’t start today and it’s not going to end tomorrow… The slowing is going to continue through the end of year, at least, and that includes the slowing in jobs.” Consumer spending remained almost flat for the second quarter, according to Friday’s report, rising only 0.1 percent. “Consumers didn’t get anything. There was no growth in what they were buying,” said Achuthan. “Probably because they were just buying gas and food.” Not every indicator is trending downward, however. Friday’s report indicated that personal income increased 4.2 percent in the second quarter of 2011, after rising 8.3 percent in the first. Home prices are creeping up after a setback in February, according to data from the Census Bureau and the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller index . And industrial production saw an uptick in June after two months of decline, according to the Federal Reserve . Still, two years after the official end of the recession, the economy is far from where anyone would like it to be. “If you look at the level of GDP today, it turns out with the revisions, it’s still lower than it was before the recession hit,” Bivens told The Huffington Post. “So basically we were a richer country in the fourth quarter of 2007 than we are today, with these revisions. We have not even called back all of these income losses that we saw during the Great Recession.” In April, a Gallup poll found that 55 percent of Americans believed the U.S. was in a recession or a depression — 10 percent more than in February 2008, when a recession was actually underway. Practically speaking, though, the recovery feels like a recession to many Americans. A separate Gallup survey found that about five million fewer people have access to basic necessities –including food, shelter and health care — than did in October 2008, when the recession had been going on for several months. In spite of Friday’s disappointing numbers — and all the disappointing numbers before them — a recovery is happening, said Bivens. “We really have been growing since the middle of 2009, we’ve just been growing far too slowly,” he told HuffPost. “The growth is real. It’s just clearly inadequate.”

Read the full article →

Senate Debt Bill Poised To Take U.S. To Edge Of Default

July 29, 2011

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats think they see a path to raising the nation’s debt ceiling, but it will literally take the country down to the wire — if Republicans go along. Leaders in the upper chamber are flatly rejecting House Speaker John Boehner’s third attempt at a debt measure, arguing that the Ohio Republican has gone so far to the right to win his own members that not a single Democrat can vote for it. The Boehner plan would require a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution before raising the $14.3 trillion debt cap for more than a short time. Since amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority, it’s guaranteed to fail and guarantees default, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. “Speaker Boehner should just give it up,” Schumer said. “The Boehner proposal says we won’t default now, but we promise you we will default by January. It is an absurd, absurd proposition.” What Democrats say is not an absurd proposition is moving ahead on some version of the plan put forward this week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to cut some $2.2 trillion over 10 years. Reid told reporters that a number of Republicans had spoken to him to express interest, and Reid called on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to come forward and figure out how to make the Democratic proposal acceptable to more Republicans by Friday. “I’ve asked my friend Sen. McConnell to meet with me to try to work this out. And I’m confident he will,” Reid said. Reid was not willing, however, to say what he would change in his version of the bill, except to repeat that Democrats will not accept a short-term fix. Democrats argue they have already given in to GOP demands that the savings equal the size of the debt hike and not involve raising any revenue. But there are various parts of other deficit-cutting schemes that have been presented this year that they might accept. Democrats leaving a party caucus meeting shortly before Reid spoke to reporters believed that the GOP would end up embracing a Senate-led deal. “I think the end game is a McConnell-Reid compromise,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). “Then the House goes along with it because they get enough pressure from the business community and Wall Street. That pressure would be all but guaranteed to come because of the timeline that now exists — and which takes the process right until the Aug. 2 deadline by which the Treasury Department has warned the United States will start the process of defaulting. Because of Senate parliamentary rules, if Reid gets the legislation rolling at some point Friday, as he promised in his news conference, then the Senate would have to hold a series of votes that could not finish until Tuesday unless all the Republicans relented. It will be hard enough, as Reid suggested, just to get the few GOP senators needed to advance through a 60-vote filibuster threshold. Schumer said another compromise or two and the gravity of the situation should make it possible for Republicans get on board. “Since it will be the last train leaving the station, we expect Senate Republicans will give it a long, careful look,” Schumer said. One compromise that appears to be off the table is the idea of writing a trigger into the law that would require certain steps to lower the deficit if certain targets were not met. But neither side has budged on what it wants the trigger to require. Republicans want it to mandate deeper budget cuts, while Democrats want more cuts and taxes. Reid seemed to hint he was raising the level of cuts in his proposal, saying to reporters it was a $2.4 trillion plan — $200 billion more than the measure scored earlier this week by the Congressional Budget Office. Whatever the compromise, it has to happen quickly, and Schumer repeated the position that it’s up to McConnell to suggest a couple of ways to tweak the Reid bill. “Sen. Reid has said his door in open. We’d like somebody to walk in,” Schumer said.

Read the full article →

American Children Receiving Less Money From Tooth Fairy: Report

July 28, 2011

It looks like American businesses aren’t the only ones hoarding cash these days. According to a survey recently released by Visa , so is the fabled Tooth Fairy. Last year, children who left teeth under their pillow received an average of $3 per tooth, according to the report. This year, in comparison, that amount plunged to $2.60. The total number of kids getting swindled by the winged home invader has also drastically increased. This year, 5 in 50 received no compensation for their missing teeth. Compare that to last year, when only 2 in 50 were passed over. The Tooth Fairy also seems to handing out varying amounts according to region. The further west one goes, the higher the rate of return kids are receiving for their dentures, with Northeast kids getting, on average, $2.10 a tooth, while their West and Midwestern counterparts are receiving $2.80. Melissa Hourigan of Denver didn’t know what to do for her 9-year-old when the Tooth Fairy failed to show, the Denver Post reports . Instead, she and her husband purchased a target card for their daughter “because we felt bad and wanted to do something,” Hourigan said. The below video shows how some parents justify ripping off their kids:

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: Don’t Fall for the GOP Lie: There Is No Budget Crisis — There’s a Job and Growth Crisis

July 28, 2011

A friend who’s been watching the absurd machinations in Congress asked me “what happens if we don’t solve the budget crisis and we run out of money to pay the nation’s bills?” It was only then I realized how effective Republicans lies have been. That we’re calling it a “budget crisis” and worrying that if we don’t “solve” it we can’t pay our nation’s bills is testament to how successful Republicans have been distorting the truth. The federal budget deficit has no economic relationship to the debt limit. Republicans have linked the two, and the Administration has played along, but they are entirely separate. Republicans are using what would otherwise be a routine, legally technical vote to raise the debt limit as a means of holding the nation hostage to their own political goal of shrinking the size of the federal government. In economic terms, we will not “run out of money” next week. We’re still the richest nation in the world, and the Federal Reserve has unlimited capacity to print money. Nor is there any economic imperative economic to reach an agreement on how to fix the budget deficit by Tuesday. It’s not even clear the federal budget needs that much fixing anyway. Yes, the ratio of the national debt to the total economy is high relative to what it’s been. But it’s not nearly as high as it was after World War II — when it reached 120 percent of the economy’s total output. If and when the economy begins to grow faster – if more Americans get jobs, and we move toward a full recovery — the debt/GDP ratio will fall, as it did in the 1950s, and as it does in every solid recovery. Revenues will pour into the Treasury, and much of the current “budget crisis” will be evaporate. Get it? We’re really in a “jobs and growth” crisis – not a budget crisis. And the best way to get jobs and growth back is for the federal government to spend more right now, not less — for example, by exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes this year and next, recreating a WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps, creating an infrastructure bank, providing tax incentives for small businesses to hire, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on. But what happens next week if Congress can’t or won’t deliver the president a bill to raise the debt ceiling? Remember: This is all politics, mixed in with legal technicalities. Economics has nothing to do with it. One possibility, therefore, is for the Treasury to keep paying the nation’s bills regardless. It would continue to issue Treasury bills, which are our nation’s IOUs. When those IOUs are cashed at the Federal Reserve Board, the Fed would do what it has always done: It honors them. How long could this go on without the debt ceiling being lifted? That’s a legal question. Republicans in Congress could mount a legal challenge, but no court in its right mind would stop the Fed from honoring the full faith and credit of the United States. The wild card is what the three big credit-rating agencies will do. As long as the Fed keeps honoring the nation’s IOUs, America’s credit should be deemed sound. We’re not Greece or Portugal, after all. We’ll still be the richest nation in the world, whose currency is the basis for most business transactions in the world. Standard & Poor’s has warned it will downgrade the nation’s debt from a triple-A to a double-A rating if we don’t tend to the long-term deficit. But, as I’ve noted, S&P has no business meddling in American politics — especially since its own non-feasance was partly responsible for the current size of the federal debt (had it done its job the debt and housing bubbles wouldn’t have precipitated the terrible recession, and the federal outlays it required). As long as we pay our debts on time, our global creditors should be satisfied. And if they’re satisfied, S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch should be, too. Repeat after me: The federal deficit is not the nation’s biggest problem. The anemic recovery, huge unemployment, falling wages, and declining home prices are bigger problems. We don’t have a budget crisis. We have a jobs and growth crisis. The GOP has manufactured a budget crisis out of the Republicans’ extortionate demands over raising the debt limit. They have succeeded in hoodwinking the public, including my friend. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

LIVE UPDATES: Debt Ceiling Deadline Looms

July 28, 2011

Neither the House nor the Senate has a clear path forward for must-pass legislation to allow the government to continue to borrow to pay its bills, putting lawmakers and financial markets alike on edge less than a week before the deadline for heading off the nation’s first-ever default. Without a deal by Tuesday, the Obama administration has said the government will be unable to pay all its bills, and could miss checks to Social Security recipients, veterans and others who depend on public help. In addition, credit rating agencies could downgrade their assessment of the government’s finances, further unnerving financial markets and perhaps causing interest rates to rise for everyone. Despite his image as a button-down Republican, House Speaker John Boehner walked to the brink of a dramatic and historic agreement to change the government’s spending habits. But as he twice approached a $4 trillion deficit-reduction deal with President Barack Obama that would have rocked both parties’ bases, Boehner was reeled back in by his caucus’ conservative wing. The muscular, Tea Party-fueled group not only forced him to abandon a “grand bargain” with Obama, it made him scramble Wednesday to secure the votes for a far more modest deficit-ceiling plan, which in turn is all but doomed in the Senate. The events highlight the limits of power for an experienced and well-liked politician who has struggled to budge his caucus’ staunchest conservatives despite constantly reminding them that their party doesn’t control the Senate or White House. Check back here for the latest developments. What happens if the U.S. defaults? See the slideshow below.

Read the full article →

Obama To Address Nation About Debt Ceiling Crisis

July 25, 2011

WASHINGTON — The White House says President Barack Obama will address the nation at 9 p.m. Monday to discuss the approaching debt limit deadline and an apparent political stalemate over deficit reduction proposals. White House spokesman Jay Carney announced the address after House Republican and Senate Democratic leaders unveiled competing plans to meet an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the government’s borrowing authority. Obama is supporting a proposal by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that would trim $2.7 trillion of government spending over 10 years. Reid’s plan does not include new tax revenue, as Obama has demanded. But unlike the GOP plan, it would extend the debt ceiling into 2013 – an Obama ultimatum. The House plan trims about $1.2 tillion but would only extend the debt ceiling for less than a year. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below. President Barack Obama is reiterating his call for a deficit-cutting plan that cuts spending and that also increases tax revenue by making the wealthy and corporations pay more to help stabilize the long-term debt. The president made his comments to the National Council of La Raza on Monday as congressional leaders struggled against time to come up with a plan to meet an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. Obama said the wealthy and big corporations have to “pay their fair share, too.” And he alluded to the difficulty of cutting a deal, saying “compromise is becoming a dirty word.”

Read the full article →

Which Airlines Are Cashing In & Who’s Spreading The Love With The FAA Shutdown

July 24, 2011

In case you didn’t know, the FAA was forced to partially shutdown at midnight on Friday after Congress failed to resolve a dispute over the agency’s funding. It’s been estimated that the shutdown will cost the government $200 million per week in lost revenue from airline ticket taxes. CBS News reports that the uncollected tax will come out to roughly $61 per domestic ticket.

Read the full article →

Debt Talks Break Up After 50 Minutes

July 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — A tense White House meeting on the expiring debt limit broke up after less than an hour today, with the president and leaders of Congress agreeing only that it was urgent to find a path forward this weekend, a source familiar with the meeting said. Staffers were set to work through the weekend, in hopes of crafting a compromise that could avert the United States beginning to default on its debt starting Aug. 2. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement soon after the session that Obama wanted assurances that Congress would not let the nation become delinquent. “The president wanted to know that there was a plan for preventing national default,” McConnell said. “The bipartisan leadership in Congress is committed to working on new legislation that will prevent default while substantially reducing Washington spending.” The remarks hinted that leaders may be narrowing in on the plan McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had been working on, which would hand authority to the president to raise the debt ceiling in three stages, paired with spending cuts totaling about $1.5 trillion. One obstacle to following that path is the president’s desire for a larger package — a so-called grand bargain — that would at least last through the election season. Another is that many House Republicans do not like the McConnell plan. Obama might have to back down, and enough Tea Party Republicans would have to conclude that default is worse than a smaller, though still large, cut. The print pool report from the start of Saturday’s meeting suggested it began extremely tense, but TV reporters who lingered just a little longer said President Obama broke the ice with a joke about golf . “I think everybody agrees it’s too hot to play golf today,” Obama told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), referring to their recent golf summit, which also did not lead to a breakthrough on debt negotiations.

Read the full article →

Fernando Espuelas: Why Republicans Can’t Say Yes to Obama

July 20, 2011

So it’s not about the deficit after all. For months we’ve heard the increasingly shrill alarms being sounded by supposedly sober-minded Republican Congressional leaders that America is the next Greece — balancing carefully over a debt precipice, destruction inevitable unless radical action is taken. These alarms have been so effective that the true nature of our national crisis — chronic unemployment at unacceptably high levels, overall slack economic demand — has been relegated to a secondary plane of importance. Some 20 million people unemployed or under employed are not just a human tragedy but a major contributor to our still under-performing economy. The GOP trope that the federal government deficit is somehow responsible for high unemployment defies common sense and basic economics. Yet this fallacy is repeated often and loudly as if it were a proven fact. Meanwhile, the chairman of the Federal Reserve recently told Congress that the Fed is ready to take even more aggressive action — read some massive stimulus — if the economy falters. So we come to the intransigence of Republican “negotiators” trying to hammer out some compromise to raise the debt ceiling with the Democrats. It would seem that these elected leaders’ responsibility to the country, their oaths of office, is seemingly trumped by their religious oath to Grover Norquist, the founder of special interest group Americans for Tax Reform and the godfather of the “all taxes are evil” movement, to never raise taxes regardless of the economic conditions This fetishistic oath, seemingly sworn and signed in blood, has kept the Republicans from saying “yes” to President Obama’s offer for raising the nation’s debt ceiling — a deal that would whack some $4 trillion dollars from the national deficit. Charlie Cook, one of America’s most respected non-partisan political analysts, is brutal on the Republican’s stance on the debt ceiling — and thinks that it may cost them the support of Independent voters in 2012.  Cook writes in the National Journal : …What has happened is that the New Republican Party has come to hate taxes a lot more than it hates deficits and the country’s growing indebtedness. It has rewritten history to omit any acknowledgment that President Reagan, when it was necessary, went along with tax increases. The memory of Reagan accepting tax increases, however reluctantly, has been supplanted by President George H.W. Bush’s fateful decision to go along with tax increases in the 1990 budget negotiations. What the New Republican Party remembers is Bush losing reelection, not the fact that those tax increases were pivotal in eliminating the federal budget deficit under President Clinton and in the resulting period of strong economic growth. Bush’s loss is remembered, and the period of fiscal responsibility is forgotten. At least history will treat Bush 41 with more gratitude than his own party does… Why did the Congressional Republicans walk away from the biggest deficit reduction pact in history?   Based on a several recently published polls, Americans everywhere outside of Washington are befuddled by their elected leaders’ stance in these negotiations. A new CBSNews poll found that “only 21 percent of the people surveyed said they approved of Republicans’ handling of the negotiations, while 71 percent disapprove.” Other recent polls point to a similarly stark divide between Republican voters and their elected representatives. So why walk away from a great deal to shrink the government deficit?  Could the “of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” be the reason?  A recent  article in Vanity Fair by Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz is as cogent as it is alarming: Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income — an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret. Stiglitz goes on to say that enlightened self-interest — the patriotic desire for the whole country to prosper, for the middle-class to thrive, so you too can be successful – should provoke the “1%” to support policies that improve the whole of society, not just those initiatives that dump tax benefits to the wealthiest Americans paid for by the middle class. Warren Buffett, the iconic self-made American man, is clear on this subject. No one has made a dime in this country without the unique advantages that America offers, he repeats and repeats. From an ethos of fairness, hard work and sacrifice, to a belief (at least in classical American mythology) that any kid can grow up to be president, the success of every American is tied to, as the U.S. Constitution states in its preamble “the general Welfare.” Stiglitz writes that the 1% no longer identify with the bottom 99% — and that this division is bad for all Americans, rich, middle class and poor. When the “1%” fund and elect elect representatives that are committed to the welfare of that “1%” at the expense of the 99%, we find ourselves in a dire situation with negatively profound implications to the future of America and our ability to remain the world’s leader. In fact, we find ourselves in a self-created, completely avoidable, national crisis that shatters Americans’ faith in their own government while also damaging America’s standing in the world.

Read the full article →

Paul Krugman: U.S. Letting Bankers Walk

July 18, 2011

Ever since the current economic crisis began, it has seemed that five words sum up the central principle of United States financial policy: go easy on the bankers.

Read the full article →

Robert Kuttner: The End Game: Saving Obama From Himself

July 18, 2011

As the debt doomsday of August 2 draws closer, what sort of end-game can we imagine? The worst scenario would be for an outbreak of common sense and self-interest to overtake the extremism of the House Republican caucus. If the Republicans were to accept Obama’s proffered deal, they would weaken Security and Medicare — and put the Democrats’ fingerprints on the deed — depriving Democrats of their traditional defense of America’s best loved social programs. They would also get a ten-year deficit-reduction agreement that is mostly program cuts. And they would get an austerity package that guarantees high unemployment as Obama heads into a difficult re-election. And a Democratic president is offering this deal! The Republicans would also get to savor the spectacle of a badly divided Democratic Party, as the White House twists arms of unwilling House and Senate Democrats to vote for a right-wing package. It’s quite a drama. Who will save us from a perverse approach to deficit reduction that is bad economics and worse politics — the unreality of the Republicans, or the principled resistance of rank and file Democrats? Obama and his advisers, weirdly, believe that his stance as “the only grownup in the room” who forces his own party to abandon its core principles for the sake of an austerity program will somehow win the gratitude of voters struggling with declining incomes and rising joblessness. The unemployment may be stuck near ten percent, but good old Obama brokered a deal to balance the budget in 2021. So re-elect this man. On which planet is this? A better scenario would be for Sen. Mitch McConnell to prevail among Republicans, with his idea to allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally and then to keep negotiating a long-term budget deal along a parallel track. That would spare the country both a default on the debt and an awful ten-year budget agreement. But this offer seemed almost too good to be true, and it is. There are a few mickeys in the deal now being negotiated by McConnell and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. In one version, Obama would have to keep coming back to Congress to get approval to increase the debt, a little bit at a time between now and the end of his presidential term. And Obama would have to match debt increases with $1.7 trillion in budget cuts. In another variation, the deal would create a deficit-reduction commission that could send a budget-cut plan straight to the House and Senate floor for an up or down vote. In the game of chicken that the Republicans are playing with Obama, the president has a couple of big things going for him. One is reality. There actually will be dire consequences if the United States defaults on its debt. It is one thing for right-wing Republicans to deny Darwin, or sexual orientation, or even climate change, where the consequences can be fuzzed up via junk science and the impact of science-denial is diffused or delayed. It is quite another to deny the reality of an event scheduled to happen in a couple of weeks. That actually might backfire on you politically. A second presidential advantage is that the nation’s most powerful corporate executives, normally the allies of Republicans, have been imploring the GOP to stop playing these games. McConnell blinked first after dozens of CEO’s emerged from a White House session to meet with Republican leaders and request them to stop fooling around with the nation’s solvency, and nearly 500 signed a letter demanding action. But the big disadvantage is the president’s own penchant to be the Conciliator-in-Chief. When the opposition party has lost all sense of reason, a leader has a duty to say so, and not to keep splitting the difference. The stakes are so high that Obama can probably win this one without giving away the store. As the deadline comes closer, the Republicans will have to shift ground. The question is whether he will needlessly give up much of Social Security, Medicare, and the resources he needs to pull the country out of recession, along the way. As often has been the case, Obama’s lack of spine puts his own party in a difficult spot. So far, the Democrats’ Congressional leadership, from Reid and Pelosi on down, have done a courageous job of saying to Obama: No Social Security and Medicare cuts, no way. But if the Republicans suddenly agree to a deal and Obama tells the Democrats that his presidency and the country’s solvency are on the line, what will they do then? If 2012 is not to be a blowout, Congressional Democrats and base progressive organizations will need to be even firmer with their president. At times, the labor leadership has warned the White House that failure to deliver a jobs program and a cave-in on Social Security and Medicare will mean rank and file activists campaigning for Democratic House and Senate candidates but not going all out for Obama. That message — from all of the progressive forces that helped elect Obama — needs to be even more pointed. We need to get this budget fight behind us, so that the President and other Democrats can begin talking seriously about jobs, economic recovery, and saving the middle class. The more fiscal resources Obama gives away as part of a budget deal, the harder that shift will be. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His most recent book is A Presidency in Peril.

Read the full article →

GOP Governor: ‘It Would Be An Embarrassment For U.S. To Default On Its Obligations’

July 17, 2011

By Edith Honan SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) – State governors meeting in Utah Saturday urged a speedy resolution to the deadlock in Washington over lifting the U.S. debt ceiling to avoid what they called an embarrassing default on U.S. obligations. “This is a dangerous and equally ridiculous situation that’s playing itself out. It takes one sentence to solve this problem — and that’s to lift the debt ceiling,’” Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, told Reuters at a National Governors Association meeting in Salt Lake City. Malloy predicted political leaders in Washington would ultimately reach an agreement to avoid a default. State governors are closely watching developments in Washington, where President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are in a standoff with congressional Republicans in talks intended to reach a deal to lift the debt ceiling. The governors are concerned over the impact of the debt situation in Washington in part because it could have an impact on their own individual states’ credit ratings. The U.S. Congress must raise the $14.3 trillion limit on U.S. borrowing by Aug. 2 or the federal government will run out of money to pay its bills, causing turmoil in global financial markets and potentially forcing the United States into another recession. Republicans in Washington are demanding deep government spending cuts as part of a deal to raise the debt limit while Obama and the Democrats want tax increases on the wealthy also to be part of the agreement. Republicans oppose tax increases. “I really think we need more statesmen and less politicians in Washington right now because it is a situation that must be solved. And I honestly believe it will be. Everyone’s posturing — both sides,” Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, a Republican, said in an interview. ‘AN EMBARRASSMENT’ Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a Republican, added, “It would be an embarrassment for the United States of America to default on its obligations.” “At the same time, there’s got to be a recognition that Congress and the presidents have over-spent and over-promised now for 30 or 40 years. And the bills are due,” McDonnell told Reuters. Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican who is now an independent, said, “We went on a tax-cutting rampage and a spending spree. And the math just does not add up. We’re a crippled economy as a result.” The impasse in Washington, which could lead to missed debt payments, has prompted rating agencies to say the nation’s coveted AAA rating could be in jeopardy. This week, Moody’s placed more than 7,000 ratings affecting about $130 billion in municipal debt on review for a possible downgrade due to a close connection with the U.S. government. “This is big stuff that somebody is playing with, and the fact that it’s become a partisan battle … it’s not what’s good for America,” said North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue, a Democrat. Perdue said on Friday her state finance director was notified by Moody’s that it would review the state’s AAA rating. Perdue expressed confidence North Carolina would hold on to the top rating. A Moody’s spokesman said the rating agency was “looking at the AAA rated states and will announce any rating actions over the next week for states.” (Editing by Will Dunham and Todd Eastham) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Governors Reflect Partisan Divide In Contentious Debate

July 16, 2011

SALT LAKE CITY — Governors nationwide are nervously watching the debt-ceiling debate in Washington, fearing that a partisan impasse could rattle financial markets and slow the economic recoveries they desperately want for their states. Yet many of them are sticking to the same partisan loyalties and talking points that are making it so difficult for President Barack Obama and Republican lawmakers to find a way to avoid a borrowing cutoff, which could force the government to default on some of its bills. In fact, some of the harshest rhetoric was heard this weekend in Salt Lake City, where the National Governors Association is holding its annual meeting. At stake is “the full faith and credit of the United States of America, and we have Republican members of Congress that say `Faith and credit, baloney. We don’t care about that,’” said Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat. He called those lawmakers “the same yahoos who didn’t pay for two wars,” a reference to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, which President George W. Bush launched while cutting taxes. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said Republicans should be a moderating voice in the debt talks. He criticized House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and “the dinosaur wing of the Republican Party” for adamantly opposing tax increases on the wealthy, which Obama and demands as part of a deficit-reduction package. Republican governors defend their party’s lawmakers. Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad laughed at the notion that “dinosaurs” are heading the GOP effort in Washington. “The dinosaurs are the ones that spent all the money,” he said “This is the new energy.” “I don’t think Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan are out of touch,” Branstad said. “I think they might be a little more bold than most politicians have historically been. But maybe the times call for that.” Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, chairs the House Budget Committee and authored a major spending plan passed this year by the House. Despite the rhetoric, governors in both parties agreed that failing to problem could gravely injure state economies. Noting that dozens of Chinese political and business officials are attending the governors’ meeting here, Schweitzer said potential investors from Asia and Europe might steer away from Montana and other states if they feel the U.S. government is in fiscal disarray. “The amount of havoc that would be created in the financial markets would make Greece and Portugal and Ireland and Italy look miniscule,” said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, also a Democrat. Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said the impasse in Washington created uncertainty, which employers hate when deciding whether to expand their businesses. But he said he was not surprised because Washington decisions are usually made based on what will win the next election. “What states are better at doing is courage,” Walker said. “It’s having the courage to make decisions that some might view as more about the next generation than about the next election.” But neither Walker nor other governors here found any fault with specific stands taken by their party in the debt showdown. Branstad strongly defended Cantor’s opposition to new taxes, even if they were to hit only wealthy people. “This anti-wealth rhetoric actually hurts the economy,” Branstad said, “because it makes these people afraid to invest for fear that whatever they make is going to get confiscated.” “Those are the people you want to invest in great jobs,” he said. Branstad, who notes that he has never lost an election in his long career, said Republicans credit much of their 2010 campaign success to a fiercely anti-tax stand. He said voters sent a message last fall: “The last time the Republicans had control of the Congress, they lost their way on spending. And you’d better not do that again.” Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who strongly considered a presidential bid this year, echoed those remarks, even as he left the door slightly ajar for a possible compromise. “I think a tax increase would be terrible,” said Barbour, who once chaired the national Republican Party. But Republicans might have to grimace and accept a compromise, he said, if they can win deep spending cuts and cost-saving changes to Medicare and Social Security. “At the end of the day,” Barbour said, “you have to look at the whole package.” The governors here differ widely on how that package should be shaped. But to a person, they say they desperately want an end to the debt brinkmanship in Washington. ___ Associated Press writer Josh Loftin contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

S&P Puts U.S. Credit Ratings On Negative Watch

July 15, 2011

(Reuters) – Ratings agency Standard & Poor’s has warned there is a one-in-two chance it could cut the United States’ prized triple-A rating if a deal on raising the government’s debt ceiling is not agreed soon. Putting the U.S. on negative watch, S&P warned that it could cut the rating this month if talks between the White House and Republicans remain stalemated. Any cut would be by one or more notches, it added. “Today’s CreditWatch placement signals our view that, owing to the dynamics of the political debate on the debt ceiling, there is at least a one-in-two likelihood that we could lower the long-term rating on the U.S. within the next 90 days,” the agency said in a statement on Thursday. The deadline to raise the ceiling is on August 2. “We have also placed our short-term rating on the U.S. on CreditWatch negative, reflecting our view that the current situation presents such significant uncertainty to the U.S.’ creditworthiness.” The agency also warned that even if there was a deal done on raising the ceiling, it might still cut the rating if it was not convinced that the deal would stabilize the country’s medium-term debt dynamics. “If an agreement is reached, but we do not believe that it likely will stabilize the U.S.’ debt dynamics, we, again all other things unchanged, would expect to lower the long-term ‘AAA’ rating, affirm the ‘A-1+’ short-term rating, and assign a negative outlook on the long-term rating,” said S&P. (Reporting by Wayne Cole; Editing by Balazs Koranyi) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Layoffs Return, Along With Fears Of Deepening Economic Stagnation

July 14, 2011

In recent months, as the unemployment rate has unexpectedly climbed, experts have put the blame on a lean job market, asserting that employers still spooked by the Great Recession have proven reluctant to hire. But a disturbing new trend appears to be emerging, one that may portend even deeper, longer-lasting problems for the American economy: Layoffs are again on the rise. Though economists stress that it remains too early to assert this with certainty, recently released government data suggest that layoffs exceeding weak hiring was the primary cause for rising unemployment in May and June. New weekly unemployment claims have topped 400,000 a week for more than three months — the level generally considered the dividing line between an improving labor market and a stagnant one. The most recent government snapshot of the job market found that, in June, the number of people officially unemployed for less than five weeks climbed above 3 million, from 2.6 million in May. The last two months have shown a significant jump in layoffs, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement consultancy group in Chicago. The firm cites declines in government spending and concerns among employers that the economy is not growing enough to justify their current payrolls as drivers of the trend. “It’s really simple,” said John Challenger, the company’s chief executive officer. “It’s demand. It’s orders. I think employers are very cautious right now. Most business people are just looking at their sales prospects. What revenue is in? What are my sales people telling me is coming? How many people do I really need to maintain profitability?” A recent analysis of Labor Department data by Goldman Sachs concluded that, in May, “the downshift in employment growth was primarily caused by an increase in layoffs.” For an American economy still struggling to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Depression, a sustained return of layoffs would be both an indication and a cause of fresh trouble: Businesses have apparently yet to gain sufficient confidence in improving sales prospects to invest in expansion. By eliminating paychecks, they are further weakening spending power throughout the broader economy. “There’s obviously been a decision made by businesses that the economic outlook is not as bright as it was three months ago,” said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at The Economic Outlook Group, who last summer was envisioning a more vigorous economic recovery. Baumohl is still undecided on whether the rise in layoff is a momentary occurrence, or the beginning of a firm trend. But if it’s the latter, he said, the economy could sink into a second recession. “If layoffs accelerate and the unemployment rate increases, households would end up spending less,” he said. “If they spend less, then inventories at companies would start to balloon. If unwanted inventories start to balloon and companies are finding themselves stuck with goods they were hoping to sell, then they will stop ordering new supplies from factories. If factories start getting fewer orders, they lay people off. This is the vicious cycle that will ultimately cause a second recession.” During the worst of the recession in late 2008 and into 2009, as businesses absorbed the twin threat of rapidly declining sales and a severe pullback in credit, mass layoffs characterized the situation. And even as the fear subsided and modest economic growth resumed last year, tepid hiring remained the practice: The recession reinforced a predilection among American companies to find ways to rack up more sales with fewer people on their payrolls — a task accomplished through increasing reliance on automation and outsourcing, along with the perpetual pursuit of more efficient means of production. Today, companies are producing more goods and services than ever before — with some 7 million fewer workers than were employed in late 2007, when the recession officially began. Budget shortfalls at the state and local level have prompted months of layoffs by governments. In the private sector, layoffs in May were concentrated in professional and business services, which includes lawyers, accountants, consultants and other office-dwelling employees, as well as in manufacturing, according to Goldman’s analysis of the Labor Department’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. Layoffs have also hit recreation-related industries such as hotels. In May, MGM Resorts International laid off about 60 employees who once staffed the Gold Strike, a 500 room hotel and casino in Nevada. The company said declining business forced the layoffs, the Las Vegas Review Journal reported. The company did not respond to a request for comment. Layoffs have also hit temporary workers, whose declining fortunes amount to a particularly troubling sign for future hiring prospects. Through much of 2010, more optimistic economists cited moderate growth in temporary jobs as a signal that American employers would soon hire aggressively. Temporary jobs were seen as early, tenuous efforts by businesses to expand as they exploited growth opportunities. Once a firmer recovery took hold, employers were supposed to start amassing bigger permanent payrolls. But the second part never happened, and now temporary hiring is going in reverse: The overall number of temporary employees dipping between May and June, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Some economists dismiss fears of growing layoffs, suggesting that recent job cuts are the result of acute developments such as the Japan tsunami — which disrupted the global supply chain, particularly in the auto industry — and spiking gasoline prices, which have subsequently fallen. “I’d prefer that layoffs don’t increase, but I don’t think this is the start of a pullback by businesses,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “Even transitory events can turn into big problems if they undermine confidence in hiring. And the odds of that are higher in the current circumstances because we’re all shell-shocked.” But others see a troubling trend unfolding as layoffs climb — particularly as the boost from the government’s package of spending measures aimed at stimulating the economy becomes exhausted. “The stimulus provided some lift to the economy through 2009, 2010,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “It’s fading out, and there is just nothing to replace it.” As government payrolls shrink, the loss of economic activity is rippling out across the rest of the economy. “The government is in recession,” Challenger said. “That affects a lot of businesses as well, because a lot of businesses depend on government orders.” In June, Lockheed Martin, a Maryland-based defense contractor, initiated a wave of layoffs expected to reach 300 after the U.S. Navy opted not to deliver what had been an anticipated order for an aircraft maintenance facility. The company also cut 2,700 jobs from its space systems and aeronautics divisions, said spokesman Chris Williams. For some companies, continued difficulties securing financing amid tightened credit standards, combining with weakening sales prospects, appears to be yielding job losses. In Little Rock, Ark., Yarnells Premium Ice Cream ceased operations and laid off 200 workers on June 30. The family-owed business had produced ice cream for 80 years, employing people in Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi. The company said it closed its doors because of declining sales, intensive competition and rising material costs. But it also cited an inability to secure financing. “This has been an extremely tough year for the ice cream industry in general,” said Christina Yarnell, chief executive officer of Yarnell’s, in a press release. “We have examined many possible avenues to keep the company afloat – actively marketing the company to investors and strategic buyers – the majority of whom are undergoing the same financial distress we are. However, we’ve been unable to obtain additional financing from our lenders or locate a buyer, and have come to the difficult decision that the appropriate course of action is to shut our doors.” For publicly traded companies whose stock prices are dependent on remaining profitable, diminishing business prospects appear to be generating momentum for cost-cutting through layoffs. In May, the H.J. Heinz Company began layoffs as it closed several factories worldwide, including one in Pennsylvania, where 60 people lost their jobs, according to the company. Heinz intends to shutter another American plant in an as-yet undisclosed location, a spokesman added. “To provide fuel for future growth, Heinz is investing in initiatives to increase our manufacturing efficiency and accelerate productivity on a global scale,” said Michael Mullen, a company spokesman, in an email. All in all, Heinz is expected to shed 1,000 total jobs worldwide, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Despite the recent spike in layoffs, most experts say it is far too early to forecast another economic downturn. “I’m not buying that yet,” said Challenger. “The economy is slipping right now. It’s sliding. But we’ve seen periods of much heavier layoffs in the past. I don’t feel like we know yet whether or not the economy is going to continue to slip and not have much momentum or whether or not it’ll catch some wind and pick up again later this year.” James Sunshine and Janell Ross contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Balanced Budget Amendment Injected Into Debt Ceiling Fight

July 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans are rallying behind a long-shot bid for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. But they’re divided over conservatives’ efforts to demand its passage as their price for backing any increase in the government’s borrowing limit. Right in the middle of their brawl with President Barack Obama over extending the debt ceiling and hacking trillions from projected deficits, GOP leaders are forcing House and Senate debates next week over similar amendments requiring the budget to be balanced, starting no sooner than five years from now. Reflecting tea party clout, both measures would also sharply curb Congress’ ability to raise taxes and spending. Constitutional amendments require two-thirds majorities to clear each chamber of Congress, meaning it will be difficult for the GOP to prevail. Republicans hope the debate will highlight their commitment to smaller government and – with polls showing public backing for a budget-balancing amendment – provide fodder to embarrass opponents in next year’s elections. “It certainly will show who’s really serious about trying to get spending under control and who isn’t,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a leading sponsor of the Senate amendment, which is backed by all 47 Republican senators. “If that’s all it accomplishes, it will be a good thing.” Democrats and other critics say the amendment is little more than political posturing that impresses voters but still leaves lawmakers facing painful decisions about which programs to cut or taxes to increase. “Politicians use them to sound like they’re doing something substantial on the deficit when in fact they’re not,” said Robert Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, which advocates balanced budgets. Some GOP lawmakers want to go further, saying that unless Congress first approves a balanced budget amendment, they won’t vote to increase the $14.3 trillion ceiling on federal borrowing. The Obama administration says that must happen by Aug. 2 to avoid a catastrophic first-ever federal default. Supporters of that linkage rank among Congress’ most conservative lawmakers, many of whom were unlikely to vote to extend the debt limit anyway. Even so, the move underscores fault lines between the GOP’s most right-leaning segments and the rest of the party, even as Obama and congressional leaders see if they can salvage a compromise over the debt. “It shows how typically weak most politicians can be when it comes to these sorts of issues,” tea party-backed freshman Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., said of the scant support for conditioning a debt limit extension to passage of a balanced budget amendment. “This is serious business. I don’t think most Democrats understand how serious the spending crisis is, and unfortunately I don’t think most people in my party yet do.” As of Wednesday, 12 senators and 36 House members had signed a pledge promising to oppose any debt limit increase unless there are deep spending cuts, budgetary caps that enforce limits on spending, and congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has introduced legislation cutting spending and requiring approval of a balanced budget amendment before the debt limit can be increased, and House Republicans plan to unveil a similar measure soon. The “cut, cap, balance” pledge, which is being lobbied by scores of conservative and tea party organizations, has been personally opposed by conservative House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va. Since Democrats have enough votes to defeat a balanced budget amendment, Cantor says he doesn’t want to sign a pledge that could therefore force him to oppose a debt limit agreement he might otherwise favor. Twenty Democrats would have to vote for the amendment for it to receive the 67 votes needed to clear the Senate, which seems unlikely. Democrats are likely to propose their own less restrictive version, as they did in 1997 when a GOP amendment failed by one vote. The House, where 290 votes will be needed for approval, has 240 Republicans. As next week’s showdown approaches, heavy hitters on both sides have begun weighing in. White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday that a balanced budget amendment is “about ducking responsibility rather than taking our challenges head on.” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the measure would ensure that “spending restraints are set in stone.” Republicans say the amendment would force lawmakers to confront growing federal deficits expected to easily exceed $1 trillion once again this year. And, they say, it would make them do it in a fiscally responsible way by requiring approval by two-thirds of the House and Senate to raise taxes or to let federal spending exceed 18 percent of the overall economy, which this year is about $15 trillion. “The point is to live within your means,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chief sponsor of the leading House version. Democrats, who voted strongly against balanced budget amendments the last time Congress considered them in the 1990s, seem even less inclined to support them now. They especially dislike the new provision limiting expenditures to 18 percent of the overall economy. Government spending has not been that low since 1966, when Medicare and Medicaid, the giant health insurance programs for the elderly and poor, were just starting and the U.S. population was younger and smaller than today. “Maybe they haven’t heard about the baby boom generation,” said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, noting the added federal costs those 77 million Americans are incurring as they begin to retire. In another indication of Democratic skepticism, Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the two dozen “Blue Dog” moderate Democrats, said the provision capping government spending suggested that Republicans are aiming to force cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., a moderate facing a difficult re-election battle next year, said he favors the concept of a balanced budget amendment but worried about Medicare cuts the GOP version might force. Republicans say they want to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Goodlatte’s balanced budget amendment has 133 co-sponsors, nearly all of them Republicans, according to the congressional database. A less stringent version by Goodlatte that is identical to one that passed the House in 1995 – without this year’s restrictions on tax increases and spending – had 221 co-sponsors. Constitutional amendments do not need the president’s signature. Once they pass Congress, they must be approved by three-quarters of the states.

Read the full article →

Tim Geithner Warns On Debt: ‘We Are Running Out of Time’

July 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — With members of Congress stuck squabbling over a debt agreement, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner bluntly warned them Thursday that time is nearly up. “We have looked at all available options, and we have no way to give Congress more time to solve its problem,” Geithner said at a Capitol Hill news conference. “We are running out of time.” The Treasury secretary has warned that the United States won’t be able to pay all of its bills after Aug. 2 if Congress doesn’t raise the cap on its $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. And the consequences would be catastrophic, Geithner has warned, starting with interest rates spiking on U.S. debt and the government having to decide who it won’t pay, from senior citizens to the unemployed, to government contractors and whole branches of government. Many economists fear it would spark a new recession. “The eyes of the country are on us, and the eyes of the world are on us and we need to make sure we stand together and send a definitive signal” that the nation will avoid default, Geithner said, adding that the nation also has to “take advantage of this opportunity to make some progress in dealing with our long-term fiscal problems.” Geithner’s words of warning came as the rhetoric on each side ticked up , and hope for a bigger deal seemed to be fading. Negotiators seemed to be shifting more towards an offer by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to leave matters in the hands of the White House, at least for shorter-term debt hikes, with Congress exercising limited veto authority. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters those talks were going forward, but stood by the Geithner line on time. “We are already feeling consequences,” Reid said, pointing to threats of bond raters to downgrade the U.S. debt and increasing anxiety among the population. “This debate is not about new spending. This is about bills that are due for pre-existing obligations,” Reid said, citing funds for troops, seniors and kids. “If we don’t reach an agreement, we’ll have less than two-thirds of the funds we need.” “There is no wiggle room,” Reid warned, blaming a small cadre of ideologues in the GOP for blocking a deal. Democrats have particularly singled out House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Republicans argue that there can be no tax hikes in a debt deal, and have insisted on deficit reduction solely through cutting spending. Talks are set to resume at the White House Thursday afternoon, but Speaker John Boehner has already indicated he will not go to Camp David over the weekend to move the process forward. The administration has warned a deal needs to be done by July 22 to get it through Congress in time.

Read the full article →

Debt Ceiling Debate Continues As Deadline Looms

July 11, 2011

WASHINGTON — With the United States government set to begin defaulting on its loans on Aug. 2, the White House is working with lawmakers on a deal to raise its borrowing limit in exchange for major spending cuts and, potentially, revenue increases to shrink the debt. Leaders from both chambers and parties are meeting with the administration nearly every day to work out a deal, after meetings on July 10 bore no agreements on whether to raise revenues as part of a debt-reduction plan. President Barack Obama gave lawmakers 10 days to come to an agreement, insisting he will call daily meetings until a deal is reached to raise the debt ceiling. The Treasury hit its debt limit — most recently set by Congress at $14.29 trillion — on May 16, but is using “extraordinary measures” to avoid a U.S. default for now.Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned that failing to raise the debt ceiling would be disastrous to the economy, telling Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) in a May 13 letter that rapidly reducing federal outlays in the event of default “would likely push us into a double dip recession.” Although lawmakers could vote to raise the debt ceiling without preconditions, many members of Congress have said they will not approve an increase to the federal borrowing limit unless there is a longterm plan to deal with the debt. Lawmakers are currently looking to build off of bipartisan talks led by Vice President Joe Biden, which fell apart in June over the issue of tax increases in a final deal. Those talks had reached agreement on about $2.4 trillion in cuts, which House Republicans have said they would now be willing to accept rather than a “grand bargain” that saves about $4 trillion. In addition to major spending cuts, the House GOP has also pushed for major changes to Medicare — including those laid out in Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) 2012 budget proposal — to be as part of a final debt ceiling deal. Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in June that Medicare cuts are off the table, Democrats have since signaled they would allow for some changes to the retirement insurance program, provided they be on the delivery-side as opposed to the beneficiary side. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said the lower chamber will not approve a bill that includes tax increases, a option that Democrats have insisted should be on the table. Democratic leadership is pushing for an end to subsidies and tax preferences for major oil and gas companies and individuals that make more than $500,000 per year. Check back here for the latest developments. What happens if the U.S. defaults? See the slideshow below.

Read the full article →

African-American Economic Gains Reversed By Great Recession

July 10, 2011

(AP) BALTIMORE — Growing up black in the segregated 1960s, Deborah Goldring slept two to a bed, got evicted from apartment after apartment, and watched her stepfather climb utility poles to turn their disconnected lights back on. Yet Goldring pulled herself out of poverty and earned a middle-class life – until the Great Recession. First, Goldring’s husband fell ill, and they drained savings to pay for nursing homes before he died. Then Goldring lost her executive assistant job in the Baltimore hospital where she had worked for 17 years. The cruelest blow was a letter from the bank, intending to foreclose on her home of almost three decades. Millions of Americans endured similar financial calamities in the recession. But for Goldring and many others in the black community, where unemployment has risen since the end of the recession, job loss has knocked them out of the middle class and back into poverty. Some even see a historic reversal of hard-won economic gains that took black people decades to achieve. Goldring remembers her mother taping the window shades to the wall so no one could see them stealing electricity. She remembers each time she sat on the curb with her three brothers, surrounded by her family’s belongings, waiting for a new place to live. Sitting on those curbs, she promised to always pay her bills on time. Now, after finding herself poor again, “the only word I can say is devastated,” says Goldring, 58. “For me to live that life we were so comfortable in, we never had to worry about finances, we always had money where I can help my kids and my grandchildren – to go to calling my daughter to borrow $100 because I can’t pay a bill …” Goldring’s voice trails off as she struggles to hold back tears. Economists say the Great Recession lasted from 2007 to 2009. In 2004, the median net worth of white households was $134,280, compared with $13,450 for black households, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by the Economic Policy Institute. By 2009, the median net worth for white households had fallen 24 percent to $97,860; the median black net worth had fallen 83 percent to $2,170, according to the EPI. Algernon Austin, director of the EPI’s Program on Race, Ethnicity and the Economy, described the wealth gap this way: “In 2009, for every dollar of wealth the average white household had, black households only had two cents.” Since the end of the recession, the overall unemployment rate has fallen from 9.4 to 9.1 percent, while the black unemployment rate has risen from 14.7 to 16.2 percent, according to the Department of Labor. “I would say the recession is not over for black folks,” Austin says. He believes more black people than ever before could fall out of the middle class, because the unemployment rate for college-educated blacks recently peaked and blacks are overrepresented in state and local government jobs that are being eliminated due to massive budget shortfalls. Maya Wiley, director of the Center for Social Inclusion, says the anti-discrimination laws passed in the 1960s took decades to translate into an increase in black economic security – and that was before the recession. “History is going to say that the black middle class was decimated” over the past few years, Wiley says. “But we’re not done writing history.” ___ Goldring was born and raised in Baltimore, and her mother was single for much of Goldring’s childhood. At 16, she dropped out of school and went to work cleaning hotel rooms. “That’s when I first met white people. Some of them would stay a month at the hotel. They would have all their children with them,” she remembers. “I thought, one day I’d like to hang out at a hotel.” She didn’t know any middle-class people in her all-black neighborhood. “Where we lived, everyone struggled. We just struggled a little harder,” she says. “If the lights stayed on for a whole year, if we didn’t get put out, I thought we were doing really, really well.” At 21, pregnant with her second child, Goldring decided to get her GED. Then she went to community college, got a degree in secretarial work, and began a career. She met her husband in 1983. He had a steady job as a heating and air-conditioning installer, and owned a brick two-bedroom home in Morgan Park, a leafy, integrated neighborhood. With two incomes, money was not a problem. He liked to travel. She had never been out of Maryland. “I thought, `Is this how rich people live?’” Goldring remembers. “From where I was to where I ended up, it was way different.” Her husband had been married before. As a condition of the divorce, his daughter’s name was added to the deed of the house. After Goldring’s husband died in 2007, Goldring took out a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, with a 6.5 percent interest rate, to purchase the house outright. Everything was fine until her hospital “restructured” in 2009. Her boss, a senior vice president, was transferred to the corporate office. Executives were now sharing secretaries. A few months later, they let Goldring go. No more family vacations. No more trips to the mall. No more filling the grocery cart. But what Goldring misses the most is her checkbook. Her unemployment payments arrive on a debit card. “Just being able to pull out my checkbook and pay a bill, even though there might not be much left in there,” she says. “I really miss that checkbook with my name on it.” ___ This May, black male employment fell to the lowest level since the government began keeping track in 1972. Only 56.1 percent of black men over age 20 were working, compared with 68.3 percent of white men. Chris Wilder, a Philadelphia journalist, lost his job in 2008 as the media industry suffered huge losses. Unemployment benefits amounted to about one-third of his salary. Ever since they ran out, his income has been near zero, other than sporadic freelance work. If not for a policy in his apartment co-op to assist people who lose their jobs, “I might be living with my mother,” he says. He has felt depression and anxiety. He’s gone from a six-figure salary to having to check his balance before using his bank card. “I miss being able to go into a store and go off budget,” he says. “Now, when I go to shop for something, I have to stick to exactly what I came to get. I never have money to buy anything else.” Wilder, 43, grew up solidly middle class, the son of a newspaper editor and a college administrator. Now the single parent of a 15-year-old, he has managed to keep his son in cleats and baseball camps, but thoughts of dying poor have crept into his mind. All of his savings are gone. “It’s definitely harder for black people to get jobs,” Wilder says. “With the economy as bad as it is, people are hiring nephews and family friends and friends of friends. It’s hard for black people to break that cycle. We don’t own or even run the big companies.” “It’s hard to keep jobs as well, because they’re gonna `last hired/first fired’ you,” he adds. Wilder isn’t giving up on finding a job in his field, “but I should.” “I call everyone. I send resumes. It is extremely rare that I get a call back,” he says. “When I was growing up, I never imagined there would be a time when I was out of work for three years.” College-educated blacks fared worse than their white counterparts in the recession. In 2007, unemployment for college-educated whites was 1.8 percent; for college-educated blacks it was 2.7 percent. Now, the college-educated unemployment rate is 3.9 percent for whites and 7 percent for blacks. “I’ve definitely played by the rules,” Wilder says. He’s not desperate enough to break the law, but “I see why people become drug dealers.” ___ Horace Davis did become a drug dealer. He illustrates another dimension of the recession’s impact on blacks: While law-abiding folks are falling out of the middle class, those who got in trouble with the law are further than ever from a second chance. After serving four years for drug trafficking, Davis walked out of prison into the middle of the recession in 2008. “I thought to myself, I’m older, I need to get a job, move on. The dope game was dead to me,” Davis says, sitting on a concrete porch in an Asheville, N.C., housing project. In the past few decades of the “War on Drugs,” harsh sentencing laws have sent a disproportionate number of black people to prison, even though blacks are not more likely than whites to sell or use drugs, according to a 2008 report by the Sentencing Project. Today, about 280,000 African-Americans emerge from behind bars each year. They are often the last of the last to be hired. After Davis got out, he spent months applying for dozens of jobs mopping floors or flipping burgers. He carried a letter from the state offering a $2,500 tax credit for hiring ex-offenders. He got one call back, from a chicken restaurant. “We’ll be in touch,” Davis remembers them saying. They weren’t. “Nobody wants black felons in their businesses,” says Davis, 26. A 2003 University of Chicago study by Devah Pager sent young white and black “testers” to apply for real low-wage jobs. Some of the testers were randomly assigned felony convictions. The study found that whites with felonies were slightly more likely to get callbacks than black applicants without criminal records. “The penalty of a criminal record is more disabling for black job seekers than whites,” Pager and other researchers wrote in a follow-up study in 2009. Davis says he learned skills in prison: “How to cook, clean, horticulture, janitorial. I can do it. I’ve been trained. Tile, carpentry, mortar, edging and trimming, all that. I can operate a backhoe, a roller. Any opportunity to do something that would show my talents, I’d do it. It would be my ticket out the streets. “I just need someone to give me that chance. A nice construction job, anything. I would hold onto that until I die.” Some economists say the real black unemployment rate is as high as 25 or 30 percent, because government figures don’t count “discouraged” workers who have stopped looking for jobs and dropped out of the labor force. Davis now falls into that category – partly due to societal forces and partly, he knows, because of his own bad decisions. Recently, police said they caught Davis with a half-ounce of marijuana. His trial date is approaching. As a habitual felon, he could get a 10-year sentence. ___ Some see a bitter irony in soaring black unemployment and the decline of the black middle class on the watch of the first black president. “I thought Barack Obama could have provided some way out. But he lacks backbone,” Princeton professor Cornel West told truthdig.com recently. He said Obama had sold out the poor and become “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats … I don’t think in good conscience I could tell anybody to vote for Obama.” Yet many jobless blacks do not blame their plight on the president. “I have no problem with Obama when I look at what the alternatives are,” Wilder says. Goldring doesn’t think Obama is doing a bad job either. “The unemployment situation is not the best, but I don’t think it has a lot to do with him,” she says. “Fixing this economy, it’s going to take time. Wiley, the Center for Social Inclusion director, says Obama should be applauded for several initiatives that have helped the black middle class, such as programs to modify certain mortgages and prevent foreclosure due to job loss. She would have liked Obama to aggressively counter the suggestion that first black president would be showing favoritism if he specifically helped black people. “It’s the right thing to do for the nation,” she says. “Black people are a huge segment of the population, they’re especially hard-hit, and the country cannot recover if the black community – as well as the white community and others – does not recover.” ___ Black homeownership hit an all-time high in 2004, with 50 percent of African-Americans owning their homes, according to census data. Today, the black homeownership rate is 45 percent, compared with 74 percent for whites. Nearly 8 percent of African-Americans who bought homes from 2005-2008 have lost them to foreclosure, compared with 4.5 percent of whites, according to an estimate by the Center for Responsible Lending. Goldring remembers that when she got the foreclosure notice from the bank, “I bawled.” Her son, Chris Fredericks, says she was “vulnerable, more than I have ever seen her, but she still kept moving.” He was incredulous that his mother was in such a position. “At any point, you can slip back. It’s just the way the economy is going,” he says. “Once you get into a spiral, there’s no telling how far down you could go.” One day, at a counseling session on how to prevent foreclosure, Goldring learned about a new Maryland program that offered help to people who were behind on their mortgages due to layoffs or medical bills. She thought it was too good to be true. It wasn’t. The Emergency Mortgage Assistance program, financed by federal money, offered a zero-interest loan of up to $50,000. The money would pay off up to a year of back mortgage payments, plus up to two years of regular payments. All Goldring had to do was pay 31 percent of her current gross income, or the full mortgage payment if she got a new job close to her original salary. And so on a sweltering June day, Goldring stood before a podium in her freshly mulched back yard, flanked by a congressman, the mayor, the lieutenant governor, and other officials. The sound of chirping birds filled the air. Cameras rolled as the dignitaries told Goldring’s story, using her as an example to spread word of the Emergency Mortgage Program to other struggling homeowners. “I want to thank you for your courage,” said the lieutenant governor, Anthony Brown. “I know you did everything right,” Brown said. “You worked hard, you saved diligently, but challenges never overtaking our will sometimes overtake our wallets.” Goldring stood in front of the microphone and exhaled. “After this,” she said, “the only good thing would be to be employed, once again.” ___ Jesse Washington covers race and ethnicity for The Associated Press. He is reachable at or jwashington(at)ap.org. Associated Press Writer Chris Rugaber contributed to this report. http://www.twitter.com/jessewashington (RETRANSMITS to remove embargo. Clarifies that black unemployment has risen since the end of the recession, instead of ‘still rising.’ Corrects ‘blinds’ to ‘window shades.’ Updates the black male unemployment rate with newly available data. )

Read the full article →

Obama Faces Tough Task In Making Case On High-Stakes Economic Issues

July 9, 2011

WASHINGTON — Immersed in an intense struggle to cut the national debt, President Barack Obama faces a dilemma that will stay with him even if he succeeds in striking a grand deal with Congress: convincing Americans that the entire effort will do anything to create desperately needed jobs. Obama ties deficit reduction to jobs, on the basis that trying to balance the nation’s books will promote economic stability and give businesses more confidence to hire. But that’s a tough sell to the millions of Americans out of work right now. And the communications problem just got harder. The latest snapshot of the economy, out Friday, was a body blow that showed employers added a meager 18,000 jobs in June. The leaders of the country, meanwhile, are consumed with negotiating a major debt-reduction deal built upon cutting spending and raising taxes. It is not directly aimed at boosting jobs. Obama’s challenge is to link all this in meaningful terms and to get faster results. At stake are the country’s economic recovery and his re-election chances. The debt is the urgent problem for Obama and a divided Congress because they have no choice. Reaching a deal has become the key to winning Republican support for raising the nation’s debt limit, a politically noxious vote that Congress must take by Aug. 2 to keep the nation from risking default for the first time ever. “There’s no question that this is a complex, almost impenetrable issue,” said David Axelrod, a longtime Obama adviser and now a senior strategist to the president’s re-election campaign. “It’s not just the issue of the potential default, but it’s the larger issue of what he’s trying to get at, the opportunity of trying to do something big about the deficits and the debt. Big things are at stake, but they’re hard to penetrate, so the process of dealing with them is painstaking.” Republicans, too, face the challenge of explaining and defending how cutting debt will create jobs in the short term. They won control of the House last year in large part because of voter anxiety about government spending and jobs. But it is Obama who bears the largest burden, as any president does. In addressing the dismal jobs report, Obama made plain he knows what the country is thinking. “The debate here in Washington’s been dominated by issues of debt limit,” Obama said. “But what matters most to Americans, and what matters to me most as president in the wake of the worst downturn in our lifetimes, is getting our economy on a sounder footing so the American people can have the security they deserve.” As an imperative unto itself, deficit reduction is embraced by all parties as vital for stabilizing the nation and shrinking the debt passed on to the next generations. And a failure to extend the nation’s borrowing limit could cause a kind of enormous economic breakdown that would only worsen the employment picture. Now under deadline pressure, Obama and congressional leaders of both parties were to hold a rare weekend negotiation session on Sunday on a debt-cutting package that remains far from certain. It could cut the deficit by roughly $4 trillion over 10 years or so, which even by Washington spending standards would be considered a big deal. Yet it is joblessness itself that cuts to the heart of the American struggle. Obama said people “pour their guts out” when they write him letters about it. So he is pushing jobs ideas distinct from the debt talks. The president is prodding Congress to pass three pending trade deals, create construction jobs by repairing the nation’s infrastructure, extend a payroll tax cut that could keep money in people’s pockets, and make it easier for entrepreneurs to get patents. But the debt discussion is taking up Washington’s bandwidth. And not everyone is so sure it will help speed job creation. “Washington seems tone deaf,” said Scott Paul, executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, a sector of the economy Obama has been actively promoting. “The metric for President Obama and congressional leaders must now be the number of jobs we create, rather than the amount of deficit reduction we see.” The White House says the priority is both the deficit and jobs and that people understand that. A Pew Research Center poll in June found that more people favored cutting the deficit than spending to help the recovery. That mood varied widely, though, by political constituency. Independents, who will be key to Obama’s bid for a second term, favored deficit cutting over economic spending by 54 percent to 39 percent. “The key is making sure that you’re communicating the importance to the future of the country of dealing with our deficit, without slipping into inside-the-Beltway lingo,” said Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s communications director. “If communicated incorrectly, it can feel removed from day-to-day life. On the other hand, there’s an element of common sense to why this is important that I think people in the country get that sometimes eludes folks in this town.” The debt limit remains an obscurity to people. An Associated Press-GfK poll in June found Americans divided on raising it or not. Obama has tried to make the case that calamity awaits without action by Congress. “I want everybody to understand that this is a jobs issue,” he pleaded in a news conference last week. “This is not an abstraction.” The struggle has drawn Obama again into a reality of his job: time-eating negotiations with Congress on matters that resonate little with voters. After a bruising midterm election season last year, he conceded that meeting his White House responsibilities cost him some connection with the people. The president has since made a point to get out of town more regularly. Not this month, though. He is expected to keep meeting with congressional leaders at the White House until a deal can be reached, just as he did, day after day and night after night, earlier this year on a budget deal that prevented a government shutdown. Irrespective of the jobs element, Obama stands to gain if he emerges with a package that genuinely shrinks the debt in a way most Americans think is fair. “What’s fundamentally at stake here are economic issues. And barring any surprises, that’s what the election will be about,” said Robert Shapiro, a Columbia University professor who studies public opinion. “Getting out in front is something that would play well publicly, if things fare well. Taking the lead on the economy is probably a very good use of his time.”

Read the full article →

State Sees Little Urgency To End Shutdown

July 9, 2011

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Instead of sending Minnesota’s elected leaders into a frenzy of activity, the nation’s only state government shutdown has deepened the political paralysis that led them to their budget standoff. Top Democrats and Republicans have given no sign when they will talk again about how to resolve the stalemate. After blowing May and June deadlines to agree on a budget, Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican legislative leaders have met only twice – once for less than 30 minutes – and have made no apparent progress since most of state government closed July 1. There’s little sense of urgency, even with 22,000 state employees idled, 100 road projects stopped, 66 state parks barricaded, an assortment of services discontinued and the state’s top credit rating tarnished. The lack of action contrasts with what’s been happening in Washington, where an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling has lawmakers scrambling for a deal that would keep the U.S. from a potential default on its debt. President Barack Obama has summoned leaders for a rare weekend session and aides are trading proposals behind the scenes. While the consequences of the state’s inaction hardly reach that scale, that’s little consolation for public workers who won’t be getting paychecks or people with disabilities who have lost social services. “My thoughts would just be to encourage them to continue to meet and talk and try to work on a compromise that will benefit the entire state of Minnesota,” said Mary Nienow, who directs a child care advocacy organization, Child Care Works. She said her group is getting dozens of emails a day from families worried that they will lose their child care assistance. The key players had one brief session at midweek that ended with the two sides accusing each other of taking a step backward. Speaking to reporters after each session, they have said nothing that suggests progress. “Sometimes no news is good news, but in this case I’m not sure,” said former Minnesota House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, who represented Republicans in budget talks from 2007 until 2009. “In this case, no news is no news because it means there probably is nothing to report and it means nothing is going on.” He added: “Really, I’m not sure that it’s any different than where they were on Jan. 8. It must be an incredible sense of frustration on both sides, and the general public is rather frustrated, too.” The courts have taken some of the worst sting out of the shutdown. Decisions by a judge and a special master have restored services like special education payments to schools, state aid for training for the blind, and emergency crisis aid for the poor. More such rulings are likely on the way. But some groups’ requests have been rejected, so the shutdown means continuing pain for them. Arc Minnesota, a St. Paul nonprofit that helps people with disabilities, has suspended 90 percent of a housing service since losing its state funding. The program helped more than 200 people, including some who were homeless and others who were institutionalized, find their own housing in the past 18 months. “We really worry about what those people will do,” CEO Pat Mellenthin said. The shutdown’s effects are wide-ranging. It has closed historical sites and rest stops, shut down the state lottery, made it tougher to get a driver’s license and halted the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses. Much of the political dispute comes down to differences over how much to spend on health programs and social services and how to pay for it. Republicans want to eliminate a $5 billion deficit by cutting projected spending and holding the two-year state budget to $34 billion, the amount projected to come in without new revenue. But the state’s budget is being squeezed as enrollment and costs for public schools and health care programs grow and as the state, like others, copes with the loss of federal stimulus dollars. Dayton wants to soften cuts by raising another $1.4 billion; his latest offer relies on either a temporary income tax increase on top earners or higher cigarette taxes. House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch have rejected both options. Both sides are dug in. Each says it’s up to the other to move. In 2005, a more limited partial government shutdown ended after eight days when lawmakers and then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty, now a presidential candidate, agreed on a 75-cents-a-pack cigarette charge they called a “health impact fee.” During that shutdown, leaders of a divided Legislature met frequently and traded substantive offers. Back then, the leaders and Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s chief of staff spent part of a Fourth of July weekend in talks; this year, the weekend was a long cooling-off period. It appears that a solution this year will require some form of new revenue, just as 2005 did. Dayton has more room to operate than Koch and Zellers, who have to line up votes from a caucus that includes a new, powerful faction of lawmakers dead-set against spending increases and others who hope for a quick way out of the shutdown. “If they make a deal and they don’t have the votes to pass it, that’s a difficult position to be in, obviously,” said Rep. Kurt Daudt, a first-term Republican from Crown who opposes tax increases and gambling.

Read the full article →

Five Myths About The Debt Ceiling

July 8, 2011

In recent months, the federal debt ceiling — last increased in February 2010 and now standing at $14.3 trillion — has become a matter of national debate and political hysteria. The ceiling must be raised by Aug. 2, Treasury says, or the government will run out of cash.

Read the full article →

Lawmakers Visit White House For Debt Ceiling Talks

July 7, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is having friend and foe alike come to the White House to talk about cutting the budget deficit, with less than four weeks to avert a first-ever default on U.S. financial obligations. Thursday’s talks will include top lawmakers in both parties. Negotiations are gaining urgency by the day, because Republicans are insisting on major cuts to the deficit as the price for approving legislation to maintain the government’s ability to borrow money and stave off a market-rattling default. The negotiations are the first official sit-down since last month, when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., left talks that had been led by Vice President Joe Biden, citing an insistence by Democrats on raising taxes. But Cantor went out of his way Wednesday to make clear that he bolted the Biden group over an administration proposal to limit the ability of upper-bracket taxpayers and small businesses to claim deductions – and he signaled a willingness to consider closing some tax loopholes for businesses as part of a broader budget pact. “If the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes,” said Cantor, adding that any revenues raised from closing loopholes “should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.” On Thursday, Cantor said that any deal to avert a government default must include “reforms to the system” to show that Washington can manage the country’s finances. The Virginia Republican conceded in an interview that special interest loopholes in the tax code must be addressed. But he also said Republicans are being falsely accused of blocking agreement on a package of spending cuts necessary to produce enough votes to renew the Treasury’s borrowing authority, which expires Aug. 2. Cantor said differences between Democrats and Republicans over such issues as tax breaks for owners of corporate jets were not the factors behind his decision last week to walk out of deficit-reduction talks led by Vice President Joe Biden. “There was a fundamental disagreement over whether we should raise taxes right now,” he said on NBC’s “Today” show. “I believe it’s counterintuitive,: Cantor said. His comments reflected important, if nuanced, flexibility by Republicans. His earlier position was that closing loopholes should wait for a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code. And he didn’t rule out using loophole revenues to extend existing tax cuts instead of paying for new ones. In the Senate, however, GOP leader Mitch McConnell was against the idea. “To sort of cherry-pick items in the context of this current negotiation at the White House strikes me as pretty challenging,” he said. Democratic officials allied with Obama said the president believes it would be easier to win bipartisan support in the House and Senate for a deal that embraces larger deficit cuts closer to the $4 trillion over 12 years that Obama proposed in April. The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the talks, said the precise number was still in flux, but they said Obama would be making the case for more rather than less deficit reduction in his discussions with congressional leaders Thursday. However, any larger figure would depend on agreement on a long-term deficit or spending cap, enforced by automatic spending cuts and, under Obama’s proposals, a tax-increase “trigger” that would be tripped if targets were not met. Negotiations within the Biden-led group on the idea of spending caps and tax triggers had reached an impasse, however, a GOP aide familiar with the talks said. After a pugnacious news conference last week, Obama struck a far softer tone Tuesday in inviting lawmakers to the White House. But on Wednesday, the gloves came off again. Obama attacked Republicans as defenders of wasteful and unfair loopholes, such as subsidies for highly profitable oil companies or a break given to companies that purchase private jets. “The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners or oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars,” Obama said during a town hall that featured questions posed through the online social network Twitter. Thursday’s session comes several days after Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, met secretly at the White House to try to end political posturing and get negotiations back on track. According to Democrats and Republicans familiar with the Biden discussions, the two sides had reached tentative understandings that could easily add up to almost $2 trillion – or even more – in budget cuts over the coming decade. The agreements were tentative at best but involved more than $1 trillion in cuts to the day-to-day budgets of domestic Cabinet agencies and the Pentagon, in addition to cuts to farm subsidies, federal employee pensions, college aid and federal health care programs. “The Biden group produced a blueprint where I can envision us proposing and accomplishing over $2 trillion in savings,” Cantor said. “And that deal is still in the works.” ___ Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

Read the full article →