Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

    A good analysis below

    Unsurprising Poll Results from Massachusetts: Voters Think Obama Sides With the Banks


    An interesting observation was made today by the pollster for Martha Coakley, the hapless Democratic candidate for the Massachusetts senate seat held almost forever by Ted Kennedy. It appears polls are showing that the voters, especially independents who would normally vote Democratic in a liberal blue state like Massachusetts, have instead run to support the Republican candidate as the agent of change. Wasn’t that supposed to be Barack Obama’s signature tune?

    Massachusetts voters have given up on President Obama as an agent for anything but the status quo, and this is most evident in his willingness to dole out trillions of dollars in direct and indirect support to the banks. The Massachusetts polls show this issue to be foremost on the minds of the voters.

    The White House was getting this message way too late to do any good. President Obama was in Massachusetts only in the last few days, trying to work his magic with crowds to revitalize a dying effort. He also announced last week a proposal to tax the banks on their profits, hoping to generate $90 billion dollars this decade in partial payment to the taxpayers for their bailout of the banking system. He promised that one way or another, the banks would pay back every dime of the money lent to them.

    It is not clear that his oratory is working or that the public is listening to him; his actions this past year have been completely at variance with his rhetoric. He is, in fact, almost as completely addled as the bank executive cronies he appears to court and coddle. This past week also saw testimony from some of the top executives in the banking industry, including Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, and John Mack of Morgan Stanley. They were all very skilled at accepting regret for what happened without accepting responsibility.

    It was clear, though, that not one of them expected to change their way of business to any great degree. They acted almost as if it were their God-given right to be Too Big To Fail, and to have unlimited access to the taxpayers’ wallets when they wanted and needed it. The most astounding revelation came from Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, who said no one in his bank even contemplated the possibility that housing values might go down.

    Were he to say otherwise might expose the bank to all sorts of lawsuits. Still, taking him at his word, we have to accept that none of the top executives at Jamie Dimon’s bank foresaw a housing crash or even a bubble in the making. These are men making millions of dollars a year, and they couldn’t see the housing bubble of the century in front of their eyes? If Jamie Dimon had a soupçon of personal honor he would have already resigned over this failure, and fired all his top management to boot. We are left to conclude that bankers are as much bereft of personal honor as they are lacking in a sense of personal responsibility for their failures.

    These are the people Barack Obama has chosen to cozen up to in a vainglorious attempt to revive the economy. We have come to the point of no return for this administration – either it charts a drastically different course when it comes to dealing with the financial industry, or it carries on siding with clueless, inept, and in many cases immoral bankers. Maybe the electoral situation will force President Obama to see the light, but if so, he is going to have to take dramatically different action to do anything serious about reforming the banking industry. Many of the ideas afoot, like a tax on banking profits or a consumer regulatory watchdog, are helpful but don’t constitute real reform. Here, then, is an insider’s view of what really is necessary.

    Step One
    Fire Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, and replace them with people who are not integrally connected to the industry, particularly to Goldman Sachs. Withdraw the nomination of Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve before it is too late. If possible, replace him with Paul Volcker or someone equally disgusted with the performance and attitudes of banking
    executives. Fire John Dugan as Comptroller of the Currency. He has been captured by the big banks from the get-go and needs to be replaced by someone who is not afraid to stand up to the industry.

    Step Two
    Submit to Congress a bill to repeal last year’s instructions to the FASB to modify mark to market practices. The light of day needs to be shed on what the banks own in the way of mortgage backed securities and related derivatives, and public prices need to be applied to these assets. Instruct the GAO to conduct a complete audit of the Fed, not just the limited audit of the AIG transaction that Bernanke has approved.

    Step Three
    A tax on bank profits is well and good, but does not get to the source of the problem behind aggressive risk taking and obscene bonuses. The real problem is with bank expectations on their return on equity. Banks, especially the top 10 largest in the US, have ratcheted up their ROE targets year by year, so that now they are at least expected to be 15% p.a. or higher. These high targets lead to abuse of leverage, lax accounting, misleading products, and ultimately Ponzi finance, in which higher volumes and greater risk are needed every year to keep the ROE scheme going. To control this, bank regulators need to go straight to the heart of the system within banks that mandates these excessive ROE targets – the hurdle rate of return for transactions. This should be mandated to be no larger than 10% return on assigned capital. Deals which generate a return greater than 20% on assigned capital should no longer be welcomed with glee, but looked at suspiciously for the undue risks involved.

    Step Four
    Bankers love to say that if they don’t reward their best talent with fantastic bonuses, these people will leave for greener pastures. What this really means is that these people will leave for the hedge fund or leveraged buyout industries, and to a lesser extent the mutual fund industry, all of which pay extremely well. The reason these industries have thrived has been their access to cheap and unlimited credit that allows them to leverage anywhere from 2:1 up to 30:1 for some hedge funds. Without this leverage high ROEs are not possible, and therefore neither are high bonuses. There is no demonstrable economic benefit from hedge fund or leveraged buyout practices, therefore the access to capital for these industries needs to be significantly constrained. Regulators need to go to the source of this capital – the banking industry – and an ideal starting point would be to cap loans to these industries going forward at the levels set in 2009.

    Step Five
    Financial activities which constitute extraction of equity need to be outlawed. There are a number of examples of this, but two obvious examples include any home equity loan where the borrower is taking cash out from their property not directly related to the purpose of the borrowing or to be used to pay points or fees to the lender; and second leveraged buyout activity where the target is used as collateral for the buyout loan or where the buyer takes dividends out of the target’s retained earnings or pension plan.

    Step Six
    Get Eric Holder and the Justice Department to work on the many cases of fraud and securities or tax law violations that have piled up in recent years and are now getting stale. The mortgage industry is an obvious source of indictments, but don’t be afraid to look at all the top banking industry executives who ignored warnings from the federal government as early as 2004 that no-documentation loans were rife with fraud (as was the appraisal process). These executives, including CEOs, should have seen these warnings, yet they continued to issue securities to investors without alerting them to the potential problems with the underlying mortgages behind the securities. This is securities fraud, or at the very least negligence of the highest order.

    Step Seven
    Work closely with all the major international banking regulators and their governments to insure consistent standards on financial reform and tax policies. Regulators should not be allowed to game the system and deliberately put in place lax standards to attract banking business from other countries. This means you, Switzerland!

    Step Eight
    Prepare the federal government internally, and especially the FDIC, for the possible bankruptcy and collapse of any or all of the big banks, including Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. Have a well-thought-out emergency plan in place for such a contingency, especially for the FDIC to act as receiver-in-possession and guarantor of all qualifying deposits. Then, announce as clearly and forcibly as you can that Too Big To Fail is officially dead, and then henceforth any financial institution which gets into trouble will receive no bailout from the government but will instead be thrown into bankruptcy.

    The important aspect of this eight point program is that all of these actions can be taken here and now. The Obama administration doesn’t need to wait for regulatory reform to work its way through years of legislation and court tests. All it needs is the right leadership in the regulatory bodies, and the right prodding from the administration.

    Which means all it needs is for Barack Obama to decide that the financial industry is not his friend, is not doing anything to help revive the economy, and is in desperate need of reform that gets to the very root of its practices.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

      Analysis of the 'solution' proposed by Numerian at agonist.org

      Step One
      Fire Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, and replace them with people who are not integrally connected to the industry, particularly to Goldman Sachs. Withdraw the nomination of Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve before it is too late. If possible, replace him with Paul Volcker or someone equally disgusted with the performance and attitudes of banking
      executives. Fire John Dugan as Comptroller of the Currency. He has been captured by the big banks from the get-go and needs to be replaced by someone who is not afraid to stand up to the industry.
      Firing one meat puppet and replacing it with another is worthless. Or put another way, is putting in Volcker with the mandate of raising interest rates to kill inflation really the answer? Volcker whacked inflation in 1985, but did not do anything from a regulatory standpoint.

      More importantly, is a regulatory activist Fed even possible?

      Lastly the assumption being made is that Geithner and Bernanke are doing something which the government (Obama and the Democratic party) don't want.

      This is an incorrect assumption.

      Step Two
      Submit to Congress a bill to repeal last year’s instructions to the FASB to modify mark to market practices. The light of day needs to be shed on what the banks own in the way of mortgage backed securities and related derivatives, and public prices need to be applied to these assets. Instruct the GAO to conduct a complete audit of the Fed, not just the limited audit of the AIG transaction that Bernanke has approved.
      Sounds nice. But to do so at this point would certainly mean the collapse of 2000 or more banks including the TBTF ones.

      Is the Democratic party, much less Obama, prepared to crash the economy now that a 'recovery' is under way?

      Are the above also willing to admit they were wrong? To say that the entire last year's work was false and wrongheaded?

      I submit that this is a fantasy.

      Step Three
      A tax on bank profits is well and good, but does not get to the source of the problem behind aggressive risk taking and obscene bonuses. The real problem is with bank expectations on their return on equity. Banks, especially the top 10 largest in the US, have ratcheted up their ROE targets year by year, so that now they are at least expected to be 15% p.a. or higher. These high targets lead to abuse of leverage, lax accounting, misleading products, and ultimately Ponzi finance, in which higher volumes and greater risk are needed every year to keep the ROE scheme going. To control this, bank regulators need to go straight to the heart of the system within banks that mandates these excessive ROE targets – the hurdle rate of return for transactions. This should be mandated to be no larger than 10% return on assigned capital. Deals which generate a return greater than 20% on assigned capital should no longer be welcomed with glee, but looked at suspiciously for the undue risks involved.
      Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

      The problem isn't ROE. The problem is leverage. If a bank can somehow achieve 1000% ROE without leverage, that's fine. But banks trying to achieve an extra 2% ROE via triple the leverage and thus incurring systemic risk, that is not fine.

      Step Four
      Bankers love to say that if they don’t reward their best talent with fantastic bonuses, these people will leave for greener pastures. What this really means is that these people will leave for the hedge fund or leveraged buyout industries, and to a lesser extent the mutual fund industry, all of which pay extremely well. The reason these industries have thrived has been their access to cheap and unlimited credit that allows them to leverage anywhere from 2:1 up to 30:1 for some hedge funds. Without this leverage high ROEs are not possible, and therefore neither are high bonuses. There is no demonstrable economic benefit from hedge fund or leveraged buyout practices, therefore the access to capital for these industries needs to be significantly constrained. Regulators need to go to the source of this capital – the banking industry – and an ideal starting point would be to cap loans to these industries going forward at the levels set in 2009.
      Again, totally wrong headed. Ultimately it doesn't matter what the banks want to pay their people. For those banks which are beholden to the government, the government should have a say in how pay is apportioned much as theoretically any major shareholder should.

      The real problem is tax based. The bonus system is result of an unholy confluence between lower 'carry' taxes and various tax deductability dodges. It is these distortions as well as the idiots willing to pay "2 & 20" which cause bank bonuses to rise.

      Remove the tax dodges and see what happens before sticking the government hand in.

      Step Five
      Financial activities which constitute extraction of equity need to be outlawed. There are a number of examples of this, but two obvious examples include any home equity loan where the borrower is taking cash out from their property not directly related to the purpose of the borrowing or to be used to pay points or fees to the lender; and second leveraged buyout activity where the target is used as collateral for the buyout loan or where the buyer takes dividends out of the target’s retained earnings or pension plan.
      These don't need to be outlawed. What needs to be examined closely is the mortgage subsidy; it is this which gives incentive to borrow more when buying real estate.

      For that matter mortgage insurance is a well accepted phenomenon; what commonly happened during the bubble was to use a 2nd mortgage to 'escape' PMI costs as well as down payment issues.

      All of these boiled down to the securitization scam. There are many and easy ways to fix those conflicts of interest - even assuming fixes are necessary now that everyone knows MBS's are extremely dangerous and MBS ratings are worthless.

      Step Six
      Get Eric Holder and the Justice Department to work on the many cases of fraud and securities or tax law violations that have piled up in recent years and are now getting stale. The mortgage industry is an obvious source of indictments, but don’t be afraid to look at all the top banking industry executives who ignored warnings from the federal government as early as 2004 that no-documentation loans were rife with fraud (as was the appraisal process). These executives, including CEOs, should have seen these warnings, yet they continued to issue securities to investors without alerting them to the potential problems with the underlying mortgages behind the securities. This is securities fraud, or at the very least negligence of the highest order.
      Why does the AG need to be involved? the FBI already has a mandate to do this. Sounds more like a witch hunt than anything else.

      Step Seven
      Work closely with all the major international banking regulators and their governments to insure consistent standards on financial reform and tax policies. Regulators should not be allowed to game the system and deliberately put in place lax standards to attract banking business from other countries. This means you, Switzerland!
      This again is pie in the sky crap. Tax laws in Switzerland have nothing to do with FASB vs. Basel differences. This writer clearly doesn't understand the difference between accounting, tax management, and tax reporting.

      Step Eight
      Prepare the federal government internally, and especially the FDIC, for the possible bankruptcy and collapse of any or all of the big banks, including Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. Have a well-thought-out emergency plan in place for such a contingency, especially for the FDIC to act as receiver-in-possession and guarantor of all qualifying deposits. Then, announce as clearly and forcibly as you can that Too Big To Fail is officially dead, and then henceforth any financial institution which gets into trouble will receive no bailout from the government but will instead be thrown into bankruptcy.
      Sounds nice. If this had been undertaken before the 'financial crisis' was averted, it may have made some sense.

      But at this juncture to go backwards is impossible.

      Secondly the issue isn't the deposits. They have always been insured by the FDIC and the FDIC has an unlimited line of credit via US money printing.

      The issue is lending to consumers and businesses.

      While I certainly agree the TBTF banks aren't lending, it is unclear to me how closing them all down fixes this problem.

      The real issue as has been spoken to at length by Dr. Michael Hudson is asset prices.

      The real problem is a complete lack of leadership in both Congress and the White House.

      Unlike Dubya, Obama doesn't have the excuse of being stupid.

      Just cowardly.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

        Scott Brown would be a 'mainstream Democrat' in at least 40 of the 50 states. To expect any substansive change because a Republicrat side
        of the coin finally turns up after the Demopublican side has gotten 48 of the past 50 coin flips in this specific locale is delusional.
        Neither Drunk 'n AWOL nor Obozo The Clown is stupid; both are cowardly.

        Idiot Cramer projected 'melt-up rally' if Beige won; that was a 'get double short' signal with a 99.999% certainty of success.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

          Originally posted by Rantly McTirade View Post
          Scott Brown would be a 'mainstream Democrat' in at least 40 of the 50 states. To expect any substansive change because a Republicrat side
          of the coin finally turns up after the Demopublican side has gotten 48 of the past 50 coin flips in this specific locale is delusional.
          Neither Drunk 'n AWOL nor Obozo The Clown is stupid; both are cowardly.

          Idiot Cramer projected 'melt-up rally' if Beige won; that was a 'get double short' signal with a 99.999% certainty of success.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

            Originally posted by Marek View Post
            If you make a point of registering Independent to force the debate away from party lines, why are you concerned about voting in closed primaries which focus the debate along party lines?
            It's not that cut and dried.

            Take this election as an example, Scott Brown may have run as an independent, but he did so on the Republican ticket.
            Last edited by Slimprofits; January 20, 2010, 02:20 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

              After reading this I would have not voter for her or the other candiadate

              Of all the men and women falsely convicted during the child molestation hysteria of the '80s, by 2001, only Gerald Amirault still sat in prison. Even his sister and mother had been released after serving eight years in prison for crimes that never occurred.
              In July 2001, the notoriously tough Massachusetts parole board voted unanimously to grant Gerald Amirault clemency. Although the parole board is not permitted to consider guilt or innocence, its recommendation said: "(I)t is clearly a matter of public knowledge that, at the minimum, real and substantial doubt exists concerning petitioner's conviction."
              Immediately after the board's recommendation, The Boston Globe reported that Gov. Jane Swift was leaning toward accepting the board's recommendation and freeing Amirault.
              Enter Martha Coakley, Middlesex district attorney. Gerald Amirault had already spent 15 years in prison for crimes he no more committed than anyone reading this column did. But Coakley put on a full court press to keep Amirault in prison simply to further her political ambitions.
              By then, every sentient person knew that Amirault was innocent. But instead of saying nothing, Coakley frantically lobbied Gov. Jane Swift to keep him in prison to show that she was a take-no-prisoners prosecutor, who stood up for "the children." As a result of Coakley's efforts -- and her contagious ambition -- Gov. Swift denied Amirault's clemency.
              Thanks to Martha Coakley, Gerald Amirault sat in prison for another three years.
              Remember all that talk about President Bush shredding constitutional rights? Overzealous liberal prosecutors and feminist do-gooders allowed Gerald Amirault to sit in prison for 18 years for crimes that didn't exist -- except in the imaginations of small children under the influence of incompetent child "therapists."
              Martha Coakley allowed her ambition to trump basic human decency as she campaigned to keep a patently innocent man in prison.
              Anyone with the smallest sense of justice cannot vote to put this woman in any office. If you absolutely cannot vote for a Republican on Jan. 19, 2010, write in the name "Gerald Amirault."
              http://news-search.clusty.com:7205/c...ging=0&cid=364

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

                Originally posted by babbittd View Post
                It's not that cut and dried.

                Take this election as an example, Scott Brown may have run as an independent, but he did so on the Republican ticket.
                And independents had the opportunity to vote for him in the general election; a fact well documented and reported (and unlikely to be overlooked by either party). That Independents decided this election is confirmation of EJ's suggestion that non-party politics is a way forward. But this confirmation is only possible because of the number of registered Independents in Massachusetts.

                In the end it comes down to making a choice of whether you vote for the candidate of the moment (by registering to vote in closed-party elections) or vote for a better system by registering independent. You choose.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

                  Maybe I'm missing something here, but it appears that if independent voters ceased attempting to influence the primaries, the primaries would still go on and the incumbents would gain an even bigger overall advantage than they already enjoy in terms of constant media exposure, fundraising, etc.

                  The ratio of Open to closed primaries is just about even.

                  In the end it comes down to making a choice of whether you vote for the candidate of the moment (by registering to vote in closed-party elections) or vote for a better system by registering independent. You choose.
                  Calm down, I don't think you've figured it all out just yet.
                  Last edited by Slimprofits; January 20, 2010, 04:15 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

                    Shakespear, I think the Dems assumed we had all forgotten about the Amirault case.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

                      One would assume that you didn't vote for Kennedy (no relation).

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

                        Originally posted by goadam1 View Post
                        One would assume that you didn't vote for Kennedy (no relation).
                        In some circles he became known as the "Fake Kennedy". In the end he didn't turn out to be the spoiler he was expected to be.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

                          Originally posted by Marek View Post
                          In some circles he became known as the "Fake Kennedy". In the end he didn't turn out to be the spoiler he was expected to be.
                          I voted for kodos.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

                            I don't disagree with any of Eric's points, except his claim that Scott Brown is a social liberal. Massachusetts is a state that has already legalized gay marriage, but Scott Brown supports a US constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. That doesn't sound socially liberal to me.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

                              Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                              Analysis of the 'solution' proposed by Numerian at agonist.org



                              Firing one meat puppet and replacing it with another is worthless. Or put another way, is putting in Volcker with the mandate of raising interest rates to kill inflation really the answer? Volcker whacked inflation in 1985, but did not do anything from a regulatory standpoint.

                              More importantly, is a regulatory activist Fed even possible?

                              Lastly the assumption being made is that Geithner and Bernanke are doing something which the government (Obama and the Democratic party) don't want.

                              This is an incorrect assumption.



                              Sounds nice. But to do so at this point would certainly mean the collapse of 2000 or more banks including the TBTF ones.

                              Is the Democratic party, much less Obama, prepared to crash the economy now that a 'recovery' is under way?

                              Are the above also willing to admit they were wrong? To say that the entire last year's work was false and wrongheaded?

                              I submit that this is a fantasy.



                              Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

                              The problem isn't ROE. The problem is leverage. If a bank can somehow achieve 1000% ROE without leverage, that's fine. But banks trying to achieve an extra 2% ROE via triple the leverage and thus incurring systemic risk, that is not fine.



                              Again, totally wrong headed. Ultimately it doesn't matter what the banks want to pay their people. For those banks which are beholden to the government, the government should have a say in how pay is apportioned much as theoretically any major shareholder should.

                              The real problem is tax based. The bonus system is result of an unholy confluence between lower 'carry' taxes and various tax deductability dodges. It is these distortions as well as the idiots willing to pay "2 & 20" which cause bank bonuses to rise.

                              Remove the tax dodges and see what happens before sticking the government hand in.



                              These don't need to be outlawed. What needs to be examined closely is the mortgage subsidy; it is this which gives incentive to borrow more when buying real estate.

                              For that matter mortgage insurance is a well accepted phenomenon; what commonly happened during the bubble was to use a 2nd mortgage to 'escape' PMI costs as well as down payment issues.

                              All of these boiled down to the securitization scam. There are many and easy ways to fix those conflicts of interest - even assuming fixes are necessary now that everyone knows MBS's are extremely dangerous and MBS ratings are worthless.



                              Why does the AG need to be involved? the FBI already has a mandate to do this. Sounds more like a witch hunt than anything else.



                              This again is pie in the sky crap. Tax laws in Switzerland have nothing to do with FASB vs. Basel differences. This writer clearly doesn't understand the difference between accounting, tax management, and tax reporting.



                              Sounds nice. If this had been undertaken before the 'financial crisis' was averted, it may have made some sense.

                              But at this juncture to go backwards is impossible.

                              Secondly the issue isn't the deposits. They have always been insured by the FDIC and the FDIC has an unlimited line of credit via US money printing.

                              The issue is lending to consumers and businesses.

                              While I certainly agree the TBTF banks aren't lending, it is unclear to me how closing them all down fixes this problem.

                              The real issue as has been spoken to at length by Dr. Michael Hudson is asset prices.

                              The real problem is a complete lack of leadership in both Congress and the White House.

                              Unlike Dubya, Obama doesn't have the excuse of being stupid.

                              Just cowardly.
                              you give Obama too much credit ...

                              "Obama sides with the banks".....

                              Obama is OWNED by the banks


                              Last edited by audrey_girl; January 20, 2010, 10:08 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

                                And the PERVERSE response from the democrats?

                                http://www.zerohedge.com/article/dem...g-143-trillion


                                Democrats To Seek Stunning $1.9 Trillion Increase In Debt Ceiling To $14.3 Trillion


                                (Or F-U "little people" in America!)


                                Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/20/2010 16:32 -0500




                                From Dow Jones:

                                Senate Democrats are to seek an increase to the federal government's borrowing limit by $1.9 trillion lifting the total amount the U.S. government can owe to $14.294 trillion, several congressional aides said Wednesday.
                                The increase is forecast to support the federal government's borrowing needs the end of 2010, one Senate Democratic aide said.
                                The borrowing hike comes fast on the heels of a $290 billion increase to the debt ceiling agreed to by lawmakers at the end of 2009.


                                Update: Reader Steak points out the following piece of debt ceiling management insight from Politico:
                                President Barack Obama is expected to appoint a special deficit reduction commission as part of a tentative agreement between Democrats and the White House—each trying to find the votes to raise the federal debt ceiling in the coming weeks.

                                With the Massachusetts loss facing them, Senate leaders appeared to back-pedal Tuesday from a pre-Christmas agreement that anticipated a rapid-fire set of roll calls beginning Wednesday on a debt ceiling bill and accompanying amendments. Instead, Democrats signaled that key votes could be postponed until next week, as the administration tries to get a final sign-off from two of the major players, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D—Cal) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D—N.D.)

                                Obama’s problem is that one person’s process can be another’s poison. In this case, Conrad’s scheme usurps the power of the two top Democrats in Congress, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and even more, Pelosi.

                                The challenge for the White House has been to find an alternative path that offends fewer people but still holds some promise of forcing action in the future.
                                The lunacy continues
                                4.375





                                Your rating: None Average: 4.4 (8 votes)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X