Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. We're coming to you tonight from New Haven, CT, home of Yale University and birthplace of Ricci v. DeStefano. Now to the day in politics...
STATE OF THE UNION: I was overall pleased with the President's State of the Union last night. I was especially impressed by how he narrowed in on the factors inhibiting our nation's progress, like hyper-partisanship, the United States Senate, and corporate influence in Congress. He also showed something that has been sorely lacking over the last several months: passion. He struck a very good chord last night by saying that he won't quit, and the nation won't quit, despite his recent political setbacks. I also liked his courage in calling some people out, like the Supreme Court for their horrible decision last week in the Citizens United case, Congressional Democrats for being weak willies, and Congressional Republicans for being obstructionist. In that sense, his speech was very bold.
My major issues with his speech is that he didn't fundamentally change the economic narrative that threatens his legislative agenda. In fact, he added to it. I cringed when he said that Congress should be tightening its belts during a recession. No, Mr. President, it shouldn't, and you know that! As we've talked about numerous times before, the President is feeding the narrative that somehow cutting government spending will help us make it out of the recession. This unfortunate view is represented by his ill-advised freeze of discretionary spending, which will take effect in 2011.
Also, some of the President's policy proposals, especially relating to jobs, were not very ambitious. It might be politically wise for the President to seek the low-hanging fruit, like capital gains tax cuts on small businesses, but he will need to do a lot more to ignite the kind of job creation that we all want. The Senate seems to be following the President's lead, and will vote on a small jobs bill that won't be nearly large enough to make a big impact. He also gave Congress little guidance in how to proceed on health care. I appreciate how he implored them to "get it done," but I thought he could have give more concrete instructions to Congressional Democrats.
Overall, the speech was good in that it allowed the President to regain the trust and respect of people who were doubting him the most, like soft Democrats and independents. He was strong and reassuring, and hopefully his performance will give him so political capital so that he can get some legislative accomplishments. The way Congress is right now, that's not looking promising.
THE PRESIDENT: The President and Vice President were in Tampa Bay, Florida today to unveil a $1 billion grant to build a high-speed rail line. I'm a huge fan of high speed rail, and one of the best things Obama has done thus far is use stimulus money to spur this important investment in our infrastructure. The event in Tampa Bay doubled as a bit of a political rally. The President, surrounded by enthusiastic supporters, said that he has "no apologies" for his work thus far.
The President will hold an event in Baltimore tomorrow to officially announce a new plan to give tax credits to small businesses that hire new workers.
THE SENATE: It was a very busy day in the United States Senate. Senators finished up a bill that was raise the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. Republicans wanted Democrats to own this unpopular measure, so they voted en masse to let the United States default on its loans. The bill only passed with the support of all 60 Democrats. And yes, Republican Scott Brown, who won last week's Senate race in Massachusetts, did not want to be seated in time to take this difficult vote, so he let Massachusetts' interim Senator Paul Kirk (D) do the dirty work. The House will take up the bill next week, and will send it to the President by next Friday. When the President signs the bill, our debt ceiling will be high enough to last us through the November elections.
Prior to a vote on final passage, the Senate voted on a few amendments. The first amendment, offered by Senator Brownback (R-KS) would establish a commission to review Congressional spending and federal agencies. The amendment failed to get the 60 votes needed for passage, despite the support of Democrats Bayh (IN), Bennet (CO), Hagan (NC), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Merkley (OR), Nelson (NE), Nelson (FL), Shaheen (NH), Tester (MT), Warner (VA) and Webb (VA). Republicans Cochran (MS), Gregg (NH) and Snowe (ME) voted no.
The second amendment, offered by Senator Sessions (AL) would have established a five year cap on discretionary spending. You don't need me to remind you why this is a horrible idea. It's a shame that it got 56 votes, though it was short of the 60 votes needed for passage. Democrats Bayh (IN), Begich (AK), Bennet (CO), Carper (DE), Hagan (NC), Klobuchar (MN), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Nelson (NE), Nelson (FL), Pryor (AR), Shaheen (NH), Tester (MT), Udall (CO), Warner (VA) and Webb (VA).
Finally, the Senate voted to re-institute pay-as-you-go budgeting rules. These rules require all new spending to be offset with tax increases or spending reductions. It was abandoned by Congress in the early years of the Bush administration. The amendment passed 60-40 on a pure party line vote. Republicans objected to these rules because it might result in tax increases. Of course, taxes have NOTHING to do with cutting the deficit. Absolutely nothing!
The Senate then turned to the nomination of Ben Bernanke for another term at the Federal Reserve. Bernanke faced opposition from both parties due to his performance ahead of the 2008 financial meltdown, but he ended up being confirmed relatively easily by a vote of 70-30. The "no" votes were pretty much split between the two parties. Bernanke will now serve at the Fed until at least 2014. Prior to a vote on the nomination itself, the Senate voted to cut off debate on the nomination by a vote of 77-23. See, people? You can oppose something but choose not to filibuster it!
The House was out of session today as the Republicans began their annual retreat. Both chambers will come back into session next Monday.
That's it for tonight! Our next entry will be Monday morning. See you then, and leave comments!
Showing posts with label Bernanke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bernanke. Show all posts
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Daily Strike-1/22/10-Devastating Realization
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike, where we will close out a dark, dark week in politics. I think we could all use a relaxing weekend full of football and anything else that can take our minds off of what has happened this past week. Leave some comments! I appreciated the comment left on our last entry, you're keeping us socialists on our toes!
WHY I'M DEPRESSED: Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts Senate race was depressing for a number of reasons, but it was seemingly most devastating because Democrats lost their 60-vote filibuster-proof majority. Yesterday, though, it occurred to me that Democrats have gotten very little done with this majority. After a productive legislative session in May and June, in which Democrats passed good anti-tobacco and credit card legislation, Congress has passed hardly any major pieces of legislation. We have completely squandered our opportunity and responsibility to govern.
I blame this mostly on the Senate. The House has taken the lead in passing Cap-and-Trade, financial regulation, a progressive health reform bill, and a jobs bill. But the House has adopted the attitude that since they've done the heavy lifting, they should shift the burden over to the Senate. As a result, the House has been pretty much stagnant (besides the health care bill) for the last several months.
I know that the big ticket items are complicated and politically risky. I get that. But Congress hasn't even passed the sort of small, progressive measures that help people in their everyday lives. The Senate has yet to take up the President's student loan bill. They haven't taken up a bipartisan food safety bill. They haven't even unveiled any sort of jobs package, even something little, like tax breaks for small businesses or clean energy projects.
There is a lot of blame to go around for this inaction. The Republicans have used nihilistic delay tactics that have made legislating extremely difficult. But the Democrats have let them use these tactics and haven't challenged them aggressively in the public arena.
Democratic politicians have been telling us that if we just vote for enough of them, they will help solve the problems of working people. We have given them full control of government, and it is starting to hit me that they have done very little. This is painfully disappointing to me.
BERNANKE: Something very interesting is happening right now in the United States Senate. Ben Bernanke, the current Fed chairman, needs 60 Senate votes to be confirmed for another 4 year term. So far, about 14 Democrats have indicated that the plan to vote against him. That means that Bernanke needs the support of 15 Republicans. Majority Leader Reid had wanted a vote on his nomination in the next couple of weeks, but he has so far been unable to line up enough support. I sympathize with the opposition. Bernanke oversaw our financial system when it completely crashed, and he completely failed to anticipate the effects of the housing crisis. He has, however, done a decent job since the crisis occurred in 2008. It looks like his nomination might fail, which could really throw a lot of things into flux. It would also be more proof of the populist uprising in this country that swept Brown to victory in Massachusetts. Obama would have to nominate someone else, and ideally he would choose someone who cares about protecting consumers from the excesses of Wall Street, like Elizabeth Warren (who oversees the TARP watchdog group). We'll have more on the Bernanke nomination on Monday.
That's it for now. I'd rather not discuss my continued anger about House Democrats' refusal to take up the Senate bill.
WHY I'M DEPRESSED: Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts Senate race was depressing for a number of reasons, but it was seemingly most devastating because Democrats lost their 60-vote filibuster-proof majority. Yesterday, though, it occurred to me that Democrats have gotten very little done with this majority. After a productive legislative session in May and June, in which Democrats passed good anti-tobacco and credit card legislation, Congress has passed hardly any major pieces of legislation. We have completely squandered our opportunity and responsibility to govern.
I blame this mostly on the Senate. The House has taken the lead in passing Cap-and-Trade, financial regulation, a progressive health reform bill, and a jobs bill. But the House has adopted the attitude that since they've done the heavy lifting, they should shift the burden over to the Senate. As a result, the House has been pretty much stagnant (besides the health care bill) for the last several months.
I know that the big ticket items are complicated and politically risky. I get that. But Congress hasn't even passed the sort of small, progressive measures that help people in their everyday lives. The Senate has yet to take up the President's student loan bill. They haven't taken up a bipartisan food safety bill. They haven't even unveiled any sort of jobs package, even something little, like tax breaks for small businesses or clean energy projects.
There is a lot of blame to go around for this inaction. The Republicans have used nihilistic delay tactics that have made legislating extremely difficult. But the Democrats have let them use these tactics and haven't challenged them aggressively in the public arena.
Democratic politicians have been telling us that if we just vote for enough of them, they will help solve the problems of working people. We have given them full control of government, and it is starting to hit me that they have done very little. This is painfully disappointing to me.
BERNANKE: Something very interesting is happening right now in the United States Senate. Ben Bernanke, the current Fed chairman, needs 60 Senate votes to be confirmed for another 4 year term. So far, about 14 Democrats have indicated that the plan to vote against him. That means that Bernanke needs the support of 15 Republicans. Majority Leader Reid had wanted a vote on his nomination in the next couple of weeks, but he has so far been unable to line up enough support. I sympathize with the opposition. Bernanke oversaw our financial system when it completely crashed, and he completely failed to anticipate the effects of the housing crisis. He has, however, done a decent job since the crisis occurred in 2008. It looks like his nomination might fail, which could really throw a lot of things into flux. It would also be more proof of the populist uprising in this country that swept Brown to victory in Massachusetts. Obama would have to nominate someone else, and ideally he would choose someone who cares about protecting consumers from the excesses of Wall Street, like Elizabeth Warren (who oversees the TARP watchdog group). We'll have more on the Bernanke nomination on Monday.
That's it for now. I'd rather not discuss my continued anger about House Democrats' refusal to take up the Senate bill.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The Daily Strike-8/25/09-The Economy and the Economist
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. It's too depressing to discuss health reform today, so we're taking the day off. All I will say is that Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) doubts a bill can be done by Christmas, and Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) says his views on reform have changed because of the town hall meetings. Ugh.
THE ECONOMY: The White House released its revised budget estimates today, conveniently saving the announcement until Congress and the President had both skipped town. The number are not good. The 10-year deficit projection rose from $ 7 trillion to $9 trillion, and our national debt will make up 76% of GDP by 2019, the highest since World War II. Republicans, of course, used this opportunity to say that health care reform is even less doable, with such a high deficit. The ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp (MI) declared that if the health care bill wasn't already dead, "it is now." Our friend Ezra Klein reminds us why that kind of talk is misleading at best, and nihilistic at worst. President Obama says he won't sign a bill that increases the deficit. The worst deficit projection we've seen from any health bill was a ten year $200 billion tag on the House measure. That's a drip in the bucket compared to the Bush tax cuts (not paid for), Medicare Part D (not paid for), the War in Iraq (not paid for) and even the FY 2010 Defense budget, which is over $500 billion. I don't see Camp saying that those proposals should be "dead." Ezra wisely points out that when Republicans controlled the government, they never paid for anything. Because of this, they were able to build an association with the public between spending and deficit spending.
Certainly, there are areas in the federal budget that need to be cut to help bring down the deficit. Defense and agriculture subsidies come to mind immediately. But the point that is NEVER emphasized in the media, is the deficit skyrockets when the economy is in deep recession. During a downturn, when unemployment is high and GDP decreases or remains stagnant, tax revenues decrease. That's why, despite what Republicans might say, the government must continue to spend money to stimulate the economy and get us out of recession.
THE ECONOMIST: The President today renominated Ben Bernanke to be chairman of the Federal Reserve for the 4 year term beginning in January of 2010. I have mixed feelings on this announcement. On the one hand, Bernanke was asleep at the switch and was blindsided by the housing and credit busts. On the other hands, his unprecedented, bold action over the last year has helped bring the economy back from the brink. Even Paul Krugman thinks so. Plus, the alternative almost certainly was Larry Summers, chair of the Economic Council, who probably would be much worse than Bernanke. Bernanke's job will not be easy. At some point, the Fed is going to have to scale back some of the measures it has taken to increase liquidity in the system. Right now, short-term interest rates are basically at zero. As the economy starts to recover, that rate will have to increase lest we get stuck with double digit inflation. It won't be fun to have to take money out of the system when we will still likely have high unemployment and slow growth.
THE ECONOMY: The White House released its revised budget estimates today, conveniently saving the announcement until Congress and the President had both skipped town. The number are not good. The 10-year deficit projection rose from $ 7 trillion to $9 trillion, and our national debt will make up 76% of GDP by 2019, the highest since World War II. Republicans, of course, used this opportunity to say that health care reform is even less doable, with such a high deficit. The ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp (MI) declared that if the health care bill wasn't already dead, "it is now." Our friend Ezra Klein reminds us why that kind of talk is misleading at best, and nihilistic at worst. President Obama says he won't sign a bill that increases the deficit. The worst deficit projection we've seen from any health bill was a ten year $200 billion tag on the House measure. That's a drip in the bucket compared to the Bush tax cuts (not paid for), Medicare Part D (not paid for), the War in Iraq (not paid for) and even the FY 2010 Defense budget, which is over $500 billion. I don't see Camp saying that those proposals should be "dead." Ezra wisely points out that when Republicans controlled the government, they never paid for anything. Because of this, they were able to build an association with the public between spending and deficit spending.
Certainly, there are areas in the federal budget that need to be cut to help bring down the deficit. Defense and agriculture subsidies come to mind immediately. But the point that is NEVER emphasized in the media, is the deficit skyrockets when the economy is in deep recession. During a downturn, when unemployment is high and GDP decreases or remains stagnant, tax revenues decrease. That's why, despite what Republicans might say, the government must continue to spend money to stimulate the economy and get us out of recession.
THE ECONOMIST: The President today renominated Ben Bernanke to be chairman of the Federal Reserve for the 4 year term beginning in January of 2010. I have mixed feelings on this announcement. On the one hand, Bernanke was asleep at the switch and was blindsided by the housing and credit busts. On the other hands, his unprecedented, bold action over the last year has helped bring the economy back from the brink. Even Paul Krugman thinks so. Plus, the alternative almost certainly was Larry Summers, chair of the Economic Council, who probably would be much worse than Bernanke. Bernanke's job will not be easy. At some point, the Fed is going to have to scale back some of the measures it has taken to increase liquidity in the system. Right now, short-term interest rates are basically at zero. As the economy starts to recover, that rate will have to increase lest we get stuck with double digit inflation. It won't be fun to have to take money out of the system when we will still likely have high unemployment and slow growth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
