A LIVING HELL: a/k/a "THE BONFIRE OF THE TRAVESTIES"
There's an excellent diary up on the boards as I write this concerning a subject which I think might just be one of the biggest travesties I've ever seen committed by the legislative branch of our federal government. The story's right here: "Is Anyone Actually Hurt By the Recession?"
The tremendous irony that some of the so-called leaders of our nation's rightwing Christian coalition are actually and willfully playing politics with citizens' lives by withholding unemployment compensation extensions to roughly a half-million Americans (and that number's growing by anywhere from 7,000 to more than 15,000 per day, depending upon which metric one uses), whose jobless benefits have expired since September, is just one of the better-publicized of many outrageous, financially-related travesties that are playing out before us, right now.
Speaking of the neocon Christian coalition, I guess there's a double-dose of irony in today's news cycle when one realizes that none other than
New Gingrich just addressed the American Banker's Association's annual meeting in Chicago while Illinois Senator Dick Durbin stood outside addressing thousands that had come to protest that sector's reckless behavior and greed. (For the record, this diary was barely recognized by the community, btw. I strongly encourage you to check it out.)
Truth be told, as I write this, there are many travesties playing out--just about everywhere one looks these days, including, dare I say it, right here--as current events are seemingly disconnected, trivialized, or otherwise outright ignored, when it comes to our political discussions more often than we'd ever admit.
Yes, I'm talking about the actions/inactions of our elected officials and their responsibilities to a public whose very current and future well-being, even now, runs the risk of being derailed, either permanently or, at the very least (if you accept many reality-based assessments as fact as opposed to those of the "happy news'ers"), for a virtually indefinite period of years, if not decades.
SO MANY TRAVESTIES, SO MUCH OBFUSCATION, SO LITTLE TIME...
TRAVESTY #1) THE SUFFERING
I did a search here a few days after this story (See: "Biden: 'It's a Depression For Millions of Americans' ") ran at the top of many blogs and MSM outlets last week, and much to my chagrin, I didn't see it referenced in any diary. (I would greatly appreciate it if someone would prove me wrong. And, if so, please provide a date--it's been a few days since I did the search, and about a week since this story ran in the MSM.)
[Asked how he views it, Biden responded:] Well, it's a depression. It's a depression for millions of Americans, through no fault of their own.
As noted at the top of this diary, while some of our elected leaders actually choose to inflict unnecessary pain and hardship upon the already-suffering masses, for little more than the sake of making a gratuitous and grossly-off-base political statement, the horror show continues virtually unabated for scores of millions of Americans on Main Streets throughout America. (Also see: "The Unemployed Wait.")
So, let's take a look at a few of the various scenes playing out before us, starting with the basic level of human suffering that's already being experienced on Main Street--at least those issues somewhat out in the open as opposed to matters discussed behind closed doors on Capitol Hill--that's unlike anything this country's seen since at least the Great Depression.
As we've just learned, there's been a massive increase in terms of the sheer numbers of Americans that are now facing outright POVERTY. Checkout two excellent diaries that have been posted here in the past week concerning this: cosmic debris' "47.4 million now in Poverty in US;" and, NBBooks' "Yes, poverty is worse than they ever admitted."
Of course, unless you've been living in a cave--or a tent--we've all read about how the "Cities Tolerate Tent Cities, Homeless Camps During Recession." Like the tree that falls in the woods, they're still there (this story's from just10 weeks ago), even if we choose not to talk about much beyond its original news cycle.
In large part, much of this is directly due to another harsh reality--one that I also happen to feel is not discussed frequently enough on political blogs these days--and that's concerning how: "U.S. states suffer 'unbelievable' revenue shortages."
Yes, we talk about federal programs around here quite a bit, but there's tremendous suffering occurring due to shortfalls in STATE BUDGETS, now and projected for many years ahead, apparently.
U.S. states suffer 'unbelievable' revenue shortages
By Lisa Lambert Lisa Lambert - Fri Oct 9, 5:59 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy may be creeping toward recovery after the worst slowdown since the Great Depression, but many states see no end in sight to their diving tax revenues.
Tax revenues used to pay teachers and fuel police cars continue to trail even the most pessimistic expectations, despite the cash from the economic stimulus plan pouring into state coffers.
"It's crazy. It's really just unbelievable," said Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers...
--SNIP--
A DIM FUTURE
In the second quarter of calendar year 2009, total state revenue was down 18 percent compared with the period in 2008, according to the National Governors Association, which projects revenue will not return to pre-recession levels until 2014 or 2015.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February mitigated some states' financial pain by giving them more money for Medicaid, the health-care program for the poor run by states and partially funded by the federal government. The program can eat up large portions of states' budgets.
The act also created a state fiscal stabilization fund and dedicated money to education.
"If we didn't have that money, we would have been cutting more, which is hard to believe," Pattison said.
States would like the Medicaid boost continued after the stimulus expires next year.
"The states are very, very concerned about that cliff -- they're concerned about when this recovery money stops," Pattison said.
I won't even "go there," as far as to ask: "How many more references to 'how bad things could have been if so-and-so wasn't in office,' were there in the past week than stories about the poor?" (Well, I guess I just did go there. Then again, on Monday, so did the New York Times, this time concerning Bush-appointed hacks patting themselves on the back (make no mistake about it, we do it, too): "The Economic Bomb That Didn't Drop." (Is Neel Kashkari living on Mars? Or, is it just journalist John Harwood?)
Then there are THE CHILDREN: "Poverty - Causes Of Poverty, Consequences Of Poverty, Programs For Children Living In Poverty."
Arloc Sherman of the Children's Defense Fund reports that one in three children in this country will experience at least one year of poverty before they reach age sixteen. Minority children are disproportionately represented, especially among those who experience persistent poverty. As summarized by Suniya Luthar of Columbia University, one in four African-American children experiences ten to fifteen years of poverty; this is a rare phenomenon for Anglo children.
When addressing the incidence of childhood poverty, it is also important to consider what Daniel Hernandez of the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine defines as relative poverty. This is the minimum income required to purchase those items that society considers essential to decent and respectable living, the minimum level required to avoid the stigma of living in inhumane conditions. Hernandez defined relative poverty as 50 percent of the median income for a given year, adjusted for family size. Given this definition, about one in three children in the United States lives in relative poverty.
(Bold type is diarist's emphasis.)
Record numbers of kids are being pushed out onto the streets by families that can no longer afford to care for them (also from yesterday's NY Times): "Running in the Shadows: With More Troubled Families, More Runaways."
And, despite those hardships, many of these homeless kids are still trying to get an education! (See: "Surge in Homeless Pupils Strains Schools")
Surge in Homeless Pupils Strains Schools
By ERIK ECKHOLM
New York Times
Published: September 6, 2009
...While current national data are not available, the number of schoolchildren in homeless families appears to have risen by 75 percent to 100 percent in many districts over the last two years, according to Barbara Duffield, policy director of the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, an advocacy group.
There were 679,000 homeless students reported in 2006-7, a total that surpassed one million by last spring, Ms. Duffield said.
With schools just returning to session, initial reports point to further rises. In San Antonio, for example, the district has enrolled 1,000 homeless students in the first two weeks of school, twice as many as at the same point last year.
"It's hard enough going to school and growing up, but these kids also have to worry where they'll be staying that night and whether they'll eat," said Bill Murdock, chief executive of Eblen-Kimmel Charities, a private group in Asheville that helps needy families with anything from food baskets and money for utility bills to toiletries and a prom dress.
"We see 8-year-olds telling Mom not to worry, don't cry," Mr. Murdock said...
Yes, the income and poverty data is a travesty. From Reuters' Felix Salmon, last month: "The depressing income and poverty data."
The poverty rate for children under the age of 18 is now an eye-popping 19%: basically one child in every five is living in poverty in the US. And even if a slow economic recovery is beginning to take hold, I can't see that number declining much in the foreseeable future. Which is unconscionable, in the richest country in the world.
Update: Emily Monea and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution have a paper out which says that "the poverty rate will increase rapidly through 2011 or 2012, at which point about 14.4 percent of the country will be in poverty", and that the number of children living in poverty could rise by 5 million, or 38%, to 18 million.
--SNIP--
David Leonhardt points out that real incomes fell over the course of the past decade, from $51,295 in 1998 to $50,303 in 2008:
(Salmon quotes Leonhardt)
In the four decades that the Census bureau has been tracking household income, there has never before been a full decade in which median income failed to rise. (The previous record was eight years, ending in 1986.) Other Census data suggest that it also never happened between the late 1940s and the late 1960s. So it doesn't seem to have happened since at least the 1930s.
Yes, I'm talking about the folks "Too Poor to Make the News." This IS a travesty of the highest scale, IMHO.
So, what, exactly, is really being done to make sure this never happens again?
TRAVESTY #2) THE REAL STATE OF REGULATORY REFORM
The truth is that much of this so-called "regulatory reform" effort is quietly playing out while our focus is almost entirely on health care.
A few days ago, Nate Silver had a couple of interesting thoughts about this as noted by James Kwak over at the Baseline Scenario blog which he co-publishes with Simon Johnson. Essentially, Silver thinks this may be "the big issue" in 2010, once health care is resolved. Kwak thinks the issue's just too boring and too complicated for the public to wrap their minds around. (See: "Financial Regulation on the Front Burner?.")
Meanwhile, regulatory reform was discussed on Sunday in one of the better (and lengthiest) New York Times' editorials I've read in awhile: "[http://www.nytimes.com/...
The State of Financial Reform]."
The State of Financial Reform
New York Times Editorial
Published: October 25, 2009
A Step Forward on Pay
It sounded good when the Treasury's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, announced that top executives at Citigroup, Bank of America and the other five institutions surviving at taxpayers' expense would see their COMPENSATION PACKAGES cut in half this year and their cash salaries reduced by 90 percent.
If you read the fine print you will discover that these reductions apply only to the remaining two months of 2009...
But, let's pour some fuel on this bonfire of a travesty...from this past Friday's WaPo: "Top employees leave financial firms ahead of pay cuts."
Top employees leave financial firms ahead of pay cuts
Grass is greener where bonuses are sky-high
By Tomoeh Murakami Tse and Brady Dennis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 23, 2009
NEW YORK -- Even before the Obama administration formally tightened executive compensation at bailed-out companies, the prospect of pay cuts had led some top employees to depart.
The administration had tasked Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department's special master on compensation, to evaluate the pay packages of 25 of the most highly compensated executives at each of seven firms receiving exceptionally large amounts of taxpayer assistance.
But Thursday, he ruled only on slightly more than three quarters of the pay packages that were to be under his purview. The balance reflected executives who have left since he began his work in June or will be gone by the end of the year...
Yes, you see, a lot of these folks have already bagged their jobs.
The editorial continues on to tell us that there are no guarantees as far as what Mr. Feinberg will do in 2010. And, of course, we're "globally misinformed" that "...as soon as any of these institutions pay the government back, they will be free of the constraints."
More from the Sunday NY Times editorial, this time on DERIVATIVES...
Too Little Regulation for Derivatives
The Obama administration and Congress have vowed to regulate derivatives, the complex and often highly speculative financial instruments that were at the heart of the meltdown. Two House committees have approved legislation, but -- after heavy lobbying from the banking industry and corporate America-- both versions are weak and unlikely to prevent another fiasco.
The end result, as we've learned since this was published, after the House Financial Services Committee forwarded it to the House Agriculture Committee about 10 days ago, was precisely this (since the Ag Committee essentially forwarded it on for reconciliation on the House floor and over to the Senate, almost verbatim, as it received it from the Financial Services Committee): "Derivatives Reform Weakened By Two Little-Noticed Amendments"
A couple of inconvenient truths about that virtually unchanged bill as it went from Barney Frank's House Financial Services Committee over to the Agriculture Committee roughly 11 days ago...and then back out again...to the House floor, and over to the Senate for reconciliation.
Derivatives Reform Weakened By Two Little-Noticed Amendments
Shahien Nasiripour
Huffington Post
First Posted: 10-15-09 10:56 AM | Updated: 10-15-09 01:04 PM
Two little-noticed amendments inserted Wednesday into legislation seeking to strengthen regulation of derivatives will allow private industry to continue to set rules and largely self-regulate, tying the hands of regulators who want more say in how these exotic financial instruments are traded.
Offered by Rep. Judy Biggert, an Illinois Republican, the provisions take away power the Obama administration proposed giving to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the regulator in charge of policing most types of derivatives. Rather, the power to supervise how derivatives are traded will rest with the clearinghouses and exchanges that house them. Furthermore, when the exchanges and clearinghouses change or offer up new rules, the CFTC will not be able to review them before they are finalized to ensure, for example, that they comply with existing law. Instead, the rules proposed by private industry will immediately go into effect.
These powers, which the CFTC has lacked since a major deregulatory law was passed in the waning days of President Bill Clinton's final term, would enable the CFTC to exert the kind of authority many have criticized the agency for not using. Unregulated derivatives trading by the likes of AIG and Lehman Brothers nearly caused the collapse of the global financial system.
(Bold type is diarist's emphasis.)
Nasiripour reported that Biggert's amendments were adopted by the Committee without debate. Over at the House Agricultural Committee the House Financial Services Committee's version of the bill will be reconciled with a similar bill on the Ag Committee's agenda. We're also told by Nasiripour that Frank's office is claiming that "Biggert's amendments 'were accepted to move the debate along.' "
"Move the debate along?" How about, "Put the matter to bed (at least until it reaches the Senate) entirely in favor of Wall Street?"
"It's a return to the regulatory environment that led us into the meltdown," said Michael Greenberger, a professor at the University of Maryland Law School and former director of trading and markets at the CFTC. "It would tie the hands of effective regulation by the CFTC to the detriment of economic recovery. The [Obama] administration had it completely right in its proposal."
From my diary of June 1st...as conveyed by the Times' Gretchen Morgenson: "Even in Crisis, Banks Dig in for Battle Against Regulation."
Morgenson tells us that on November 13th, 2008, a month after the nine biggest players in the derivatives market accepted bailout money, these same folks created a lobbying group: "The CDS Dealers Consortium."
The new group has been lobbying intensively this session to limit the amount of regulatory oversight that'll be imposed upon them by Congress with regard to their efforts to put a saddle on the credit default swaps industry.
And, from my diary from just over a week ago, on October 19th: "MainSt., Regulatory Reform And
The Banks are NOT Alright.' "
But, as Morgenson lays it out for us, the reality is that the CDS Dealers Consortium ("CDS" stands for credit default swaps, a type of "derivative security"), little more than a month after our economy imploded in September of 2008, came up with practically all of the substantive legislation relating to reform of the derivatives industry that was in the very bill that Congressman Frank forwarded along to Congressman Peterson just this past Thursday. In fact, as you read Morgenson's column, linked within the blockquote, above, you'll see this CDS trade group even established, and now owns, the very clearinghouses that are being "proposed" by Congress to "oversee" portions of the industry, going forward!
A week ago, this past Wednesday, sure enough, we were told that the Ag Committee pushed the bill out virtually verbatim, as Barney Frank's committee had submitted it to them just a few days earlier, loopholes and all.
Barring some miraculous turnaround via reconciliation over at the Senate, this would mean total FAIL for Congressman Frank, his liberal credentials aside. (I really do hope I'm wrong on this assessment!)
I've written extensively about the pathetic realities relating to our supposed efforts to regulate the derivatives industry, most recently (my last three diaries on the topic):
"'MainSt., Regulatory Reform And
The Banks are NOT Alright.' " (10/19/09)
"Have We Been Sold Out On Economic Reform?" (9/24/09)
"Keep Doing What We're Doing...Keep Getting What We've Got." (9/14/09)
More from the NY Times Sunday editorial:
The bill approved by the Financial Services Committee has an additional weakness: it denies regulators powers they need to fully police the market. For instance, they would not have the authority to ban dangerous products and abusive practices...
--SNIP--
Both versions must be improved, on the House floor and in the Senate. In a sign of what we hope will be tough battles ahead, Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington and a member of the Finance Committee, has written to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, asking him to explain the administration's support for the flawed bill from the Financial Services Committee.
Insisting on strong derivatives reform is a matter of putting taxpayers first -- ahead of the big banks and corporate America that are fighting hard for a return to risky business as usual.
Then there's the legislation to establish new CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
Some Protection for Consumers
--SNIP--
The House Financial Services Committee passed a bill last week that would give the agency important responsibilities and at long last bring consumer protection under the watch of a single regulator focused solely on the best interests of consumers. But at the same time, it would weaken other protections and restrict the agency in ways that could undermine its effectiveness.
The biggest problem is that the bill would allow the federal government to block states from imposing their own tougher rules on many banks. Such pre-emptive power -- which big banks lobbied for tirelessly -- would be limited to instances in which state law is deemed to "significantly" interfere with federal regulatory power. But that is cold comfort. In the past, federal pre-emption of state laws has almost invariably led to a lowering of consumer protection standards.
The concept of federal legal preemption is a sorry joke that has been thrust upon the U.S. consumer, and here's why...from over five years ago, the reality that this has been at the center of a sparring match between federal and state regulators for quite some time (and, we now know how this has worked out with the feds regulating it): "House Committee Rebukes OCC on Preemption."
Pratt's Letter
House Committee Rebukes OCC on Preemption
March 01, 2004 (date noted in bold for emphasis)
The House Financial Services Committee, in a largely symbolic move, has condemned the controversial preemption regulation adopted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) earlier this year. (See " OCC Preemption Rule Generates Controversy, " Jan. 12, and " Preemption Debate Heats Up, " Feb. 3. The OCC insists its new regulation merely codifies prior court decisions upholding its exclusive right to examine and regulate national banks, but state authorities have condemned the rule as a new and blatant power grab.
Now the house committee has agreed. On a 38-24 vote, it adopted a measure criticizing the rule as "an unprecedented expansion of federal preemption authority and a significant expansion of the OCC's regulatory responsibilities to monitor and enforce consumer-law compliance."
--SNIP--
The new rules will require the OCC to investigate all consumer complaints for 2,150 national banks, yet it has only a single customer assistance center that takes calls from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. four days a week, the committee document declares. There are only 40 staffers working on consumer matters at the OCC, compared with state agencies' nearly 700 investigators.
--SNIP--
OCC staffers were quick to declare that the committee's concerns were misplaced, that the OCC can enforce consumer rules against national banks quite well and without twisting budget allocations. But the gauntlet has been thrown down. The agency is on notice that a majority of the House Financial Services Committee members are none too happy with the preemption rule.
Yes, I suppose with hindsight being 20/20, and all that, considering what occurred during the five years after this appeared in print, this was a huge travesty of the first order, in and of itself, as well! Here we are five years later, after having identified this lack of oversight by the OCC as one of the primary causes of our economic meltdown over the past 18 months, and what does the House Financial Services Committee do about this, with all of this history now behind them?
The Committee all but jumps right back into the tank labelled "FAIL," yet again! (If this isn't a clear indication of regulatory capture, I don't know what is!) (See: "Compromise Bill Could Block States on Bank Rules.")
Five years later, after the OCC demonstrated they were downright incompetent at effectively overseeing the financial institutions under their auspices, what do we get from the House Financial Services Committee? A big cup of nicely and neatly repackaged MORE OF THE SAME.
Compromise Bill Could Block States on Bank Rules
New York Times
By STEPHEN LABATON and DAVID STOUT
Online: October 21, 2009 In Print: October 22, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Reaching a compromise on an issue that threatened to derail financial regulatory legislation, the House Financial Services Committee voted on Wednesday to give the federal government the power to block the states from regulating large national banks in some circumstances.
Representative Barney Frank, left, the head of the House Financial Services Committee, said it would be weeks before Congress could act on a final bill to regulate the financial services industry.
The Obama administration has been strongly against pre-emption--per seven paragraphs above--precisely due to the fact that the more aggressive states' attorneys general(s) were much better staffed to facilitate oversight than the federal government! So, the House Financial Services Committee has decided that--just like five years ago--they know best.
Is this just plain sad, or what? Much less oversight? In light of what's just occurred with our economy? Are you kidding me?
Then again, not to be outdone in the travesty department, we have this rerun, now playing at an MSM outlet near you, from dear ole' Ben Bernanke. File this under: "We knew it was bullshit then; so, what does this make it now?" Better yet, in light of all of the suffering on Main Street, let's file this under: "Beyond Travesty!"
(h/t to Zero Hedge, from George Washington's blog, via Zero Hedge "More Stress Test Shenanigans.")
More Stress Test Shenanigans
Submitted by George Washington on 10/23/2009 17:51 -0500
AFP reports:
The Federal Reserve will expand its so-called stress tests of the banking system to ensure they have enough capital during difficult periods, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke said Friday.
Bernanke highlighted the positive impact of stress tests conducted earlier this year on major banks, a move aimed at ensuring their financial health and building confidence.
"Building on the success of this initiative, we will conduct more frequent, broader, and more comprehensive horizontal examinations, evaluating both the overall risk profiles of institutions as well as specific risks and risk-management issues," Bernanke told a conference organized by the Boston Federal Reserve.
The highly publicized stress tests conducted earlier this year focused on 19 major banks, and indicated 10 needed additional capital.
Bernanke said the Fed would step up efforts to review bank capital requirements to avoid a recurrence of the credit crisis that has spread around the world.
"Additional steps are necessary to ensure that all banking organizations hold adequate capital," he said.
Uh, huh...yeah, remember those bogus stress tests which just about EVERYONE called a charade this past winter, and a poor one at that?
They. Are. Meaningless.
They were kabuki.
And, they're baaaack...and, still little more than a lame excuse to ripoff the living hell we used to know as Main Street, once again.
You see, after all that money being pissed away down that black hole known as Wall Street; to the point where the White House now has to sneak around just to put a few billion bucks out there for extended unemployment benefits; and other basic life support social systems...as our states use spit and band-aids to stay afloat; while the taxpayers reach levels of poverty unknown to our society since at least the Great Depression; the reality is as follows on October 27th, 2009: We're about to hit our federal debt ceiling. (See "Travesties #4 & #5," below.)
TRAVESTY #3) MAIN STREET HAS HIT A WALL.
Obviously, it's crystal clear that Main Street desperately needs another massive stimulus. But, the White House has all it can do just to sneak around to put another $100 billion together for us.
From Time Magazine: "Is the White House Planning A Second Stimulus?"
Is the White House Planning A Second Stimulus?
Time Magazine
October 18, 2009
White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett was adamant on Sunday, when asked if President Obama was considering a so-called second stimulus to deal with the rising unemployment rate. "I think it's too soon. It's premature to say, 'Is a second stimulus needed?' " she told David Gregory, the host of NBC's Meet the Press.
Stimulus Summit
But a moment later she said the White House was already looking at tax credits and other measures to further stimulate the economy. "There are a range of suggestions that are being considered right now by his economic team, and we'll see what we come forward with," she added.
On its face, the two comments sounded like a contradiction. But at the White House, there is no confusion. More stimulus is coming, but it just won't be called stimulus. Economic advisers, in concert with senior Democrats in the House and Senate, are planning additional piecemeal benefit extensions, tax breaks and other spending that could eventually add up to as much as $100 billion, say some outside experts. "The fact is that this is a word game. It isn't a discussion of the 'second stimulus,' " says Jennifer Psaki, a White House spokeswoman. "This needs to be an ongoing discussion between the President and his economic team about new ideas and ways to get people back to work."
Meanwhile, the vampire squid's are about to tell us they need even MORE money, too.
TRAVESTY #4) WALL STREET HAS HIT A....(ummm....well you get the point)
I mean, if Main Street needs a few hundred billion right now, just to maintain the basics of life support for at least a part of this country's population, then according to the equations we've established over the past 18 months, this situation must certainly be seen as a "legitimate excuse" for Wall Street to ask us (i.e.: take us) for another couple of trillion bucks, too, right?
Isn't that the "[http://www.bloomberg.com/...
new normal]?" A few trillion of our money for Wall Street, perhaps a hundred billion, give or take, for the remaining 99% of American society?
Aren't those the tacit new ground rules in the "new normal?"
From Moody's via Zero Hedge: "Rate Of Bank Charge Offs Surpasses That Set During Great Depression."
I'll just let that headline speak for itself. Click on it if you'd like. But, it certainly explains Bernanke's comments about those new stress tests, now doesn't it?
TRAVESTY #5) POLITICS DRIVES THE NARRATIVE. AND, AS WE ALL KNOW, WALL STREET MONEY DRIVES POLITICS.
So, what's the problem? Well, it's a POLITICAL problem and a basic mathematic problem, too. But, it's a BIG political problem, first and foremost. And, as a quick recap of the first section of this diary is all one needs to understand that political issues trump even the very lives of this country's citizenry (see Travesty #1, above, coverage of S.1699, the unemployment compensation extension bill, discussed at the top of this diary, for more detail on this harsh reality).
There's the very-soon-to-be-publicized (by the party of "NO") reality that we've hit our federal debt ceiling. In other words, without an act of Congress, we can't print any more money. Oh, noes! The teabaggers are about to have another field day. I can see this developing in weeks, if not days. We're going to be told by them again: "The SKY IS FALLIJNG!" (Which makes sense if you don't believe in Neo-Keynesian economics, or if you're not a neo-Keynesian economist who understands that massive debt's okay as long as it's tempered by controlled inflation.)
Then again, the international community's response to this WILL be problematic, too, to say the least. It's a REAL problem, and on many fronts. So, please don't misinterpret this to the point where you think I'm trying to trivialize it by feigning what will surely be a dumbed-down response from the Rethugs in coming weeks--with just enough fear in it to be picked up by the MSM, no doubt. Count on that.
TRAVESTY #6) WHEREIN SOME MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY ACTUALLY HAVE THE NERVE TO TRIVIALIZE THESE RECORD LEVELS OF SUFFERING BY REFERRING TO THIS AS A STANDARD "RECESSION." AND, TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE IN NOW AS A "RECOVERY."
Maybe it's a "recovery" in the technical sense of the term, for a few days anyway. But it means nothing from a practical standpoint. (By the way, Nouriel Roubini has some new thoughts on this you might want to checkout before you walk off that cliff, too: "Nouriel Roubini: Big Crash Coming.")
The TRUTH is...we've just replaced one bubble (real estate) with another bubble (equities/commodities).
The TRUTH is...
You know these people; the happy news'ers. The folks that get 800 rec's everytime they position a hope--one that has no bearing in reality--in a diary, and contort commentary out of context to make it sound real? (I'm not calling anyone out, so there'll be no link here.)
They would like us to ignore the fact that the Federal Reserve's balance sheet is so bad, it would (to directly quote our Treasury Secretary and Fed Chair) cause a run on the banks, if we were told the truth. Then again, they really don't like telling us much of anything. (See: "The Fed Believes Secrecy is in Our Best Interests. Here are Some of the Secrets.")
These are the same folks that refer to "bottom bouncing" as "stabilizing."
They're the ones that have taken to posting diaries telling us how great it is that Goldman Sachs has repaid their TARP funds. (Which makes sense as long as you ignore the $50+ billion in non-TARP/additional government funds, backstops and related transaction compensation and guarantees they've received from us that they conveniently omit from their press releases.) (I'm not calling anyone out here, either, so there'll be no link here, as well.)
These are the same folks that contort a Paul Krugman headline that speaks of a "Smidgeon of Hope" into him supposedly "telling us" (when he's not) that we're about to miraculously see job growth, while even the President of the United States and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve are telling us that unemployment--at least the U.3 Index rate--will be exceeding 10% into at least a good part of 2010.
Yep. The exact same folks that will contort Krugman's commentary about a "Smidgeon of Hope," will also tell us how manufacturing is coming back, too. However, they'll conveniently leave out the part about how a 20%-25% drop in production over the past couple of years is also a mathematical statement that tells us that we'll need to improve upon our present demand by somewhere in the neighborhood of 33%, just to get even with 2007 numbers.
These are the people that, while quoting Krugman, fail to mention one of his most recent articles where he discusses world trade--the specialization in which he earned his Nobel Prize--wherein he tells us: It's The End Of World Trade As We Knew It.
These are the same people that will talk about how "productivity" is the new mantra; when, in fact, in many ways, it's much like the use of the term "stabilizing."
Yes, these are the same people that'll hype the hell out of the G.D.P. numbers when they appear on Thursday, as harkening a new era. (Of what, exactly?) Meanwhile, the rest of the world will take one look and realize that, like most of the other, so-called "positive statistics"--stats that aren't really positive at all--at best they're an anomaly, soon-to-be explained by reasoned commentary, perhaps days or weeks later, are just that: meaningless.
You see, that's because this isn't just a "Recession." So, therefore, we're not just in a "Recovery." (No matter what obscure economist one might credit with stating that; no matter what government hack might say, in terms of a gratuitous phrase to prop up their own ego in public.) It doesn't matter.
What matters, on Main Street--and, yes, in politics--is what people experience, locally. That is their truth.
Ultimately, it's stories like this--which haven't even been covered in this community to the best of my knowledge--which speak the truth. And, that truth is we're going from a "JOBLESS RECOVERY" to a "JOB-LOSS RECOVERY," and last I checked, that's not a recovery at all: "Experts see rebounding economy shedding jobs."
Experts see rebounding economy shedding jobs
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Sunday, October 25, 2009
(10-25) 04:00 PDT Washington --
Forget a jobless recovery. The economy may be entering a recovery with job losses.
Third-quarter estimates this week are expected to show that the economy grew for the first time since the quarter ending in June 2008. Despite the estimated 3 percent expansion and a stock market that has been on a tear since March, hundreds of thousands of people are still being laid off each month.
Eight million jobs have been lost nationwide since the recession began two years ago, and by some measures workers face the worst job market since the Depression. The average laid-off worker has been without a job for 61/2 months, a post-World War II record. Many of those workers will never recover financially.
California's hole, deepened by a state budget mess and volatile tax system, is far worse: Unemployment is at 12.2 percent, third highest in the nation; and adding discouraged and part-time workers puts it over 20 percent.
"It's not even a jobless recovery; it's a recovery with more job losses," said UCLA economist Lee Ohanian. "The idea of having essentially no net job creation after a remarkably severe recession is a real pathology for the U.S. economy."
'Painfully weak' job growth
Top White House economist Christina Romer of UC Berkeley told Congress on Thursday that employment growth could remain "painfully weak" through next year, and that the largest effect from the $787 billion stimulus enacted in February, mainly aid to states, is past. By mid-2010, she said, the stimulus will no longer contribute to growth.
Alarms are ringing at the White House and in Congress. But with a mind-boggling $1.4 trillion deficit this year, Democrats have used up their bullets. The word stimulus has such a bad connotation that the term has been banished from new efforts to goose the economy and help workers, such as extending unemployment benefits, sending $250 checks to seniors and a program the White House announced to help small businesses get loans...
Yes, this is the TRUTH.
So, rather than provide you with a list of contact names and numbers, I'm going to offer something a little different this time...
First, checkout my link to that diary on S.1669 at the beginning of this tome. Get in touch with your Senator and tell them to drop whatever they're doing and make sure the unemployment compensation extension bill passes TODAY.
Make a difference...one travesty at a time.