I spoke to my dad this morning. Like many, he is very concerned about how things are going in this country. He's a snowbird, spending his summers in Island Park, about 30 west of Yellowstone National Park, and winters at a condo near Phoenix. I told him that I heard on the radio this morning that Micron, Idaho's largest private employer, announced today that they were laying off 2,000 people, which is likely to be pretty brutal to our economy. He said he'd never seen anything like what is happening in his entire life.
Cross-posted at Openleft.
Quick background: My father was born in 1940. His early memories include his mother (my grandmother) sending him door-to-door to beg for bread, and eventually giving him to his paternal grandparents to raise. He retired after working for nearly 40 years for the same company, and had substantial assets. He, like many, planned to live on the hundreds of thousands he had saved in his 401(k), since, like many, his company never had a defined pension benefit plan. Now, his savings are nearly wiped out. He may have to sell his place in Island Park, the cabin he dreamed of and worked for, for nearly thirty years.
He turns 69 tomorrow. He's been retired for seven years.
Now, he's applying for jobs, ready to take what he can find.
Happy Birthday, Pop.
Jack Cafferty.
I think this time, it's different. I have this uneasy feeling our country is in the process of changing forever, and not necessarily for the better -- unless our perspective changes with it.
I have kicked around longer than most people: I'm 66 years old. I remember well the '50s and early '60s, which were times of unbridled enthusiasm, prosperity and opportunity.
The American dream was a job, a house, a car. A modest, affordable house and a car that was most likely a Chevrolet, Ford or Plymouth. (snip)
The generation coming along behind them[the Baby Boomers] that will be asked to pay for all this can't. There are not enough good jobs left in this country to pay those kinds of bills.
At the end of the day, we are going to have to settle for less. Less money, smaller houses, smaller cars and smaller dreams.
This is not your father's country anymore. And we had better all start getting used to it.
That's one choice, one path we can follow, the path to a diminished future, diminished expectations. For the sake of these guys
I'm hoping we, as a nation, choose another path. Bob Herbert.
What Americans need is new employment on a massive scale, and one of the most effective ways to get that started is to invest extraordinary amounts in the nation’s infrastructure, to rebuild America in a way that creates a world-class platform for a sustainable 21st-century economy.
President Obama’s stimulus package is just a first step in the government’s effort to stabilizing the hemorrhaging economy. It contains infrastructure spending, but nothing comparable to the vast amounts it will take to make the desperately needed improvements.
Funds spent on those improvements, which will have to be made sooner or later, are also cracker-jack investments in putting people to work. The idea that the government is spending trillions on wars, bank bailouts, tax cuts, and so on, while still neglecting its infrastructure needs — and at a time when Americans are desperate for jobs — is mind-boggling.
This is the kernel, the nut, the crux of the matter. The Choice. How many trillions are we going to waste propping up zombie banks rather than investing in infrastructure, and revitalizing manufacturing so as to create long-term, living wage jobs?
Building infrastructure isn't enough; It's necessary, but not sufficient. The parallel to the current housing inventory is clear; we can build an economy, in the short term, based on construction projects. Ultimately, though, once the construction is done (or "overbuilt), you've got to have a manufacturing base big enough to take advantage of the infrastructure you've built. Otherwise, all you have is wasted capacity (or an "inventory" of unsold homes, while people are living in tents).
In my view, you can't build a competitive manufacturing base when you impose health insurance costs on employers, thereby adding "legacy costs" to whatever it is you are manufacturing. That's why we need universal health care that is not employer dependent. I think single payer is the best choice, but I'm not certain it's necessray, but universal care in some form is. Care, not "coverage."
I know I'm simplifying, but it still seems a pretty clear choice to me. And,
judging by the polling data, I'm with the consensus. CNN.
"Right now, Americans trust political leaders more than business leaders. That's new and it has consequences." (snip)
Holland noted, "more than 7 in 10 [in the current poll] say that they would favor a proposal that would increase the government's influence over the health-care system in an attempt to reduce costs and expand coverage." (snip)
When it comes to taxpayer dollars to help the banks and other financial institutions, just 36 percent favored providing the remaining $350 billion of the $700 billion that Congress allocated to assist them, with 62 percent opposed.
"Business scandals [are] everywhere," Schneider said. "Alleged multibillion-dollar swindlers Bernie Madoff and Robert Allen Stanford; ... Swiss banks helping Americans hide their money; ... huge bonuses for Wall Street executives: Does the public expect those people to bail the country out? Well, no."
Rhetorical question: Why do 62% of americans oppose further Hundred of Billions of Dollars being given to failed, zombie banks?
Non-rhetorical question: Why does the administration seem determined to give further Hundreds of Billions of Dollars to failed, zombie banks? WaPo:
What Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and his team want to avoid is an explicit takeover that would put the government in charge of running banks. But some senior officials have said that, as a last resort, they would consider taking temporary control of large banks. The government also could take a majority ownership stake in a company without attempting to manage its daily operations. (snip)
The changes announced yesterday create a two-step process, officials said. Companies can replace the government's preferred shares with a new kind of preferred shares that will differ in at least one critical respect -- they can be converted into shares of the company's common stock. (snip)
But if the government effort to revive the banks is unsuccessful, the change unveiled yesterday increases the risk that billions of dollars in taxpayer money could be lost. The Bush administration structured its investments to resemble loans, with regular dividends and some chance to recover money if a bank fails. Converting those investments into common shares reduces or eliminates the dividends and the protections, but it also allows taxpayers to benefit if companies return to profitability. (sni)
The government already has invested $45 billion in Citigroup and promised to limit its losses on a portfolio of more than $300 billion of loans and other troubled assets. (snip) The total value of Citigroup's outstanding shares, for instance, is less than $12 billion.
Every Billion Dollars we give to Citibank is a clear waste of money that is needed to build infrastructure, reform health care, and create well-paying jobs for ourselves and our children. Right now, more Americans trust government and "politicians" (read, President Obama) than they have in a long time. But that trust can easily be lost, given away along with those Hundreds of Billions of Dollars.
And the worst part is, it's so clearly a drop in the bucket. MSNBC.
After months of sliding from one crisis to another, and after a government injection of nearly $350 billion, the nation’s banking system remains fragile. The share prices of the biggest, most troubled banks, including Citigroup and Bank of America, have fallen into the low single digits, helping push broad stock market indexes to their lowest levels since 1997. (snip)
Ever since the financial meltdown began over a year ago, banks have been struggling to shore up their capital base to withstand continued losses from loans gone bad. Initially confined largely to home mortgages, there are rising concerns about possible defaults on other types of debt, including commercial real estate loans, student loans, auto loans and credit card debt.
Late last month, the International Monetary Fund projected that worldwide banking industry losses may reach $2.2 trillion, up from a previous estimate of $1.4 trillion. The report estimated that the capital shortfall needed to cover those losses for U.S. and European banks alone was at least a half-trillion dollars.
It’s uncertain how much more capital will be needed.
Over a year into the crisis, Trillions in government guarantees, Hundreds of Billions given away, and there's still no clear evidence of how much more will be "needed." Because, for all the talk of oversight, there's been no disclosure by banks we've given billions to, only the inevitable demand for more.
The Choice is clear.
What is not clear? Which Choice President Obama will make.