Category Archives: ethics

RINO Surrender?

Posted on by
Reply

Fox News reported over the weekend that Senator Bob Corker (R, TN) now is saying Republicans

should cave to President Barack Obama on [tax rate increases] in order to not only resolve the current crisis but move on and start negotiating spending cuts, which could result in more significant deficit reduction.

Never mind that excessive spending—and runaway entitlements—are part of the current crisis.  Furthermore, with Obama getting his tax increases, there’ll be no spending cuts and no entitlement reform.  Corker knows full well that Democrat promises of spending cuts tomorrow in return for tax rate increases today are worthless.  And he’s begging for surrender anyway.

Corker said this to rationalize his surrender recommendation:

The focus then shifts to entitlements, and maybe that puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves this nation[.]

This is…naïve.  If the Republicans surrender on the tax rate increases, why should President Obama believe they won’t surrender on the debt ceiling, on spending cuts, on entitlement reform?  Why should any of the rest of us?

Corker wants to surrender.  That’s his right.  But let him do so as a private citizen.  This RINO needs to be replaced at the next election.  Republican acquiescence with Progressives’ demands over the last 80 years are how we got into this mess in the first place.  And the magnitude of the destructiveness of their demands has been especially manifest these last four years.  Our nation can’t afford any more of those policies.

Negotiating?

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressives in our Federal government insist, with a straight face, that the Republicans have put forward no concrete proposals in the present budget…negotiations.  They carefully ignore the fact that the Republicans already have put forward three concrete proposals: two House-passed budgets (for 2011 and 2012, which contained explicit spending, taxing, and entitlement reform steps), and the proposal on which they campaigned last fall.

Oh, wait—the Progressives studiously ignored those, too—in the Senate, where they refused even to permit debate on the budgets and ever since, with their pretense that the spending, tax, and entitlement reforms of the campaign don’t exist.

The Progressives’ current position?  As The Wall Street Journal reports,

[M]any Democrats have ruled out any changes to Social Security during the current fiscal talks.

And

A senior administration official said the White House would make no new offers until Republicans changed their opposition to raising top tax rates.

Throughout this entire shabby charade, President Barack Obama has been accusing the Republicans of holding middle-class America hostage against their refusal to agree to tax rate hikes on his hated Americans.  Yet the Republicans and Progressives already agree on making permanent current tax rates on 98% of Americans.  It’s Obama who is threatening to blow up our economy on his ego trip of demanding 100% of a tax deal for which he already has 98%.

It’s Obama who’s threatening to blow up our economy by refusing to discuss spending cuts and entitlement reform at all—after agreeing that they should be on the table shortly after the election.

It’s Obama who’s threatening to blow up our economy with his insult of demanding sole debt ceiling authority in utter disregard of the Constitutional role of Congress—and not the President—in setting spending.

Update: Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) and a number fellow members of the Republican leadership made a counterproposal Tuesday that included much of Obama’s precious tax revenue increases–not as rate increases–to the tune of $800 billion, and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts.  Obama blew this off within the hour.  So much for negotiating.

Ex-Senator Rick Santorum, last night on Greta van Susteren’s On the Record,  said that Obama’s fallback–his Plan A–of Sequestration and tax rate increases across the board makes him entirely willing to take our economy over the cliff: Obama gets his tax rate increases, and he gets the Progressives’ decades-long fought-for cut in defense spending, a $500 billion reduction.  Obama sees this as a heads, I win; tails, you lose situation.

I think Santorum is right.

Community Banks, Big Banks, and Government Regulation

Posted on by
Reply

First, the value of community banks, as illustrated by this anecdote from an Iowa bank’s President:

We have a good story to tell. According to the latest annual report from the Iowa Bankers Association, Iowa’s banks helped keep the state’s economy humming by, among other things, safeguarding $56 billion in deposits and using those funds to lend nearly $42 billion to help Iowa residents and businesses. Iowa banks also paid $158 million in taxes, made $39 million in community donations, and sponsored financial education programs in more than 129 schools.

For perspective, this compares to Iowa’s estimated 2012 GDP of $158 billion.

Despite this value-add, though, here’s what Uncle Sugar is doing to these smaller banks, courtesy of Dodd-Frank:

This expanding multitude of [Dodd-Frank] rules is…why some banks have decided not to offer certain types of consumer loans and more accommodating repayment terms.  A recent survey of Iowa bankers reveals that 89 percent of respondents say the regulatory environment has impacted their ability to provide credit; 81 percent say it has hurt their customers’ ability to understand financial products; and 68 percent say it has caused them to consider eliminating financial products.

As Spirit of Enterprise notes, this favors big banks, who can afford the costs of staff whose sole function has no relation to a banks’ actual business, but instead centers on compliance with government mandates, and it’s driving these community banks out of the industry.  Defending Enterprise puts it this way, and rather than seeing him as cynical, I agree with him:

Once heavy new banking regulation became inevitable, Wall Street and the Democrats insured that the government would make the big banks even bigger by driving the small banks out of business. One might argue that these were “unintended” consequences. We respectfully submit that these consequences were so predictable, akin to the timing of the rising of the sun or at least tomorrow’s weather, that they were, in fact, intended.

Unfunded Liabilities

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve already seen counties and cities brought low and into bankruptcy by their blithe accumulation of future liabilities that they have no hope of honoring.  Jefferson County, AL, comes to mind, from a bond sale they had every reason to believe, a priori, that they could not honor in the future.

So does Stockton, CA’s bankruptcy, flowing from a public union pension and insurance program that they, also, must have known in advance that they could not support in future.

These are well understood, and the data that would have predicted these failures easily available to any who cared enough to look—and to face the impending problem squarely.

What of our nation’s debts, though?  Chris Cox and Bill Archer describe in a recent Wall Street Journal the hidden—and unfunded—liabilities at the Federal level that make our public national debt of $16 trillion look minor.

These hidden, but too real liabilities—debts—include

the unfunded liability of Medicare, $42.8 trillion

the unfunded liability of Social Security, $20.5 trillion

the unfunded liability of federal employees’ future retirement benefits, $23.5 trillion

But these data are carefully hidden from public scrutiny.  Federal Treasury “balance sheets” don’t include things like the debt represented by those Medicare, Social Security, and retirement unfunded liabilities.  No, the data are carefully squirreled away in the individual social welfare accounts.  You have to know where to look and what to look for—knowledge that heavily trained and experienced folks like Cox and Archer have, but which our politicians know the average American constituent lacks.

This is a time bomb that demands out entitlement programs be brought to heel, our entitlement mentality as a nation to be curbed.  Else we’ll go the way of Stockton.  And for a nation, that won’t be pretty.  Think of Greece today.  Think of Weimar Germany of the last century.

Debt Forgiveness and Bankruptcy

Posted on by
Reply

Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, insists as Spiegel Online International reports, that

For Greece to recover…creditor countries would have to forgive the government in Athens a large share of its debt.  “Nothing else will work[.]”

After all,

given that Greece will be unable to reach the target [of debt to GDP, originally 120% by 2020] on its own, European creditors have little choice but to forgive a portion of the debt they hold, Lagarde insists.

Additionally,

Senior troika representatives, including ECB Executive Board member Jörg Asmussen, Thomas Wieser, the president of the Euro Working Group, and IMF representative Paul Thompson, are campaigning for a debt haircut, especially among smaller member states.  Their goal is to reduce Greece’s 2020 debt level from the 144 percent of GDP that it would likely be without any kind of debt forgiveness, to just 70 percent.  To achieve the latter number, creditor countries would have to waive half of their claims.

The proposed haircut (of which the just concluded deal is a down payment) is a default, as was the prior haircut forced onto Greece’s many private creditors.  And here we are again.

These worthies are conflating default and forgiveness with bankruptcy, and that’s why we’re here again.

Default must come through a Greek bankruptcy, not through the EU, or the IMF, condoning irresponsibility by saying, “Forget it; consider our erstwhile loans to be grants.”  Forgiveness, which approaches a bankruptcy outcome, doesn’t achieve the new beginning that a bankruptcy would; it merely condones past irresponsibility without an actual write-off and fresh start—albeit with a poorer credit rating.  But what’s the Greek credit rating, functionally, now?  “The situation in Greece is scaring away private investors.”

And all of this shows the original folly of bailing out Greece.  And the similarly original folly of the tactic in the US.