Category Archives: markets

“Ryan Budget” in a Nutshell

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a summary of the budget that the Progressives have begun demagoguing the moment Congressman Paul Ryan (R, WI) was asked to run for Vice President.

  • The latest full-scale version of the plan, unveiled in March, vows to cut spending by $5 trillion over the next decade, compared against President Obama’s plan.
  • The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with “greater health risks.”
  • The plan would overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system for states.
  • The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets — 10 percent and 25 percent.
  • The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.
  • The plan vows to bring the size of government to 20 percent of GDP by 2015.

Of what are the Progressives so terrified in this budget?  Ryan put his finger on it two years ago in the summary paragraph of his Wall Street Journal op-ed, reprinted by the WSJ over the weekend:

The contrast with our budget couldn’t be clearer: We put our trust in citizens, not government.  Our budget returns power to individuals, families and communities.  It draws inspiration from the Founders’ belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Protecting this right means trusting citizens, not nameless government officials, to decide what is in their best interests and make the right choice about our nation’s future.

With the people in charge, Progressives won’t have anything to do.

What a Central Bank Does vs What the European Central Bank is Doing

Posted on by
Reply

…and to too great an extent, what the Fed is doing….

As Spiegel Online International reports, the ECB intends to attempt to buy up southern Europe’s sovereign debt instruments on an enormous scale.  The idea is to get those, I’ll call them, toxic assets off the market so that lending can resume and the euro zone’s (and EU’s) market economies can restart.

There are a couple of fundamental problems with this scheme (and I use that term in the American sense).  I’ll elide, in this post, the clumsiness of it: it doesn’t satisfy central bank statutes, and the ECB risks becoming a secondary government while simultaneously losing its independence to national politicians.

One problem is the enormous risk this entails—not just for the ECB, but for the EU member nations that fund the ECB and so are on the hook for its failures.  That is to say, the taxpaying citizens of those nations are on the hook.  The risk is whether the bailed out nations will benefit and recover their economies.  If they do not, the losses will become astronomic: the Spanish and Italian debts alone sum to nearly €3 trillion.

Another problem is that this sort of scheme, even if carried out without those…inefficiencies…does not work.  For instance, the euro zone finance ministers, in their latest bailout round, approved a €100 billion to rescue the Spanish banks.  However, the benefits only lasted until those €100 billion ran out; then yields—the prices borrowers must pay in order to get others to lend—on Spanish and Italian government bonds went back up to dangerous levels.

Some understand this: Jürgen Stark, a former member of the ECB Executive Board, has already said

The ECB has a clear mandate to guarantee price stability.  Every additional responsibility compromises this core function.

Notice that: the purpose of the ECB—of any central bank—is to maintain price stability.  The legitimate purpose doesn’t even include maintaining full employment, as the Fed attempts to do.  (In a free market, unfettered by government interferences beyond such niceties as enforcing contract law and laws against things like lying or cheating, price stability combined with freedom in the market tend to maintain full employment through market forces.)

Price stability—monetary policy—for the EU, and for the euro zone in particular, is the über-framework, within which the various nations can structure their individual market economies as they see fit: against a backdrop of price stability.

Interferingintervening in the markets—monetary policy—is the job of elected governments, not that of central banks.

The ECB needs to stay out of the market for sovereign debt.

What’s Their Plan?

Posted on by
Reply

What is Democratic Party’s plan, exactly, for getting our country out of its debt hole, out of its economic hole that’s deepening that debt hole and ruining individual American lives?  What is Barack Obama’s plan?

Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and his supporters out-raised Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama and his supporters last month by $100 million to $75 million, marking the third straight month the Republican candidate has out-raised the Democratic candidate.

In response, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out the following, more in support of the Democratic Presidential candidate than any Democratic Congressional candidate:

BREAKING NEWS: Mitt Romney and the Republicans brought in a whopping $101 million in July.

You and I both know that Mitt Romney will sell America out if he becomes President — giving more tax breaks to his Big Oil and billionaire backers.

The only way we can stop them is to close this fundraising gap – starting today.

Please do your part — make a donation of $3 or more right now to back up President Obama with a Democratic majority.

The reality is simple: If Mitt can bury us under a wave of corporate special interest cash, we will lose in November.

But if everyone who’s been waiting to give pitches in a few dollars, we can start closing the gap today.

http://dccc.org/Close-The-Gap

Thanks for all you do,

Robby

Robby Mook
DCCC Executive Director

Well.  I guess, being a poor, dumb conservative, I just don’t understand.  What was that Democratic Party plan, again?

A Quibble that Tells the Truth

Posted on by
Reply

This is from the White House’s very own blog, from the personal keyboard of Alan Krueger, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers:

The household survey showed that the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3% in July (or, more precisely, the rate rose from 8.217% in June to 8.254% in July).  Acting BLS Commissioner John Galvin noted in his statement that the unemployment rate was “essentially unchanged” from June to July.

And so is our economic recovery “essentially unchanged” from 2009 to 2012.

Yet More Thoughts on Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

I want to comment a bit about one leg of our immigration policy, that of what to do about the illegal aliens currently present in the US.

Roberto Suro has a recent piece in The Washington Post that bears on this; although he talks primarily about a second leg of our immigration policy, one that also must be solved: how we let aliens into our country (an immigrant is someone who intends to settle permanently, so I’ll stick to aliens in this post).  All three legs (entry, border security, the existing population of illegal aliens and immigrants), though, must be handled together, or the totality of our immigration policy will continue to be the failure that it is today.

Suro noted,

Along with the many [immigrants] looking to make a permanent home in the United States came those who had no intention to stay, and who would make some money and then go home.   Between 1908 and 1915, about 7 million people arrived while about 2 million departed.  About a quarter of all Italian immigrants, for example, eventually returned to Italy for good.

Today, we are much more rigid about immigrants. We divide newcomers into two categories: legal or illegal, good or bad. We hail them as Americans in the making, or brand them as aliens fit for deportation.

And

To start, we can recognize the new birds of passage, those living and thriving in the gray areas. We might then begin to solve our immigration challenges.

…

If we accept that there are spaces between legal and illegal, then options multiply.

The second part, though, is simply wrong.  There can be no gray area between legal and illegal; that would only perpetuate the limbo in which the illegal aliens currently exist.  Instead, we need to broaden what constitutes legal, and make it easier for these folks to comply.

Who are these folks living this shadow existence?  They are crop pickers, violinists, construction workers, entrepreneurs, engineers, home health-care aides and particle physicists.  These folks are active participants in a global economy driven by the flow of work, money, and ideas; they wish to come and go as opportunity calls them. They manage to have—they often are forced to have—a job in one country and a family in another.  Thus, they are forced to straddle—or avoid—the laws of multiple jurisdiction, with particular emphasis in this context US law on the part of the worker.

Nevertheless, we need them in the US being productive while they’re here, and it’s unnecessary to force them to choose to be here permanently, or to lie about their intent to be here permanently as a precondition for being here legally at all in order to achieve that.

Thus, I propose the following for the current population of illegal aliens.  I’ve proposed a general idea elsewhere, and Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D, IL) and Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) have ideas that bear on this.

We should issue a “green card lite” for those who come and go at a relatively high rate—migrant workers, for instance, but not exclusively.  Such a card would be good for an extended number of years, allowing the holders to cross the border multiple times as their (seasonal, perhaps) work requires, without having to go through the entry bureaucracy—or risk coyote depravations—each time they want to reenter.  The folks who are here already and want such a card, though, must provide documentation to support their claimed work history.

Additionally, in support of that documentation requirement, I suggest a one year amnesty for employers of (potentially, from their perspective; I assume the good intentions of the vast majority of employers) immigrants, illegal or legal, so those employers can provide their documentation supporting the (illegal) immigrant’s application without fear of government reprisal.

Moreover, a regular green card, for those who aver a longer duration/steadier residency should be far more easily requestable and far more quickly issued, with a similar requirement for work history documentation from those who are already here and want to come out of the shadows.  The employer amnesty should be extended to employers of this group for the same reason.

Note, though, that I’m not proposing amnesty for the illegal aliens themselves.  As many have suggested, these must pay a penalty, variously including a fine and/or a requirement to leave the country and then to reenter legally.  I believe that both penalties should be applied.  The fine, though, must be sized to the illegal alien’s ability to pay, and it must be large enough to sting but not so large as to be an impenetrable barrier.  The requirement to leave the country and return, though, I hold can be satisfied by traveling to the nearest consulate in the US, paying their fine, and applying for their green card from within that consulate.

On the other hand, those who’ve used falsified or stolen documentation (e.g., a false or stolen social security number) to facilitate their getting hired must pay a sterner penalty.  These must leave the US voluntarily for some period of years before applying for a green card (lite), and they must apply as though they have no work history to claim (they’d a first-time immigrant, now).  Failure to leave voluntarily should result in deportation, never to be allowed back in.

Finally, notice that there is nothing in this that presupposes the now legal immigrants wanting to become citizens.  Nor need there be.  As demonstrated by those immigration statistics at the beginning, when folks are in our country openly and freely, our country sells itself.

Let’s not forget, though, the other two legs of our immigration problem.  We also need to look at the difficulties we inflict on those who want to enter our country for legitimate purposes—to settle here, for instance, or to “make some money and then go home.”  And we also need to get serious about securing our borders so that we do a better job of filtering out the ones who come here with nefarious purposes so that only those who want to come here to settle and contribute, perhaps (but not necessarily) to become citizens, or to be here for a time and then go home, can do so.