Presidential approval index

This is not looking good.

The economy is perceived to be at least modestly growing and improving.

The President is now perceived to be working with the opposition, first to extend the tax cuts at year end, and now with the spending cuts.

The President has kept us out of direct conflict in the latest round of disruptions.

So what’s the problem?

Gasoline is pushing $4/gallon and there’s no plan except to tax it so we don’t use so much?

They all believe we’ve run out of money, are dependent on borrowing from the likes of China, and could be the next Greece?

The rebels are losing in Libya and there seems to be nothing we can do about it?

Homes are still being lost by the hundreds of thousands?

Vast numbers of people owe more on their house than it’s worth?

People can’t find decent jobs?

The healthcare situation is worse than ever?

There is a perception that the President and Congress are insensitive to what people are going through?

There is no actual recovery plan, nor even any proposals that make sense?

There is a general feeling that America is in decline?

Obama mortgage reform proposal

If this is actually the jist of the proposals they make no sense to me.
For me the starting point is the question,
‘Is there public purpose supporting home ownership for lower income earners?’

Under current institutional arrangements, I’d say yes, and come up with an entirely different set of proposals, as I did
a while back for my website.

As is, looks to me like an obstacle to higher levels of output and employment.

Mortgage Costs to Rise As Government Lessens Role

February 11 (AP) — The Obama administration laid out three broad options Friday for reducing the government’s role in the mortgage market. All three would almost certainly lead to higher interest rates and costs for borrowers.

The administration said in a report that the government should withdraw its support for the mortgage market slowly, over five years or more. The report describes a path for winding down the troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But rather than making a single recommendation, the administration offered Congress three scenarios and will let lawmakers shape the final policy.

The options are:

— No government role, except for existing agencies like the Federal Housing Administration.

— A government guarantee of private mortgages triggered only when the market is in trouble.

— Government insurance for a targeted range of mortgage investments that already are guaranteed by private insurers. The government guarantee would kick in only if those private companies couldn’t pay.

Obama himself, talking like a true convert to the Conservative Party

Looks like the media is getting on to a lot of what I’ve been saying since President Obama was a candidate?

These are not your father’s Democrats.

And they afraid we might be the next Greece, and so are on a path to turn us into the next Japan.

GDP is improving modestly, thanks to the 9% federal deficit. However, given the current credit environment and high productivity growth, it’s not enough to bring down unemployment in any meaningful way.

The near 0% interest rate policy continues to suppress private interest income and, along with it’s positive supply side effects, has helped the inflation indicators to continue to decelerate.

Increased exports evidence the more to reduced real terms of trade, with higher crude prices hurting as well. (we are exporting more and more just to ‘pay for’ the same amount of imported crude)

The last thing our standard of living needs is what the President threatened when he said something like ‘now that the worst of the recession is behind us, we can turn our attention to deficit reduction.’

LEFT TO WONDER IF HE’S ON RIGHT
By Charles Hurt
Publication: The New York Post
Date: Wednesday, January 26 2011


 
WASHINGTON – Stop spending! Cut taxes! Simplify the tax code! Expand free trade! Slice the deficit! Slaughter the pork!

No, that was not some Tea Partier or the battle cry of Republicans last night in response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address.

It was Obama himself, talking like a true convert to the Conservative Party.

The lefty liberal asked both parties last night to come together to eliminate the endless complexities in the tax code that has created a cottage industry for accountants but has been the bane of businesses and workers alike.

And he urged Congress to cut taxes. But not just any taxes.

The man many believe to be an all-out socialist whose policies have been hostile to businesses actually called on Congress last night to cut the corporate tax rate.

Few Republicans in these tough times have the guts to carry the banner of cutting this country’s corporate tax rates, which are among the highest in the world.

And it is truly astonishing to hear this from the leader of the party that is so completely devoted to trashing companies and corporate successes like Wal-Mart – even as Democrats claim to want to lower unemployment rates and foster a thriving economy.

Obama called for free trade with foreign countries, even as his fellow Democrats continue to insist that all free traders want to do is send jobs overseas.

And he hewed to a conservative line on cutting the deficit – a truly terrifying burden that just months ago Obama dismissed as insignificant as he added trillions of dollars to it.

The moment Obama really threw down the gauntlet came when he locked arms with conservative Republicans to denounce earmarks, those fat chunks of your money that lawmakers grab to pay for pet projects back home and plum favors for political supporters.

Obama explicitly vowed in no uncertain terms that if Congress sends him any piece of legislation with any earmarks in it, he will flat out veto it.

This was met with muted applause and just a small handful of decent politicians in the chamber leaping to their feet to applaud.

The question now is whether the President Obama we heard last night was genuine – or the speech was just another cynical political ploy by a Washington politician looking ahead to his re-election next year.

Will Obama actually follow through and lead his party to join Republicans to lower the corporate tax rate, dramatically cut the deficit and finally put an end to the political pork spending that politician after politician has proved is the “gateway drug” to corruption?

A glance at his record does not leave much room for hope.

Obama Nation- Throw Social Security, Medicare under the Electric Bus

“You’re the type that would complain if they hung you with a new rope.”

Hopefully this entire administration and Congress will go down in history as the last out of paradigm regime that nearly succeeded in turning the US into the next Japan, which now includes the drive to become a net exporter, before the lights came on and every lived happily ever after.

Meanwhile, it’s more of the same, with Paul Ryan ratcheting up the fear mongering after taking the hand off from President Obama, specifically stating we were going to be the next Greece if didn’t take immediate proactive measures.

And, of course, absolutely not a peep of criticism from any politician, the media, or headline economist- hawk or dove- on that operational absurdity.

State of the Union

Some of the risks listed at year end seem to be coming on line, including slower growth out of China, euro austerity keeping a lid on demand in the euro zone, and US fiscal balance too tight for anything more than very modest top line growth, given current credit conditions and the negative income effects of near 0 interest rate policy and QE.

With crude oil continuing to soften, and Brent looking to close the gap with WTI by falling more than WTI, the dollar continues to gain fundamental support as it becomes ‘harder to get’ overseas.

And falling gold and silver prices, along with most other commodities, are showing a world that is sensitive to those indicators that QE2 doesn’t look to have been at all inflationary, leaving many people with positions they otherwise would not have taken (long gold, silver, commodity currencies, and other implied ‘short dollar’ positions).

The risk here is that the dollar gets very strong, and commodities very weak, which can lead to a US equity correction as well as a strong bond rally, all contributing to a deflationary malaise, as the theme remains:

Because we believe we can be the next Greece, we continue to work to turn ourselves into the next Japan

Which includes a misguided national effort to export our way to prosperity, which is likely to be featured by the President tonight.

President Obama missing the point

Obama reiterated the talking points he has been pushing for the last two weeks. Borrowing $700 billion to pay for a tax cut for “millionaires and billionaires” doesn’t make any sense, especially when one considers the evidence that the wealthy are far more likely to save than spend their tax cuts, thus providing very little stimulus to the economy. The cost-benefit analysis just doesn’t work.

Since he doesn’t understand monetary operations he doesn’t realize that if the money isn’t going to be spent there is no point in taxing it with regards to aggregate demand.

He’s giving the wrong reason for ‘taxing the rich.’

Boehner falls for Obama’s trap

In a bold move to the right, President Obama proposed a series of Republican type business tax cuts that would not have been the first choice of anyone on the left, in addition to a tax cut for workers earning less than $250,000 per year.

Boehner’s best move would have been to embrace the business tax cuts as well as the personal tax cuts, declare victory, and claim it was voter rejection of the ‘liberal agenda’ that caused the President to break ranks with the left and join the conservative cause, etc. And I’m sure he could have spun it far better than my feeble attempt.

Instead, Boehner fell into the trap, as he rejected the entire pro Republican agenda proposal, and opened himself and the Republican party up to a crushing condemnation of his position by a President who was back to his teleprompter led candidate form.

Looks like a major political blunder to me. While Obama’s proposals can be said to fall short of the mark, there was precious little the Republicans should have been objecting to. Now Boehner is stranded in no man’s land, regrouping and groping for a position that makes sense. (Reminds me of the Arafat’s public relations disaster when he rejected a far more than generous offer from the Israelis.)

Unfortunately, Obama took advantage of and reinforced the anti deficit fear mongering and added to that fear mongering, claiming he didn’t extend tax cuts to the rich because the govt. needs those dollars for deficit reduction. This further sets us up for higher unemployment down the road and has already limited any fiscal response to levels that will keep US unemployment ‘high for long.’

Now the Democrats are hoping that the numbers between now and the election show a double dip is not in the cards, and that things have slowly turned, which is very possible.

Even so, there’s a good chance it’s too late to stem the anti incumbent tide.

Obama Blasts GOP, Boehner on Economy and Taxes

September 8 (AP) — President Barack Obama strongly defended his opposition to extending Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans on Wednesday and delivered a searing attack on Republicans and their House leader for advocating “the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place.”

Obama said the struggling U.S. economy can’t afford to spend $700 billion to keep lower tax rates in place for the nation’s highest earners despite a call by House Minority Leader John Boehner and other GOP leaders to do just that.

Speaking in the same city where Boehner, an Ohio Republican, recently ridiculed Obama’s economic stewardship, Obama said Boehner’s policies amount to no more than “cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations.”

Obama’s comments came as the administration rolled out new proposals designed to re-ignite a sputtering recovery, including new tax breaks for businesses and $50 billion for U.S. roads, rails and airports.

“Let me be clear to Mr. Boehner and everyone else. We should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer,” the president said. The administration “is ready this week to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less,” he said.

Actually, Obama and other Democratic leaders want to extend the tax cuts except for individuals making over $200,000 a year—or families earning over $250,000. The sweeping series of Bush tax cuts expires at the end of this year unless Congress renews them.

Obama went after Boehner—who would probably become House speaker if Republicans win control of the House in November’s midterm elections—directly by name.

In Boehner’s remarks on Aug. 24, Obama said, the Republican leader offered “no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy we already tried for the last decade, the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place.”

Ahead of Obama’s speech, Boehner offered his own proposals on Wednesday, saying in a morning broadcast interview that Congress should freeze all tax rates for two years and should cut federal spending to the levels of 2008, before the deep recession took hold.

“People are asking, ‘Where are the jobs?”‘ Boehner said, calling the White House “out of touch” with the American public.

Obama gave one of his strongest pitches yet on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of this year for wealthy Americans but allowing them to remain in place for everybody else.

Republicans, and even some Democrats, have suggested that it was no time to raise taxes on anybody, given the fragile state of the economy.

The debate is an unwelcome one for dozens of vulnerable Democratic incumbents just weeks before Election Day. Already, a handful of Democrats in conservative or swing districts, such as Reps. Gerry Connolly in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., and Bobby Bright in southeastern Alabama, have come out publicly for extending all the cuts—at least temporarily.

Still other embattled Democrats, wary of alienating middle-class voters, are siding with Obama. In central Ohio, for example, Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy has said the tax cuts for higher earners should be repealed, but middle-income people should see no tax increases.

Obama acknowledged that the recovery that began in late 2009 had slowed considerably.

“And so people are frustrated and angry and anxious about the future. I understand that. I also understand that in a political campaign, the easiest thing for the other side to do is ride this fear and anger all the way to Election Day,” he said.

“The middle class is still treading water, while those aspiring to reach the middle class are doing everything they can to keep from drowning,” Obama said.

Polls have shown a steady slippage in Obama’s approval ratings and an accompanying rise in Republican prospects for winning House and Senate seats in November.

In his speech, Obama outlined plans to expand and permanently extend a research and development tax credit that lapsed in 2009, to allow businesses to write 100 percent of their investments in equipment and plants off their taxes through 2011 and to pump $50 billion into the economy for highway, rail, airport and other infrastructure projects.

He also renewed a pitch for a small business package that has been stalled in the Senate because of Republican delaying tactics.

Of the debate over the expiring Bush tax cuts, Obama said, “I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. These families are the ones who saw their wages and incomes flatline over the last decade—and they deserve a break. And because they are more likely to spend on basic necessities, this will strengthen the economy as a whole.”

“But the Republican leader of the House doesn’t want to stop there. … He and his party believe we should also give a permanent tax curt to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.” Obama said these taxpayers were “folks who are less likely to spend the money” to help the economy grow, a notion disputed by Republicans and conservative economists.

Even Obama’s former budget director, Peter Orszag, has said that while he prefers Obama’s proposal to impose the higher taxes on the wealthy, getting such a formulation through Congress in this politically charged time might be extremely difficult. Orszag suggested a compromise—extend all the tax cuts, but just for two years, and then let them all expire.

Obama is strongly opposed to such a deal, White House officials said.

World’s rich got richer amid ’09 recession

They call Obama a ‘socialist’ who’s taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but the facts show that instead he’s presided over the largest transfer of wealth from poor to rich in the history of the world.

GDP has been growing by around 4% for the last two quarters, while the lowest income people suffered through job loss and declining wage growth.

That means someone else got the increase in real wealth:

World’s rich got richer amid ’09 recession: report

By Joseph A. Giannone

June 22 (Reuters) — The rich grew richer last year, even as the world endured the worst recession in decades.

A stock market rebound helped the world’s ranks of millionaires climb 17 percent to 10 million, while their collective wealth surged 19 percent to $39 trillion, nearly recouping losses from the financial crisis, according to the latest Merrill Lynch-Capgemini world wealth report.

Stock values rose by half, while hedge funds recovered most of their 2008 losses, in a year marked by government stimulus spending and central bank easing.

“We are already seeing distinct signs of recovery and, in some areas, a complete return to 2007 levels of wealth and growth,” Bank of America Corp wealth management chief Sallie Krawcheck said.

The fastest growth in wealth took place in India, China and Brazil, some of the hardest hit markets in 2008. Wealth in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific soared to record highs.

Asia’s millionaire ranks rose to 3 million, matching Europe for the first time, paced by a 4.5 percent economic expansion.

Asian millionaires’ combined wealth surged 31 percent to $9.7 trillion, surpassing Europe’s $9.5 trillion.

In North America, the ranks of the rich rose 17 percent and their wealth grew 18 percent to $10.7 trillion.

The United States was home to the most millionaires in 2009 — 2.87 million — followed by Japan with 1.65 million, Germany with 861,000, and China with 477,000.

Switzerland had the highest concentration of millionaires: nearly 35 for every 1,000 adults.

Yet as portfolios bounced back, investors remained wary after a collapse that erased a decade of stock gains, fueled a contraction in the global economy and sent unemployment soaring.

The report, based on surveys with more than 1,100 wealthy investors with 23 firms, found that the rich were well served by holding a broad range of investments, including commodities and real estate.

“The wealthy allocated, as opposed to concentrated, their investments,” Merrill Lynch head of U.S. wealth management Lyle LaMothe said in an interview.

Millionaires poured more of their money into fixed-income investments seeking predictable returns and cash flow. The challenge ahead for brokers is convincing clients to move off the sidelines and pursue riskier, more fruitful investments.

“There is still a hesitancy,” LaMothe said. “Liquidity is incredibly important and people need cash flow to preserve their lifestyle — but they want to replace that cash flow in a way that does not increase their risk profile.”

The report found that investor confidence in advisers and regulators remains shaken. The rich are actively managing their investments, seeking customized advice and demanding full disclosure about the securities they buy.

There were signs that investors were shaking off their concerns. Families that kept money closer to home during the crisis began shifting money to foreign markets, particularly the developing nations.

North American and European investors are expected to increase their exposure to Asian markets, which are projected to lead the world in economic expansion. Europe’s wealthy are seen increasing their U.S. and Canadian holdings.

More wealthy clients also are taking a harder look at large companies that pay healthy dividends, as an alternative to bonds and their razor-thin yields.

“Investors are open to areas they hadn’t thought about before as they try to preserve their ability to be philanthropic, to preserve their lifestyle,” LaMothe said. “To me, the report underscored clients are involved and they’re not inclined to stay in 1 percent savings accounts.”