Category Archives: Politics

the mortgage foreclosure mess- just another financial crisis

Posted on by

The latest mortgage foreclosure mess is just another financial crisis.

It’s not a real economic crisis- no houses have been actually destroyed- no fire, hurricane, or earthquake damage, etc.

So the responses aren’t about bulldozers, hammers, concrete pouring, etc.

The question is whether this financial discovery/event spills over into the real economy.

The question is, are the authorities standing by with policy responses as needed to make sure people can still go to work to grow food and eat it, build houses and live in them, make shoes and wear them, go to hospitals and take care of sick people, go to schools and teach classes, maintain the infrastructure, do cancer research, etc. etc. etc?

Of course not. And therefore it all might again needlessly/tragically spill over to the real sector.

Just like in August 2008, we might again let a financial crisis spill over into the real economy and make today’s still very bad economy even worse.

As I said then, yes, it’s critically important to identify and punish the bad guys with a vengeance, alter incentives that support fraud, etc. etc. etc.

And it’s even more important to not let the financial crisis spill over into the real economy by letting aggregate demand fall, sales collapse, and jobs get lost.

And now, as then, interest rate cuts and just about anything else the Fed might do aren’t going to do the trick, and, then as now, will probably just make it worse.

Now, as then, as always, an immediate fiscal adjustment IS the silver bullet that restores demand.

Now, as then, a full payroll tax (FICA) suspension will immediately work to restore private sector aggregate demand, sales, and jobs. For the most part, private sector jobs are a function of sales, directly or indirectly. Capitalism is driven by sales. Businesses large and small compete for consumer dollars. But here has to be consumer dollars to compete for.

Public infrastructure spending works as well, but takes a while, so the answer is to do both. Suspend FICA taxes and put in place desired infrastructure project funding, presumably in a well thought out basis with an eye to efficiency, and not in a blind rush to support aggregate demand.

So why is our government not standing by to suspend FICA taxes?
Why haven’t they already done it?

Especially as It’s a highly regressive punishing tax on the people we need most and the people who are hurting the most- the people actually working for a living who produce all the real goods and services that support our existence.

Yes, it’s the first deadly innocent fraud at work- government thinks it needs those FICA revenues to be able to make Social Security payments.

Our Federal government officials do not understand the function of federal taxes is to regulate the economy, and not to raise revenue.

The don’t understand the function of federal taxes is to take dollars away from us, and not to give them what they need to spend.
Their first clue should be that if we were to pay our taxes with old $20 bills they’d give us a receipt and then shred them. But it isn’t.
(And removing what’s restricting aggregate demand is not getting something for nothing.)

Instead, the deficit terrorists are firmly in control.

The best we can expect is for them not to raise taxes at year end when the tax cuts expire. There is no talk of lowering taxes, under any circumstances.

Even from the media’s ‘deficit doves’ who remain THE problem, agreeing that the ‘long term deficits’ is a problem, pointing to interest rates as evidence markets currently are willing to fund deficit spending, and talking about how austerity now is not the way to bring down deficits longer term- in general, flagrantly violating ‘Lerner’s Law’ and conceding the principle to the deficit hawks.

So will this latest mortgage crisis hurt the real economy?
Probably not, best I can tell. Looks more to me like it’s a potential transfer of dollars from banks and lenders with no propensity to spend to borrowers with high propensity to spend.

But I could easily be wrong. There is the risk that events could result in a further cutback in credit to the real economy.

And while this potential drop in aggregate demand is easily offset by a simple fiscal response, the odds our current gaggle of regulators and elected officials getting it right with an appropriate fiscal response seem slim and none.

Share

Comments on the Blumenthal McMahon Debate

Posted on by

Comments on the Blumenthal McMahon Debate

The debate organizers opted not to include me as the representative of the third largest political party in Connecticut, the Independent Party. I did, however, watch the proceedings on television. We are in an economic emergency, and I’m running for the US Senate strictly as a matter of conscience to offer my knowledge, experience, and proposals to fix our broken economy and create the 20 million new jobs we desperately need. To that end I offer my comments.

But let me first respond to the question on the death penalty. Both candidates proclaimed their unconditional support for it, while I am categorically against it. That fact that more than 100 convicted murderers on death row have been found not guilty and released after DNA testing became available is reason enough for me to ban this unnecessary measure which has likely put to death untold numbers of innocent people.

With regard to jobs and the economy, both candidates recognized that small businesses account for about 70% of private sector jobs, and both candidates proposed a variety of tax measures to help small business. And while both candidates favored not letting middle income tax cuts expire next year, and Mrs. McMahon further supported not raising taxes on anyone, neither of those proposals actually lower taxes from their current levels.

Sadly, the problem is that neither candidate recognizes that it is SALES that create jobs. Consequently, they did not focus on proposals designed to increase sales. Restaurants, department stores, and other small businesses don’t cut staff when sales are good and they are full of paying customers. They cut staff when sales fall. We’ve lost 8 million jobs because sales fell and business in general remains slow. So while Mrs. McMahon stated that entrepreneurial activity is what creates jobs through risk taking, she failed to recognize that they do that only when prospects for actually selling their goods and services are favorable, and, particularly, when they have a backlog of orders.

Thus, while lowering taxes for small business certainly doesn’t hurt, it’s not what creates jobs. My lead proposal to create millions of new jobs is a full payroll tax (FICA) suspension for both employers AND for all employees. This will increase take home pay by about 8% which means a person earning $50,000 a year will see his take home pay go up by over $300 per month, which will boost sales and create jobs the right way, from the bottom up, and not from the failed top down trickle down bailout policies of the last several years. It also lowers costs for all businesses, which helps keep prices down. We have to take strong measures to get sales back up to where they should be.

Next, I want to address one of the more famous sound bytes from this debate. Mrs. McMahon specifically stated that “government doesn’t create jobs, the private sector does” and Mr. Blumenthal did not disagree. What both candidates failed to recognize is the government’s central role in private sector job creation. Government’s role is the creation and maintenance of public infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the private sector. This includes in the general sense the legal system, the monetary system, public safety, and other related and essential support functions. This infrastructure employs real people in real jobs providing real benefits without which there would be no viable private sector. So in that sense government does indeed create real jobs, both directly and indirectly.

In summary, neither candidate showed that they understood that sales create private sector jobs, and neither candidate directly proposed measures such as my payroll tax suspension for employees to increase our spending power to restore sales and create jobs. Instead, they proposed measures that certainly won’t hurt, but will fall far short of what’s needed to put America back to work.

Next, Mr. Blumenthal repeatedly called for policy to force China to end its ‘currency manipulation,’ along with ‘buy America’ proposals and proposals to reverse the flow of American jobs overseas, to the point of criticizing Mrs. McMahon for purchasing imported goods. Mrs. McMahon implicitly agreed with the premise, countering by explaining that US corporate tax policy was to blame for companies moving overseas. Again, unfortunately, both candidates have things fundamentally backwards on this issue as well. I suspect that is because the unions they are undoubtedly catering to also have it backwards and are sadly working against their own best interesets.

The real problem is not the imports, or the jobs going overseas. The problem is that we are grossly over taxed for the size of government we have, and don’t have enough take home pay to buy enough goods and services to keep everyone at home fully employed.

As every Professor of Economics knows, and every first year student is taught, imports are real benefits and exports are real costs. You can think of each nation’s real wealth this way: take the ‘pile’ of goods and services we produce at home, then add to that pile the goods and services the rest of the world sends us, then subtract from that the pile of goods and services we send overseas. What we are left with is our real wealth. As you can see, the problem is not what we buy from overseas. That adds to our pile and makes us richer. The problem is the unemployment here at home, which is best addressed by my payroll tax suspension which gives people working for a living enough spending money to increase sales enough to create the jobs we need here at home. The trick is to get taxes low enough so that we have enough spending money to buy everything we can produce here at home with everyone working, plus everything the rest of the world wants to sell us.

In the debate, both candidates also stressed the importance of deficit reduction, with both concerned about the debt we are leaving our children. The problem is that they have both bought into the deficit mythology that has gotten the U.S. economy to where it is today. In order to restore American prosperity create American jobs it is critical to dispell this mythology, and I am on mission to stomp it out forever.

The fact is that the U.S. government is not ‘out of money’ or ‘about to go broke.’ That talk is pure fear mongering. Unlike state and local governments (which can go broke), the Federal government is the actual issuer and operator of the US dollar. It utilizes its Federal Reserve Bank and the commercial banks (where all of our bank accounts are) to make payments and receive payments. It makes all payments, such as Social Security payments, simply by marking numbers up in our bank accounts. Those numbers don’t come from anywhere, as Fed Chairman Bernanke testified last year and other Fed officials have repeated. There is no gold coin that drops into a bucket at the fed when you pay your taxes and they don’t hammer one into their computers when they pay a Social Security check.

To repeat: There is no such thing as the Federal government running out of money. Government checks don’t ever bounce.

That is not to say that ‘over spending’ can’t drive up prices and eventually result in inflation. It does mean, however, that Social Security is not broken. It can’t be. The checks will never bounce. And I have signed a pledge never to cut Social Security benefits or eligibility. However, unfortunately for all of us, there is a commission on “fiscal responsibility and reform” supported by the Democrats and the Republicans, which, conveniently after the election, will recommend ways to cut Social Security and Medicare. An important part of my mission is to make sure they do not succeed.

Often, when I explain this, people will ask if I am proposing that we just ‘print the money,’ as if today there is a distinction between printing money and some other way of government spending. I tell them that ‘printing money’ is a long outdated gold standard distinction that meant we had printed more paper money than we had gold backing it. Today, you can’t ‘cash in’ your dollars at the Fed for gold. Dollars are just numbers in bank accounts, or actual cash. So all I’m doing is describing the one and only way spending and taxing always takes place with today’s monetary system.

The other question that seems to be on everyone’s mind is how then do we pay off China? The answer is actually quite simple when you understand how it works in its most basic form.

First, one has to understand China doesn’t start out with any dollars. They get them from selling things to us. When China gets paid, those dollars go into its checking account, which is also called a reserve account, at the Fed (Federal Reserve Bank). US Treasury securities including T bills, notes, and bonds are nothing more than savings accounts at the Fed. So when China buys Treasury securities all that happens is their dollars shift from their checking account at the Fed to their savings account at the Fed. That’s called ‘the US going into debt.’ You can call it whatever you want, but it is really just transferring dollars from China’s checking to its savings. The total US debt of about $13 trillion is simply the dollars in savings accounts at the Fed. And how is that repaid by the tens of billions every week as the various Treasury securities mature? All the Fed does is shift those dollars (plus interest) from the savings accounts back to the checking accounts. That’s it, debt paid. And no checks from anyone’s children and grandchildren are involved. But what if China decides not to ‘buy our debt’? This simply means their money stays in their checking account at the Fed and never goes to their savings account. There is no reason for anyone to care in which Fed account China’s dollars are kept. Further, if China doesn’t want dollars at all, their only option is to buy something with them just like anyone else.

All of this causes one to view deficit spending in a very different light. Deficit spending for the Federal government is very different than most people imagine. When the Federal government spends more than it taxes, that extra money spent simply winds up in savings accounts at the Fed. In other words, it adds to the savings of the economy. With this in mind and knowing that, by definition, deficit reduction means either increasing taxes or cutting spending, we can see that both of those actions take money out of our economy – the worst possible thing to do at a time like this. While I strongly favor cutting wasteful and unnecessary Federal spending, I also recognize that with today’s high unemployment any spending cuts must be matched by tax cuts of at least that much to ensure money is not removed from the economy. What actually matters is the real economy, and not the deficit which is nothing more than the savings accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. Don’t you think that if the debt was really a problem something very bad would have happened long before it got to $13 trillion?

Mrs. McMahon’s nonsensical statement about using unspent stimulus money to pay down the national debt would be like saying you are going to use your remaining line on your credit card to pay off your debt. And Mr. Blumenthal’s failure to respond to such an obvious absurdity likewise shows he too is sorely lacking in his understanding of economics and job creation at this time of economic emergency.

The health insurance issue again highlighted their lack of understanding of markets and economics for all parties concerned. Both candidates missed the point that there is not yet an operational plan to guarantee coverage for those with pre existing conditions. The problem is that if you can’t be turned down for insurance because you are already sick, you don’t need to buy insurance until AFTER you need medical attention. To address that situation, they’ve discussed fining people who don’t buy insurance. But if the fines aren’t at least as high as the insurance premiums, people will just pay the fines. And then insurance companies will only be selling insurance to people already in need of treatment, which means the premiums will be higher than the costs of the needed treatment to cover the insurance company’s costs. Unfortunately, however nobly intended, the entire concept is unworkable under the current structure, and neither candidate indicated any awareness of this.

With regard to TARP funding for banks, again, neither candidate got it right. The fact is TARP was nothing more than regulatory forbearance that allowed the banks to continue to function with reduced levels of private capital, along with terms and conditions regarding operations, compensation, etc. No additional public funds were actually involved. The FDIC was, for all practical purposes, already guaranteeing the depositors from loss should all the private capital of any one bank be lost. Adding TARP money to secure depositors from loss when they were already FDIC guaranteed made no sense at all and added nothing. Nor did ‘paying back the TARP money,’ which necessarily did nothing more than let funds sit in reserve accounts at the Fed, make any difference.

To summarize the economic issues, neither candidate showed that they understood that sales create private sector jobs, and neither candidate directly proposed measures such as my payroll tax suspension for employees to increase our spending power to restore sales and create jobs. Instead, they proposed measures that certainly won’t hurt, but will fall far short of what’s needed to put America back to work. During this time of financial crisis, even with the best of intentions, neither candidate is qualified to represent our best interests and fix our economy.

Mr. Blumenthal has been a tireless public servant and advocate for the people of Connecticut for a very long time, and I have no doubt he’ll continue to do that if elected Senator. Unfortunately, much of his understanding of current issues is completely backwards. For example, his tireless and well-intentioned efforts in regard to foreign trade are far more likely to destroy jobs than create them. And nothing could be more subversive than Mrs. McMahon’s promised vote for a balanced budget amendment, which would take over $1 trillion out of our economy, destroying tens of millions of jobs, and threatening our liberties as well in the ensuing social unrest that.

We are in an economic emergency, and both candidates have put forth proposals that would unknowingly destroy millions of jobs in a terrible depression. I am running for the US Senate solely as a matter of conscience as the candidate uniquely qualified to support the proposals that will create the 20 million jobs we need, and defeat the forces at work that are attempting to slash Social Security and Medicare.

Also, unlike the other candidates, creating jobs has been my life work, and not just election talk. My published writings and proposals have already created millions of jobs around the world, and I have met regularly with Congressmen and Senators from both parties promoting full employment and prosperity, as well as fighting back against the proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

I urge you to please visit www.moslerforsenate.com and read my proposals, my qualifications, and my endorsements.

Share

Warren Mosler: Obama’s China Policy Will Destroy U.S. Jobs and Create Inflation

Posted on by


Warren Mosler: Obama’s China Policy Will Destroy
U.S. Jobs and Create Inflation

Noted Economist and Senate Candidate: Forcing The Yuan Up and The Dollar Down Is The Worst Possible Option For Creating U.S. Jobs


Middletown, CT. – September 28, 2010 – Warren Mosler, internationally renowned financial and job creation expert and Connecticut’s Independent Party Candidate for the US Senate lashed out today at the Obama administration’s weak dollar policy in relation to China. “The first thing forcing China to revalue its currency will do is destroy US jobs, not create them,” said Mosler. “When China causes its currency to appreciate against the dollar, thus driving the value of the dollar down, it gives Chinese workers what amounts to a pay raise which will be passed along to U.S. consumers in the form of higher prices – in other words, inflation. These higher prices mean U.S. consumers can buy less, which results in fewer American jobs.”

According to available data, the U.S. lost approximately 8 million jobs two years ago because sales fell. When sales are restored, jobs will be restored. “A restaurant, department store, or any other business doesn’t lay off staff when they are filled with customers. So, giving Chinese workers a pay raise that will kill U.S. sales, cause inflation, and cut Americans’ spending power is not the way to bring this economy back from the brink or create the American jobs we desperately need!” asserted Mosler. In contrast, Mosler’s plan to create good-paying private sector jobs features a full payroll tax (FICA) holiday. That will make sure our consumers have enough spending power to be able to buy both whatever we can produce here at home with full employment, plus whatever the rest of the world wants to sell us, just like a decade ago when unemployment was under 4%, growth was strong, inflation low, and net imports were at record levels. Additionally, Mosler is concerned that Obama’s current inflationary policy can rapidly escalate into a debilitating trade war with China. In fact, in what amounts to a dangerous, high stakes international game of chicken, China has already announced it was placing a tariff on US poultry exports in retaliation for U.S. demands for currency revaluation.

Richard Blumenthal’s lock-step position with the Obama White House on China and Linda McMahon’s conspicuous silence on this critical issue vividly show that they are simply not qualified to create the 20 million new jobs we desperately need. “If you needed heart surgery, you wouldn’t let just anyone do it. In this time of economic emergency, I am the candidate that has the necessary knowledge, experience and in-depth understanding of our economy on a nuts and bolts level to make effective policy,” said Mosler. Quite simply, now is the time to take decisive action and Warren Mosler is the only candidate in this race who is qualified for the job.

About Warren Mosler
Warren Mosler is running as an Independent. His populist economic message features: 1) a full payroll tax (FICA) holiday so that people working for a living can afford to buy the goods and services they produce. 2) $500 per capita Federal revenue distribution for the states 3) An $8/hr federally funded job to anyone willing and able to work to facilitate the transition from unemployment to private sector employment. He has also pledged never to vote for cuts in Social Security payments or benefits. Warren is a native of Manchester, Conn., where his father worked in a small insurance office and his mother was a night-shift nurse. After graduating from the University of Connecticut (BA Economics, 1971), and working on financial trading desks in NYC and Chicago, Warren started his current investment firm in 1982. For the last twenty years, Warren has also been involved in the academic community, publishing numerous journal articles, and giving conference presentations around the globe. Mosler’s new book “The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy” is a non technical guide to the actual workings of the monetary system and exposes the most commonly held misconceptions. He also founded Mosler Automotive, which builds the Mosler MT900, the world’s top performance car that also gets 30 mpg at 55 mph.

Share

Dems hand advantage back to Reps by delaying tax cut action

Posted on by

Blatantly delaying action on something that can help the economy for presumed political gain is a blunder equal to the Republicans saying they would oppose the proposed Obama tax cuts.

It doesn’t get more insulting to the voters than this.

Vote on Bush Tax Cuts Is Now Unlikely Before Nov. Elections

Congress will not vote on extending Bush-era tax cuts before the November elections, a U.S. Senate leader said Thursday, reflecting fear among some Democrats that it could hurt their chances at the polls.

“The reality is, we are not going to pass what needs to be passed to change this, either in the Senate or in the House, before the election,” said the Senate’s assistant majority leader, Dick Durbin.

Durbin told reporters he saw no hope for a quick decision on the controversial tax cut question in the current tense political atmosphere.

He said the final decision on the timing of a vote in the Senate would be made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Durbin said the likelihood of having an early vote was “very, very slim.”

Share

Warren Mosler To Participate In 3 Senatorial Debates

Posted on by

Warren Mosler To Participate In 3 Senatorial Debates To Be Hosted By League of Women Voters of Connecticut


September 13, 2010 08:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time

WATERBURY, Conn.–(EON: Enhanced Online News)–Warren Mosler, Independent candidate for US Senate from Connecticut today announced that he had been invited by the vetting committee of the League of Women Voters of Connecticut Education Fund to participate in a series of 3, 60-minute Senatorial debates to be held in October.

“I am deeply honored by my inclusion in these debates as the candidate of the Independent Party of Connecticut,” stated Mosler. “The League carefully examined my qualifications, my academic and professional endorsements, my career history, and my proposals to fix our economy, before deciding that I could make a positive contribution to the discussions.” Mosler has also requested his inclusion in a debate scheduled for October 4, sponsored by the Hartford Courant and Fox News, however, the lineup has yet to be finalized.

Each of the The League of Women Voters of Connecticut Education Fund and the Hearst Connecticut Media Group Senatorial debates will be paired with a 60-minute Gubernatorial debate. These debates will be held at various locations throughout Connecticut with the order of the debates being determined by coin toss. The first one-hour debate will begin at 7:00 p.m. and conclude promptly at 8 p.m. to be followed by the second debate, from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. All media outlets will be invited to cover the event. An experienced representative from the League of Women Voters of Connecticut Education Fund will moderate.

Debate Locations:
October 7, 2010 The Portuguese Cultural Center, Danbury
October 21, 2010 The Ferguson Library, Main Branch, Stamford
October 28, 2010 The Klein Theater, Bridgeport

About Warren Mosler

Warren Mosler is running as an Independent. His populist economic message features: 1) a full payroll tax (FICA) holiday so that people working for a living can afford to buy the goods and services they produce. 2) $500 per capita Federal revenue distribution for the states 3) An $8/hr federally funded job to anyone willing and able to work to facilitate the transition from unemployment to private sector employment. He has also pledged never to vote for cuts in Social Security payments or benefits. Warren is a native of Manchester, Conn., where his father worked in a small insurance office and his mother was a night-shift nurse. After graduating from the University of Connecticut (BA Economics, 1971), and working on financial trading desks in NYC and Chicago, Warren started his current investment firm in 1982. For the last twenty years, Warren has also been involved in the academic community, publishing numerous journal articles, and giving conference presentations around the globe. Mosler’s new book “The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy” is a non-technical guide to the actual workings of the monetary system and exposes the most commonly held misconceptions. He also founded Mosler Automotive, which builds the Mosler MT900, the world’s top performance car that also gets 30 mpg at 55 mph.

Learn more at www.moslerforsenate.com

Share

Boehner says he’d support a middle-class tax cut

Posted on by

As previously suggested, Boehner reverses course and does what should have been his obvious choice.

This gives everyone in Congress a pre election window to try to tax cut their way to victory before the election.

With the current level of deficit spending already supportive of modest GDP growth, and these latest developments taking away the risk of fiscal tightening through tax hikes, look for prospects for a double dip to be all but forgotten, and equities to firm accordingly.

In sum, federal deficits are supporting enough income/savings/agg demand for modest gdp growth even with a relatively weak consumer and no credit expansion,
corps have already demonstrated the ability to generate reasonably good cost cutting/profits with very modest gdp growth,
high unemployment keeps unit labor costs under control, and relatively low term interest rates continue to support valuations,
housing can’t go any lower and even if starts doubled they would still be relatively modest,
and same goes for cars and lots of other areas of deferred consumption and deferred investment.

Boehner says he’d support a middle-class tax cut

September 12 (AP) — House Minority Leader John Boehner says he would vote for President Obama’s plan to extend tax cuts only for middle-class earners, not the wealthy, if that were the only option available to House Republicans.

Boehner, R-Ohio, said it is “bad policy” to exclude the highest-earning Americans from tax relief during the recession. But he said he wouldn’t block the breaks for middle-income individuals and families if Democrats won’t support the full package.

Income tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush will expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts and Obama signs the bill. Obama said he would support continuing the lower tax rates for couples earning up to $250,000 or single taxpayers making up to $200,000. But he and the Democratic leadership in Congress refused to back continued lower rates for the fewer than 3 percent of Americans who make more than that.

The cost of extending the tax cuts for everyone for the next 10 years would approach $4 trillion, according to congressional estimates. Eliminating the breaks for the top earners would reduce that bill by about $700 billion.

Boehner’s comments signaled a possible break in the logjam that has prevented passage of a tax bill, although Republicans would still force Democrats to vote on their bigger tax-cut package in the final weeks before the November congressional elections.

“I want to do something for all Americans who pay taxes,” Boehner said in an interview taped Saturday for “Face the Nation” on CBS. “If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I’ll vote for it. … If that’s what we can get done, but I think that’s bad policy. I don’t think that’s going to help our economy.”

Austan Goolsbee, new chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said on ABC’s “This Week” that he hopes that Democratic lawmakers who also want an across-the-board extension will join Obama and others in the party in supporting legislation aimed at the middle class before the November elections.

In response to Boehner’s comments, Goolsbee said, “If he’s for that, I would be happy.”

With congressional elections less than two months away, both parties have been working to score points with voters generally unhappy with Congress. Democrats are bearing the brunt of voter anger over a stubborn recession, a weak job market and a high-spending government, giving the GOP an opening for taking back control of the House and possibly the Senate.

Democratic leaders would relish putting up a bill that extends only the middle-class tax cuts and then daring Republicans to oppose it. In response, GOP lawmakers probably would try to force votes on amendments to extend all the tax cuts, arguing that it would be a boost to the economy, and then point to those who rejected them.

A compromise over the tax-cut extensions had been suggested by some senior Democrats. In a speech last week in Cleveland, Obama rejected the idea of temporarily extending all the tax cuts for one to two years.

The tax-cut argument between Obama and Republican lawmakers focuses on whether the debt-ridden country can afford to continue Bush’s tax breaks, which were designed to expire next year. Republicans contend that cutting back on government spending ought to be the focus of efforts aimed at beginning to balance the federal budget.

Share

7 more weeks until Nov 2

Posted on by

The election is November 2.

All contributions I receive are used to promote my message above and beyond what I was going to spend anyway.

And, in a recent development, the actual number of people donating is suddenly a criteria to get into the televised debates.

For that purpose a $25 donation counts the same as a $2,400 donation which is the max allowed.

So if you’re interested in making a contribution please do so by clicking here

(If you have a problem with the link let me know asap!)

Thanks again to all of you who have already done so- you have been heard!
MMT is all over the internet, and quickly being recognized in academic and financial circles

Most of the talk of a payroll tax holiday can be traced directly to our efforts,

And the ideas that:

Federal taxes function to regulate demand, and not to fund expenditures,

The US, UK, Japan, etc. are not the next Greece

Social security isn’t broken

The only thing we owe China is a bank statement

Federal borrowing is nothing more than shifting dollars from reserve accounts to securities accounts

etc. etc.

are gaining substantial traction,
though clearly are not yet in the mainstream media the way the payroll tax holiday is.

Anyway, I’m standing by to act as your agent.

The maximum contribution to Mosler for Senate is $2,400 per person,
but additional donations up to a max of $5,000 per person are allowed to the Indendent Party of Connecticut,
where all donations will go to support the same message, as all of our candidates have read ‘The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds’
and are ‘onboard’ with using any donations to support that message.

And no worries to those who don’t contribute for any reason- completely understood!!!
If you do something, it’s for yourself, your family, the world, etc, but not for me!
(I take what the market gives me. If I don’t get into the debates I get to do something more fun those nights.
If I do get in, it’s your fault…)

This email is for information purposes only, not active solicitation!

And again, thanks very much to all who’ve contributed in any amount,
and especially those that have done their part to spread the word.

Best!
Warren

Share

Boehner falls for Obama’s trap

Posted on by

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.

Share

Fears Grow over the Fate of Irish Economy, Banks

Posted on by

The two external shocks of the summer were China, which historically has had second half slowdowns due to State lending front loaded to the first half, and the euro zone which became a ward of the ECB. China’s growth has slowed some, but not collapsed, and the ECB has continued its support of euro member solvency and funding capability in the short term markets.

There was no credible deposit insurance for the euro zone banks until the ECB ‘wrote the check’ by buying national govt debt in the secondary markets. It’s not the most efficient way to do things, but it does work to facilitate national govts being able to fund themselves, though mainly in the very short term markets (I still see my per capita distribution proposal as the better policy response). And that ability of the member nations to fund themselves means they can write the check for deposit insurance as needed.

The ECB also imposed ‘terms and conditions’ along with funding assistance, and as long as Ireland is in compliance, the ECB is for the most part responsible for the outcomes, so it seems logical the ECB will continue its support, perhaps changing its terms and conditions if not pleased with the outcomes. Additionally, the ECB will continue to supply liquidity directly to the banks, again, as with Ireland complying with the terms and conditions the ECB is now responsible for the outcomes.

But there is no question it is all a precarious brew, and there is no telling what might result in the ECB withdrawing support, so at this time steep yield curves for euro member nations due to credit risk make perfect sense.

Also, Europe and the rest of the world would like nothing more than to increase net exports to the US.

It’s all a golden opportunity for a decade or more of unparalleled US prosperity if we knew enough to again become the ‘engine of growth’ and implement the likes of a full payroll tax (FICA) holiday to provide Americans working for a living enough spending power to buy both everything we could produce at full employment and all the rest of the world wants to net sell us.

Unfortunately the deficit myths continue to cast a wet blanket over domestic demand as our leaders continue to let us down.

And with maybe 100 new Congressmen on the way, with most supporting a balanced budget and a balanced budget amendment which already has maybe 125 votes, there’s more than enough fiscal responsibility looming to create a true depression.

Hopefully their tax cutting agenda outweighs their balanced budget agenda.

And hopefully we get some kind of energy policy to decouple GDP growth from a spike in energy consumption.

Fears Grow over the Fate of Irish Economy, Banks

By Patrick Allen

September 8(CNBC) — The fate of the Irish economy is back in focus for investors across the world, after the former Celtic Tiger extended guarantees to its banking industry and depositors and with the spread on Irish bonds hitting record highs.

The country is also waiting for a decision from the European Commission on the fate of Anglo Irish, the troubled bank that was nationalized two years ago; uncertainty on whether Anglo Irish will be wound down or allowed to survive has weighed on sentiment towards the country.

Ireland is an example of a Western economy adjusting to both the banking crisis and, crucially, the emergence of Asia, Amit Kara, an economist at Morgan Stanley, said.

“Ireland has taken steps to overcome the hangover from the credit boom, but a successful outcome requires the economy to become more competitive and also, and more crucially, a global economic recovery,” Kara said.

He is confident the Irish economy will be able to roll over debt in the coming weeks and sees the chance for Irish debt to outperform the likes of Spain.

“Though Ireland faces serious long-term challenges, its liquidity position is healthy and its banks should have sufficient ECB-eligible collateral to significantly offset the funding impact of upcoming debt redemptions,” Kara explained.

“Given the underperformance of recent weeks, we see scope for Irish bonds to regain some ground against Portugal and Spain in particular, once the initial round of government-guaranteed bond redemptions has taken place over the first two weeks of September,” he added.

What is on Ireland’s Books?

The Irish banking system remains hooked on European Central Bank funding and investors are also worried about the risks posed by the scale of liabilities following Ireland’s decision to guarantee the country’s lenders.

Share