Today Yahoo carried a blog entry on its "The Ticket" page by Rachel Rose Hartman titled, "Poll suggests 2012 change in power in Washington." *
In the entry Ms. Hartman sites a USA Today/Gallup poll:
"Only 24 percent of all adults surveyed in the USA Today/Gallup poll said most members of Congress deserve re-election 'the lowest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 1991' the newspaper reports."
The entry also states, "However, the poll shows that 56 percent of adults believe their own representative deserves re-election."
Something doesn't seem quite right. A fairly substantial majority thinks most members of Congress should go, yet, albeit smaller, a majority also thinks their own representative deserves re-election. The attitude seems to be, your guy is the problem, not mine. You vote your guy out because I'm going to keep voting for my guy.
So who has the courage to follow their convictions and vote their guy out? Apparently not enough people to make any real difference. Consequently, we continue to help perpetuate a dysfunctional political process that serves the interests of career politicians to our own detriment.
* The blog entry can be retrieved from:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-suggests-2012-change-power-washington-131541841.html
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
What China has to say. Does it matter? You be the judge.
On August 6, Yahoo carried a Reuters report by Walter Brandimarte and Melanie Lee titled, "China tells U.S. 'good old days' of borrowing are over"* The report states:
"China bluntly criticized the United States on Saturday one day after the superpower's credit rating was downgraded, saying the 'good old days' of borrowing were over.
Standard & Poor's cut the U.S. long-term credit rating from top-tier AAA by a notch to AA-plus on Friday over concerns about the nation's budget deficits and climbing debt burden.
China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.
'The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,' China's official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.
In the Xinhua commentary, China scorned the United States for its 'debt addiction' and 'short sighted' political wrangling.
'China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets,' it said.
It urged the United States to cut military and social welfare expenditure. Further credit downgrades would very likely undermine the world economic recovery and trigger new rounds of financial turmoil, it said.
'International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country,' Xinhua said."
I take one exception to this article. The authors state that China is our largest creditor. That is not true. According to the US Treasury, in May 2011** all foreign investment in US securities equaled $4.514T. China owned the largest share of that amount at $1.1598T. The total national debt is over $14T. China's amount represents about 8.25% of that total. Significant, yes, but that does not make them our largest creditor.
However, that being said, should we just ignore what the Xinhua agency said. No, because they make some very valid points. Like, "The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone." Is this just rhetoric? Perhaps, but even our own elected officials agree we cannot continue to support all our programs by borrowing. I find it most interesting that the Chinese are able to recognize that the messes are of our "own making," but we can't.
I think this comment is very telling, "China scorned the United States for its 'debt addiction' and 'short sighted' political wrangling." Do we have a debt addiction? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I like their use of the term "wrangling" when they describe our political process. Webster says wrangle is a verb meaning "to argue; quarrel, esp. noisily." Clearly, on important issues like the debt ceiling debate the parties like to quarrel noisily.
"International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country." This is perhaps the most profound contention China makes.
Debt is a form of bondage; it limits one's ability to act and makes one more susceptible to be acted upon. What does China mean by stating the dollar should be subject to "international supervision?" It means losing our sovereignty and the ability to control our own destiny. Greece lost its freedom to act and instead was acted upon by the European Union's demands for austerity measures.
We must not allow ourselves to be complacent and think it could never happen to us.
* The Reuters article can be found at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/crisis-idUSLDE77504C20110806
** The Department of the Treasury data can be found at:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt
"China bluntly criticized the United States on Saturday one day after the superpower's credit rating was downgraded, saying the 'good old days' of borrowing were over.
Standard & Poor's cut the U.S. long-term credit rating from top-tier AAA by a notch to AA-plus on Friday over concerns about the nation's budget deficits and climbing debt burden.
China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.
'The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,' China's official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.
In the Xinhua commentary, China scorned the United States for its 'debt addiction' and 'short sighted' political wrangling.
'China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets,' it said.
It urged the United States to cut military and social welfare expenditure. Further credit downgrades would very likely undermine the world economic recovery and trigger new rounds of financial turmoil, it said.
'International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country,' Xinhua said."
I take one exception to this article. The authors state that China is our largest creditor. That is not true. According to the US Treasury, in May 2011** all foreign investment in US securities equaled $4.514T. China owned the largest share of that amount at $1.1598T. The total national debt is over $14T. China's amount represents about 8.25% of that total. Significant, yes, but that does not make them our largest creditor.
However, that being said, should we just ignore what the Xinhua agency said. No, because they make some very valid points. Like, "The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone." Is this just rhetoric? Perhaps, but even our own elected officials agree we cannot continue to support all our programs by borrowing. I find it most interesting that the Chinese are able to recognize that the messes are of our "own making," but we can't.
I think this comment is very telling, "China scorned the United States for its 'debt addiction' and 'short sighted' political wrangling." Do we have a debt addiction? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I like their use of the term "wrangling" when they describe our political process. Webster says wrangle is a verb meaning "to argue; quarrel, esp. noisily." Clearly, on important issues like the debt ceiling debate the parties like to quarrel noisily.
"International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country." This is perhaps the most profound contention China makes.
Debt is a form of bondage; it limits one's ability to act and makes one more susceptible to be acted upon. What does China mean by stating the dollar should be subject to "international supervision?" It means losing our sovereignty and the ability to control our own destiny. Greece lost its freedom to act and instead was acted upon by the European Union's demands for austerity measures.
We must not allow ourselves to be complacent and think it could never happen to us.
* The Reuters article can be found at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/crisis-idUSLDE77504C20110806
** The Department of the Treasury data can be found at:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
In their own words.
Today, CNN carried a report by Alan Silverleib and Tom Cohen titled, "Obama signs debt ceiling bill, ends crisis."* The article states, "Obama praised the deal as 'an important first step for ensuring that as a nation we live within our means.'"
The article also states, "...the American economy 'didn't need Washington to come along with a manufactured crisis,' the president noted. 'It's pretty likely that the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling -- for both businesses and consumers -- has been unsettling, and just one more impediment to the full recovery that we need. And it was something that we could have avoided entirely. Voters may have chosen divided government, but they sure didn't vote for dysfunctional government,' the president said."
The last paragraph says:
"'I think all of us need to reflect on how these institutions are conducting themselves, how members are conducting themselves,' said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, who has announced he is not seeking re-election next year. 'We need to think about why are we really here. We're here to solve problems. We're not here to worry about the next election, and unfortunately there's too much focus on pure partisan politics and not enough focus on solving problems confronting the country.'"
I have italicized statements for emphasis. They are not italicized in the article.
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
In his own words Obama admits that the debt ceiling crisis was "manufactured." To what ends? Then he admits "it was something that we could have avoided entirely." So why didn't they.
To know why, re-read Conrads comments above.
In his own words Conrad acknowledges that career politicians are more interested in their long careers in public service than they are in "solving problems confronting the country." I find it interesting that Conrad is willing to speak so candidly now that he is retiring from the Senate after serving for 25 years!
To stop the political insanity WE must put a stop to political careerism.
*The CNN article can be found at:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/02/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_bn4
The article also states, "...the American economy 'didn't need Washington to come along with a manufactured crisis,' the president noted. 'It's pretty likely that the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling -- for both businesses and consumers -- has been unsettling, and just one more impediment to the full recovery that we need. And it was something that we could have avoided entirely. Voters may have chosen divided government, but they sure didn't vote for dysfunctional government,' the president said."
The last paragraph says:
"'I think all of us need to reflect on how these institutions are conducting themselves, how members are conducting themselves,' said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, who has announced he is not seeking re-election next year. 'We need to think about why are we really here. We're here to solve problems. We're not here to worry about the next election, and unfortunately there's too much focus on pure partisan politics and not enough focus on solving problems confronting the country.'"
I have italicized statements for emphasis. They are not italicized in the article.
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
In his own words Obama admits that the debt ceiling crisis was "manufactured." To what ends? Then he admits "it was something that we could have avoided entirely." So why didn't they.
To know why, re-read Conrads comments above.
In his own words Conrad acknowledges that career politicians are more interested in their long careers in public service than they are in "solving problems confronting the country." I find it interesting that Conrad is willing to speak so candidly now that he is retiring from the Senate after serving for 25 years!
To stop the political insanity WE must put a stop to political careerism.
*The CNN article can be found at:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/02/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_bn4
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Disappointed? Yes. Suprised? No.
Our ship of state is still off course. Am I disappointed? Yes. Am I surprised? No.
Today Yahoo.com carried a Reuters report by Tim Reid and Emily Kaiser titled, "Debt deal set to pass but what were the costs?"* Their report provides valuable insights into the outcomes of the debt ceiling debate. They wrote, "While the immediate crisis over a threatened default seems to have been averted by the eleventh-hour deal between the White House and Congress, the debt-limit drama has left behind crucial questions about the American political process...." They also stated, "The long, tortured debate exposed toxic partisanship and legislative dysfunction in Washington just when judicious efforts at reform were most needed, shaking the faith of international investors and ordinary Americans alike."
The authors quote economists Christina Romer, formerly on Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, and Stephen Roach, a Yale lecturer and non-executive chairman of Morgan Stanley. Romer states, "If we don't deal with these deficits there is no way we won't eventually default and become a much weaker country."
Roach stated:
"Make no mistake, we are not getting a major breakthrough in America's fiscal dilemma out of this deal. Talk about kicking the can down the road - this is probably the biggest can that's ever been kicked."
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
Our career politicians behaved just as expected; they avoided political risk and instead did what was politically expedient by "kicking the can down the road." They then had the audacity to fawn all over themselves about what a great job they did for "the American people." What do you think? Did they act in the interests of the American people?
My hope is that as Reid and Kaiser pointed out, that "the debt-limit drama has left behind crucial questions about the American political process," is true. That would be the most beneficial result from this latest insanity from our career politicians and the two parties that support them. The problem is the process itself.
We hope for change. We vote for change. But, nothing really changes. To enjoy credible change we must begin to question the process.
* The Yahoo.com report can be found at http://news.yahoo.com/debt-deal-set-pass-were-costs-045917154.html
Today Yahoo.com carried a Reuters report by Tim Reid and Emily Kaiser titled, "Debt deal set to pass but what were the costs?"* Their report provides valuable insights into the outcomes of the debt ceiling debate. They wrote, "While the immediate crisis over a threatened default seems to have been averted by the eleventh-hour deal between the White House and Congress, the debt-limit drama has left behind crucial questions about the American political process...." They also stated, "The long, tortured debate exposed toxic partisanship and legislative dysfunction in Washington just when judicious efforts at reform were most needed, shaking the faith of international investors and ordinary Americans alike."
The authors quote economists Christina Romer, formerly on Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, and Stephen Roach, a Yale lecturer and non-executive chairman of Morgan Stanley. Romer states, "If we don't deal with these deficits there is no way we won't eventually default and become a much weaker country."
Roach stated:
"Make no mistake, we are not getting a major breakthrough in America's fiscal dilemma out of this deal. Talk about kicking the can down the road - this is probably the biggest can that's ever been kicked."
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
Our career politicians behaved just as expected; they avoided political risk and instead did what was politically expedient by "kicking the can down the road." They then had the audacity to fawn all over themselves about what a great job they did for "the American people." What do you think? Did they act in the interests of the American people?
My hope is that as Reid and Kaiser pointed out, that "the debt-limit drama has left behind crucial questions about the American political process," is true. That would be the most beneficial result from this latest insanity from our career politicians and the two parties that support them. The problem is the process itself.
We hope for change. We vote for change. But, nothing really changes. To enjoy credible change we must begin to question the process.
* The Yahoo.com report can be found at http://news.yahoo.com/debt-deal-set-pass-were-costs-045917154.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)