Sunday Columns: SEA, Gambling Commission Debates, TARP and More...

While I'm waiting (4.00 / 1)

for my bail-out, I'll sing along with these guys

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 09:21:16 AM CDT

What an edifying race in 2010. (4.00 / 5)

It seems to be shaping up as:

1. Lynch continuing his pledge to veto an income or sales tax.
2. The GOP also pledging same.
3. Both major party candidates open to expanded gambling.
4. Lynch running as the Competent Manager Making Tough Choices.
5. The GOP candidate running with no specific differences versus Lynch, but a rhetorical stand that there is unspecified Easy Money if we just Believe in the Free Market, and all those Tough Choices are not necessary.
6. The SEA wooing its natural enemy.

Just the sort of campaign, completely divorced from reality, that breeds contempt for politics and government.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 09:42:50 AM CDT

Democrats need a deeper bench. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: hannah @ Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 11:01:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where's Jay Buckey? (4.00 / 2)

I really really liked him.  Smart, a scientist and physician, as well as a celebrity astronaut.  I hope we didn't completely discourage him.  


We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 14:43:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK, let me try another tack. (0.00 / 0)

The economy recognizes two categories of exchange and trade--goods and services.  Economists have always "valued" goods higher than services, perhaps because, in an ideal world of slaves and wives, services cost nothing--i.e. they're extracted under pain of suffering and death.

Anyway, public entities also deal in goods and services.  And, for the most part, taxes go to fund services, rather directly and without intermediaries, while capital "goods" are bonded and, not co-incidentally, deliver a revenue stream to the financial class.  So, the money bags prefer bonded projects to taxes.

While it's generally assumed that capital needs and operating expenses are distinct, the fact is that if routine maintenance and repair aren't performed, the capital assets will deteriorate and need to be replaced sooner, rather than later or not in a generation.  So, the effect of constricting the operating budget is to promote capital "improvements" of which the financial class can get a cut.

Those who inveigh against "tax and spend" are really in favor of "borrow and spend" but don't want to admit it because that would give the game away.

So, really, the anti-tax crowd need to be taxed with the reality that they want our public assets to deteriorate to the point where they need to be replaced.  It's the public sector equivalent of "failure by design."

And, it's all because goods are supposed to be better than service, which is supposed to be free.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 10:52:39 AM CDT

Restricting public revenues is like failing to change the oil. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: hannah @ Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 10:58:59 AM CDT

Also--- (0.00 / 0)

I've been assuming that the main objective of the bailout was to get a look at the books.  It's hard to devise effective regulations for financial institutions, if you don't know what they're up to.

The reason financial institutions have always been antagonistic to CRA was because of the opportunity it provides for their books and operating procedures to be inspected by community groups and their representatives.  Obama knows that well from having advised on some ACORN law suits against predatory banks and Household Finance.  The latter, by the way, was acquired not long ago by Hong Kong Shanghai Bank Corp for the purpose of acquiring the "model" for ripping off customers to make huge profits.  In other words, their predatory practices are a proprietary asset that's worth a lot of money.

Getting a peek at their operations is what TARP paid for.  Some banks caught on real quick and tried to give the money back.  The Treasury is not sharing the information with Congress because they need to keep it close to the chest until the regulations are drafted.  Regulating the financial sector is next up after health care.

Obama knows exactly what he wants to do.  His not coming to the defense of ACORN proves it.  The point of going after ACORN was to try to get Obama to back off.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 11:12:59 AM CDT

May I thank you (4.00 / 2)

for going deeper than the usual superficiality of our political discourse and actually talking about economics in laywoman's terms?

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 14:45:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What? (0.00 / 0)

This isn't economics, it is ideologically based speculation.

Let's take, for example, her comment about "bonded projects" being perferred by the "money bags" to taxes. By using bonds, state and local governments are able to leverage their steady stream of tax revenues to pay for projects they otherwise could not afford. If a town wants to build a $5,000,000 school, raising taxes in one year to pay for the cost of construction would make it impossible for most towns to ever build the school. Do bondholders profit? Yes, but so do taxpayers, because spreading the cost of capital projects over 20 years instead of 12 months makes capital projects possible.  

And Obama's not coming to the defense of ACORN doesn't "prove" anything having anything to do with regulation of the financial sector.  Stating something as an assertion does mean it is not speculation without basis.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 18:13:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]