"Home Ownership Society" Finally Comes to NH

by: Dean Barker

Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 06:20:29 AM EST

If there's any doubt the national mortgage crisis has hit New Hampshire, consider this: Four years ago, there were 32 foreclosures in Merrimack County; last year, there were 376.

And while there were no statewide foreclosure numbers available late last week, those who watch the real estate market said Merrimack County is not the exception. The foreclosure hotline the state Banking Department set up in December 2007 receives between 100 and 150 calls a month from mortgage holders in trouble, according to Banking Commissioner Peter Hildreth.

I'd also like to thank Meldrim at this moment for popularizing Teh Pledge, guaranteeing the major source of our state revenue pegged to plummetting home values for the foreseeable future.

btw, the hotline mentioned in the second graf is 800-437-5991.

Krugman to Lynch: Don't be a Mini-Hoover

by: Dean Barker

Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:35:13 AM EST

But even as Washington tries to rescue the economy, the nation will be reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers - state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation's economic future.

I don't know if I agree or disagree (governors, after all, have to pivot based on the budget priorities of the federal gov't, while the prez has no such higher up monkeying with things).  But it is kind of odd that in deeply troubled economic times we praise the Governor for slashing spending to meet the budget, but we (and I'm even including Judd Gregg here) praise the President for embarking on a fourth and long spending plan. Kudos to the Nobel winner for pointing that out.

Adding: Gradysdad points out the obvious, which I should have: with a balanced budget law, the state-level deficit spending question is an academic one only.

Thanks to Democratic leadership, NH isn't doing so bad economically

by: Michael Marsh

Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 19:22:54 PM EST

Economic competition is not athletic competition

by: kite

Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 20:15:56 PM EST

Sitting in my little cube, I certainly have no desire to out-compete my fellow cubicle people at other companies.  Instead, what motivates me, and largely most of my co-workers, is the basic desire to do a good job.  That's not the whole picture, of course, there's salaries, and bosses, and so on.  But excellence as a fundamental human motivation is often lost in the discussions of people, or companies, as economic creatures.  I think it's a way bigger driving factor than "competition."

What competition does do, though, is it provides variety.  Variety creates choice, and, perhaps more interesting in these times, it creates stability.  If you have 100 companies, and they have all structured there supply chains in different ways, then a supply disruption is unlikely to put all 100 out of business.  Or if they make lots variations on a product, and demand changes, then some will be in a position to supply the new demand.

Sadly, we don't have 100 American auto companies.

McCain at Aspen

by: hannah

Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 09:58:27 AM EDT

This Isn't 2004, and it's not John Kerry

by: Dean Barker

Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 05:44:51 AM EDT

It's not as if it's actually related to today's news at all.

To be serious for a moment: Team Obama obviously knows that the tradmed, even if it hurries to discredit the stupidity of the Ayers' line of attack, will be giving it maximum media oxygen.  So instead of simply feeding the beast in the cause of calling it out (which they have to do), why not throw in a competing narrative that actually has meaning and involves the political actions of an adult?

Sununu Votes to Help Wall Street, But Not Main Street

by: Seth D. Michaels

Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 15:29:12 PM EDT

The economic recovery package, which passed the House in a bipartisan vote last week, would have extended unemployment insurance benefits for jobless workers, strengthened Medicaid, and invested in infrastructure to create new jobs and rebuild communities.

We can't fix what's really wrong with the economy until we give relief to working families who are suffering from shrinking paychecks and lost jobs, and start creating new jobs.

Sununu voted to block the economic stimulus package, just as he's done with so many bills that would actually help working families over the past two years. Apparently, Sununu thinks there isn't a crisis until the very wealthiest start to feel it.

As Damon Silvers, AFL-CIO associate general counsel, told the PBS news show "Now" (see video):

If we're going to bail out the wealthiest and most powerful institutions in the economy with public money, with working people's money, surely there ought to be some understanding that we'll also help people who really need help, people who are unemployed, people without health insurance.

Sununu's votes show whom he supports: Wall Street, not Main Street.

For more on the AFL-CIO and New Hampshire races, click here.

Shea-Porter, Hodes Vote Against Bailout Bill

by: Dean Barker

Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 16:40:14 PM EDT

"Our economy has been battered by eight years of a financial wild west on Wall Street.  There was no oversight and no accountability.  I thought it was a mistake for the Administration to ask Congress to vote on a $700 billion bill to bail out Wall Street with only a single week to consider the proposal and a single day to review it.  The Administration asked Congress to give up its Constitutional power of the purse and hand over a blank check for $700 billion.  Congress said no.

..."I voted against the bill because it gave the Secretary of the Treasury -- a political appointee -- unfettered control over the execution of the bailout program.  If the bill had passed, the Secretary of the Treasury would have had absolute authority to decide which securities to buy, from whom to purchase, and how much to pay.  The Secretary of the Treasury would have also had absolute authority to decide who he would hire to manage the assets he purchased.  

This proposal would saddle taxpayers with nearly a trillion dollars in bad debt while providing inadequate relief to homeowners struggling to pay their mortgage. In my judgment, we should consider other plans which deal with the foreclosure crisis and the credit crunch in a more direct way. During the great Depression, the Homeowners loan corporation successfully dealt with a mortgage mess. During the savings and loan crisis in the 1980's congress enacted a successful program for "net worth certificates" to provide liquidity to banks, an alternative which required no subsidy and no cash outlay.
We also need bankruptcy reform to help homeowners to stay in their homes and a regulatory overhaul of the banking and financial system to stop the practices that got us into this mess.

Second Stimulus Package: Dead on Arrival

by: Nate W

Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 13:15:02 PM EDT

On Friday Reuters reported what many had expected, the second economic stimulus package had failed the Senate.

The 52-42 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate for Democrats to clear a Republican procedural hurdle and move toward passage of the bill, which backers said would give the ailing U.S. economy a needed boost.

Although according to the Associated Press, we probably should have seen this coming:

With most Republicans opposed, however, the Reid-Byrd stimulus plan measure is likely to stall. Democrats are then likely to hold the vote against Republicans in the campaign for control of Congress.

And rightfully so, because blocking the measures that would be taken in this stimulus package is deplorable:

The Senate stimulus measure provides $6 billion to extend unemployment benefits by seven weeks in all states and by 13 weeks in states with high jobless rates. It also contains almost $20 billion to increase federal payments to states for the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled. ...the House stimulus measure will be more focused on producing jobs, including $25 billion for infrastructure projects like building new roads and repairing bridges.

Republicans did what they do best, blocked meaningful legislation that would have done wonders for the people on "main street" who they are supposedly working hard for. Instead of thousands of new jobs and the prevention of cuts to critical services, we have nothing. Excellent job Congressional Republicans, you have my vote.

So why did Republicans vote against the bill?

Republicans said they did not have time to review the spending measures properly

Well I can see how that would be difficult amidst an economic crisis that they and President Bush helped to create.

Now lets take a look at the "people of Main Street" that Congressional Republicans decided to leave behind.

In California, according to Capitol Weekly:

An estimated 10,000 state workers who lost their jobs during the fight over the 2008-09 budget are likely to be without state work until next June, although the heads of state agencies have been told privately they will have leeway over rehiring some workers.

The laid-off temporary workers, who include retired annuitants and seasonal workers, lost their jobs following Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's July 31 executive order.

In Maryland, according to the Washington Post:

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley announced yesterday that he has asked state agencies to identify hundreds of millions of dollars in spending cuts, as much as 5 percent of state government expenditures, to balance the budget as major revenue sources decline in the sour economy.

O'Malley (D) predicted an "extraordinarily difficult budget next year" if his administration does not start to pare spending during the current fiscal year. "While these cuts will not be easy, it is clear that the economic crisis our nation is experiencing will have a dramatic impact on next year's budget," he said in a statement.

In Colorado, according to the Denver Post:

Days after discounting an economic forecast that predicted a $100 million shortfall in the current year's state budget, Gov. Bill Ritter on Thursday announced a partial hiring freeze for state employees and other steps to cut spending.

"These are uncertain times, to say the least," Ritter told reporters at a news conference in which he announced the moves, which also include delaying construction projects on college campuses and for full-day kindergarten.

"We must take steps now to ensure we have options should state revenues begin to dramatically decline," he said.

And finally in Utah, according to the Salk Lake City Tribune:

The Utah Department of Health proposed achieving its 3 percent reduction mainly through a $10 million cut in Medicaid, triggering a $23 million loss in matching federal funds.

Some optional programs such as vision care, physical therapy, and speech and hearing would disappear, and an average 2 percent increase in provider inflation, which took effect in July, would be rolled back.

Qualifying for help also could become tougher. Pregnant women, except for those who are high risk, would see the amount of assets they can have drop to $3,000 from $5,000.

The attempts by Congressional Republicans to make a second economic stimulus package work were mediocre at best, and frankly embarrassing and insulting to those who would have benefited from a second stimulus package done the right way.

So what did we learn about Republicans from this mess? Bailing out Wall Street is always critical, providing aid to the states rarely is. Debating the proper levels of compensation packages for CEOs always takes precedence over debating Medicaid funding and extending unemployment benefits. And most importantly, Republicans talk a tough game about the economy and helping the average American, but rarely put their money where their mouth is.

Sununu, Gregg: Tax Money for Failed CEOs, Not for You

by: Dean Barker

Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 09:21:30 AM EDT

Tells you that protecting their true taskmasters even trumps their phony ideology, to the tune of more than 700 billion of your tax dollars.

More telling that they can't be bothered to spend a fraction of that money on the rest of us, as Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes wanted to.

A Simple Talking Point, Worth Spreading Everywhere

by: Dean Barker

Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 16:44:24 PM EDT

Republican presidential nominee John McCain has not introduced any banking or housing bills in the 110th Congress, while Democratic rival Barack Obama has proposed five.

Sununu: Proud of Doing Nothing on Bank Regulation

by: Dean Barker

Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:52:28 AM EDT

"I've been proud of the leadership role I've provided on some very important, very large-scale regulatory questions," he said.

"John Sununu is attempting to rewrite history and is now talking about his enthusiasm for Wall street regulation but . . . nothing could be farther from the truth," said former Democratic Party Chairwoman Kathy Sullivan. "John Sununu has been fundamentally opposed to Wall Street oversight and he has voted time and time again against regulations that could've prevented the crisis."

And more importantly, as a radical free marketeer, Sununu has advocated unequivocally for no regulation in the banking industry, as the video makes clear, in the very places (credit ratings and hedge funds, and also the ENRON loophole) where the short-term addled CEOs were playing their shadow economy games at our expense.

UPDATE: Thank you, Kevin Landrigan, for your opening graf on this emerging story:

CONCORD - Democratic Party leaders released videotapes Wednesday showing Republican U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu during 2006-07 in full-throated opposition to federal regulation of financial markets that he's now strongly promoting during his re-election bid.

Doddmania Returns

by: Dean Barker

Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 20:54:59 PM EDT

"What they have sent to us, this is not acceptable," said Dodd. "This is not going to work."

"They're going to have to come back and work with us," said Dodd.

The ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, Senator Richard Shelby, seemed to agree with Dodd.

It would do nothing to stop even a single CEO from dumping billions of dollars of toxic assets on the backs of taxpayers-and walking away with a bonus and a golden parachute. And it would allow him to act with utter and absolute impunity-without review by any agency or court of law. After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not just our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution, as well.

Jennifer Horn: Bank Crisis' Core Problem is Gov't Spending

by: Dean Barker

Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 15:30:00 PM EDT

I'm not talking confused, or misunderstood, or even that she has an opinion the opposite of reasonable.

No - none of those. Jennifer S. Horn-Palin is absolutely clueless.  The 'Ticker:

"The core of this problem that we have is a growing economic problem that starts with the government getting its fiscal house in order, the government spends too much money it does not leave enough money in our pockets," Horn told the audience at New England College.

Most financial analysts believe the current crisis was initiated by a number of home foreclosures that began a ripple effect on major financial institutions which had not been heavily regulated.

Unbelievable. And insulting, imho. Paul Hodes deserves a nominee he can debate on the issues. To do so, he needs a competitor with at least a tenuous grasp of them. But Fergus wanted a talk show host, so a talk show host is what the Granite State GOP got.

(h/t Kathy S.)

Pelosi Still Afraid to Take On Bush On the Economy

by: Nate W

Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:56:21 PM EDT

... Let's face it, we can only have a stimulus package if the President is willing to sign one.  But we can only go as far as the President will sign.

That's House Speaker Nancy Pelosi starting the negotiations on a second stimulus package by giving away the farm.

There's an old story in Texas about a young man whose daddy has sent him to trade horses on his own for the first time. He meets a wise old sharpie and the guy says, "So how much do you want for that horse son?" The kid answers: "Well Daddy told me to ask for $100 but to take $50." "That's great kid, here's $50, give your daddy my regards."

That's what the Congressional Democrats do EVERY TIME.

While every stop is being pulled out to save the Wall Street "Masters of the Universe", state governments across the nation are being pulled into an economic black hole. It's no surprise that President Bush doesn't care, but its very frustrating to see Pelosi being complicit in his indifference.

She's apparently telegraphing her willingness to throw the states over the side. Why not make the most unpopular president in history veto a bill that would be popular just in time for the election?

Not having a vote on a strong economic recovery package is bad politics. Bad terrible awful dumb politics.  What's the point of electing Democratic Members to Congress if they won't stand up for Americans even when the President won't?

Newsflash to the Democrats on Capitol Hill, this is the perfect time to force some Republicans up for re-election to put themselves on the record as opposing a package to save the economy.

But Pelosi doesn't get that concept. Instead she wants to pass something on the first go and she's so eager to please the president that shes pre-gutting a second stimulus package. Even though she's talking a good game to the press:

Pelosi renewed her vow to try to pass a stimulus measure that would combine billions of dollars for jobs-producing infrastructure projects, more food stamps, additional Medicaid aid to states, home heating subsidies and a further extension of unemployment insurance.

Persistent rumors from Capitol Hill indicate that she's telling the White House that she's willing to throw the Medicaid aid to states overboard.

Should we settle for a bill that only goes halfway in addressing the economic crisis? No. We did that once, earlier this year, and the first stimulus package failed.

This has been on the table for a long time. The same experts who said the first economic stimulus package failed also said aid to states needs to be in the next stimulus:

If a second round of stimulus is necessary, other options that should be on the table. These include payments to states that will need to cut spending because of balanced budget provisions as their tax revenue falls.

And in a letter to House Leadership in late January as the first stimulus package was being prepared, a bipartisan group of 39 Governors "requested that state aid be included in the stimulus:

The nation's governors urge you to include state countercyclical funding as part of your legislation to stimulate the economy.

...

In 2003, Congress approved $20 billion in assistance to states, including $10 billion in Medicaid and $10 billion in block grants. The governors' current stimulus proposal is essentially the same, with the exception that it is a total of $12 billion as opposed to $20 billion. This proposal can be enacted quickly, as there is precedent and it is timely, temporary and targeted.

The plan is there, we know what is needed to help dig us out of this economic muck, and potentially shield the states from further dramatic losses if Wall Street keeps acting up. Our mentality shouldn't be "take what we can get" it should be "this is what we need, this is what will pass." If Republicans want to vote against improving the economy, let them explain it to the voters.

It's time to have a clear vote on a real, working economic stimulus package. It's time to show voters there's a real difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Unfair

by: Dean Barker

Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:48:43 AM EDT

"It's unfair that we have to do it because of the total lack of regulation" during the last several years of Republican control of the White House and Congress, she said.

It was a "financial wild west for eight years - they didn't want any sheriff in town - and as soon as they got themselves into trouble, they started looking for the sheriff to bail them out. They want the American taxpayers - the middle class - to bail them out," she said.

Warning - Act of Actual Journalism

by: Dean Barker

Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:55:25 AM EDT

Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration sought unchecked power from Congress to buy $700 billion in bad mortgage investments from financial companies in what would be an unprecedented government intrusion into the markets.

...``He's asking for a huge amount of power,'' said Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University. ``He's saying, `Trust me, I'm going to do it right if you give me absolute control.' This is not a monarchy.''

It also has some handwringing soundbites from Chucky Schumer and Harry Reid, reminding me of how little I admire them. This is seriously like the WMD Fear Show all over again.

It's occured to me: Bush spent eight years trying to finish off the Reagan dream of dismantling the progress of FDR.  Faced with the failure of that project, he's now become a Bizzaro World FDR - a Big Government Roosevelt for the Richest 1%.

The Bail Out Proposals: Sanders v Bush

by: Maryscott O'Connor

Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 03:57:46 AM EDT

DIGG THIS, please

UPDATE: The Bush Administration has handed in an utterly heinous proposal for the bail out, as I surmised in -- my ruminations on Sanders's brilliant proposal below his text...

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

... making Bernie Sanders's proposal all the more attractive and even more NECESSARY a consideration. The Democrats in Congress cannot ignore Sanders's proposal given the outright power grab that Paulson's proposal clearly is.

Be Suspicious - Gregg Supports Massive Bailout

by: Dean Barker

Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 21:44:01 PM EDT

Although the plan is aggressive, Gregg cautioned that the consequences of doing nothing would almost certainly prove catastrophic. The resulting economic malaise would not only affect Wall Street but also Main Street, he said.

"It's hard to underestimate the seriousness of this situation," Gregg said in a conference call with reporters yesterday.

Gregg is going way off his own reservation here - way off.  He's playing the talking point I'm hearing everywhere right now -  If you knew what I knew you'd spend $700 billion too!  Well, guess what?  They tried that before with Iraq's pretend WMDs, and the Congressional parade of fearmongering 'aint working on me this time. Is our economic situation dire? Absolutely.  Do we need to spend close to a trillion dollars rescuing the very people who put us there, while we spend nothing on health care and alternative energy and infrastructure? No way.

Judd Gregg showed his hand and as a result I'm now convinced this is one last binge for the CEOs courtesy their servants George W. Bush and the modern Republican party. I'm against it, unless the people who got us into it pay for it both with money and legal accountability. And even that is far more generous than what would happen to you and me and other regular people if we played fast and loose with our debt.

Oh, and what elwood said, emphatically.  

Either, Or, or Neither Either Nor Or (Rant)

by: Dean Barker

Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 19:17:01 PM EDT

Or Bush and the Banker Boys have figured out a way to cap eight years of disaster with one of the biggest get-out-of-jail-free giveaways in the history of the world, and with your money.

I honestly don't know which is true.

But here's a Neither Either Nor Or: the humiliating position our economy and nation finds itself in now is a direct result of the failed policies of lazy, radical free marketeer Republicans.

A gang of unregulating, discredited ideologues, from Reagan himself to John H. Sununu to Phil Gramm to John E. Sununu to George W. Bush and John McCain have run us into the ground. And while the porkers who played fast and loose and got rich while bankrupting the rest of us might get off scot free with this bold new whatever it is, it's time for us to say no more.

Never again should these people be put anywhere near our money and our future. If we can't fire the CEOs who played in this no rules playground, we can fire the Republicans who created it this November.

If the news today doesn't get you motivated to go out there and donate or phonebank or canvass or hold signs and vote, I don't know what will. Me, I'm shaking fist furious over this turn of events. It's like we have a bunch of grown-up children running our real children's future right into the ground.  If we already didn't lose our global hegemony over Bush's cowboy foreign policy, we surely run the risk of losing it this way.

(Not to mention the fact that the chicken little dirty hippie liberals have been predicting this for as long as I've been going to blogs for my information on economics. Yet time and again we look to Very Serious Button Down Republicans to find new and novel ways to fritter away our money.)

We are in uncharted territory right now.  The Republicans were given - no, scratch that, they took (remember Florida 2000?), they took our peace and prosperity, and they squandered both.

Badly.