The Great Recession needs a lifeboat
Posted using ShareThis
June 26, 2009
June 21, 2009
Is this the end for Iran's Ayatollah?
This week's unprecedented events in Iran's streets represent a worst case scenario for the clerics and their puppets. The violence unleashed against the peaceful protesters and real martyrs of this green revolution is being amplified and twittered to all corners of the world. It's not an exaggeration to imply that Ahmadinejad is done with and the Ayatollah has clearly suffered a shattering setback.
In other news, Cuban and Venezuelan governments have jointly come out in favor of Ahmadinejad and have upheld the "ultra-democratic and fair" election results. Pathetic? Ultra.
But after watching a two-hour long, deep Iranian analysis on CNN's Fareed Zakaria where Brzezinski and other foreign policy analysts pondered the real consequences of Iran's post election struggle and Obama's position, it seems that this is beginning of the end for the Iranian regime.
The White House has been correct in their reluctance to meddle in this internal crisis in Iran. They don't want to add fuel to the hard-liners and neo-cons' fiery criticism of the West's evil involvement, a tool that has been used repeatedly to licentiously crack down the opposition.
Not only is this green revolution completely self-made, it is creating tectonic effects across the Middle East political landscape and could be a real catalyst for other clouded governments in the Arab world.
But the real question here is: Will all of this really shake up Iranian politics? The experts are hoping this will be the first and most critical blow before the beast collapses.
June 10, 2009
The National Deficit for Dummies
I just read David Leonhardt’s column in today’s New York Times and I praise it for its easy to grasp explanation of complex economic terms when it comes to the national deficit.
For those who still believe that Obama’s stimulus bill is sinking this country into steep deficits, I invite you to read the complete column here.If you are going to skip the column, this is the national debt explanation for dummies:
The Congressional Budget Office 2001 projection for the years 2009-12 was a surplus of $800 billion. The CBO 2009 Projection for 2009-12, the most recent one, shows a different picture: a deficit of $1.2 trillion.
Leonhardt argues that the roughly $2 trillion difference between these two estimates is due to 4 categories, which have and are still contributing to this projected deficit.
Of this $2 trillion deficit, 37% come from the business cycle. It’s a reflection of both the 2001 recession and the current one which have reduced tax revenues and required more spending on safety net programs.
The second category, 33%, comes from eight years of Bush’s policies, including tax cuts for the wealthy, the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Medicare prescription plan. Not only did the economic growth under Bush did not generate nearly enough tax revenue to pay for his agenda, it did not cover the increased interest payments to service our national debt which Asian countries have collected.
The third comes from Obama’s extension of Bush’s policies, at 20%, which include the continuation of the wars and a new tax cut for households making less than $250,000. It also includes the Wall Street Bailout, which Bush initiated and signed and Obama supported.
Only 7% of this projected $2 trillion deficit, the fourth category, comes from Obama’s stimulus bill, of which 3% accounts for healthcare reform, education reform, and energy reform.
Furthermore, White House officials say “the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3% of total GDP within five to 10 years.” Insofar, the CBO discredits this by stating that they project a deficit of at least 4% of GDP for the next 10 years. Those White House economists are really good with their deficit projections!
So next time you are discussing this administration’s budgets tirades or sensing misplaced criticism or angst, remember this report and think how unfair it would be to blame Obama for incurring gigantic deficits and compromising our prosperity. The only blame we can put on this administration is its reluctance to fix this problem.
For those who still believe that Obama’s stimulus bill is sinking this country into steep deficits, I invite you to read the complete column here.If you are going to skip the column, this is the national debt explanation for dummies:
The Congressional Budget Office 2001 projection for the years 2009-12 was a surplus of $800 billion. The CBO 2009 Projection for 2009-12, the most recent one, shows a different picture: a deficit of $1.2 trillion.
Leonhardt argues that the roughly $2 trillion difference between these two estimates is due to 4 categories, which have and are still contributing to this projected deficit.
Of this $2 trillion deficit, 37% come from the business cycle. It’s a reflection of both the 2001 recession and the current one which have reduced tax revenues and required more spending on safety net programs.
The second category, 33%, comes from eight years of Bush’s policies, including tax cuts for the wealthy, the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Medicare prescription plan. Not only did the economic growth under Bush did not generate nearly enough tax revenue to pay for his agenda, it did not cover the increased interest payments to service our national debt which Asian countries have collected.
The third comes from Obama’s extension of Bush’s policies, at 20%, which include the continuation of the wars and a new tax cut for households making less than $250,000. It also includes the Wall Street Bailout, which Bush initiated and signed and Obama supported.
Only 7% of this projected $2 trillion deficit, the fourth category, comes from Obama’s stimulus bill, of which 3% accounts for healthcare reform, education reform, and energy reform.
Furthermore, White House officials say “the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3% of total GDP within five to 10 years.” Insofar, the CBO discredits this by stating that they project a deficit of at least 4% of GDP for the next 10 years. Those White House economists are really good with their deficit projections!
So next time you are discussing this administration’s budgets tirades or sensing misplaced criticism or angst, remember this report and think how unfair it would be to blame Obama for incurring gigantic deficits and compromising our prosperity. The only blame we can put on this administration is its reluctance to fix this problem.
June 04, 2009
Obama's 100 Days: A Blueprint for Success
The rating of a US president’s first 100 days in office has become a must see media show in the coliseum of modern journalism. President Obama was no exception. A recent Pew poll showed Obama’s approval ratings for the first 100 days in office higher than Reagan’s. Unlike Reagan, who did not face the biggest recession since the Great Depression, Mr. Obama encounters unprecedented challenges in both the domestic and international fronts with a scattered but determined opposition, which seems to be slowly regrouping.
With a renewed and [innovative] sense of urgency, the White House has strived in the first 100 days to make government more accountable and transparent. The impetus of Mr. Obama’s message, amplified by his weekly radio addresses, frequent press conferences including a live network show appearance gained traction in the public’s perception. There was consensus among Obama’s supporters that the administration tried, and modestly accomplished, to steer away from business as usual, at least in the exceptionally high strung corridors of government. But if success is measured by perception, intent becomes the distinctive mark by which an administration is successfully appraised. President Obama’s first 100 days in office have been characterized by a new tone, a synchronized dance, a national dialogue much too different from the previous administration, whose pigeonhole approach to domestic issues contributed to their demise.
However, many suggest that the “house upon a rock” that Obama’s White House is trying to edify is too much too soon for the immense challenges we confront. Mr. Obama faces many obstacles on his uphill battle to fix Washington and America’s image in the world, and some of these sand blocks are within his own party, whose loyalties lie more with electoral demographics than with the President’s vision.
In the international arena, Mr. Obama’s new foundation found some adherence. In his trips abroad he provided an opening for dialogue between US and Iran and other regimes, including Cuba. His decision to close Guantanamo, release torture memos, put demands on Israel, set a date for pulling troops from Iraq, send more troops to Afghanistan and kill three Somali pirates are clear measures that change is taking place, albeit slowly and cautiously.
In the domestic front, things were slightly skewed for this administration. The passing of the stimulus bill, which set the tone for his economic agenda, was met with ebullient criticism. Reactions to the banking and the auto-industry bailouts were not unreasonable and the administration’s failure to cap Wall Street bonuses diminished their leverage among the American people to deal with the overall recession.
But Mr. Obama’s first 100 days showdown is over, and the real work of government has just begun. Finding common ground for all his measures will be hard, and even though change is part of our everyday parlance, the ‘house upon a rock” vision needs walls and a roof.
With a renewed and [innovative] sense of urgency, the White House has strived in the first 100 days to make government more accountable and transparent. The impetus of Mr. Obama’s message, amplified by his weekly radio addresses, frequent press conferences including a live network show appearance gained traction in the public’s perception. There was consensus among Obama’s supporters that the administration tried, and modestly accomplished, to steer away from business as usual, at least in the exceptionally high strung corridors of government. But if success is measured by perception, intent becomes the distinctive mark by which an administration is successfully appraised. President Obama’s first 100 days in office have been characterized by a new tone, a synchronized dance, a national dialogue much too different from the previous administration, whose pigeonhole approach to domestic issues contributed to their demise.
However, many suggest that the “house upon a rock” that Obama’s White House is trying to edify is too much too soon for the immense challenges we confront. Mr. Obama faces many obstacles on his uphill battle to fix Washington and America’s image in the world, and some of these sand blocks are within his own party, whose loyalties lie more with electoral demographics than with the President’s vision.
In the international arena, Mr. Obama’s new foundation found some adherence. In his trips abroad he provided an opening for dialogue between US and Iran and other regimes, including Cuba. His decision to close Guantanamo, release torture memos, put demands on Israel, set a date for pulling troops from Iraq, send more troops to Afghanistan and kill three Somali pirates are clear measures that change is taking place, albeit slowly and cautiously.
In the domestic front, things were slightly skewed for this administration. The passing of the stimulus bill, which set the tone for his economic agenda, was met with ebullient criticism. Reactions to the banking and the auto-industry bailouts were not unreasonable and the administration’s failure to cap Wall Street bonuses diminished their leverage among the American people to deal with the overall recession.
But Mr. Obama’s first 100 days showdown is over, and the real work of government has just begun. Finding common ground for all his measures will be hard, and even though change is part of our everyday parlance, the ‘house upon a rock” vision needs walls and a roof.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
