Every one of the facts stated here are verifiable from multiple sources and are NOT disputed. The only policy question that is relevant is WHETHER WE PUT PEOPLE OR BIG BUSINESS FIRST in our priorities. The rest is obvious. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES:

1. HEALTHCARE: (AT LEAST $1 TRILLION IN DIRECT AND HIDDEN FAT IN THE SYSTEM). The U.S. health care system is a wealth transfer scheme, which takes money from the pockets of ordinary citizens and puts it in the hands of a few people who do nothing to earn it. This is a PRIVATE TAX that only exists because the government has interfered on behalf of big business starting with Keiser Permanente.

          a. We spend, on average anywhere from 5 to 40 times what other countries spend on drugs for two reasons (1) we are prescribed too many drugs and (2) we pay much higher prices from the same companies that sell the same drugs in other countries.

Instead of the money going through the government to the insurers, pharmaceutical companies and medical service providers, the government mandates the money go directly to these cartels.

These companies have applied a substantial portion of their excess profits towards placement of “news stories”, advertisements and other propaganda that have convinced most Americans that the U.S. health care system, while faulty, is still better than other countries. THIS IS A LIE. Check it out using any statistic you like.

• THE U.S. SPENDS 15.4% OF ITS GDP on heath care plus capital expenditures for equipment and buildings which brings it to around 18.5%. The amount of money spent is therefore $2,400,000,000 ($2.4 trillion dollars).
• U.S. patients take 65% more medication than any other country on earth because only our system allows access and payment for INTERVENTION and allows nothing for for PREVENTION and MAINTENANCE. Most of these medications eventually increase the risk of death and/or other diseases. The Food and Drug Administration is staffed by and funded by Pharmaceutical company employees (either past, present or future). Access to PREVENTATIVE protocols is denied by the FDA, insurance company and the propaganda disseminated by the medical industrial cartel.
• Not only is there sufficient funding already in the system to provide health care to every man, woman and child, along with social services that would reduce living stress and increase productivity, hope and innovation in the U.S. economy, there is actually about $400 billion dollars left over to contribute to other social programs (education, police, fire) that would make it possible for every man, woman and child at any age to be educated and trained to be competitive in the global economy. 
• NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD SPENDS MORE THAN 11% OF ITS GDP ON HEALTHCARE. 
• ALMOST EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY (INCLUDING THOSE WITH NATIONAL UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE) HAS MORE PHYSICIANS AND MORE HOSPITAL BEDS PER PATIENT THAN THE U.S.
• THE DEATH RATE, INFANT MORTALITY RATE, “UNNECESSARY” DEATH RATE, AND EVEN HEIGHT IS WORSE IN THE U.S. THAN, ON AVERAGE, 40 OTHER MODERN WESTERN COUNTRIES. (we have lost three years of longevity in the last 50 years and we have lost one inch of height).
• NO OTHER COUNTRY ALLOWS PRIVATE INSURANCE AS THE MIDDLE MAN BECAUSE INSURANCE AND MANAGED HEALTHCARE PLANS ADD NO VALUE.
• EVERY OTHER COUNTRY EMPHASIZES PREVENTATIVE HEALTHCARE AND GIVES BONUSES TO HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS WHO IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF THEIR PATIENTS.
• The only rational conclusion is that by deleting private insurance as the middle man in providing access to a public need (like education, police, public libraries and fire) and enabling a single payer to negotiate reasonable prices, the problem, and the deficit caused by healthcare spending would be eliminated. 

2. CREDIT AND DEBT: The U.S. credit and monetary system is a wealth transfer scheme, which takes money from the pockets of ordinary citizens and puts it in the hands of a few people who do nothing to earn it. This is a PRIVATE TAX that only exists because the government has interfered on behalf of big business starting with the credit card associations and companies that provide network access to credit imposing interest rates that have been known and understood for centuries to result in permanent debt.

It was once called USURY. Now it is called liquidity. The laws that made it illegal to charge rates of 35% on credit cards and 400% on payday advances were changed. So now it is still a crime under natural law but not under our legislative system. It’s government backed and therefore it is a PRIVATE TAX.

• Government spending, government subsidies to big business, and government laws allowing big business, large unregulated, to charge exorbitant interest rates has resulted in unprecedented consumer and government debt — Federal, State, local and individual — requiring SOMEBODY (either us or our children, grandchildren and great children) to pay interest amounting currently to more than $3 trillion dollars per year plus the loss of social services and safety nets that have existed for more than 50 years. 
• All of this debt has been funded by issuing U.S. currency equivalents that are now held in foreign investment vehicles, foreign exchange reserve accounts in central banks concentrated in the hands of China, South Korea and other countries whose commitment to the sovereignty and nationals security of the United States is best questionable.
• At least $1 trillion of interest, fees and costs associated with excess interest and/or excess debt could be eliminated from the expenditures of U.S. spenders, producing substantial capital for improvements to infrastructure, jobs, increased revenues from income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes,etc., without raising the rate of taxation on any of these sources of revenue.
• The Mortgage Meltdown could be stopped by a commitment to keep people in their homes, preventing abandonment of homes that are not maintained. This would stop an ever-decreasing spiral of housing prices caused by REO homes coming onto the market at rates that demand could not possibly meet, reinstate the balance sheet of lenders and thus improve their capital position, and reinstate the balance sheet of investors who were tricked into buying junk securities which, with a little help and cooperation from business, government and people could be converted into ratable securities. 
• Devaluation of the dollar and inflation caused by devaluation would be slowed, stopped or even reversed if the U..> showed its resolve to responsible economic policies and responsible monetary management and responsible regulation of “securitization” which is merely a unregulated method of increasing monetary supply despite declining demand for the U.S. dollar.
• Reducing the debt service BY LAW to sustainable levels that would enable debtors to eliminate their debt. Banning advertisements that encourage consumers to buy goods and services they don’t need, or could wait to buy through savings, would convert a debt economy to a solid foundation of  savings economy. like many other countries in the world.

---

April 27, 2008

3 Candidates With 3 Financial Plans, but One Deficit

By LARRY ROHTER and MICHAEL COOPER

The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates differ strikingly in their approaches to taxes and spending, but their fiscal plans have at least one thing in common: each could significantly swell the budget deficit and increase the national debt by trillions of dollars, according to tax and budget experts.

The reasons reflect the ideological leanings of the candidates, with Senator John McCain proposing tax cuts that go beyond President Bush’s and the Democrats advocating programs costing hundreds of billions of dollars. But for fiscal experts concerned with the deficit, both approaches are worrisome.

With the national debt soaring to $9.1 trillion from $5.6 trillion at the start of 2001, in part because of the Iraq war and Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, a crucial question about the candidates to succeed him is “whether they are helping to fill the hole or make it deeper,” said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan organization that advocates deficit reduction. “With the proposals they have on the table, it looks to me like all three would make it deeper.”

Representatives of all three campaigns disputed such assessments, questioning the accounting methods analysts used to calculate the growing debt and saying they could enact their plans without making matters worse.

Mr. McCain’s plan would appear to result in the biggest jump in the deficit, independent analyses based on Congressional Budget Office figures suggest. A calculation done by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington found that his tax and budget plans, if enacted as proposed, would add at least $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

Fiscal monitors say it is harder to compute the effect of the Democratic candidates’ measures because they are more intricate. They estimate that, even taking into account that there are some differences between the proposals by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the impact of either on the deficit would be less than one-third that of the McCain plan.

The centerpiece of Mr. McCain’s economic plan is a series of tax cuts that would largely benefit corporations and the wealthy. He is calling for cutting corporate taxes by $100 billion a year. Eliminating the alternative minimum tax, which was created to apply to wealthy taxpayers but now also affects some in the middle class, would reduce revenues by $60 billion annually. He also would double the exemption that can be claimed for dependents, which would cost the government $65 billion.

“High tax rates are driving many businesses and jobs overseas — and, of course, our foreign competitors wouldn’t mind if we kept it that way,” Mr. McCain said, laying out his economic plan this month in Pittsburgh. “We’re going to get rid of that drag on growth and job creation.”

On the expenditure side, Mr. McCain has called not only for continuing an open-ended deployment of troops in Iraq, but also for spending $15 billion annually to expand the Army and the Marine Corps and to improve health care for veterans, among other programs.

Mr. McCain’s advisers have said the new tax cuts would be paid for by eliminating earmarks and making large spending cuts, but they have not identified specifics. And they have spoken vaguely about making entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare less costly for the government. Mr. McCain’s chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said the campaign had simply presented its vision of what the tax code should look like and noted that some of the proposals would be phased in.

“I think what they ought to do is remember that the proposals are going to engender economic growth, which is the best thing you can do for near-term budget improvement,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said, adding that Mr. McCain believed spending restraint was possible.

That vision for the tax code includes making permanent the Bush tax cuts, set to expire in 2010, which Mr. McCain once opposed in part because they were not accompanied by sufficient spending cuts.

“I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans,” Mr. McCain said in 2004. “I would clearly support not extending these tax cuts in order to help address the deficit.”

In 2001 and 2003, Mr. Bush pushed through Congress tax cuts totaling nearly $2 trillion. The first set lowered income and estate taxes, and the second focused mostly on capital gains and dividends.

The McCain campaign does not figure the costs of extending the tax cuts into its deficit projections, although the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would cost an extra $2.2 trillion over the next decade.

When Mr. McCain outlined his tax cut plan, he backed away from his pledge to balance the budget during his first term, but said that he would do so by the end of his second term. And in an interview last Sunday on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, Mr. McCain said he would push ahead with his tax cuts even if Congress did not approve his spending cuts.

Some conservative economists say that increased deficits in the short run are an acceptable tradeoff for tax cuts that they say will promote economic growth in the long run. And many liberal economists say that some of the Democratic spending proposals, like addressing the affordability of health care or improving education, are long-overdue investments that pay off handsomely even if they entail more red ink.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have acknowledged that their various new programs would be costly but have outlined how to pay for them. But some fiscal monitors say they may be relying on overly rosy projections of how much savings their proposals would actually yield.

Mrs. Clinton has calculated that her universal health care plan would cost about $110 billion a year, while Mr. Obama’s somewhat more modest proposal would cost up to $65 billion annually, his advisers say. Both candidates have also talked of new government incentives and investment to encourage the development of alternative sources of energy, which would cost about $15 billion a year.

The Democratic candidates have suggested that they could finance these and other programs by allowing parts of the Bush tax cuts to expire. That, however, ignores projections of the Congressional Budget Office, which has already assigned those savings to deficit reduction.

In other words, unlike Mr. McCain, both Democrats say they would revoke the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. “At a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them,” Mr. Obama said.

But they would retain those reductions meant to benefit poor and “middle-class” families, which they defined as the 97 percent or so of the population that lives on less than $250,000 a year, and they would count the estimated $50 billion generated by higher taxes on the wealthy as new revenue.

“Remember, you can only use this money once,” said Mr. Bixby of the Concord Coalition, “and with all the Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire, that money is already scheduled to come into the Treasury. But on the campaign trail, this has become a source of new spending.”

Mrs. Clinton’s aides have been perhaps the most specific in explaining how they would offset the costs of their proposals, and her campaign speaks of moving toward balanced budgets. “We’re not going into debt for the war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans,” Mrs. Clinton has said, “but instead we are taking care of the needs of our people at home.”

Regarding gas taxes, Mr. McCain has proposed a one-time “tax holiday” for the summer. Mrs. Clinton also calls for suspending it in a new advertisement in Indiana, while Mr. Obama says that is a “bad idea” but opposes any increase in the tax.

On the spending side, Mr. Obama has argued that ending the Iraq war is one way to pay for some of the new programs, including creating a national infrastructure investment bank and increasing the foreign aid budget. But such savings, which Mrs. Clinton does not count on, would not immediately make their way into the Treasury, and some experts say it is not clear whether they would be sufficient to finance all the programs Mr. Obama has enumerated.

Mr. Obama has talked of spending that money on a variety of initiatives whose costs amount to about one-third of the war’s estimated annual cost of $150 billion. “It is clear that there ought to be some distinction between a candidate who says a withdrawal should start immediately and a candidate who says let’s maintain the war at the highest level,” said Austan Goolsbee, Mr. Obama’s senior economic adviser.

The fiscal outlook has been made even murkier by the explicit “no new taxes for the middle class” pledge that both Democratic candidates made at their debate in Philadelphia this month, exempting taxpayers making $250,000 a year or less from new levies.

Hearing such a promise “makes you very sad,” said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center. “First of all, we don’t have enough revenue coming in to pay our bills.” In addition, he said, the notion that all the revenue that would be lost in a middle-class tax freeze can be made up by higher taxes on the wealthy “is not tenable.”

• Somehow, the housing trouble has to at least flatten out. As long as that is going on, I think the pressure on the credit system is going to persist. It is kind of the leading indicator. It is where the trouble started. We have to underpin the consumer. That is why this is different. That is why this is like nothing we have had before.

Here is a man who has “seen it all” and who doesn’t like what he sees. Echoing our continuous please for creating an atmosphere of safety or “amnesty”, Bernstein sees a long haul without much lift unless we address the etnire spectrum of risk-taking. Confidence levels are so low that it hard to imagine, each month, that they could go lower. But they they keep sinking. Bernstein’s vision is one of reality, encouraging us to “snap out of it” and hope, if we get our act together without tripping over ideological differences. 

	April 26, 2008

One Guy Who Has Seen It All  Doesn’t Like What He Sees Now By E.S. BROWNING April 26, 2008; Page B1 Peter Bernstein has witnessed just about every financial crisis of the past century. As a boy, he watched his father, a money manager, navigate the Depression. As a financial manager, consultant and financial historian, he personally dealt with the recession of 1958, the bear markets of the 1970s, the 1987 crash, the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s and the 2000-2002 bear market that followed the tech-stock bubble. One of Peter Bernstein’s worries: ‘If China goes into a recession, God knows.’ Today’s trouble, the 89-year-old Mr. Bernstein says, is worse than he has seen since the Depression and threatens to roil markets into 2009 and beyond — longer than many people expect. Mr. Bernstein, whose books include “Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk,” sees two culprits. One is the abuse of securitization — the trend for banks to hold fewer loans on their books and instead turn them into securities that were sold to other investors. The other is simply years of overborrowing by financial institutions and consumers alike. Mr. Bernstein is hopeful that Federal Reserve intervention will prevent deflation and depression, but he says there is no guarantee. Excerpts of a recent interview: WSJ: Aside from securitization, what were the main causes of the problem? Mr. Bernstein: You don’t get into a mess without too much borrowing. It was sparked primarily by the hedge funds, which were both unregulated by government and in many ways unregulated by their owners, who gave their managers a very broad set of marching orders. It was a real delusion. It was like [former New York Gov. Eliot] Spitzer: “I am doing something dangerous, but because of who I am, and how smart I am, it is not going to come back to haunt me.” When you think about how all of this will work out in the long run, we are going to have an extremely risk-averse economy for a long time. The lesson has painfully been learned. That’s part of the problem going forward. You don’t have a high-growth exit from this, as you’ve had from other kinds of crises. We won’t have a powerful start, where the business cycle looks like a V. Here, the shape of the business cycle is like an L, where it goes down and doesn’t turn up. Or like a U, a flat U. The reason for that is that people aren’t going to get caught in this bind again. They will tell themselves, “I’m too smart to do that again.” And everyone else is going to be saying the same thing. It is, in fact, going to be a wonderful environment in which to take risk, because there aren’t going to be any excesses. I’m a child of the Depression, and I am thinking about what the early years were like after World War II. It took a very long time to get the memory of the Depression out of business decisions, and certainly banking decisions. I think this is going to be the same. The Fed, too, is going to be less decisive and is going to feel that what it should do is less clear. One of the things that gave people a sense that they could afford to take risks was the sense that the central bankers more or less know what they are doing. But I don’t think we are going to feel that way going forward. WSJ: You said that it could turn out that the smart thing to do is to take more risk, because everyone will be so risk-averse. What kinds of investments do you see as the big winners coming out of this? Mr. Bernstein: You could say: the things that have been beaten down the most, which would be real estate. But I think real estate is going to be under a cloud for so long, and you can’t buy real estate with cash, it is too much money. I think you should go with the stock market. If things are better, the stock market will go up, and if things are awful, the stock market is going to be way down. But it is a place where, if you want to take risks, you’ve got a wide range of choices. This is why I own stocks [in addition to other investments], because I don’t know where the bottom is going to come, and I want to be exposed to every kind of possibility I can think of. And, at least, if you pick the stock market and you are wrong, you can change your mind. There is some liquidity there. Stocks never became cheap, but they didn’t become crazy, the way other assets were. WSJ: How long do you think this whole process will take, before we get back to normal? Mr. Bernstein: Longer than people think. The people who think we will have turned in 2009 are wrong. There has to be a respite along the way. Nothing goes in one direction forever. But it will take longer than people think. If that weren’t the case, I would be talking entirely differently. I would be saying, “What an opportunity we have got.” And I just can’t believe that the opportunity is here yet. There is too much to unwind. WSJ: Can you explain the reason you think it will take a long time? Mr. Bernstein: We have to go back to a moment when people have the courage to borrow and lenders have the courage to lend. Until credit is going up instead of down, you can’t have growth. Housing has got to be a very important part of that; it always has been. You have to reach a point where somebody says, “This house is cheap, I am going to buy it,” or where some businessman says, “This is a great opportunity for us to expand our business. Everything is available to us.” If China goes into a recession, God knows. The Iraq war and the whole situation with terrorism, we really don’t know where that is going to come out. There are so many things that have got to get buttoned down before you say that the future looks good enough to take a risk. WSJ: What kind of indications are you looking for as signs that the economy is about to get better and that the stock market and the investment world are about to turn the corner? Mr. Bernstein: Somehow, the housing trouble has to at least flatten out. As long as that is going on, I think the pressure on the credit system is going to persist. It is kind of the leading indicator. It is where the trouble started. We have to underpin the consumer. That is why this is different. That is why this is like nothing we have had before. Before, it was investment that made the V at the bottom of the business cycle. I don’t see real investment turning enough without some sign from the consumer side. Maybe the foreign countries will do it for us. That is a substitute for consumption here. Maybe. But I think that they won’t do enough for us, and maybe will be too infected by us to do it. But maybe growth in Asia will help us. The Asian thing is tremendously exciting. Write to E.S. Browning at jim.browning@wsj.com1   URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120916592206646195.html   Hyperlinks in this Article: (1) mailto:jim.browning@wsj.com

RELATED ARTICLES FROM ACROSS THE WEB

Related Articles from WSJ.com

•  Recession? Think Stocks for Recovery  Apr. 07, 2008

•  U.S. Stocks Are Doing Better Than Most  Mar. 30, 2008

•  China Takes Steps To Ease Transfer Of Funds Overseas  Mar. 20, 2008

•  Commentary: The Weekend Interview  Mar. 15, 2008

Related Web News

•  What Warren thinks… - Apr. 14, 2008  Apr. 14, 2008  money.cnn.com

More related content Powered by Sphere 

IN THIS STORY FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, IT IS CLEAR THAT FLOUNDERING FEDERAL POLICY-MAKERS ARE AVOIDING THE ESSENTIAL ISSUE — WE HAVE TRILLIONS OF “DOLLARS” OF DERIVATIVES OUT THERE THAT ARE HUGELY OVERVALUED BECAUSE OF FRAUDULENT APPRAISALS SUPPORTING THE APPEARANCE OF A RISING HOUSING MARKET. And now many other securities and loan arrangements are endangered that have at least a passing involvement or basis in those faulty derivatives. 

The mere thought of the Fed issuing more of the derivatives that caused this crisis is sending central bankers into their back rooms wringing their hands. We are leading the world to the final conclusion that we cannot be trusted with money.

I have said many times in this post that there is not enough money in the world to bail this thing out. The answer is “none of the above” in terms of the options the Fed is looking at. The bottom line is that houses and therefore mortgages were inflated beyond supportable fair market values. Thus the CMOs, the derivative market as a whole, the auction market and everyone else who holds an interest in these mortgages are dealing with over-valuation. 

Our current regulatory system and FASB accounting policies have not anticipated this condition and thus we have no mechanism in place to effectively deal with the problem. The solution posed by Barney Frank is actually the answer — provide an opportunity to mark down these mortgages for the purposes of the borrowers payments, along with an opportunity for everyone to share the upside when the recovery begins. If we don’t do that we won’t see recovery for 10-20 years. If we adopt his plan, the recovery can start immediately. The Fed is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic here. Neither they nor anyone else can cover the impact on the $500 trillion derivative market out there. 

The fact that other central bankers are looking at alternatives validates our premise here that the dollar is not merely going to take a hit like it did before Volcker stepped in, it is headed toward extinction unless we act responsibly. We have undermined the governments of many countries around the world by allowing Wall Street to run wild. We couldn’t have done more harm to them if we had attacked them militarily. They can and must respond to protect their nations. Our arrogance is not going to stop them from disengaging from U.S> policy and economics. Only humility and responsible action will restore confidence in our economy and our currency. 

Go to www.wsj.com and see this article and others examining current conditions.

	April 9, 2008

Fed Weighs Its Options in Easing Crunch By GREG IP April 9, 2008; Page A3 WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve is considering contingency plans for expanding its lending power in the event its recent steps to unfreeze credit markets fail. Among the options: Having the Treasury borrow more money than it needs to fund the government and leave the proceeds on deposit at the Fed; issuing debt under the Fed’s name rather than the Treasury’s; and asking Congress for immediate authority for the Fed to pay interest on commercial-bank reserves instead of waiting until a previously enacted law permits it in 2011. •  The Issue: The Fed has sold or committed a lot of its Treasury portfolio to support markets. Some worry it will soon run out of room to do more. •  The News: The Fed is considering several contingency plans for getting more lending capacity so that won’t happen. •  The Bottom Line: The Fed has lots of firepower left before it has to turn to these contingencies. No moves are imminent because the Fed still has plenty of balance sheet room for additional lending now. The internal discussions are part of a continuing effort at the Fed, similar to what is under way at foreign central banks, to determine its options if the credit crunch becomes even more severe. Fed officials believe the availability of such options largely eliminates the risk of exhausting its stockpile of Treasury bonds and thus losing its ability to backstop the financial system, as some on Wall Street fear. British and Swiss central banks also are contemplating contingency plans. For now, the European Central Bank is reluctant to consider options that require substantial modifications of its standard tools. The Fed, like any central bank, could print unlimited amounts of money, but that would push short-term interest rates lower than it believes would be wise. The contingency planning seeks ways to relieve strains in credit markets and restore liquidity without pushing down rates. The Fed is reluctant to heed calls from some Wall Street participants and foreign officials for the Fed to directly purchase mortgage-backed securities to help a market that still is not functioning normally. Before the credit crunch began in August, the Fed had $790 billion in Treasury securities on its balance sheet, about 87% of its total assets. Since then, it has sold or lent about $300 billion. In their place, the Fed has made loans to banks and securities firms to assist them in financing holdings of mortgage-backed and other securities. Some on Wall Street say the potential for further declines in Fed treasury holdings could leave it out of ammunition. The Fed holds assets to manage the nation’s money supply and influence the federal-funds rate, which banks charge each other on overnight loans. When the Fed buys Treasurys or makes loans directly to banks, it supplies financial institutions with cash; in effect, it prints money. The cash ends up as currency in circulation or in banks’ reserve accounts at the Fed. Since reserves earn no interest, banks lend cash that exceeds their required minimum. That puts downward pressure on the federal funds rate, currently targeted by the Fed at 2.25%. The Fed could purchase securities and make loans almost without limit, expanding its balance sheet. That would cause excess reserves to skyrocket and the federal funds rate to fall to zero. The Fed would contemplate such “quantitative easing” only in dire circumstances. The Bank of Japan took this step this decade after years of economic stagnation. Weighing the Possibilities So the Fed is seeking ways to expand its balance sheet without causing the federal funds rate to drop. The likeliest option, one the Fed and Treasury have discussed, is for the Treasury to issue more debt than it needs to fund government operations. The extra cash would be left on deposit at the Fed, where it would be separate from bank reserves on deposit and thus would have no impact on interest rates. The Fed would use the cash to purchase an offsetting amount of Treasurys in the open market; for legal reasons, it generally cannot buy them directly from Treasury. Treasury’s principal constraint is the statutory limit debt. Treasury debt was $453 billion below the limit Monday. In the past, Congress always has responded to administration requests to raise the limit, sometimes only after political theatrics. Fed officials also are investigating the feasibility of the Fed issuing its own debt and using the proceeds to purchase other assets or make loans. It has never done so; the legality is unclear. Some foreign central banks, such as the Bank of Japan, do so. Another possibility is seeking congressional approval to pay interest on banks’ reserves immediately instead of waiting until a 2006 law permits that in 2011. If the Fed paid, say, 2% interest on reserves, banks would have no incentive to lend out excess reserves once the federal funds rate fell to that level. Congress put off the effective date because paying interest on reserves reduces the Fed profits that are turned over to the Treasury each year, widening the budget deficit. Although preliminary explorations suggest Congress would be open to accelerating the date, the Fed is leery of depending on action by Congress. The Fed is inclined to use any additional maneuvering room to lend through its existing and recently expanded avenues. Officials are reluctant to buy mortgage-backed securities directly. They worry that such purchases would hurt the market for MBS that the Fed is not permitted to buy: those backed by jumbo and subprime and alt-A mortgages, which are under the greatest strain. Moreover, the Fed is not operationally equipped to hold MBS and would probably have to outsource their management. Such holdings wouldn’t help avert foreclosures much, since the Fed would have little control over the mortgages that comprise MBS. Write to Greg Ip at greg.ip@wsj.com1   URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120768896446099091.html   Hyperlinks in this Article: (1) mailto:greg.ip@wsj.com

Trouble for American Consumer is building and the perfect storm threatens our tenuous economy. 

DEEP RECESSION LOOMS WITHOUT FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN OUR POLITICS AND ECONOMIC POLICIES

The inevitable outcome was always the same: eventually we would hit the the top, like in any Ponzi scheme. 

Consumers, who maxed out their credit cards, and maxed out their borrowing on their homes, and maxed out on their purchasing power which has declined significantly over the same 25 year period, and who are vastly unemployed or underemployed (further decreasing their wages and purchasing power), and maxed out their borrowing from consumer finance, and even maxed out their short-term borrowing through pay day lending and overdraft privileges and eliminated their savings plans, have reached the point where (1) they can’t buy anymore “stuff” and (2) they don’t want to. 

The end result is that we have spent ourselves and our country into a hole, diminished our standing in the world, and we continue to insult the world by asserting a dominance that was once real, but isn’t anymore. And the world is telling us as politely as possible to shove it. 

The strength of the Euro, the movement amongst the oil producing countries to create a unitary currency for the Gulf countries and other trends around the globe all spell the same thing: everyone is looking for an alternative to the U.S. dollar and an alternative to the U.S. altogether. We have brought ourselves and the world to neither peace nor prosperity, and neither security nor safety. 

Asian inflation which is gearing up to be as bad as we have seen in any emerging economy is starting to hit wholesale prices. Rising costs due to rampant and growing inflation in countries that had before been “cheap” producers is hitting hard on products purchased here in the U.S. 

Add to that the more or less daily devaluation of the dollar and the effect is multiplied. Add to that mixture the further devaluation of the dollar caused by the mortgage meltdown where central bankers are converting their dollar reserves to Euros and the effect is further increased.

The headlines in most papers is the end of the free ride we had for a long time where the dollar was king and we could purchase imports more cheaply because dollars were in great demand. 

Our headline here is that we are headed for the deepest recession since the greatest depression. 

The reasons are many but all fairly simple. The United States converted from being a nation of production to a nation of consumption. The final nail in the coffin of this unfortunate conversion was the advent of credit cards — not at their inception — and the high interest rates that were institutionalized during the double digit prime rate days 25 years ago. The theory was that the credit card companies were under hardship because it cost them more to get capital to lend than they could get under usury laws, once you factored in defaults and the extremely high interest rates that the issuers had to pay. But when rates went back down to modest figures of around 7% prime rate from highs of 22% credit card companies were allowed to keep their rates at 21-22% and eventually raised those rates to as high as 35%. Adding insult, the issuers now have fee schedules that add to the absurd payments. 

This “free money” craze coupled with stupendous profits earned by credit card issuers caused a huge but temporary surge in consumer sending encouraged by government, business and lenders. Everyone liked it because for consumers they were getting more “stuff”, for government they could claim better economic performance, and for credit card companies, they had a stranglehold on an economy that was now addicted to credit card and home equity loan consumer spending. As with the mortgage meltdown, nobody thought it through. 

Our economy became addicted to, dependent on and under the control of consumer spending, which up till now has accounted for around 70% of our entire economy.

The inevitable outcome was always the same: eventually we would hit the the top, like in any Ponzi scheme. Consumers, who maxed out their credit cards, and maxed out their borrowing on their homes, and maxed out on their purchasing power which has declined significantly over the same 25 year period, and who are vastly unemployed or underemployed further decreasing their wages and purchasing power, and maxed out their borrowing from consumer finance, and even maxed out their short-term borrowing through pay day lending and overdraft privileges and eliminated their savings plans, have reached the point where (1) they can’t buy anymore “stuff” and (2) they don’t want to.

Alan Greenspan is now defending his record of relying on the marketplace to work things out. Free market ideologies, like the one Greenspan relied on, are like all other theories in economics. They seem to work for a while and then they don’t. Ideology does not govern how people act. People act as they choose to and the way they choose is based upon mostly subjective factors at the time of their decision. That is a lot messier than the neat and clean theories and policies, indexes and measurements that have been used in determining economic policy, foreign policy, and domestic agendas for decades. 

The underlying flaw in all currently used economic theory is that people are not theoretical. They are real and they are complex. 

This is not a new observation. Plenty of brilliant analysts and thinkers have known this for thousands of years. Just look at some of the most recent contributions from Rothbard and von Mises and you’ll see that the idea that human motivation and human thought process as the real issue has been around for a very long time, well understood, and pointing toward policy mechanisms that were based in reality rather than the mythical world where everyone behaves according to the “plan.” 

The problem is that economics and politics are inseparable — like time and space. You cannot define one without reference to the other. And in politics, the goal is to get elected and stay in power. You are playing to an audience with precious little time to get the finer points of economics, personal finance and monetary policy. 

People are too busy trying to make ends meet, getting the kids off to school and after-school activities, and working a two-income family schedule with increasingly longer working hours. Up until now, buying “stuff” has been a recreational outlet and they had the “free money” to do it. Now they can’t even pay the “minimum payment” without borrowing more and they can’t borrow more.

You don’t get elected giving people bad news — especially the news that things will get worse before they get better. So politicians create agencies to give them reports, indexes, median incomes, and unemployment data that provides them a reference point from which to pontificate about things these “leaders” actually know nothing about. They create slogans and “programs” that will never happen to give the potential voter a reason for putting them or keeping them in office. 

The end result is that we have spent ourselves and our country into a hole, diminished our standing in the world, and we continue to insult the world by asserting a dominance that was once real, but isn’t anymore. And the world is telling us as politely as possible to shove it. The strength of the Euro, the movement amongst the oil producing countries to create a unitary currency for the Gulf countries and other trends around the globe all spell the same thing: everyone is looking for an alternative to the U.S. dollar and an alternative to the U.S. altogether. We have brought ourselves and the world to neither peace nor prosperity, and neither security nor safety. 

WHAT DO WE DO? BITE THE BULLET, GIVE UP IDEOLOGY AND GET REAL

If you want to stop the mortgage and credit crisis, go with Barney Frank’s plan which takes blame out of the equation and simply stops the worst from happening. It gives everyone an opportunity to recover and it is the only way to do it — taking everyone’s interest into account rather than one group over another. 

If you want to stop foreclosures and evictions, change the rules of civil procedure in each state and in federal bankruptcy court that enables cram-down procedures and mediated results that allow for the same outcome as Barney Frank’s plan. Home values were inflated far beyond fair market value. Everyone should share in the loss and everyone should share in the potential recovery. 

If you want to stop the health care crisis and the economic nightmare created for our citizens, take insurance out of the equation, wind down the current system and move relentlessly toward a single payer system that pays medical service providers well, does not subject them to liability for bad results, and gives them incentives to get their patients healthier. That is what other countries do and what we should do here. 

Eliminate the restrictions on so-called “alternative care.” Those protocols have been around a lot longer than allopathic medicine. End the hegemony of allopathic medicine, provide incentives for preventative lifestyles and care, and the costs of health care will drop like a stone while the prospects for a longer, productive, happier life will rise. Reinstate the basic pledge “First do no harm.”

If you want to create a country with solid economic foundation, we need savings. To create savings, people must have the financial resources to cover their expenses and set aside money for the future. Take credit card debt and other forms of predatory lending off the table. Change the “no end in sight” vision to a light at the end of the tunnel. Stop telling people to spend money when you know they don’t have it. All you are doing is making things worse when you could be leading them out of the darkness.

If you want an economy that has solid prospects and good earnings potential for its citizens and the country as a whole, change the direction of innovation from getting our own people to part with their money to buy “Stuff” and make innovation work to produce things the rest of the world values. In other words shift back from the consumer driven economy to production. The products might be the same, similar or entirely different as before. 

BRING BACK UNIONS: Stop trying to minimize costs and start working to maximize revenues. Anyone can eliminate their costs by simply going out of business. A business is worthless without growth and strength in the marketplace. By eliminating our production capacity, we have effectively relinquished our sovereignty. Have government intervene wherever necessary to prevent dominance that results in imbalance — encourage the start-up of new small businesses and create a level playing field for them to compete. 

If you want to reassert America’s place in the world give the world a reason to respect and honor us besides our military power. Raw power is a transient commodity. Eventually it ends. If you want to retain sovereignty over our economic affairs and avoid becoming a satellite of China or a junior member of the European Union then demonstrate the power of the American worker and the attractiveness of living and working here. 

If you want communities to prosper allow community banks and credit unions the same access to providing financial services as the megabanks, where centralization has shifted local deposits into faraway investments of dubious value to anyone. State and Federal programs should be deposited into local banks rather than national or international combines. The infrastructure already exists without any changes required to enable this to happen. What is necessary is for State regulatory authority to become more active and more focussed on their own State’s economy.

As the song goes, these are a few of my favorite things. What are yours?

Collateral damage and contributing damage 

From CNN and NY Times: Loss of jobs means loss of income, loss of tax revenue, increased defaults on home loans, credit cards etc. The downward spiral of economics and the upward spiral of inflation are here. They will continue to feed off of each other. It is political cowardice to avoid the obvious — stop the foreclosures, stop the evictions, restore the value of CDOs, and initiate a single payer healthcare system that will save us all money, emphasize better health through fitness and diet, and decrease the wild race for riches in credit, oil, and drugs. 

It was an act of political cowardice for the senate to jettison the one form of relief that would force mediated settlements from which all parties to the frivolous mortgages would get the most benefit — the ability of bankruptcy judges to modify the mortgages. Just leaving that provision in there would have caused a stampede of settlements that were governed by the free market forces that the critics of the plan so ardently advocate. 80,000 jobs lost, unemployment spikes

Employers slash jobs for third straight month while unemployment jumps to 5.1%, a nearly three-year high.

By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer

Last Updated: April 4, 2008: 12:37 PM EDT

Bernanke: recession possible

More Videos

Quick Vote

In my current job, I am…

• Loving it; it’s my dream job

• Unhappy; but it’s a paycheck

• Miserable; thank God it’s Friday

 or View results

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — U.S. employers slashed jobs for the third straight month in March and unemployment rose to a nearly three-year high, offering the latest signs that the economy has fallen into a recession.

The Labor Department’s much anticipated report, released Friday, showed a net loss of 80,000 jobs last month. That marks the third straight month that jobs have fallen - the longest period of decline since early 2003.

Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast that payrolls would fall by 50,000 in the latest reading.

The new report also pegged job losses in January and February at 76,000 each month.

Those revisions added an additional 67,000 job losses to previous readings. The Labor Department now estimates that the economy has shed 232,000 jobs in the first three months of this year.

“The revisions are the real surprise in the report,” said John Silvia, chief economist for Wachovia. “If we had known it was anything like that, there would not have been any debate going on about whether we were in a recession. It’s pretty stark.”

The job losses were widespread, with the battered construction sector losing 51,000 jobs and manufacturing employment falling by 48,000. But there were also losses in key service sector industries. Retail employment dropped by 12,000 jobs, and business and professional service employers cut staff by 35,000.

Unemployment rate rises

The unemployment rate jumped to 5.1% from 4.8% in February. The new reading is the highest level since September 2005 in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Economists had forecast that unemployment would rise to 5%.

The unemployment rate is based on a separate survey of households, rather than the employer survey that produces the closely watched payroll number.

The household survey gave an even grimmer view of job losses. It found that the number of Americans saying they were unemployed soared by 434,000, the biggest jump in that reading since October 2001, right after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Economists say the prospect of a quick pick-up in jobs is not good, given current problems in the economy. Silvia estimates there will be job losses every month through at least August.

“It’s not going to be a lot of fun. Recessions are never fun,” he said.

Others say that job losses could continue into next year.

“The job market is a lagging indicator,” said Arpitha Bykere, economic analyst at RGE Monitor.com. “We can expect the picture to get gloomier. We won’t see a positive picture any time soon, even if the economy recovers.”

But some other experts said that while job losses are climbing, the job market is still relatively strong by historic standards, although even they expressed concerns about growing weakness.

“So far the job strength has held up consumer spending when there’s been a lot of other bad news,” said Tig Gilliam, CEO of Adecco Group North America, the unit of the world’s largest employment agency. “If we have serious job deterioration in the job market, that could feed into problems. But as long as we’re at 5.1% unemployment, or even 5.5%, I don’t think that should drive a consumer spending halt.”

Still the 5.1% unemployment rate only describes part of the problem for those struggling to find work in the battered labor market. The number of people outside of agriculture who are working part time who want to work full-time is now up 591,000 compared to a year ago.

Candidates chime in

The job report reverberated on the campaign trail Friday, as the presidential candidates sounded off on the economy.

“Despite today’s news, the Democrats will continue to advance their anti-growth agenda,” said Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee.

Democratic frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama called the report “the latest evidence that Washington needs fundamental change because it has failed the American people.” And Democratic hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton said “it’s time the president and John McCain recognize the r-word: reality.”

The job outlook will be a key factor influencing interest rate decisions by the Federal Reserve when it meets on April 29-30.

Earlier this week, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke made his bleakest and bluntest assessment on the economy’s condition. The central bank chief told a joint congressional committee that a recession is possible in the first half of this year.

Investors placing bets using Chicago Board of Trade options were already pricing in a 100% chance of at least another quarter-percentage point cut even before the jobs report came out. But the chance of a half-point cut rose to 38% in morning trading following the report, after being at 20% at the end of trading Thursday.  

First Published: April 4, 2008: 8:39 AM EDT

Whether Krugman is right in today’s New York Times, predicting a massive bailout between $450 billion and $3 trillion at taxpayer expenses, or the “free marketers” have their way and let everyone collapse, or some people finally get it and move toward a consensus of policy that forgives everyone their transgressions but keeps them in the game as we have suggested repeatedly in these posts, it is clear that perception of risk, trust, confidence and integrity has been changed. This change will be reflected in world and domestic financial markets rights down to a car loan, credit card, home equity loan or business loan. 

• The recent rise of ankle biting between home equity lenders (many of whom have frozen home equity loan accounts making the credit limit unavailable to borrowers), borrowers and fist mortgage lien holders on short and long sales and refinancing, shows what has happened: Nobody trusts anybody anymore and credit is going to decline not only because of availability of money, not only because of viability of short-term credit instruments and the auction markets that drive them, but because rising borrower distrust of all lenders for all reasons is going to lower demand for credit.
• Just as there isn’t enough money in the world to bailout everyone in this mess, there isn’t enough equity, income or assets to cover the credit that exists, much less putting on more. But more is what we are getting in the form of inflation fueled by the Fed churning out money supply like it was candy from a machine.
• Borrowers seem to have learned that what lenders tell them can’t be trusted. It is a valuable lesson. They are realizing that lenders have a vested interest in keeping borrowers in debt and to maximize the debt of every man, woman and child in the United States. 
• The number of homes going upside down either because of overvaluation of the home for purposes of the purchase money mortgage or over valuation for purposes of home equity loans is increasing daily. Sorry to hit a sore point but the chickens are coming home to roost. The motivation of change lifestyle from home owner to renter has never been greater. It seems likely that people will do just that.
• This might be a paradigm change that could forever change the landscape of the American economy. retail buying sprees of things that nobody needs, and that nobody wants after they make their purchase, are on the decline. They might be on their way out as a way of life. That accounts for 70% of the U.S. economy.
• This new perception of risk and the new distrust, have taken on the same dynamics as the politics of division which was bound to be reflected in the marketplace eventually. Basic assumptions and formulas currently used in economics are now cast under a cloud of doubt, as are the policies based on current assumptions and current measurements of things that might not matter as much in the future as they did in the past.
• Doubt and uncertainty create bad environments for doing business, investing and living. We might be in for some hard times, but it is probably high time for the AMerican economy to “get real.”

The problem for homeowners is that however many ideas are put forward they won’t be effective in time to save most people, they won’t be in time to save the economy, and they won’t be in time to save our currency from further wrenching devaluation. It is the fierce urgency of now that cannot even wait to the election or January 20, 2009. There is only one place where immediate relief can be achieved — the Court System. There are constitutional impediments to interference with the mortgage foreclosure process. Yet there is authority in the judicial system to change the rules as long as it does not significantly impede or in this case, it should enhance access to the courts and the ability to mount a credible defense to foreclosures on predatory or fraudulent loans. 

These are the rules that could be enacted by each court in the land that would [a] slow down the process and [b] protect borrowers from the steamroller of lender foreclosures and [c] protect lenders, investment bankers and investors from themselves. These rules preserve and enhance due process so that the unsophisticated borrower is not wiped out again by his or her lack of knowledge. 

Emergency Provisional Rules

Mortgage Foreclosures

These emergency rules of civil procedure apply to all foreclosures on all property, real or personal, initiated on or before January 1, 2007. No Judgment shall be executed, or if already executed, enforced, and no order of removal or eviction or seizure related to foreclosure shall be executed, or if already executed, enforced unless a Court of competent jurisdiction shall have executed an order finding as a matter of law and fact that the foreclosing party(ies) have complied with each and every provision contained herein.

1. Every Petition for Foreclosure and/or every action undertaken by a foreclosing party prior to seeking recovery or seizure, or occupancy of property, shall require the foreclosing party(ies) to file a verified complaint or affidavit alleging the facts supporting the claim for relief, executed by a person with actual knowledge of all facts alleged. The executing party on said verified Petition or affidavit shall affirmatively allege and actually be available for the taking of testimony by deposition or at an evidentiary hearing in the jurisdiction in which the property is located.

2. Each such Petition or Affidavit shall state the names and addresses of all parties involved in the loan transaction and shall be served under the rules governing service of process upon each of said parties as third party non-party litigants, if such parties were not the lender or borrower.

3. Each such Petition or Affidavit shall account for all funds that were passed through or to each party named in the action, the disposition thereof, and the manner and time in which the passage of said funds were dispersed, together with a citation to the mortgage documentation, including a quote of the relevant passages in the body of the Petition or Affidavit wherein said funds are disclosed and wherein said funds are authorized. 

4. Each such Petition or Affidavit shall state with particularity whether any changes occurred after the closing of the subject loan transaction in which parties or persons were changed including the names and addresses of all parties and persons related to the transactions subject to the mortgage.

5. With respect to sale or assignment or any joint or sharing arrangements concerning ownership, distribution of risk, or securitization in which the subject loan was referenced as collateral or otherwise, each such Petition shall state with particularity the details of each such transaction, the distribution or re-distribution of funds, and the documents employed by said parties after said closing.

6. Each and every such Petition or Affidavit shall affirmatively state that the foreclosing party(ies) have standing and authority to bring the action, defend counterclaims and answer affirmative defenses. The signature of the attorney on said pleading shall be mandatory and shall constitute a representation to the COURT that the filing attorney has performed proper due diligence to ascertain the truth of the allegations of legal standing and all other allegations.

7. Each such Petitioner or Affidavit shall be accompanied by attachments of the referenced documents to be included with the first service of such Petition or Affidavit.

8. Each such Petition or Affidavit shall state with particularity and specificity each disclosure made to the borrower and any third parties involved in the transaction under the Truth in Lending Act and the corresponding provision of the mortgage documents executed by the borrower which supports said disclosure.

9. Each such Petition or Affidavit shall state with particularity and specificity each disclosure made to the borrower and any third parties involved in the transaction under the Truth in Lending Act and the corresponding provision of the mortgage documents executed by the borrower which does not support said disclosure. If any allegation other than “none” is made under this paragraph, the foreclosing party(ies) shall state with specificity the law or fact upon which they should be excused from compliance.

10. Each such Petition or Affidavit shall attach a full and complete accounting of all money, value or funds transmitted, paid or or promised between all parties involved in the loan transaction before or after the loan transaction. In the event the borrower has been overcharged, undercharged, or charged correctly, the Petition or Affidavit shall so state affirmatively, providing a full accounting of said funds. 

11. No answer or response from the borrower shall be due unless and until the foreclosing party(ies) are in complete and full compliance with the provisions of these rules. Any prior answer or response may be amended by the borrower after a determination is made that the foreclosing party(ies) are in full compliance. No prior Judgement, order or other document or rule shall prevent the borrower from filing a response or answer after the foreclosing party(ies) are found to be in compliance with these rules.

12. In the event that the foreclosing party(ies) fails or refuses to comply with these rules, the foreclosure shall be barred with prejudice and until the terms of the mortgage are determined with certainty by the Court by clear and convincing evidence, no payments to the mortgagee shall be due. This provision that not apply to payment to taxing authorities. In such event of delay caused by the the foreclosing party(ies) the court may fashion such equitable remedies as the Court deems fit in its discretion. for example, the Court could apply delinquent payments to the end of the mortgage, thus extending the terms. 

13. In the event of non-compliance with these rules wherein the foreclosing party(ies) demonstrate to the Court the probability that they could amend their filing to conform to the requirements herein, the foreclosing party(ies) shall file an amended Petition or Affidavit on or before thirty (30) days from the date of the order of the Court allowing the amendment. Failure to file within said thirty period shall be grounds for a mandatory immediate dismissal with prejudice. 

14. In the event of the filing of a verified amended Petition or Affidavit, Borrower shall have sixty (60) days in which to answer or respond. Failure to answer or respond shall not relieve the burden of proof of the foreclosing party(ies) in compliance with state, local and Federal law, and in compliance with these rules.

15. The Court may grant attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in each case where a motion or other filing occurs, wherein a determination is made in an adversary proceeding that the filing is in or out of compliance. 

16. In the event a foreclosure has already been completed and all subsequent and customary actions have occurred and no bona fide third party has taken control or occupancy of the property, these rules may applied retroactively. 

17. Once compliance has been established and the issues are joined, the Court shall enter an order requiring the parties to enter into a process of mediation. The purpose of the mediation shall be to fashion a settlement which provides relief and incentives to all affected parties, including non-party litigants. Mediation shall take place no earlier than thirty (30) days after the entry of the mediation order, and not later than is reasonably possibly given the volume of cases and the availability of competent mediators.

These rules are subject to review by the Court but are effective immediately. Comments and applications to be heard shall be available in keeping with the usual and customary methods of proposed rule changes. Said rules shall be effective unless and until stated otherwise by the Court.