Opinion: An excuse for slashing entitlements - POLITICO.com Print View. With all the talk of Standard & Poor’s downgrade, no one mentioned that the ratings agency’s business model is, essentially, lying for money. Instead, many politicians insist that the S&P downgrade is the reason for the market turmoil — not the banking freeze-ups in the Eurozone or political paralysis here. The credibility accorded to S&P by U.S. political elites shows that the rot is indeed deep — and worrisome. Continue Reading Let’s note, at the start, that this downgrade was absurd. The credit rating of the United States is not in jeopardy. The U.S. government prints dollars — it can no more run out of dollars than a bowling alley can run out of strikes. What’s really happening is an attempt by both parties to justify slashing Social Security and Medicare. President Barack Obama, in his speech Monday about the downgrade, used the market turmoil as an excuse to do just that. Why trust S&P, anyway?
George Packer: The Debt-Ceiling Fight Continues. In the midst of the debt crisis in Washington, D.C., Danny Hartzell backed a Budget rental truck up to a no-frills apartment building that is on a strip of motels and pawnshops in Tampa, Florida. He had been laid off by a packaging plant during the financial crisis of 2008, had run through his unemployment benefits, and had then taken a part-time job stocking shelves at Target in the middle of the night, for $8.50 an hour.
His daughter had developed bone cancer, and he was desperate to make money, but his hours soon dwindled to four or five a week. In April, Hartzell was terminated. His last biweekly paycheck was for a hundred and forty dollars, after taxes. “It’s kind of like I’ve fallen into that non-climbable-out-of rut,” he said. “If you can’t climb out, why not move?” On the day the family moved, there were officially 14.1 million unemployed Americans, or 9.2 per cent of the workforce. The Republicans are also securely in character. Nor does it leave much hope. Reading Between the Lines. The establishment verdict is in: President-elect Bush made an astute choice by tapping Rod Paige, Houston's School Superintendent, to head his Education Department. The New York Times blessed the nomination as "wise," and both major teachers' unions have chimed in with support. On most of the hot-button questions, Paige is a relatively uncontroversial pick. About vouchers, he has written, "We believe that public funds should go to students, not institutions, and there may be a time when vouchers will be part of the mix.
" (A limited voucher program in Houston was so modest and so narrowly designed that virtually no one took advantage of it.) Paige is a supporter of "performance pay" for teachers and a fairly strong proponent of a skills-based curriculum, especially phonics, but not to the point where he has openly horrified anyone in the teachers' unions or on the educational left. The basis for Paige's seeming pragmatism, and the core of his relationship with Bush, is "accountability. " Harold McGraw III. McGraw at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, 2011.
Harold Whittlesey "Terry" McGraw III (born 1948)[1] is the chairman of the board of McGraw Hill Financial, formerly McGraw-Hill Companies. He served as chief executive officer of the company from 1998 until November 2013, and was president from 1993 to 2013. He is the Chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce and very active on trade issues on the world stage. He is formerly Chairman of the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs of American companies. At McGraw-Hill[edit] McGraw was elected president and chief operating officer of McGraw-Hill in 1993, CEO in 1998, and chairman in December 1999.
As CEO, he led the consolidation of 15 diverse units into three business segments, each a market leader.[1] In 1999, McGraw and his father Harold McGraw, Jr. accepted the Honor Award from the National Building Museum on behalf of the McGraw-Hill Companies, which were recognized for their contributions to the U.S.' Notes[edit] The debt deal: Disaster averted, decline straight ahead. This is the best the White House could salvage after inexplicably failing to insist that the debt ceiling be raised as part of December’s deal to extend the Bush tax cuts — which would have let the country avoid this unprecedented exercise in self-inflicted damage? If you put aside the talking points both sides will peddle, the disappointing contours of the emerging endgame run as follows: First, Washington will do nothing more to boost jobs and growth.
The best that can be said is that the spending cuts will be tiny in the next two years, so the feds won’t be contracting demand, save for the end of the stimulus. Our epic jobs crisis remains ignored. Next — as to long-term deficit reduction, supposedly the reason the GOP put the country through this costly fiasco — the deal remains utterly inadequate, even if the joint congressional committee the plan would empower to address this succeeds.
Here’s why. Sen. Politically, however, it’s a sufficient escape hatch. The Nauseating Debt-Ceiling 'Solution' - James Fallows - Politics. I agree with Matt Miller: (needless) disaster averted, decline embraced. >>So this is what we've driven the global economy and America's credit rating to the brink for? ...This is the best the White House could salvage after inexplicably failing to insist that the debt ceiling be raised as part of December's deal to extend the Bush tax cuts -- which would have let the country avoid this unprecedented exercise in self-inflicted damage? If you put aside the talking points both sides will peddle, the disappointing contours of the emerging endgame run as follows:First, Washington will do nothing more to boost jobs and growth. The best that can be said is that the spending cuts will be tiny in the next two years, so the feds won't be contracting demand, save for the end of the stimulus.
America will no doubt muddle through, as it has done so often before. Still, the major steering decisions in national policy make a difference in the long term. I hope things will look better tomorrow. Home | Costs of War. How the Deficit Got This Big. With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.
Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole. A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling - James Fallows - Politics.
It's this one, from yesterday's New York Times. Click for a more detailed view, though it's pretty clear as is. It's based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.
An additional significance of the chart: it identifies policy changes, the things over which Congress and Administration have some control, as opposed to largely external shocks -- like the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks or the deep worldwide recession following the 2008 financial crisis. The point is that governments can respond to but not control external shocks. But to me it doesn't matter. From this item three months ago: