SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (7966)11/16/2003 2:30:29 PM
From: Skywatcher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
Bait and switch......gee...what happened to the BILLIONS he promised for AIDS in Africa in the great state of the LYING union address he gave?????
NOTHING! that's what.....
CC



To: Mephisto who wrote (7966)11/25/2003 7:29:46 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Ticking Time Bomb of Debt
The budget-busting Medicare bill offers dubious benefits
at outrageous costs.

November 25, 2003

latimes.com

EDITORIAL


Everett Dirksen gets credit for the quip about
government spending, "A billion here, a billion there,
pretty soon you're talking about real money." If only the
late, legendary Illinois senator and longtime minority
leader could see Congress now that it's poised to pass
a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

The measure, which President Bush staunchly backs, is
a time bomb for the federal budget deficit. "The U.S.
budget," investment house Goldman, Sachs & Co.
stated Friday in its newsletter, "is out of control."
With a
deficit of $500 billion looming for 2004, neither the
country's seniors nor anyone else can afford adding to
the debt that chokes off economic growth and
suppresses job creation.

At least taxpayers got a reprieve on the $33-billion
energy bill, which GOP leaders conceded Monday
would not pass this year.
It had dozens of outrageous
pork provisions, including a $2-billion bailout for
operators of older, coal-burning plants, as well as $23 billion in tax breaks,
mostly for fossil fuel producers. "Sunset" provisions - phony expiration dates -
on some of the tax cuts meant that the bill's cost probably would have been
double what Congress assumed.

But if this bill was a budget misdemeanor, then overhauling Medicare, at $400
billion, is a fiscal felony. The Congressional Budget Office says the Medicare
changes would cost $40.2 billion in 2007 but would zoom to $65.2 billion by
2013.

Though the bill is a bonanza for the health-care industry and employers - at least
$125 billion is directed toward them in the next 10 years - it's far from clear that
the cost is justified.
Seniors must look closely to see how this "reform" affects
them. And just how will we pay for Medicare when its beneficiaries number some
77 million by 2013?

Though a billion here and there may not seem like much, the skyrocketing budget
deficit has a direct effect on business investment. The higher the deficit, the more
the Federal Reserve must raise interest rates to avoid inflation and to attract
investors so the government can pay its debt.
Low deficits in the 1990s let Fed
Chairman Alan Greenspan hold down interest rates. But Congress' return to its
free-spending ways prompted him a few weeks ago to warn of "destabilizing
effects" as baby boomers tap their Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Unfortunately, the presidential campaign season already seems to be in full swing,
and Bush, who in January urged Congress to "control spending," has gotten
feckless about giant deficit spending. With the staggering expense of the Iraq
occupation and the war on terrorism hanging over them, it's hardly the time for the
president and Congress to play budget roulette. The remarkable generation that
endured wars, the Depression and other privations wouldn't want seniors' needs
to bankrupt the nation's future. But political shortsightedness combined with a
reckless stewardship by Congress and this adminstration, is doing just that, and
responsible voices must speak up, fast, to stop this fiscal train wreck.

latimes.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (7966)11/29/2003 11:29:57 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
[Bush's Spending Orgy]

"Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation,
said government spending per household in the fiscal year that ended
Sept. 30 was $20,301 - the highest level since World War II, he said,
even after adjustment for inflation. (His analysis showed that the figure
peaked in 1944 at $26,445, as measured in current dollars.)

Though the administration has said the spending increases are largely
a result of a need to strengthen the military and protect against terrorism
at home, most of the new spending since 2001, 55 percent,
has gone to programs with no link to
national security, Mr. Riedl said.

"The Republican Party," he said, "has grown addicted to federal
spending as a means to re-election."


Article: No Escaping the Red Ink as Bush Pens '04 Agenda
Source: The New York Times
Reference:Page A10, National Edition
Date: November 29, 2003
Full story: Message 19545308



To: Mephisto who wrote (7966)12/10/2003 2:22:03 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Looting the future

By Paul Krugman (NYT)
Saturday, December 6, 2003

PRINCETON, New Jersey: One thing you have to say about President George
W. Bush: He's got a great sense of humor. At a recent fund-raiser, according to
The Associated Press, he described eliminating weapons of mass destruction
from Iraq and ensuring the solvency of Medicare as some of his administration's
accomplishments.

Then came the punch line: "I came to this office to solve problems and not pass
them on to future presidents and future generations." He must have had them
rolling in the aisles.


In the early months of the Bush administration, one often heard that "the
grown-ups are back in charge." But if being a grown-up means planning for the
future - in fact, if it means anything beyond marital fidelity - then this is the least
grown-up administration in American history. It governs as if there's no
tomorrow.

Nothing in Americans' experience prepared them for the spectacle of a
government launching a war, increasing farm subsidies and establishing an
expensive new Medicare entitlement - and not only failing to come up with a
plan to pay for all this spending in the face of budget deficits, but cutting taxes
at the same time.


Recent good economic news doesn't change the verdict. These aren't temporary
measures aimed at getting the economy back on its feet, they're permanent
drains on the budget. Serious estimates show a long-term budget gap, even
with a recovery, of at least 25 percent of federal spending. That is, the federal
government - including Medicare, which Bush has given new responsibilities
without new resources - is nowhere near solvent.

Then there's international trade policy.
Here's how the steel story looks from
Europe: The Bush administration imposed an illegal tariff for domestic political
reasons, then changed its mind when threatened with retaliatory tariffs focused
on likely swing states. So the United States has squandered its credibility: it is
now seen as a nation that honors promises only when it is politically
convenient.

What really makes me wonder whether this republic can be saved, however, is
the downward spiral in governance, the hijacking of public policy by private
interests.

The new Medicare bill is a huge subsidy for drug and insurance companies,
coupled with a small benefit to retirees.
In comparison, the energy bill - which
stalled last month, but will come back - has a sort of purity: It barely even
pretends to be anything other than corporate welfare.

And it's not just legislation: Hardly a day goes by without an administrative
decision that just happens to confer huge benefits on favored corporations, at
the public's expense. For example, last month the Internal Revenue Service
dropped its efforts to crack down on the synfuel tax break - a famously abused
measure that was supposed to encourage the production of alternative fuels, but
has ended up giving companies billions in tax credits for spraying coal with a bit
of diesel oil. The IRS denies charges by Bill Henck, one of its own lawyers, that
it buckled under political pressure. Coincidentally, according to The Wall Street
Journal, Henck has suddenly found himself among the tiny minority of taxpayers
facing an IRS audit.

Awhile back, George Akerlof, the Nobel laureate in economics, described what's
happening to public policy as "a form of looting." Some scoffed at the time, but
now even publications like The Economist, which has consistently made
excuses for the administration, are sounding the alarm.

To be fair, the looting is a partly bipartisan affair. More than a few Democrats
threw their support behind the Medicare bill, the energy bill or both. But the
Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress are leading the
looting party. What are they thinking?

The prevailing theory among grown-up Republicans - yes, they still exist -
seems to be that Bush is simply doing whatever it takes to win the next
election. After that, he'll put the political operatives in their place, bring in the
policy experts and finally get down to the business of running the country.

But I think they're in denial. Everything we know suggests that Bush's people
have given as little thought to running America after the election as they gave to
running Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. And they will have no idea what to do
when things fall apart.


E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
iht.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (7966)1/8/2004 6:29:35 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 

I.M.F. Says U.S. Debts Threaten World Economy

The New York Times

January 8, 2004

By ELIZABETH BECKER
and EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 - With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance,
the United States is running up a foreign debt of such
record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial
stability of the global economy, according to a report released Wednesday by the
International Monetary Fund.

Prepared by a team of I.M.F. economists, the report sounded
a loud alarm about the shaky fiscal foundation of the United States, questioning the
wisdom of the Bush administration's tax cuts and warning that
large budget deficits pose "significant risks" not just for the United States but for
the rest of the world.

The report warns that the United States' net financial obligations
to the rest of the world could be equal to 40 percent of its total economy within a
few years - "an unprecedented level of external debt for a large
industrial country," according to the fund, that could play havoc with the value of
the dollar and international exchange rates.


The danger, according to the report, is that the United States' voracious
appetite for borrowing could push up global interest rates and thus slow
global investment and economic growth.

"Higher borrowing costs abroad would mean that the adverse effects
of U.S. fiscal deficits would spill over into global investment and output," the
report said.

White House officials dismissed the report as alarmist, saying
that President Bush has already vowed to reduce the budget deficit by half over the
next five years. The deficit reached $374 billion last year, a record in dollar
terms but not as a share of the total economy, and it is expected to
exceed $400 billion this year.

But many international economists said they were pleased that the report raised the issue.

"The I.M.F. is right," said C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for
International Economics in Washington. "If those twin deficits - of the
federal budget and the trade deficit - continue to grow you are
increasing the risk of a day of reckoning when things can get pretty nasty."

Administration officials have made it clear they are not alarmed about
the United States' burgeoning external debt or the declining value of the
dollar, which has lost more than one-quarter of its value against the
euro in the last 18 months and which hit new lows earlier this week.

"Without those tax cuts I do not believe the downturn would have
been one of the shortest and shallowest in U.S. history," said John B. Taylor,
under secretary of the Treasury for international affairs.

Though the International Monetary Fund has criticized the United States
on its budget and trade deficits repeatedly in the last few years, this
report was unusually lengthy and pointed. And the I.M.F. went
to lengths to publicize the report and seemed intent on getting American attention.

"I think it's encouraging that these are issues that are now at play
in the presidential campaign that's just now getting under way," said Charles
Collyns, deputy director of the I.M.F.'s Western Hemisphere department.
"We're trying to contribute to persuade the climate of public opinion that
this is an important issue that has to be dealt with, and political capital will need to be expended."

The I.M.F. has often been accused of being an adjunct of the United States,
its largest shareholder.

But in the report, fund economists warned that the long-term fiscal outlook
was far grimmer, predicting that underfunding for Social Security and
Medicare will lead to shortages as high as $47 trillion over the next
70 years or nearly 500 percent of the current gross domestic product in the
coming decades.


Some outside economists remain sanguine, noting that the
United States is hardly the only country to run big budget deficits and that the nation's
underlying economic conditions continue to be robust.

"Is the U.S. fiscal position unique? Probably not," said Kermit L. Schoenholtz,
chief economist at Citigroup Global Markets. Japan's budget deficit is
much higher than that of the United States, Mr. Schoenholtz said,
and those of Germany and France are climbing rapidly.

In a paper presented last weekend, Robert E. Rubin, the former
secretary of the Treasury, said that the federal budget was "on an unsustainable
path" and that the "scale of the nation's projected budgetary imbalance
is now so large that the risk of severe adverse consequences must be taken
very seriously, although it is impossible to predict when such consequences may occur."

Other economists said they were afraid that this was a replay of the
1980's when the United States went from the world's largest creditor nation to
its biggest debtor nation following tax cuts and a large military build-up
under President Ronald Reagan.


John Vail, senior strategist for Mizuho Securities USA, said the I.M.F.
report reflected the concerns of many foreign investors.

"I would say they reflect the majority of international opinion about the
United States," he said. And he added, "The currency doesn't have the
safe-haven status that it has had in recent years."

Many economists predict that the dollar will continue to decline for some time,
and that the declining dollar will help lift American industry by
making American products cheaper in countries with strengthening currencies.

"In the short term, it is probably helping the United States," said Robert D. Hormats,
vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International.

Fund officials and most economists agreed that the short-term impact
of deficit spending has helped pull the economy through a succession of
crisis. And unlike Argentina and other developing nations that suffered
through debt crises, the United States remains a magnet for foreign
investment.

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow did not address the fund's report directly.
But in a speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce on
Wednesday, he said Mr. Bush's tax cuts were central to spurring growth
and reiterated the administration's pledge to reduce the deficit in half
within five years.

"The deficit's important," Mr. Snow said. "It's going to be addressed.
We're going to cut it in half. You're going to see the administration committed
to it. But we need that growth in the economy. We had an obligation
to the American work force and the American businesses to get the economy
on a stronger path. We've done it and we have time to deal with the deficit."

But the report said that even if the administration succeeded it would not
be enough to address the long-term problems posed by retiring baby
boomers.

Moreover, the fund economists said that the administration's tax cuts
could eventually lower United States productivity and the budget deficits
could raise interest rates by as much as one percentage point in the industrialized world.

"An abrupt weakening of investor sentiments vis-à-vis the dollar could
possibly lead to adverse consequences both domestically and abroad," the
report said.


nytimes.com
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Mephisto who wrote (7966)1/9/2004 7:44:18 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Unemployment Rate Falls; Few Jobs
Added


Fri Jan 9,12:05 PM ET

story.news.yahoo.com
By LEIGH STROPE, AP Labor Writer

WASHINGTON - The nation's unemployment rate dropped to 5.7
percent in December to the lowest level in 14 months, but employers
finished the year without many help wanted signs for the holidays,
adding just 1,000 new jobs.


The 0.2 percentage point drop in the jobless
rate occurred because fewer people were
looking for work, the Labor Department
said Friday. More than
300,000 people gave up their search for jobs
and dropped out of the pool of available
workers.

"The rate is going down, but it is going down
for the wrong reasons," said Bill Cheney,
chief economist at John Hancock Financial
Services, noting that it fell not because
people were finding work. "That doesn't
make you feel really good about the state of
the jobs market."

The weak report prompted investors to sell
off stocks in early trading on Wall Street.

President Bush seized on
the lower jobless rate as reason to be
optimistic about the economy.

"Unemployment dropped today to 5.7
percent . That's not good enough - we want
more people still working," the president told a gathering of women small
business owners at the Commerce Department (news - web sites). "But
nevertheless, it is a positive sign that the economy is getting better."

Weak holiday hiring by retailers was to blame for holding back job gains.
Analysts were surprised by the anemic job growth because they
expecting companies to add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs to their payrolls
last month. But the net gain was just 1,000 jobs - which is "quite
shocking," Cheney said. "I would certainly have not expected anything
resembling that."

Employment in the nation's stores, malls and even gas stations dropped
by 38,000, the report said, and manufacturing continued a 41-month
slide by losing 26,000 jobs.

The nation's factories have been on life support, and the sector shed
about a half million jobs in 2003.

The economy has lost about 2.3 million jobs since Bush took office, a
statistic that Democrats hope to use against Bush as he seeks
re-election.

"Rather than focusing on putting a person on the moon, I think the Bush
administration should focus on putting people back to work," said Rep.
Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., a former Clinton White House aide, citing Bush's
planned announcement next week of goals of sending Americans to
Mars and establishing a permanent human presence on the moon.


The Bush administration contends that stronger economic growth -
helped by the president's three tax cuts - will eventually lead to more
meaningful job creation on a sustained basis.

Commerce Secretary Don Evans said Friday's report reinforces the need
for Congress to "make tax relief permanent and act with urgency on the
rest of President Bush's jobs and growth agenda."

For that sustained growth, analysts are looking for monthly payroll gains
of 200,000 to 300,000 - a mark the economy is far from reaching.
December marked the fifth consecutive month of payroll gains, however
slight.

Other areas of the economy are surging, but the jobs market has been a
weak link in the recovery. To remain competitive in the global economy
and out of concern that economic improvements wouldn't last,
companies have been hesitant to take on added costs of hiring new
full-time workers. Instead, they have been working their employees
longer and harder. Hence, the productivity of American workers has been
at high levels in recent months.


But with all the positive signs in the rest of the economy, economists
have been expecting the jobs market to improve.

"Most people were expecting it to be a reality by this stage, so it's a
little alarming we're still relying on faith," Cheney said.

Friday's report showed that employers have added just
277,000 new jobs since July, cutting earlier estimates
of growth in October and November.

Some areas of the economy added jobs last month.
Employment continued to rise in the services sector in
temporary employment services, education and health
care. Construction companies also added to their
payrolls.

But the cuts outweighed any gains. Analysts were
concerned about the lack of employment growth for
retailers in their most important month of the year.
A
rise in Internet shopping could partially explain why
fewer stores were hiring, economists said.

The federal and state governments also reduced their
payrolls last month, as did banks and mortgage
companies, reflecting the uptick in mortgage interest
rates.



To: Mephisto who wrote (7966)1/29/2004 11:36:37 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Republicans Warn Bush Budget Won't Cut Deficit

Thu Jan 29, 3:09 PM ET
story.news.yahoo.com

By Andrew Clark

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush 's
plans to sharply limit some federal spending next year will barely dent
the deficit but could mean painful cuts in programs ranging from veterans'
health to medical research, Republican lawmakers who oversee the
spending process warned on Thursday.


Bush will send his fiscal 2005 budget to Congress on Monday. In it, he
will propose limiting the growth in federal discretionary spending outside
of defense and homeland security to about 0.5 percent -- far less than
the rate of inflation.

White House officials call that "the foundation" of a plan to cut this year's
record federal budget deficit -- which they are expected to project at
between $520 billion and $530 billion -- in half over the next five years.

The move is also designed to mollify Republican fiscal conservatives in
Congress -- who have recently come close to open rebellion over the
pace of recent rises in government spending and the increasingly bleak
fiscal outlook.

But in briefing papers prepared for this weekend's party retreat --
expected to be dominated by budget debates -- the Republican
"appropriators" who actually divvy up federal funds each year noted even
a complete freeze in the spending targeted by Bush would cut the deficit
by only a "minimal" $3 billion.

"We need to be realistic about the impact of this proposal," the House of
Representatives Appropriations Committee said. "Solely targeting
non-defense discretionary spending will not have a significant impact on
the deficit."

SMALL SLICE OF BUDGET PIE

Such spending makes up only 17 percent of the roughly $2.3 trillion
federal budget and congressional analysts say funding for domestic
programs like education and health care has grown only slightly faster
than inflation over the past two years.

"The biggest challenge ... will be balancing presidential budget promises
with traditional congressional priorities like veterans' medical care,
medical research and law enforcement," the Appropriations Committee
warned.

By contrast, Congress has been busily expanding so-called mandatory
spending, automatic payments for programs like Social Security (news -
web sites) and Medicare, which makes up over half of the budget.

It last year approved a plan to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare
at a cost of $400 billion over the next ten years and up to $2 trillion in the
decade after that.

"Meaningful deficit reduction can only be accomplished by taking a hard
look at mandatory spending," the committee said, adding boosts in
defense and homeland security funds in 2005 "will necessitate
reductions in other programs."

Conservatives did propose budget cuts for some mandatory programs
last year, but were eventually forced to back down by Republican leaders
worried about the political fallout.

With a presidential election in November, few analysts believe Congress
will have much stomach for tough decisions this year either and
lawmakers already predict a post-election session will likely be needed
to wrap up their budget work.



To: Mephisto who wrote (7966)2/3/2004 7:31:56 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 15516
 
Bush Budget Would Trim Community Policing

Mon Feb 2, 5:51 PM ET

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush 's budget plan
would reduce spending for community police, water projects and other
programs popular with lawmakers as well as broad programs ranging
from environmental protection to agriculture.

Sixty-five government programs, 38 of them
education-related, would be eliminated for a
saving of $4.9 billion. Spending cuts would be
sought in 63 others in the budget plan
unveiled Monday.


"In some cases we say mission
accomplished, in some cases it is duplicative
of other programs we have in place, especially when we have new and
better programs, and in some cases ... the program is not showing the
results," said the White House budget director, Joshua Bolten.

Since taking office, Bush has tried to cut the Clinton-era program to put
100,000 police officers on the streets, saying it did not conclusively
reduce crime. Congress keeps rejecting the reduction.

Now, the administration has an additional argument, contending the
Community Oriented Policing Services program has met its goal with
118,500 officers hired. The budget plan would cut the program from
$481.9 million to $97 million, with the remaining money going for training
and other law enforcement programs.

The plan to cut U.S. Corps of Engineers water project construction, from
$1.7 billion to $1.4 billion, is politically sensitive, too. Lawmakers use the
projects to demonstrate their clout in Washington.

The Environmental Protection Agency 's 8.9 percent
decrease overall included a $492 million reduction in low-interest loans to
states and communities for clean water pollution control projects.
Funding would drop from $1.3 billion to $850 million.

Another $335 million cut would come from allocations to local
governments, to improve wastewater, storm water and drinking water
facilities. Last year's budget provided $429 million.

The reduction in the clean water loan program would hurt much-needed
efforts to replace aging facilities, said Adam Krantz, a spokesman for the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, which represents
publicly owned sewage treatment plants.

"It's precisely the wrong message, when states and communities are
facing budget crunches and heightened security needs, to propose these
kinds of cuts," he said.

The Agriculture Department's budget would reduce rural development
programs from $2.45 billion to $2.21 billion, while conservation funds
would drop from $1.03 billion to $908 million.

For the Energy Department, the administration proposes spending $502
million - 22 percent less than last year - for research into the
long-term health and environmental consequences of energy use and
development. That includes programs for global climate change; air, land
and marine environments; and biological effects of radiation.

The administration's ambitious plans to return Americans to the moon as
early as 2015, and eventually send a mission to Mars, would cut space
agency spending for earth science, aeronautics and education.

The Education Department would realize a $1.4 billion saving from
elimination of 38 programs, including those focused on alcohol abuse,
the arts, dropout prevention, school counselors, smaller learning
communities, school reform, and school leadership.

Other proposed reductions:


_The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $3.69 billion to
$3.38 billion.

_The U.S. Geological Survey (news - web sites), $938 million to $920
million.

_A decrease in spending for the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (news - web sites) of $408
million, or 8.9 percent.

story.news.yahoo.com