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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (28786)7/17/2005 3:52:15 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362378
 
Nixon and Bush: Presidential parallels?
_________________________________________________________

By Pete McCloskey
Special To The Sacramento Bee
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, July 17, 2005
sacbee.com

The eerie parallels between the Richard Nixon and George W. Bush administrations continue.

Once again the famous words of Lord Acton in 1887 come to mind: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Both Nixon in 1972 and Bush in 2004 won re-election to a second term. Both had impressive agendas for domestic reform, but both were at war - Nixon in Vietnam, Bush in Iraq. Both faced what they felt was disloyal, if not treasonous, conduct by former federal employees. Marine veteran Daniel Ellsberg had given the then top secret Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971, and the Times risked prosecution for publishing excerpts, among which was the damning statement by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton that 70 percent of the reason for fighting the war was to save American face. The Nixon White House was desperate to discredit Ellsberg to preserve dwindling public support for the war - to allow a "decent interval" to elapse before South Vietnam fell to the North, in Henry Kissinger's words.

Nixon's chief domestic adviser, John Ehrlichman, ordered the burglary of Ellsberg's California psychiatrist's office to obtain records that he thought might show Ellsberg to be mentally unstable.

One of President Bush's stated reasons for going to war with Iraq was that Iraq had sought to purchase bomb-making materials from Niger. In 2003 respected former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson said it wasn't so. Then someone high on the White House staff, equally desperate to protect the president's election, sought to discredit Ambassador Wilson by suggesting to the press that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent who had suggested that her husband be sent to Niger.

Both in 1971 and 2003, the actions of these zealous presidential aides had dire results.

Both brought on Justice Department investigations. Ultimately, not only Ehrlichman and White House Chief of Staff Robert Haldeman, but two attorneys general, John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst, lied to a grand jury and/or congressional committees, and all four were indicted. The truth came out, not by the Justice Department, but by two courageous reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, and vigorous investigations by Sen. Sam Ervin's committee and the House Judiciary Committee. Less than two years after his smashing re-election, Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace.

Now, in 2005 as in the Nixon days, there again appears to be White House obfuscation. In retrospect, it is recognized that if Nixon had come clean at the outset rather than directing stonewalling by his staff, his administration would certainly have survived, and perhaps left a notable record of both foreign and domestic achievement.

George W. Bush might be well-advised to do what Nixon did not. He and his attorney general should forthwith order a full disclosure of who went to the press about Ambassador Wilson's wife, when and how. Bush should obtain a new and untainted press secretary and get on with the daunting tasks facing the nation.

John Ehrlichman, the man most directly responsible for Nixon's downfall, was no wartime slacker. He had flown 50 missions as a lead bombardier over Europe in a unit that suffered extremely high losses both in planes and aviators. He had made an enviable record as a lawyer, was a fine father and husband and had entered public service for reasons of patriotism, not power or financial gain. We were close friends in law school and, save for his last two years in the White House, remained so until his death.

I visited him at the federal penitentiary in Safford, Ariz., one Thanksgiving Day and asked what had caused him, an honorable lawyer, to lie for his president. He looked for a long time across the desert at the distant mountains where Cochise and Geronimo once ranged, and finally quietly replied: "It took us three-and-a-half years to be corrupted by the power. ..."

Can it be that that awesome power has once again corrupted the aides and spokesmen for another Republican president?

Whatever the truth may be, it will ultimately come out. The parallels of the Nixon and Bush White House with respect to Lord Acton's words grow ever eerier. Let's hope the president will do the right thing this time.
___________________________________

About the writer:

* Former U.S. Rep. Pete McCloskey attended Stanford Law School with John Ehrlichman in the late l940s and early 1950s, one year ahead of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Chief Justice William Rehnquist. A Woodside Republican, he was elected to Congress in 1967 and lost to President Nixon after challenging him in the 1972 New Hampshire primary. On June 6, 1973, McCloskey made the first floor speech suggesting consideration of the impeachment of President Nixon for obstruction of justice. McCloskey lives in Rumsey.



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (28786)7/17/2005 4:05:39 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362378
 
Just Who Is Scooter Libby...?

rightweb.irc-online.org



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (28786)7/18/2005 4:08:18 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362378
 
When the Bills Come Due, Then What?
_____________________________________________________

By KELLY K. SPORS
SUNDAY JOURNAL
The Wall Street Journal Sunday
July 17, 2005

Thanks to rock-bottom interest rates and easy ways to borrow, consumers have been on an all-out spending spree for several years. Now, though, there are signs that the bills may be piling up too high.

The portion of Americans' disposable income devoted to paying off debt hit a record high recently, even though interest rates have stayed at record lows. That could put a financial squeeze on many households if and when long-term interest rates finally start to go up.

U.S. consumers are more vulnerable than ever to rate increases because they've taken on more adjustable-rate debt in recent years -- meaning monthly payments fluctuate when interest rates change.

Nearly half of all consumer debt and 26% of all mortgage debt is now adjustable, estimates Joe Abate, senior economist at Lehman Brothers. That's a stark change from the early 1980s when nearly all debt had fixed rates. Other estimates peg adjustable-rate debt at closer to 20% of all consumer debt.

Adjustable-Rate Crunch

"When all these [adjustable-rate] mortgages reset soon, some of these people are going to see their monthly payments rise by a few hundred dollars a month," Mr. Abate says. "That's a real significant bump for all those people complaining now that gas prices have risen over $2 a gallon."

And recent data suggest the debt burden on households is growing heavier, despite low interest rates. The "debt service ratio," the Federal Reserve's estimate of the ratio of debt payments to after-tax income, hit 13.4% in the first quarter of this year, an all-time high since the Fed began tracking it in 1980. The financial obligations ratio, which adds automobile lease and rent payments, homeowners insurance and property-tax payments to the debt service ratio, was 18.45% last quarter, near the record high of 18.84% in late 2002.

Overall, U.S. consumers now owe roughly $11 trillion, nearly double what they owed a decade ago. The vast majority of that debt growth came from people taking out big mortgages and tapping their escalating home equity. Total household debt grew 11.2% in 2004, the largest year-to-year increase since 1986.

"We're still in the midst of this consumer debt binge," says Kathy Bostjancic, U.S. senior economist at Merrill Lynch & Co. As long as the housing boom continues, "it's going to give consumers a false sense of security."

Many economists including Ms. Bostjancic predict that if mortgage rates see a noticeable rise from the 6% of recent months, many housing markets will slow and prices will flatline, or even drop in some especially hot markets. Oddly, long-term rates have stayed low despite the Fed's steady short-term rate increases that started last summer -- a phenomenon that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan recently dubbed a "conundrum."

Here's the impact rising rates can have on household finances: A family with a 30-year adjustable-rate mortgage with a 5% interest rate would see its monthly payment jump from $1,074 to $1,468 -- a 37% leap -- if mortgage rates rose to 8%. Couple this with rises in other debt payments such as credit cards, home-equity loans and such, and households may struggle to pay all the bills each month. The rise in payments due could be exacerbated if job growth and incomes don't keep pace.

For consumers, this means it's high time to make a serious dent in their debts, especially those with adjustable-rate debts such as many mortgages, home-equity loans and credit cards. While it may not be realistic to pay off some debts entirely (easier said than done), borrowers can at least make more than the minimum payments each month -- and cut back or stop buying on credit.

After all, most analysts still think that long-term rates have nowhere to go but up, and that there will be a modest increase by year end. Once rates rise, all the consumers who have overloaded themselves with adjustable-rate debt on mortgages, home-equity loans and credit cards will probably see their minimum monthly payments climb. And if housing prices stop rising, they'll be less able to tap their home equity to help cover the swelling bills. In severe cases, if consumers can no longer afford their monthly payments, this could mean more defaults and foreclosures in some cases.

Already, affordability concerns are popping up. A recent analysis of jumbo mortgages, those with loans above $359,650, by Bear Stearns showed that the average initial mortgage payment on mortgages rose to $2,338 in the first quarter of this year, up from $2,060 late last year. It suggests home buyers might be struggling to keep the price of their home low.

Consumers who have taken advantage of innovative loan products like interest-only loans also will feel the pinch of rising rates, since those loans require only interest payments early on, no principal, but require heftier payments later on. And that number has risen significantly during the past couple years: About 27% of all new mortgages so far this year (excluding refinancings) were interest-only, according to LoanPerformance, a unit of First American Corp. that tracks 46 million mortgages monthly and provides information to lenders and others in the industry. Only 1.6% of all new mortgages were interest-only in 2001.

Much of the debt spree reflects unusual market trends in recent years, particularly the housing boom. Even as the U.S. economy sputtered and jobs fizzled in 2001 and 2002, consumers continued to borrow and spend as they did during the raging 1990s bull market.

But as home prices surged and interest rates hit record lows, consumers took out bigger mortgages and started tapping their escalating home equity like a credit card. U.S. regulators kept interest rates low to keep the economy chugging.

'We'll Probably Regret It'

"It was a good strategy in that we needed something to boost the economy in the economic downturn," says Dean Baker, founder of the Washington think tank Center for Economic and Policy Research. "But it sets us up for an even worse crash when housing" cools. "In the long term, we'll probably regret it."

What's more, consumers' attitude about debt is changing, says Robert D. Manning, a finance professor at Rochester Institute of Technology. While older generations are more debt-averse and cut spending during economic downturns, younger generations rely on debt for spending money. "What we're seeing here is really a deferral of the financial responsibility and consequences," Mr. Manning says. "We may be heading into a very gut-wrenching period."