Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Democratic Party Secretary of State run-off gets ugly...

Press Release Sen. Gail Buckner sent out last night after an attack mail piece hit mailboxes across the state.  Full disclosure I worked for Sen. Buckner as a legislative aide in 2009 and have been a supporter of her campaign from the get go.
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – August 9, 2010
Contact: Sen. Gail Buckner 770-473-9039 or 404-932-2427 or gailbuckner@bellsouth.net
   
SECRETARY OF STATE CANDIDATE GAIL BUCKNER
RESPONDS TO OPPONENT’S LAST-MINUTE ATTACK
   
State Sen. Gail Buckner (D-Morrow), the front-running Democratic candidate for Georgia Secretary of State, released the following statement in response to the false, negative attack message used by her opponent in a last-minute mailer prior to Tuesday’s Run-Off.
   
“I am very disappointed that my opponent resorted to sending this false, negative attack on me to the voters on the eve of the Democratic Run-Off vote for Secretary of State. This desperate maneuver is the type of political tactic one would expect from the Republican Party, not from a fellow Democrat.
   
“The attack mailer, which exploits my vote that took place seven years ago on a piece of legislation that passed overwhelmingly with the support of 72 other Democratic House members, fails to tell the whole story and implies that I am not on the side of everyday Georgians in dealing with the current economic crisis. Nothing could be further from the truth.
   
“Many Democratic legislators, including most our caucus leaders, voted in favor of HB 53, which was seen as a common-sense solution on the predatory lending issue. And as one panelist has pointed out, that vote taken seven years ago has nothing to do with the responsibilities of the Office of Secretary of State.
   
“My opponent’s attack mailer also claims she is endorsed by a number of individuals, some of whom have indicated that they neither endorsed my opponent nor gave her permission to use their names. This is desperation politics at its worst, coming from a candidate who was losing badly after the primary and will say or do anything to mislead the voters.
   
“In my 18 years of elected office, I have served in areas relevant to the Office of the Secretary of State, including Elections, Licensing, Archives, Securities and Small Business. That is not only true but also important!”
   
In the July 20 Democratic Primary for Secretary of State, Buckner was by far the top vote getter among five candidates, receiving 35.1 percent of the vote, compared to only 22.6 percent received by the second-place finisher. Buckner has been endorsed by the Georgia AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood of Georgia, GA Liberal, Atlanta Progressive News and the Atlanta Inquirer.
   
-end-
 

Posted via email from Jim Nichols for Senate Blog

'Sick tax' would break economy, officials say

Health experts say proposed provider fees on hospitals would force some providers out of business, cost thousands of jobs and stall economic development in those communities.

"Public health is critical to the well-being of our state," Russ Toal, of the Georgia Public Health Association, told state lawmakers Thursday during a budget hearing on health care.

"Almost 40 percent of public health positions across the state are vacant and, with reductions in fiscal year 2011, more staff will be let go," Mr. Toal said.

Lawmakers listened but said little during the three-hour hearing of a joint House and Senate appropriations subcommittee.

Many speakers opposed the so-called "bed tax" or "sick tax," a proposed 1.6 percent fee for hospitals and health insurance providers.

The fees would help the Legislature cover a $300 million shortfall for Medicaid in the fiscal 2011 budget and a $700 million shortfall in fiscal 2012, according to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute.

Georgia's declining tax revenue and loss of federal stimulus and other one-time funds contribute to the shortfalls.

Lawmakers rejected a similar fee last session. If they do the same thing this year, Gov. Sonny Perdue has proposed a 16.5 percent Medicaid cut to all health care providers.

Carie Summers, of the Georgia Hospital Association, said the 16.5 percent cut would cost hospitals more than $350 million. She said such a cut could force health-care providers to eliminate nearly 22,000 jobs across the state.

"Communities lose an economic engine and future economic development," Ms. Summers said.

Jimmy Lewis of Hometown Health, an organization of rural and small hospitals, pegged the job loss at nearly 17,000 and said as many as 20 rural hospitals could be forced to close.

"In those 20 counties, we would disrupt the access to health care," Mr. Lewis said. "We would create a tremendous economic devastation to all of rural Georgia."

The dental industry, which provides health care to Medicaid recipients, also would be affected, Georgia Dental Association Executive Director Martha Phillips said.

BY THE NUMBERS

* $77 million: Loss to hospitals under a 1.6 percent hospital provider fee

* $365 million: Loss to hospitals under a 16.5 percent rate cut in Medicaid to all health care providers

* $1 billion: Shortfall in Medicaid funding for fiscal 2011 and 2012

Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, Georgia Budget and Policy Institute

"If dentists receive another fee cut, oral health care will be affected, and many small towns will lose access to oral health care," she said.

In addition to job losses, Ms. Summers said the fees and rate cuts would force hospitals to cover expenses by raising prices to families and businesses. She estimated that costs for insured families would go up by an estimated $700 per year.

Health care representatives are pushing for a 1 percent increase in the tobacco tax as an alternative funding source for Medicaid, but legislators and experts agreed that such an increase wouldn't be enough.

"This tax would not cover all the Medicaid deficit, and I agree there have to be other streams to fill the gap," said Cynthia Mercer, president of the Georgia Obstetrical and Gynecological Society.

Posted via email from Jim Nichols for Senate Blog

Regents to discuss possible college budget cuts

In what has become an annual tradition, the Board of Regents Tuesday will vote on budget reduction plans for the 35 colleges in the University System of Georgia.

The proposals outline how campuses would cut spending by 4, 6 and 8 percent for the current 2011 fiscal year should the economy worsen. The options include what students have come to expect in recent years: bigger class sizes, fewer course sections, more part-time professors, faculty hiring freezes, shorter library hours and no new journal or book acquisitions.

"We all know more cuts are coming and we're anxious because we don't know the details," said Ryan Haney, a Georgia State University graduate student who organized protests last winter and spring over budget cuts and fee increases.

Public colleges and other state agencies have become accustomed to the spending cuts because of weak tax collections. The University of Georgia has made 27 budget adjustments over the past two years, President Michael Adams said in a recent interview.

The reduction plans are due to the state Office of Planning and Budget by Sept. 1.

Last month Gov. Sonny Perdue ordered 4 percent spending cuts among state agencies because about $375 million in extra Medicaid stimulus money had not yet been approved by Congress. The U.S. Senate approved that money last week and the House is expected to vote this week.

Some are cautiously optimistic that the financial situation may be better, noting that state tax collections improved last month.

Posted via email from Jim Nichols for Senate Blog

Atlanta incomes sliced in 2009, report says | ajc.com

More proof of how painful it has been: Per capita income in metro Atlanta last year fell nearly three times as much as the U.S. average.

Government data released Monday shows income falling in most American metro areas in 2009, with Atlanta down 4.8 percent – a loss of nearly a dollar in each $20.

Nationally, personal income slid 1.8 percent in 2009, according to the report by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Personal income includes earnings of various kinds, including paychecks, rental income, dividends and interest, as well as payments from the government. So the loss of jobs alone often does not push an area’s income down.

But in 2009, Atlanta was losing on a range of fronts, from jobs to stock holdings to home values.

The area lost 133,808 jobs during 2009, while the unemployment rate surged from 7.6 percent to 10.1 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

By early this year, the official jobless rate was 10.8 percent. Since then, job growth – tentative and modest – has begun again. But the state's most recent jobless rate was still 10.3 percent.

Of 223 metros measured in the federal report, Midland, Texas, was pounded hardest, with personal income down 8.4 percent. Among larger metro areas, the worst damage came in the bedroom communities of coastal Connecticut, where incomes fell 6.8 percent.

Other cities with sharper drops were Las Vegas, down 6.2 percent; Charlotte, down 5.7 percent; Dallas and Phoenix, each down 5.2; and Houston, down 4.9 percent.

Of the 134 metro areas with higher earnings, most came on various kinds of government payments, according to the BEA. Of those cities, less than half saw other kinds of income increase – and those gains were almost all in places dominated by military and other federal government payrolls, according to the BEA. Topping the list, for instance: Jacksonville, N.C., home of the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps base.

Posted via email from Jim Nichols for Senate Blog

China July Trade Surplus Surges as Imports Soften

Growth in overseas sales from China, which overtook Germany last year as the world’s biggest exporter, moderated from 43.9 percent in June. The jump in shipments last month was more than the 35 percent median estimate in the Bloomberg survey.

The pace of expansion in imports, which compared with the survey’s median estimate of 30 percent, softened from 34.1 percent in June and was the smallest gain since growth resumed in November after 12 straight monthly declines.

The trade surplus is the biggest since January 2009 and compares with $20 billion in June and $10.63 billion in July 2009.

The unexpected widening of the surplus and stronger-than- expected jump in exports risks stoking tensions with the U.S. and Europe. China has become the “top target” of global trade friction and the biggest “victim” of trade-related investigations, Zhong Shan, vice minister of commerce, said in June.

U.S. Elections

With mid-term elections in the U.S. due in November, today’s numbers may provide lawmakers with fuel to increase demands for the Obama Administration to take action against China, which they claim is deliberately keeping its currency undervalued to give exporters an unfair advantage.

China’s trade surplus with the U.S. rose 10 percent to $93 billion in the first five months of 2010, according to the American Commerce Department. China’s customs bureau puts the surplus at $59.4 billion, 18 percent higher than a year earlier.

Democratic Representative Brad Sherman unveiled a proposal on Aug. 4 calling for China’s permanent normal trade relations status, which lowers U.S. duties on its imports, to be revoked, Agence France-Presse reported.

Staff from the International Monetary Fund concluded the yuan is “substantially” undervalued, according to a statement released by the Washington-based lender last month after releasing its annual assessment of the country’s economy. Some IMF directors said an appreciation of the yuan would help the country rebalance growth away from exports and investment to private consumption, the fund said.

‘Resilient’ Companies

Premier Wen Jiabao may allow some gains even if export growth slows as recoveries in the U.S., European Union and Japan, China’s biggest markets, falter. Companies have become “increasingly resilient” to exchange-rate reform and exports haven’t been “substantially affected,” central bank deputy governor Hu Xiaolian said in a July 30 statement.

“If China runs large monthly trade surpluses, it’s very likely to invite more external pressure for the renminbi to appreciate,” Liu Li-Gang, a Hong Kong-based economist at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., said before today’s release, using another term for the yuan. “The trade balance will be an important indicator of the renminbi’s valuation.” Liu expects the yuan to rise 3 percent by the end of the year.

Posted via email from Jim Nichols

America’s supposedly anti-business president has led an extremely pro-business recovery

Economist Max Wolfe has none of the political restraints of power. At the news of another 131, 000 jobs gone, at all the talk of permanent unemployment as the “new normal,” he sighed with a tinge of optimism:

 

“We have been in the present labor market swoon since December 2007. We are 30 months into the process. Nearly everything is not getting worse fast. Most economic indicators have seen slow, uneven progress. We are a weary nation and hope, is running low. All lethality is dosage and we have received a massive dosage- an overdose- of bad economic news since the winter of 2007. Things are getting ever so slightly less bad in the aggregate.

 

“The sheriffs of this rough economic neighborhood are running low and out of ammunition. The populace is fed up. Our Sheriffs are The Treasury and The Fed and they have spent, cut taxes, slashed rates, bought securities and ballooned their balance sheets. They have made the bad less worse, but not appreciable better enough for many. All that economic toxin still pumps the blood of this economy. Now, the state is having a contractionary direct impact on employment.”

“Contractionary? I am a first-time contractionary word user so I will leave it to Stephen Colbert to take that term apart, but it can’t be a good thing.

 

The bigger surprise is being buried. The more serious problem is more systemic and rooted in the structure of our economy. These structural problems used to be referenced to show how deep the rot goes and why more fundamental reforms are needed, but now, as Paul Krugman has argued, this very idea is now being used to encourage acceptance of the problems because they are beyond repair, as in, “we can’t change that because it is, so, um,  “structural!”) Thus, the existing power relations can’t be questioned because they are the existing power relations

 

Makes sense, doesn’t it?

 

Part of the problem is that while the livelihoods of workers and homeowners are sinking, the economic and political elite is doing just fine, as the Automatic Earth Website explains:

 

“Perhaps what we witness is an ongoing and deepening chasm that divides the world of finance and politics on the one hand and the world of everyday people on the other, as Rasmussen Reports indicates: 67% of Political Class Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, 84% of Mainstream Disagrees. This chasm was greatly facilitated by governments relying on policies based on the notion that too-big-to-fail -financial- institutions needed to be bailed out at any cost. Later in the year, as a direct consequence of these policies, we will see another round of insane banker and trader bonuses, just as citizens’ sentiments and incomes fall, and unemployment and poverty keep rising.”

When you create and enable a casino economy, the public becomes a player too, taking risks they shouldn’t at the behest of bankers and finance companies who assure them all is fine.

 

Last week, Countrywide, the country’s mortgage fraud factory, reached a settlement with the SEC for more than Goldman Sachs settled its last complaint for a whopping $600 million. Their shark-in-chief, Anthony Mozillo, still facing a criminal investigation, later said he was pleased when the federal regulators admitted that the investors were not defrauded, because they knew what kind of projects they were funding. How reassuring!

 

So the circle of complicity widens. We now learn that the companies and individuals that invested in the subprime/subcrime mortgages KNEW people were being ripped off but did it anyway because there was so much money to be made.

 

And because security laws only protect investors, who were defrauded, many have no case. What about the borrowers, the homeowners now facing foreclosure? They are apparently not worthy of protection. This is comparable to the Madoff investors who profited in his illegal scheme and knew his returns were too good to be true but shoveled money to him anyway.  They became partners in the ponzi, not just “victims” trying to be made whole.

 

Is anything changing?  The banks say they will not change the way they finance mortgages so it is still buyer beware. The Wall Street Journal reports another instant crash of the markets is possible. And General Motors that was down and on the way out is back thanks to the government’s largesse  but sniping at its rescuers, insisting an end to government ownership would be good for their image and “employee morale.” Huh?

 

“We want the government out period,” blusters GM’s ungrateful CEO Edward E. Whitacre Jr. This same company recently spent $3.5 billion buying a new subprime lending company to replace GMAC, the GM lender whose bad loans sunk GM. On top of that, these geniuses just produced The Volt electric car that sells for $40,000, hardly a brilliant move in this economy. Of course they blame all their problems on the government, never themselves.

 

Like so many others, they seem to be banging on Obama, everyone’s target of choice. If that’s your inclination, let’s blame him also for what he has not done.

 

He hasn’t led a consistent push back against Wall Street, perhaps because he hopes in vain that big business will create private sector jobs and wants to show naysayers how pro-business he really is. This has turned him into an inversion of FDR.

 

As Ezra Klein of the Washington Post observed: “The reality is that America’s supposedly anti-business president has led an extremely pro-business recovery.

 

Businesses are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash reserves. Business spending jumped 20 percent last quarter, and is up by 13 percent against 2009. The Obama administration has dropped taxes for small businesses and big ones alike.”

Posted via email from Jim Nichols

Monday, August 9, 2010

Chris Hedges on "Empire of Illusion"

Living in the End Times According to Slavoj Zizek

Matthew Yglesias » Mobilizing Real Resources

This post from Matt yglesias that compares Total War economies to economies in recession is worth your time.  It digs into some of the Macroeconomic debate/discussion going on right now that you won't hear from talking heads on TV. 
 
The media are leaving voters terribly ill prepared for the important decisions they have to make on election day.  Democrats and Republicans offer two different economic prescriptions for the woes of our economy.

Posted via email from Jim Nichols

Confusions about the multiplier < 1 (me defending fiscal policy, sort of)

I've been having discussions with some associates about what it means when a measured short-run multiplier is positive yet less than one.  It is occasionally suggested that a multiplier less than one means that fiscal policy is necessarily a bad idea, but I don't see it that way. 

Keep in mind there is no a priori argument that the government purchases "don't count," even though sometimes they don't produce much value ex post.  And the borrowed dollar isn't "taken out" of the economy in a meaningful way.  It can come from abroad or it can accelerate velocity, at least potentially.

 
Let's say the multiplier is 1.0.  That typically means a dollar is spent on a road (or whatever), which is in the plus one column.  There is some crowding out of private investment but not usually one hundred percent.  Let's say that's minus 30 cents.  The spending on the road, and road workers, has some positive second-order effects.  Let's say those are plus thirty cents per dollar.
 
In that particular case, the multiplier ends up as equal to one and that is net, all things considered.  The spending still would yield a short-term positive for gdp if the multiplier were 0.5.
 
The case against fiscal policy should examine long-term budgetary costs, possible confidence factors, implementation lags, political economy problems, difficulties in targeting unemployed resources, and also the (underrated) notion that sometimes fiscal policy postpones problems into the medium run rather than solving them through jump-starting a recovery.  But it is difficult to deny that fiscal policy brings some economic benefits in the short run, or can brake an economic decline, even if the measured multiplier is less than one or for that matter well under one.  

As an aside, I do not prefer to emphasize the notion of "investment crowding out" for analyzing fiscal policy.  The notion is a coherent one, but frequently analysts, and audiences, end up confusing nominal flows of finance with real resource opportunity costs.  I instead prefer to ask how effectively the fiscal policy is targeting real unemployed resources and to deemphasize the financial angle, at least for the first-order analysis.

Posted via email from Jim Nichols