o If it is too big to fail, it is too big: break it up.
o Corollary: No more giant international investment houses.
o Corollary: No more national media conglomerates; the media need to be local and independent.
o Restore the barrier between banking and investment houses.
o Protect the public over failed management: fire the executives and managers who created the mess.
o Get serious about freezing foreclosures
o Eliminate adjustable mortgages completely.
o Restore the laws against usury.
o Stop protecting shareholders in failed financial firms.
o Stop the fear of letting large firms go bankrupt: let the market clean itself up.
o If necessary, let the government be the lender to the people, until the system stabilizes.
We voted for change; we voted for bold; it is time for the President to take charge and show true leadership.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Taxing the Rich, Slowly
Mr. Obama has proposed eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which is fine. However, not for another two years! Let's see now: the wealthy have enjoyed lower taxes for over six years, reducing Federal income and increasing the deficit by several hundred billion dollars a year.
Even with the global financial collapse, the wealthy can afford to pay taxes, but we will be giving them two more years of windfall. With an enormous deficit this year, can we really afford to be so generous to those who need it least? Restore tax progressivity to those making over $250,000 per year, NOW!
Even with the global financial collapse, the wealthy can afford to pay taxes, but we will be giving them two more years of windfall. With an enormous deficit this year, can we really afford to be so generous to those who need it least? Restore tax progressivity to those making over $250,000 per year, NOW!
Friday, February 13, 2009
Bank Bailout Principles (lost)
Recently, the NY Times reported that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner had prevailed in Administration debates over the shape of the bank bailout plan. His victories included:
o reducing limits on executive pay for companies receiving federal aid
o giving banks flexibility on how they spent the money
o protecting the jobs of current executives
o preserving share value by avoiding bank nationalization
So, he appears to have succeeded in resisting calls for more government control of the banking/investment business. How does this differ from the Bush approach?
Under Bush, banks took the money, and refused to report how they may have used it. The government refused to publish a list of those which had received federal aid. Acquisitions and mergers took place, instead of business and consumer loans. Accountability was lost in the fog.
The public charade of yelling at the managers who created this mess, yields to the reality that they will keep their jobs, and much discretion in using the money.
The Administration also appears to have decided to do nothing about the Bush giveaway. Why not go after the huge bonuses (tax them at high rates?), require aid money to be passed through as loans, condition aid on replacing the directors and executives who failed, let fail those banks deemed too weak to survive, and nationalize banks which refuse to serve the public?
Mr. Geithner is not "change." He is not protecting the public interest. Mr. Obama should fire Geithner, appoint a truly progressive Treasury Secretary, and most important, listen more closely to David Axelrod: dance with the one who brought you to the party. His principles are more in tune with the change we need.
o reducing limits on executive pay for companies receiving federal aid
o giving banks flexibility on how they spent the money
o protecting the jobs of current executives
o preserving share value by avoiding bank nationalization
So, he appears to have succeeded in resisting calls for more government control of the banking/investment business. How does this differ from the Bush approach?
Under Bush, banks took the money, and refused to report how they may have used it. The government refused to publish a list of those which had received federal aid. Acquisitions and mergers took place, instead of business and consumer loans. Accountability was lost in the fog.
The public charade of yelling at the managers who created this mess, yields to the reality that they will keep their jobs, and much discretion in using the money.
The Administration also appears to have decided to do nothing about the Bush giveaway. Why not go after the huge bonuses (tax them at high rates?), require aid money to be passed through as loans, condition aid on replacing the directors and executives who failed, let fail those banks deemed too weak to survive, and nationalize banks which refuse to serve the public?
Mr. Geithner is not "change." He is not protecting the public interest. Mr. Obama should fire Geithner, appoint a truly progressive Treasury Secretary, and most important, listen more closely to David Axelrod: dance with the one who brought you to the party. His principles are more in tune with the change we need.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Torturers must be punished
Ruth Marcus’ column in the Post on Wednesday, 31 December, arguing against torture trials attempts to minimize the crime, in a number of incredible ways.
1. She suggests that the threat of internal investigations or Congressional hearings would be effective deterrents. This would be laughable, if the subject were not so serious. The threat of criminal convictions and serious jail time is what is needed to deter those who would torture in the name of patriotism. Remember, this is a crime under both U.S. and international law. It is a crime against humanity. It is inexcusable for anyone, anywhere, to impose torture upon another. Indeed, the threat of punishment needs to be so strong and so credible, that those so inclined would fearfully resist the impulse. An internal investigation? A Congressional hearing? Not threats at all, as experienced under the Bush administration.
2. She suggests that the threat of criminal sanctions did not deter Bush officials anyway. Right: it is actual swift convictions and sentences which would provide the deterrent, not the possibility of someday facing the consequences.
3. She suggests stronger oversight to prevent torture. This is both after the fact and too late, and lacking in penalty: what would the oversight group do, but perhaps censure the torturers? Again, this is not enough.
4. She suggests that the costs of criminal prosecutions would be too high, and that officials could err on the side of excessive timidity. Given the choice between a tortured victim and a timid official, give me the timid official every time. There are some lines which should never be crossed. Torture is one such line.
5. She suggests that criminal prosecutions would drain energy from the new administration. Rather, I believe that the new administration is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time; it can pursue revitalizing the economy, undoing the legislative and executive excesses of the Bush administration, and presecuting torturers. In fact, it must do this, to restore America’s moral standing with the world.
6. Finally, she raises the bar to “conscious law-breaking.” This is not necessary. Someone who tortures another, relying upon orders, or legal memos, still is guilty. It is time to remember the Nuremburg principles, and seek justice for those who would throw out the law and morality in pursuing their agendas.
Torture is a crime against humanity. In the name of humanity, it must be punished by criminal trial.
1. She suggests that the threat of internal investigations or Congressional hearings would be effective deterrents. This would be laughable, if the subject were not so serious. The threat of criminal convictions and serious jail time is what is needed to deter those who would torture in the name of patriotism. Remember, this is a crime under both U.S. and international law. It is a crime against humanity. It is inexcusable for anyone, anywhere, to impose torture upon another. Indeed, the threat of punishment needs to be so strong and so credible, that those so inclined would fearfully resist the impulse. An internal investigation? A Congressional hearing? Not threats at all, as experienced under the Bush administration.
2. She suggests that the threat of criminal sanctions did not deter Bush officials anyway. Right: it is actual swift convictions and sentences which would provide the deterrent, not the possibility of someday facing the consequences.
3. She suggests stronger oversight to prevent torture. This is both after the fact and too late, and lacking in penalty: what would the oversight group do, but perhaps censure the torturers? Again, this is not enough.
4. She suggests that the costs of criminal prosecutions would be too high, and that officials could err on the side of excessive timidity. Given the choice between a tortured victim and a timid official, give me the timid official every time. There are some lines which should never be crossed. Torture is one such line.
5. She suggests that criminal prosecutions would drain energy from the new administration. Rather, I believe that the new administration is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time; it can pursue revitalizing the economy, undoing the legislative and executive excesses of the Bush administration, and presecuting torturers. In fact, it must do this, to restore America’s moral standing with the world.
6. Finally, she raises the bar to “conscious law-breaking.” This is not necessary. Someone who tortures another, relying upon orders, or legal memos, still is guilty. It is time to remember the Nuremburg principles, and seek justice for those who would throw out the law and morality in pursuing their agendas.
Torture is a crime against humanity. In the name of humanity, it must be punished by criminal trial.
A radical fix for housing and the economy
It is time to go further than the current discussion and programs to help America's home owners in a meaningful way. Here is one idea, which would cost the public nothing, and put money into people's pockets for years to come.
We need federal legislation to reset every primary home mortgage in the country to a 4 1/2 % interest rate for the balance of the loans.
This would apply to current long-term mortgages, and convert every adjustable rate mortgage to a 30-year term fixed rate. Lenders would have to redo the mortgage papers at no cost to the borrowers.
In addition, no new adjustable rate mortgages would be allowed, and all new mortgages for the next two years, at least, would be at the same 4 1/2 % 30 year interest rate.
Thus, the industry which created the mess would have to absorb some losses of income, but the home owners would have lower monthly payments, and a better chance of staying in their homes. Foreclosures would be much less likely. The housing sector would be stabilized, at last.
We need federal legislation to reset every primary home mortgage in the country to a 4 1/2 % interest rate for the balance of the loans.
This would apply to current long-term mortgages, and convert every adjustable rate mortgage to a 30-year term fixed rate. Lenders would have to redo the mortgage papers at no cost to the borrowers.
In addition, no new adjustable rate mortgages would be allowed, and all new mortgages for the next two years, at least, would be at the same 4 1/2 % 30 year interest rate.
Thus, the industry which created the mess would have to absorb some losses of income, but the home owners would have lower monthly payments, and a better chance of staying in their homes. Foreclosures would be much less likely. The housing sector would be stabilized, at last.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Screening Agency Leaders
The transition to a new administration requires a close look at agency Senior Executives, many of whom already are flooding the transition team with endorsements from interest groups.
In addition to the usual reference checks, here are two suggestions for the transition team:
1. Ask the agency staff for input on managers’ leadership skills: (1) can they manage projects and people effectively; (2) do they support their staff; (3) are they innovative; and (4) are they fair. These few questions will expose both talents and faults rapidly.
2. Reject the conventional wisdom about how hard it is to remove poor managers. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which created the Senior Executive Service, gave the administration the tool: after the 120 day transition period, Senior Executives can be asked to relocate geographically, with two weeks’ notice. If they refuse, they have to leave the service, and revert to a lower GS position. A select number of such actions would send a powerful message to all executives.
In addition to the usual reference checks, here are two suggestions for the transition team:
1. Ask the agency staff for input on managers’ leadership skills: (1) can they manage projects and people effectively; (2) do they support their staff; (3) are they innovative; and (4) are they fair. These few questions will expose both talents and faults rapidly.
2. Reject the conventional wisdom about how hard it is to remove poor managers. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which created the Senior Executive Service, gave the administration the tool: after the 120 day transition period, Senior Executives can be asked to relocate geographically, with two weeks’ notice. If they refuse, they have to leave the service, and revert to a lower GS position. A select number of such actions would send a powerful message to all executives.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Hot buttons
In the last stretch of the campaign, Mr. McCain and his friends have been reaching for long discredited hot button slogans to energize his base. Just as his prior efforts to sling mud have not worked well, it appears that this new and desperate attack will fall short.
Still, one should note some of the problems with his language.
“Redistributing the wealth” is a bad thing, and sounds like “socialism.” Well, Mr. McCain, a progressive income tax has been part of our system for a really long time. You might even remember when it was established. At one time, the marginal tax rate on the very rich was 90%. More recently it was at 50% before reforms brought it down below 40%.
And why is progressivity reasonable? Our social compact and sense of mutual responsibility calls for those who can afford it to pay proportionately more than those who cannot. Do you really think that if multimillionaires paid a few hundred thousand dollars more in taxes, they would stop investing and trying to make more money? I doubt it. No, I suspect that you just are continuing the Republican tradition of trying to make the rich richer, at the expense of everyone else.
Extending the Bush tax cuts rewards the rich and punishes the rest of us. Is this how you fight for the regular guy?
Government itself is a mechanism for redistributing the wealth. We take income and reallocate it to national priorities, like defense, infrastructure, food safety, environmental protection and the like. Are you really a closet anarchist who wants no taxes and everyone on their own? If not, what level of taxes would be your bottom line? When would you stop cutting taxes? Would you limit the national government to the common defense and nothing else? If not, what else?
As for socialism, you certainly are aware of the Veteran’s hospital system. This is a government funded health care system, which competes with the private sector. One could call it socialism for the military. If you were consistent, shouldn’t you call for the abolition of this system? Will you? I doubt it.
In addition, isn’t the recent bail out of the financial system a socialist act? Getting the government into the heart of the business world? As one who believes in deregulation and the self-correcting nature of the free market system, shouldn’t you be calling to let the chips fall where they may, even if banks and companies go bankrupt in the process? The market will respond to consumer demand, even as individual companies fail, right?
As for Joe the plumber, whose name is not Joe and who is not a plumber, why do you continue the lie about Mr. Obama’s tax cuts, which you call a tax increase? If you simply say that meeting all his promises will require a tax increase, doesn’t this argument apply to you, too? Or, will you continue the Bush policy of spending money now by borrowing from the future, asking current voters to pay nothing more? Is this a responsible act, mortgaging our future, and burdening our children and grandchildren?
Enough. I’d respect the old McCain, who opposed the Bush tax cuts and supported some semblance of sound immigration policy. But that man has been eaten by the radical right of the Republican party. R.I.P.
Still, one should note some of the problems with his language.
“Redistributing the wealth” is a bad thing, and sounds like “socialism.” Well, Mr. McCain, a progressive income tax has been part of our system for a really long time. You might even remember when it was established. At one time, the marginal tax rate on the very rich was 90%. More recently it was at 50% before reforms brought it down below 40%.
And why is progressivity reasonable? Our social compact and sense of mutual responsibility calls for those who can afford it to pay proportionately more than those who cannot. Do you really think that if multimillionaires paid a few hundred thousand dollars more in taxes, they would stop investing and trying to make more money? I doubt it. No, I suspect that you just are continuing the Republican tradition of trying to make the rich richer, at the expense of everyone else.
Extending the Bush tax cuts rewards the rich and punishes the rest of us. Is this how you fight for the regular guy?
Government itself is a mechanism for redistributing the wealth. We take income and reallocate it to national priorities, like defense, infrastructure, food safety, environmental protection and the like. Are you really a closet anarchist who wants no taxes and everyone on their own? If not, what level of taxes would be your bottom line? When would you stop cutting taxes? Would you limit the national government to the common defense and nothing else? If not, what else?
As for socialism, you certainly are aware of the Veteran’s hospital system. This is a government funded health care system, which competes with the private sector. One could call it socialism for the military. If you were consistent, shouldn’t you call for the abolition of this system? Will you? I doubt it.
In addition, isn’t the recent bail out of the financial system a socialist act? Getting the government into the heart of the business world? As one who believes in deregulation and the self-correcting nature of the free market system, shouldn’t you be calling to let the chips fall where they may, even if banks and companies go bankrupt in the process? The market will respond to consumer demand, even as individual companies fail, right?
As for Joe the plumber, whose name is not Joe and who is not a plumber, why do you continue the lie about Mr. Obama’s tax cuts, which you call a tax increase? If you simply say that meeting all his promises will require a tax increase, doesn’t this argument apply to you, too? Or, will you continue the Bush policy of spending money now by borrowing from the future, asking current voters to pay nothing more? Is this a responsible act, mortgaging our future, and burdening our children and grandchildren?
Enough. I’d respect the old McCain, who opposed the Bush tax cuts and supported some semblance of sound immigration policy. But that man has been eaten by the radical right of the Republican party. R.I.P.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)