Image 01

Archive for March, 2010

February 2010: Largest Monthly Budget Deficit in American History

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

President Barack Obama's government has run up the largest budget deficit in American history in February of 2010

As shown in a little-noticed release from the Treasury Department today, the Obama Administration has run up the largest budget deficit in American history in February of 2010, a whopping total of $220.9 Billion in just one month.   February 2010’s unprecedented total is more than most year-long budget deficits in American history,  including 2007’s year-long total of $161 Billion. AP reports in this historic monthly deficit:
 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year’s record for the full year.

The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.

The deficit through the first five months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.

The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year’s $1.4 trillion total. The administration is forecasting that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2011, giving the country thrree straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.

The government’s monthly budget report showed the record $220.9 billion deficit for February reflected outlays of $328.4 billion and revenues of $107.5 billion. The February receipts marked the first time that revenues are up compared with the same month a year ago since April 2008. Revenues had fallen for 21 straight months as the recession cut into both individual and corporate income tax payments.

As President Obama and Congressional Democrats continue with their primary focus on passing Obamacare, considering the attendant increased government spending included therein, February 2010 may not have the record for largest monthly deficit in American history for very long.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Eight Day Obamacare Endgame Begins as Obama Job Approval Reaches New Lows

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

The Next Eight Days Will Perhaps Decide Whether Obamacare Passes

After over a year of wrangling, and repeated pronouncements of an “endgame” from President Barack Obama, his senior advisors, and Congressional Democratic leaders at regular intervals from July of 2009 to present, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democratic leadership are settling on a March 18 deadline for House passage of Obamacare.    As today’s news sinks in, President Barack Obama is facing a low ebb of job approval in his Presidency so far, with just 48% (one point off all-time low) of registered voters approving in Gallup’s numbers today and just 43% (all-time low) of likely voters approving in today’s Rasmussen polling.   Considering this slide in approval as the focus on health care intensifies, the Obama Administration’s desire to have the big House vote sooner rather than later, and come what may, makes sense politically as the White House can then move to a popular jobs focus immediately even in the aftermath of a health care defeat.

As for the pronouncement that the debate is over itself, perhaps this claim should viewed with caution, considering the prior numerous pronouncements. President Obama got into the act on Monday, again declaring that the time for debate over health care is over, while attacking GOP opponents of Obamacare:

Congress “owes the American people a final up or down vote on health care. It’s time to make a decision,” he told an enthusiastic crowd at Arcadia University near Philadelphia. “Stand with me and fight with me. … Let’s seize reform. It’s within our grasp.”

The administration is ramping up its health care push in the coming weeks. The White House has called for legislation to be on the president’s desk at the end of March before the congressional Easter vacation.

Insurance companies, the president argued, have made a calculation. He cited a recent Goldman Sachs conference call in which an insurance broker told investors that insurers are willing to lose some customers through premium hikes because of an overall lack of competition in the industry.

“They will keep doing this for as long as they can get away with it,” Obama said. “How much higher do premiums have to rise until we do something about it? How many more Americans have to lose their health insurance? How many more businesses have to drop coverage?”

Obama dismissed GOP criticism that his nearly $1 trillion proposal fails to control spiraling medical costs.

“You had 10 years,” Obama said in reference to GOP control of Congress. “What were you doing?”

Washington is “obsessed with the sport of politics,” he said. “We have debated health care in Washington for more than a year. … When’s the right time? If not now, when? If not us, who?”

Speaking of the “sport of politics”, six months ago, President Obama said almost exactly the same thing while also demonizing opponents:

CINCINNATI – In a combative Labor Day speech, President Barack Obama said the health care debate had gone on too long and accused opponents of spreading “lies” meant to convince Americans that his proposed overhaul would cruelly deny care to the elderly.

The president, speaking at an AFL-CIO picnic, said that “special interests” were determined to “scare the heck out of people.”

“I’ve got a question for all these folks who say, you know, we’re going to pull the plug on Grandma and this is all about illegal immigrants – you’ve heard all the lies,” Obama said. “I’ve got a question for all those folks: What are you going to do? What’s your answer? What’s your solution? And you know what? They don’t have one.”

The president seemed eager to recapture some of the enthusiasm that propelled him during his campaign. A prolonged recession has sapped morale, he said, as have pundits who warn that “this isn’t working and that’s not working.”

But his overriding message in Cincinnati was that health care discussions needed to end. In making that case, he was rejecting a Republican suggestion that he “reset” health care negotiations and start anew.

Obama said “every debate at some point comes to an end. At some point, it’s time to decide. At some point, it’s time to act.”

In between the twin Obama speeches in March 2010 and September 2009 which demand an end to the health care debate while attacking opponents, the White House orchestrated a health care summit with the GOP, with much fanfare, where Obama and the Democrats spoke for about four hours and the GOP spoke for two hours about areas of agreement on health care reform. Many of the points of agreement were outlined on this site before the summit. At the end of the summit, Obama promised to work with Republicans on those points of agreement for “a months time or a few weeks time or six weeks time” before pushing through a partisan Democratic plan:

Obama says there probably won’t be another summit due to the time it requires, but says “we cannot have another year-long debate about this.”

“The question that I’m going to ask myself and I ask of all of you is, ‘Is there enough serious effort that in a months time or a few weeks time or six weeks time, we could actually decide something?’ And if we can’t, I think we’ve got to go ahead and make some decisions and then that’s what elections are for.”

Just six days after the President’s health care summit, Obama ended any hope of a bipartisan deal by “calling for an ‘up or down vote’ within weeks under rules denying Republicans the ability to kill the bill with mere talk” according to the AP.

With all of the political back and forth behind us, now Americans can focus on what will amount to one of the most important votes in the House of Representatives in American history, set to take place not later than eight days from today. Folks on both sides of the debate, for or against Obamacare, should make their views known to their Congressperson by calling, mailing, emailing or otherwise communicating with their local representatives. Folks who are looking to support Obamacare can look here for numbers of to call and other information. Folks who are looking to oppose Obamacare can look here for numbers to call and other information. We are in a truly historic period over the next week or so and all Americans should pay attention and make their views known.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Breaking: White House: Pass Obamacare Now or Its Dead; Dems Scramble Behind Closed Doors to Write Final Bill

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

President Obama and Congressional Democrats are scrambling to draft yet another version of Obamacare to assist House passage of Obamacare by the White House deadline of March 18, 2010

Fox News is reporting, building on prior AP reporting, that the White House has today increased pressure on Democrats in Congress, especially the House Democrats, putting out word that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats must either pass Obamacare through the House of Representatives now, before the Easter recess begins on March 18, 2010, or the entire effort at comprehensive health care reform will die.

Over the past few days, the White House has indicated it wants a vote in the House by March 18, and Congressional Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have resisted agreeing to any deadline. However, with the new, increased pressure today, Congressional Democratic sources say that they are “on the same page” as the White House:

A House Democratic leadership source tells Fox there is something approaching convergence on the White House’s March 18 deadline for a vote on the Senate health care bill.

“Everyone is now on same page,” the leadership source said about the March 18 deadline. “We understand the White House believes that would be optimal timing. But they understand we are not wedding ourselves to any deadlines.”

With today’s developments, it now appears that the year-long health care debate finally has a date certain where either Obamacare will pass or it will not, and that deadline appears to March 18, 2010. The next eight days may decide the historical trajectory of the United States, as strict federal control over the entire health care delivery system, 16% of the US Economy, will surely substantially alter the direction of the American economy and political system for decades to come.

Ironically, after over a year of debate over health care reform, and lots of talk regarding cooperation between President Obama/Democratic Congressional Leadership and the GOP on writing the final version of the bill at the health care summit 10 days ago, Democrats continue to scramble behind closed doors to write a final version to the liking of Democrats in Congress. Of course, no Republicans are involved in any way with these last minute drafting efforts by Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership, despite the clear preference of the American people for such joint drafting to occur. Fox News’s Major Garrett describes the frantic backroom drafting occurring now:

In reality, the White House isn’t budging and the House Democratic leadership is trying. But it can’t vote on the Senate bill until it has a fully drafted and CBO (Congressional Budget Office)-scored bill to “fix” the Senate bill’s imperfections.

But the so-called “fix” bill isn’t ready and there is no expectation CBO will deliver preliminary cost estimates Wednesday. That pushes the schedule back because House Democratic leaders cannot begin the final whip process (counting “yes” and “no” votes) until it has a full “fix” bill with a concrete CBO score on costs, revenues and deficit implications.

In other words, there’s a lot of work left to be done and not much time to finish it. What may well be happening is House Democrats and the White House are agreeing to disagree — on the timing, not the objective.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Unemployment Surges, Reaches All-Time High in 5 States in January 2010

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Unemployment Rose in 30 States in January 2010

Despite the claims of various politicians in Washington, D.C. that the recession is over and a recovery is well underway, unemployment continues to surge throughout the United States, as shown in the release of detailed information today by the Labor Department regarding the January 2010 jobs situation.    While 30 states reported an increase in the unemployment rate, five states reached all-time highs in unemployment rates:

Unemployment rose in most states in January—even breaking records in several states, according to government data released Wednesday.

Joblessness in five states—California (12.5 percent), South Carolina (12.6 percent) , Florida (11.9 percent), Georgia (10.4 percent) and North Carolina (11.1 percent)—hit a record high. The District of Columbia, at 12.0 percent, also reached a record high.

In all, 30 states and the District of Columbia saw their rates increase in January over the previous month. Nine states reported a decrease and 11 states had no change in their unemployment, according to the Labor Department.

One disquieting, and unreported, detail of the extended January 2010 report is that all of the above numbers are “adjusted” figures and actual unemployment is actually higher. Overall, the American job market appears to be “frozen”:

“It shows that the labor market is virtually frozen,” said Nick Colas, chief market strategist at the ConvergEx Group. Although the data is from January, he said that “there has not been any dramatic change in these past six weeks.”

Many economists and other observers have pointed to the uncertainty caused by the push to fundamentally alter the health care delivery system by the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress as a potential cause of this “frozen” labor market. Business owners and operators, both small and large businesses, are less likely to hire new employees while facing potential higher costs in the near term from a possible employer mandate and associated tax on employers who do not provide health coverage to employees.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has famously claimed, with no discernible substantive basis other than a far left wing think tank report, that passing Obamacare through Congress will “almost immediately” result in a gain of 400,000 jobs in America, with 4 million jobs to be created overall by Obamacare. Even Obama-worshipper and Washington Post writer Charles Lane admits Pelosi’s claim is ludicrous, especially considering the main cost-cutting mechanism, the so-called “cadillac tax”, has been removed until 2018 at earliest, hence postponing any job creation gains from lower health care costs well beyond “almost immediately”:

Here’s my problem, though: For Pelosi’s scenario to pan out, health-care reform must actually produce substantial cost savings. And that is more doubtful now that President Obama has offered a version that postpones the strongest cost-containment provision in the Senate bill — the “Cadillac tax” on high-value insurance plans — until 2018. That’s like postponing it this long. The president did this largely to appease organized labor and their allies in the House Democratic caucus — led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Such claims by Speaker Pelosi are especially odd in light of her statement yesterday that its uncertain what is actually in the bill as she advised reporters that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Regardless, considering the uncertainty and outright hostility being generated amongst business owners about the Democratic health care reform efforts, it is much more likely that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created in America if the partisan effort to comprehensively reform health care is officially shelved by President Obama. Providing this certainty to business owners of the future near term cost of hiring an employee, and not increasing such costs and federal regulatory liability as Obamacare would, could be the single greatest thing Washington, D.C. could do to help the American unemployed find a new job.

Indeed, average Americans overwhelmingly agree with this proposition, as recent CNN polling shows 73% want Obama and the Dems to either stop or start over instead of passing the present comprehensive plan and yesterday’s AP polling shows 68% want Obama and the Dems to continue to work with the GOP to make a deal instead of pushing through the present comprehensive plan without GOP support. A full 57% of Americans believe that Obamacare will hurt the economy – just 25% think it will help. It appears to us that the intuition of the American people and the great center of America have correctly determined that the giant new federal bureaucracy and new federal taxes associated with Obamacare would be a drag, if not an anchor, on the efforts of businesses to rebuild their workforces and the economy as a whole to recover.

Perhaps President Obama, Congressional Democratic leaders and the GOP leadership will all decide that the needs of the American people, regarding jobs and the economy, are more important that scoring political points (and “historical” ones for liberals) over health care reform and immediately shelve the present plan and pass centrist health care reform that would both help some uninsured, reduce costs and provide confidence to business owners so that hiring can begin again.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

All Out Media Assault on Eric Massa as Beck Interview Approaches

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

Former Democratic House Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) Is Under All-Out Assault from the Establishment Media Today

As the hours count down until Glenn Beck uses his 3-4 million viewer platform today to amplify now-resigned Democratic House Rep. Eric Massa’s (D-NY) sensational claims that the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress forced him out of Congress over his opposition to Obamacare, the left-leaning establishment media is engaging in all-out effort to completely destroy Eric Massa in the eyes of the public.   A common beneficiary of Obama White House and Congressional Democratic leaks, the Washington Post, has just gone up with a new story alleging that Massa is under investigation for “groping” several male staffers:

Former Rep. Eric Massa has been under investigation for allegations that he groped multiple male staffers working in his office, according to three sources familiar with the probe.

The allegations surrounding the New York Democrat date back at least a year, and involve “a pattern of behavior and physical harassment,” according to one source. The new claims of alleged groping contradict statements by Massa, who resigned his office on Monday after it became public that he was the subject of a House ethics committee investigation for possible harassment.

Massa had said that the allegations were limited to his use of “salty language” with his staff. He apologized for making some inappropriate comments and argued he was being unfairly villified. Days later, Massa accused the White House and Democratic congressional leaders of trying to oust him from office to improve their chances of passing health care reform legislation. Massa could not be reached for comment Tuesday, and no one answered the phone at his home in New York or his campaign office. Staff at his former congressional offices declined to relay messages to him and said they did not know how to reach him.

CNN and MSNBC have been keeping up a steady hourly diet of attacks on Eric Massa all day long, at times asserting he is simply crazy, had “snapped” from the pressure, was “silly” or “ridiculous” or was just lying about the Obama Administration and Congressional Democratic leadership just to save his own skin. Considering Massa was fully embraced by such left-leaning media outlets in the recent past, the latest harsh, anonymously-sourced attacks are all the more jarring. The leaks from Democratic sources on the House Ethics Committee or perhaps the White House, published at 2:49PM today, up the ante somewhat as they attempt to paint Massa as a serial sexual harasser of male staffers based on anonymous sources. All told, the mainstream media appears to be reading directly from White House talking points on Massa, as repeated again by the Washington Post in today’s article:

Also on Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed Massa’s charges of a conspiracy to force him from office as “silly and ridiculous” in an appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America. He urged looking at Massa’s erratic and changing statements about why he was resigning office.

“Last week, he, on Wednesday, was having a recurrence of cancer. On Thursday, he was guilty of using salty language. On Friday, we learned he’s before the Ethics Committee to be investigated on charges of sexual harassment,”Gibbs said. “So, look, I think, clearly, his actions appear to be in the appropriate venue in the Ethics Committees to look at, but we’re focused not on crazy allegations but instead on making this system work for the American people rather than work for insurance companies.”

It is unusual for specific details of Congressional ethics investigations to be leaked so widely, especially in seeming direct, immediate response to the member’s public comments, as the leaks to the Washington Post appear to be in response to Massa’s comments yesterday. Regardless, today’s interview on Glenn Beck’s show is certain to drive the news cycle this evening and perhaps into tomorrow as the Obama Administration and Congressional Democratic leadership struggle to find the votes to push Obamacare through Congress before the Easter recess.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gallup: GOP Dominating Voter Enthusiasm for 2010 Elections; UPDATE: Left Wing Bloggers Sound Alarm

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

The GOP Holds a Substantial Edge Amongst Enthusiastic Voters Heading into the November 2010 Elections

Gallup is out with a new poll today regarding the upcoming 2010 midterm elections of about 1500 registered voters over the first week of March 2010.  The most significant finding from the polling is that the Republican-supporting voters are substantially more enthusiastic than Democrat-supporting voters, with a full 18 point gap between the parties amongst those “very enthusiastic” about voting in 2010.   The Gallup release, of course, buries the lede by trumpeting in its headline and throughout its release that the Democrats hold a slim 47% to 44% lead amongst all registered voters, while failing to even release its views on the likely voter turnout split.    Gallup’s release:

PRINCETON, NJ — Democrats lead Republicans by a slight 47% to 44% margin when registered voters are asked which party’s congressional candidate they would support in their district “if the elections for Congress were being held today.”At the same time, Gallup’s inaugural weekly tracking update on the 2010 elections shows Republicans with a distinct advantage over Democrats in terms of enthusiasm about voting this year.

While Gallup alludes in its opening paragraph to significant GOP strength in likely voters, nowhere in its release does Gallup actually state its findings on the margin between the parties amongst likely voters. Other pollsters have released numbers regarding the 2010 preferences of likely voters and have found a small but consistent GOP lead: Rasmussen Reports (GOP +8, 44/36) , James Carville’s Democracy Corps (GOP +3, 47/44), Democratic pollster PPP (GOP +3, 43/30), GOP pollster McLaughlin Group (GOP +7, 47/40) are examples. Gallup breaks out its “enthusiasm” numbers in detail instead:

Republican-leaning Voters Have an 18 Point Enthusiasm Advantage over their Democratic counterparts Regarding Voting in November 2010

Gallup’s reported enthusiasm gap, eighteen points amongst those “very enthusiastic” to vote in November 2010 and fourteen points amongst all those either “very” or “somewhat” enthusiastic about voting, almost certainly translates into a lead of at least a few points for the GOP amongst “likely” voters instead of the broader registered voters metric. As noted above, other pollsters, even those from the left, back up those conclusions about likely voters.

Another final warning sign for Democrats regarding turnout in the Gallup report relates to young voters – who apparently are not too enthusiastic about voting in November 2010. Gallup dryly notes that the “apparent lack of motivation to vote — if it continues until Election Day — could deprive Democrats of the full benefit they could in theory derive if all 18- to 29-year-olds were to vote.” Well, of course the Democrats would benefit if all young voters were to turn out in November 2010 – Gallup’s restatement of this fact is another example of Gallup’s attempt to spin the very negative data produced by their polling.   Indeed, if all over 65 voters “were to vote”, the Republican Party would gain a significant benefit because older voters are trending GOP, especially now as a strong majority of older voters oppose the Democratic comprehensive health care reform plans.

Young Voters Are Not Enthusiastic About Voting in November 2010, Especially When Compared to Older Voters

To summarize, Gallup findings, as buttressed by James Carville’s Democracy Corps polling, Democratic pollster PPP’s polling, GOP pollster McLaughlin Group’s polling, and Rasmussen Report’s polling, clearly indicate that the GOP is in a strong position to make significant gains in the November 2010 elections because Republican-leaning voters are much more likely to vote than Democrat-leaning voters. As the health care reform endgame plays out this week and next in Washington, this batch of polling data will undoubtedly be a topic of discussion for politicians of all stripes as decision time on their individual votes draws near.

UPDATE: While the establishment media has had little to say about the results of this Gallup survey and the supporting data from other pollsters, left wing bloggers are today sounding the alarm about the paucity of Democratic enthusiasm to vote in November 2010. Of course, the left wing spin on these numbers is that the Democrats must ram through the unpopular comprehensive health care reform bill to remedy the problem:

Only twenty four percent of Dems and Dem leaners — that would be less than one fourth — are “very enthusiastic” about voting in 2010. And a startlingly high 44%, nearly half, are “not enthusiastic.”

Meanwhile, 42% of Republican voters are very enthusiastic, versus only 30% who are not enthusiastic. Those are more or less mirror images of each other. Indeed, the percentage of Dems who are not enthusiastic is almost exactly the same as the percentage of Republicans who are very enthusiastic!

One other clear measure of how much the bloom is off the Obama rose: Only 20% of voters 18-29 are very enthusiastic.

Dems might want to think about giving their base voters something to get enthusiastic about. Maybe a health care reform signing ceremony in the Rose Garden, perhaps? It’s hard to picture these enthusiasm numbers getting worse for Dems, but imagine if reform failed!

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FDIC Playing With Fire by Soliciting State Pension Money to Buy Toxic Assets

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

The FDIC's New Policy of Soliciting State Pension Plans to Pour Hard Cash into Purchases of Failed Bank Assets Takes Shape

The Federal Deposit Insurance Company (“FDIC”) has recently initiated a risky new policy: soliciting and facilitating public pension fund purchases of failed bank assets that are presently on the FDIC’s balance sheet after seizure. Apparently, the FDIC’s fund is deep into the red (over $20 billion), and a decision has been made to tap the two trillion dollars in public pension funds around America to take “toxic assets” off the FDIC books and replenish the FDIC’s fund, thereby relieving the pressure on the FDIC . Bloomberg reports:

March 8 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is trying to encourage public retirement funds that control more than $2 trillion to buy all or part of failed lenders, taking a more direct role in propping up the banking system, said people briefed on the matter.

Direct investments may allow funds such as those in Oregon, New Jersey and California to cut fees for private-equity managers, and the agency to get better prices for distressed assets, the people said. They declined to be identified because talks with regulators are confidential.

Pension funds, of course, are designed to provide funds for workers as they retire and such funds are capitalized by withholding from worker paychecks, and in the case of public pension funds, from government worker paychecks. The first state pension fund to actually pour money into FDIC-held failed bank assets pursuant to the FDIC’s solicitations could be the State of Oregon, ponying up $100 million in perhaps the first deal of many to come. Jay Fewel, a senior investment officer at the Oregon State Treasury, confirmed that bank regulators are looking for “the support of state pension funds to solve the crisis surrounding ongoing bank failures”. The Oregonian explains the familiar “get rich quick” sales pitch being served up by the FDIC and investment bankers looking to leverage state pension fund money:

In a deal being pitched as a home-run investment opportunity for the state pension fund, Oregon’s public pensioners may be about to buy stakes in several of the 700 troubled banks around the country that are wallowing in bad loans.

The citizen’s council that oversees the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund gave its approval last week — subject to final fee negotiations — to invest $100 million in a bank holding company being organized by Sageview Capital, whose partners bring deep experience in the world of leveraged buyouts.

According to a presentation to the Oregon Investment Council by Harrison and Sageview partner Scott Stuart, the FDIC is so anxious to recapitalize troubled banks that it is willing to cover 80 to 95 percent of buyers’ loan losses as well as the costs incurred in restructuring loans.

That’s a potentially lucrative deal for discount bidders who can clean up problem loans and get the bank into growth mode before selling it. Stuart suggested that it wasn’t unrealistic to think Oregon could double its money over several years.

“The government is handing out free money,” enthused council member Dick Solomon, a Portland accountant. “Maybe we should get in line.”

So a “desperate” FDIC is facilitating a private equity firm’s solicitation of Oregon state pension fund money to purchase failed bank assets off of the FDIC’s books. Oregon may be the first in a long line of state pension funds who jump at chance to get in on the FDIC action as the “government is handing out free money”. Such sentiments are almost certainly unrealistic, and fantasy claims that a state pension fund “could double its money over several years” could be relied upon by state pension funds, like Oregon’s, New Jersey’s and California’s, to justify pouring massive portions of the hard cash under their control into FDIC-solicited failed bank asset purchases.

Apparently the FDIC likes the idea of selling failed bank assets off to state pension funds because such government pension funds have a “longer [time] horizon” and won’t be concerned about losses in the next decade or so:

Private-equity managed funds typically promise they’ll return funds to their investors in about 10 years. Pension funds are aiming to fund retirements that are decades away and thus can hold on to investments longer, which would help ease the FDIC’s concern, said one of the people.

FDIC guarantees may soften the risk of investing public pension money in distressed banks, Whalen said. When the FDIC sells a failed bank, it typically shares a portion of the loan losses.

“Financially sophisticated people do not assume that banks have recognized all of their real estate losses,” Kramer said, adding that it can still be a bad deal if a buyer overpays for a deposit franchise or if loans perform worse than expected. “We are in the early innings for commercial real estate.”

It appears that the FDIC is trying to avoid selling to private-only funds, who are looking at a 10 year investment window, and instead sell to public pensions, which “are aiming to fund retirements that are decades away and thus can hold on to investments longer, which would help ease the FDIC’s concern”.

Reading between the lines, it appears that the FDIC knows it cannot sell certain failed bank assets to private equity funds because such private firms won’t buy at the higher prices the FDIC wants as the 10-year return on investment is unattractive to private investors.  State pension funds, however, are great because they don’t care about a 10-year return;  instead, they’re only worried about “decades away” valuation and accordingly can be solicited to buy some of the FDIC’s failed bank assets at higher prices than private-only funds.

This conduct by the FDIC is quite risky to the solvency of public pension funds as even the failed bank assets already marked down on the FDIC books now could fall further if the commercial real estate market deteriorates further, which some see as likely in 2010 and beyond.   Indeed, the entire new policy of the FDIC to solicit government pension fund money into the risky proposition of buying up failed bank assets could be seen as attempting to tap into the “equity” of the United States (2 trillion in public pension funds) to cover bad debt that no one else will buy.   Zero Hedge is also concerned about this possible new trend in FDIC solicitation of public pension money:

My thoughts on public pension funds investing in failed banks? I think any way they do it, it’s a recipe for disaster. I can just see the private equity sharks raising funds to bid on failed banks. And even if pension funds take direct control of these failed banks, do they really know what’s lurking on their books and how to operate a bank? I shudder to think at what will happen to these investments if we enter a protracted period of weakness in commercial real estate.

Another independent expert, Chris Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics of Torrance, California, sees unnecessary risk for state pension funds in any FDIC purchase deal. Regarding failed bank assets, Whalen notes that

“If they are really interested in playing this area, they should put their money into a larger bank that’s already playing here,” Whalen said. “If you look at the risk-reward and the distraction involved, it’s not worth it” to back a new bank, he said.

Another financial expert, Richard Suttmeier, points out that a reasonable solution to the FDIC fund shortfall is to use repaid TARP funds from the big banks to replenish the fund.   The problem of finding hard cash to purchase “toxic assets” that remain after a bank’s failure continues to lurk in the background as the elephant in the room.  Sadly, voices of reason like Whalen’s and Suttmeier’s will probably be drowned out by exuberant claims of “free money” and “double its money” from the private hedge fund managers looking for state pension fund clients and from the FDIC in its desperation to find new sources of hard cash to take those infamous “toxic assets” off of the FDIC’s hands.  One can only hope that FDIC’s  momentous decision to tap the 2 trillion in state pension fund money to buy up toxic assets will garner some public attention and debate as the implications for millions of state and local workers could reverberate for years to come.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama 2007: Vote for Me over Hillary Because I Won’t Use Reconciliation on Health Care

Monday, March 8th, 2010

In 2007, Barack Obama argued that primary voters should support him because he would not use reconciliation on health care reform, but Hillary Clinton is.

A little-known interview in 2007 by Barack Obama supplies some fresh evidence of President Barack Obama’s shifting views on the use of reconciliation to pass comprehensive health care reform. Now, in 2010, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have settled upon a plan to pass Obamacare via the use of reconciliation in the Senate after a majority vote in the House. Back in 2007, candidate Obama actually used the issue of the use of reconciliation on health care reform as an example of what Hillary Clinton would do but Obama would not, concluding that folks should vote for Obama for this reason:

Obama was talking about the differences between himself and his then-opponent in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton.

I think it is legitimate at this point for me to explain very clearly to the American people why I think I will be a better president than Hillary Clinton, and to draw contrasts,” Obama said.

“But that’s very different from this sort of slash-and-burn politics that I think we’ve become accustomed to. Look, part of the reason I’m running is not just to be president, it’s to get things done. And what I believe that means is we’ve got to break out of what I call, sort of, the 50-plus-one pattern of presidential politics. Which is, you have nasty primaries where everybody’s disheartened. Then you divide the country 45 percent on one side, 45 percent on the other, 10 percent in the middle — all of them apparently live in Florida and Ohio — and battle it out. And maybe you eke out a victory of 50-plus-one, but you can’t govern. I mean, you get Air Force One, there are a lot of nice perks to being president, but you can’t deliver on health care. We’re not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-one strategy. We’re not going to have a serious bold energy policy of the sort I proposed yesterday unless you build a working majority. And part of the task of building that working majority is to get people to believe in our government, that it can work, that it’s based on common sense, that it’s not just sort of scoring political points.

The interviewer then asked, “So is your answer to ‘Why I will be a better president than Hillary Clinton,’ is your answer that she’ll be a 50-plus-one president and you won’t?”

“Yes,” Obama said.

Even left-leaning Polifact, who collected the above Obama quotes in the wake of Glenn Beck’s partial airing of them last week, states that Obama has committed a complete flip flop on the use of reconciliation:

Obama may argue that he has tried to include Republicans, but that they have simply been unwilling to play ball. He also has noted that the first iteration of the health care bill passed the Senate with a supermajority. But the fact is, the health care bill is not getting any Republican support, and Obama is pressing forward with a plan to push through a health care plan without them, and without a 60-vote majority.

And we think the last quote, from 2005, is even more on point. Yes, Obama was speaking about the “nuclear option” as it related to judicial nominees, and not a reconciliation bill. But the principles are largely the same, especially as Obama noted that having simple “majoritarian” power in the Senate is “just not what the Founders intended.” And we think that’s enough to warrant a Full Flop.

Claim Token DU7VP976YUPB

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

51% of Americans Think America Less Respected Now than in 2008

Monday, March 8th, 2010

Senior Democratic Strategist James Carville released a poll today that shows 51% of Americans think America is less respected now than two years ago in 2008; 41% disagree

James Carville, senior Democratic pollster and strategist, released a new poll today from his Democracy Corp polling outfit with results generally in line with other pollsters, showing Obama’s approval at 49% while finding a 3 point edge for the GOP in the 2010 elections amongst likely voters. However, one finding stands out: Over half of all Americans believe that America is less respected by the world than two years ago in 2008.

The Democratic polling firm’s release states that “a 51 to 41 percent majority says the U.S. is less respected in the world than two years ago. This is surprising, given the global acclaim – and Nobel peace prize – that flowed to the new president after he took office.” This finding is particularly newsworthy because of the massive focus of the Obama Administration in their first 14 months on improving the image of the United States on the world stage. The Washington Times reports:

A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.

The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin — 51 percent to 41 percent — Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

Another finding of the Democracy Corps survey involves the overall handling of national security matters – a large gap has reemerged in the public’s mind, strongly favoring GOP handling of national security issues over Democrat:

While ratings for the president may be softening, his party is facing an even more troubling trend. When the questions move beyond the president to Democrats generally, we see that the public once again has real and rising doubts about the Democrats’ handling of national security issues, as compared to their faith in Republicans. This security gap, which has roots stretching back to Vietnam, was as wide as 29 points earlier in the decade. The deficit began to close in 2006, with the Bush administration’s catastrophic mismanagement of Iraq and other national security challenges. As public hopes about the Obama presidency rose and peaked, the gap all but vanished. Last May, Democracy Corps found Democrats essentially tied with Republicans (41 to 43 percent) on the question of which party would do a better job on national security.

But now the gap shows signs of re-opening, with Democrats trailing by 17 points, 33 to 50 percent on which party likely voters think would do the better job on national security. The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin.

While unpopular upon leaving office in January 2009, 51% of Americans now believe America was more respected in Bush's final full year of 2008 than now

It appears the so-called “security gap” is reasserting itself, as the public now prefers GOP handling of national security issues by a 17 point margin, 50%/33%, with independents going GOP by a whopping 36 point margin. While Obama’s personal ratings on national security are hovering around 50%, as noted by Democracy Corps, this new security gap may be a sign of trouble for Democrats leading into the 2010 election season.  The security gap, combined with the 51% of Americans who feel America is less respected now than in 2008, could be seen as polling evidence that the “Miss Me Yet” movement regarding George W. Bush has significant backing in security matters.

UPDATE: Hotair notes that Obama is also losing the public on the interrogation and prosecution policies regarding terrorists debate:

Fifty-seven percent of likely voters approve of Obama’s handling of national security—ten points higher than his general 47 percent approval rating, according to a new Democracy Corps/GQR/Third Way poll out Monday.

Where Obama loses: interrogation and prosecution of terrorism suspects, where a 51-44 percent majority disapproves. Republicans have hammered the administration for its decision to read the alleged Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights, and the poll results show the message is sticking…

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Confidence? White House says 49% Chance House Vote Fails

Monday, March 8th, 2010

President Barack Obama's White House Puts the Odds of House Passage of Obamacare at Even Money

Coming on the heels of the Massa Disaster and the Saigon analogy this morning, the NYT breaks another interesting comment from the White House this morning’s profile of Rahm Emanuel, essentially admitting that its an even-money bet as to whether Obama can force the House to pass Obamacare:

As Emanuel put it the morning of the Massachusetts election, the final judgments will depend on the final results. If the president and his chief of staff manage to salvage their ambitious campaign to overhaul health care in the next few weeks — a proposition the White House privately put at 51 percent as the month began, according to an official — then, as Emanuel said, they will be seen as smart all over again. But that 49 percent chance of failure could devastate Obama’s presidency, weaken Democrats heading into the fall midterm elections and trigger an even fiercer, more debilitating round of finger-pointing inside the administration.

The recent series of stories about Rahm has apparently angered Obama, according to the Times, which Politico notes spurred a Rahm apology:

Baker, who interviewed most of Emanuel’s inner circle, discovers that President Obama was, indeed, irked by a spate of stories defending Emanuel, including a recent Dana Milbank column that suggested the president would have been wiser to heed his underling’s advice on strategic decisions.

And Rahm seems to have apologized.

“As for Obama, ‘he’s irritated by the stories,’ a top aide told me, and Emanuel has ‘expressed regret’ to the president,’ Baker writes.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,