DOWNLOADS: (655)

PLAYS: (707)

Embed

Lots of Arizona politicians were upset by President Obama's speech on immigration last week, but apparently none more so than Crazy Sheriff Joe Arpaio:

Arpaio: Right now, because of that speech, we're going to get more and more people crossing that border. They want to get here quick so they become U.S. citizens if we have amnesty. So stay tuned for more people coming in because of the president speaking out.

Yeah, because all these people are coming here not for jobs and work but for citizenship and freebies and handouts, right?

Fact is, the economic downturn and the lack of jobs has dramatically slowed immigration rates for over a year now -- and it won't be rising because people watched Obama's speech. No doubt Arpaio is perfectly aware of this, but he has to keep coming up with justifications for his Bull Connor policies.

One hopes that DOJ investigation into his racial-profiling practices wraps up soon -- along with the FBI's abuse-of-power probe. He's been forestalling the inevitable for too long now.

A fellow blogger tipped me to this article in Business Insider that graphically represents just how wide the income gap has become. And it's simply staggering: The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the Roaring Twenties

Go take a look at the fifteen charts. And then tell me why we place so much trust in the free market system when it's clear it only works for a small percentage of Americans.

Deficits only seem to matter to anyone only when George Bush isn't president.

Ben Bernanke

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke warned Wednesday that Americans may have to accept higher taxes or changes in cherished entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security if the nation is to avoid staggering budget deficits that threaten to choke off economic growth.

"These choices are difficult, and it always seems easier to put them off -- until the day they cannot be put off anymore," Bernanke said in a speech. "But unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth."

His stern lecture came as the economy is emerging from the worst recession in years, sending the stock market up considerably over the past year and raising public hopes for a return to prosperity. But the economic downturn -- with tumbling tax revenue, aggressive stimulus spending and rising safety-net payments such as unemployment insurance -- has driven already large budget deficits to their highest level relative to the economy since the end of World War II. This has fueled public concern over how long the United States can sustain its fiscal policies.

The health-care bill signed by President Obama last month has further stoked the national debate over government entitlement programs, though the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that the legislation would actually reduce future deficits.

As Ezra writes, people seem to want the deficit reduced, but don't want to actually cut anything. It's not old news, but it makes for good TV and GOP talking points.

Kevin Drum adds:

Ah, the American public. God love 'em. The Economist asked if they'd rather tackle the federal deficit by cutting spending or raising taxes, and the runaway winner was cutting spending, by a margin of 62% to 5%. So what are we willing to cut? Answer: pretty much nothing.

As you can see, there wasn't one single area that even a third of the country wanted to cut back on. Except — hold on there! Down in the middle of the table. There is one area that everyone's willing to trim: foreign aid. Good 'ol foreign aid. A category that, as Roger McShane dryly points out, "makes up less than 1% of America's total spending."

Why do the Villagers ignore Dick Cheney saying that Reagan proved deficits don't matter?

[Treasury Secretary Paul] O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

The Great Torturer's words on deficit spending doesn't seem to resonate with the media, but when he talks about his love of torture, the Beltway's ears perk up.

If the Tea Party activists and Jim DeMint freaks really want to cut the deficit, then how about cutting defense spending? It's insane the amount of money that is getting shoved down the military pipeline. In 2011, we'll be spending $739 billion.

The money we spend on the two wars would practically pay for health care alone.

Might be time for Steve Poizner to come in from the campaign trail and have a look at the newest rate increases. According to the LA Times, the Gang of Five here in California is ganging up on small business owners with less than 50 employees.

Five major insurers in California's small-business market are raising rates 12% to 23% for firms with fewer than 50 employees, according to a survey by The Times.

Similar increases are being felt by many small businesses across the nation, including those in Texas, Ohio and Florida — mainly the result of escalating costs for medical care and pharmaceuticals, insurers say.

Insurers claim they either underpriced their policies or had unusually high claims.

Blue Shield, for example, said hospital charges rose nearly 20% last year, while physician costs and pharmaceutical fees increased almost as much. Anthem Blue Cross also cited the cost of medical care in explaining its average rate hikes of 13% this year.

"We understand that one group that has been most hard hit by the economic downturn of the past few years is the state's more than 3 million small businesses, who we all rely on to be major contributors to our local economy," Anthem spokeswoman Peggy Hinz said.

"We want to be competitive in the marketplace, but we also want to take care of our members," Hinz added. "We work each day to do both."

Forgive me if I'm skeptical of this. It seems suspect to me that the group slammed with high increases is the same group who is eligible for a Federal tax credit of up to 35%. Further, why wasn't that tax credit mentioned in any of the reports about the rate increases? The employers they use as examples are likely to be the same ones eligible for the 35% break.

Why not mention that in this context, LA Times?

I have heard anecdotal reports that health insurance agents here in California representing one of these companies are visiting small business clients and telling them the apocalypse is upon them. Statements range from claims of outlandish premium increases to the outright falsehood that employers will only have one plan to choose from after reform. They begin by informing employers who they finally managed to shift into high deductible plans with Health Savings Accounts that HSAs are dead. (They're not dead, just reduced to reflect improved insurance options).

By the time they're done, they've convinced these small business owners that Satan lives in the form of health care reform. This is no different than what they did when California passed laws limiting auto insurers' rate increases. While these stories are anecdotal and not indicative of a widespread policy on the part of those companies, it still strikes me as part of a larger strategy to undermine confidence in the health care reform law.

What we have here is a group hissy fit thrown by the insurers who, until now, have had complete freedom to raise rates and lower benefits at will. While increases may be warranted in some cases, there's no reason to believe they're warranted to this extent or only on this group. It seems to me they chose the most vulnerable and least powerful group to pick on.

Kevin Drum has exactly the right answer for the insurers' woes:

If conservatives want to avoid the specter of federally funded single-payer healthcare in the United States, this is what they need to come to terms with. Canada provides high quality healthcare for everyone — including small businesses and the elderly — for a cost per person of about $4,000 per year. Ditto for France and the Netherlands. Britain and Japan do it for about $3,000. Ann Terranova is being asked to pay more than $6,000 per person — and that's for three working-age employees.

Insurers know single payer is still a hammer over their heads. We're seeing Vermont adopt an experimental program with it now. If it's successful, I expect other states to try it. Here in California, it's only a governor's signature away, provided we actually elect the right Governor.

DOWNLOADS: (1009)

PLAYS: (2580)

Embed

[H/t Heather]

The Blonde Ghoul with whom media "news" shows seem to enjoy conversing suggests that there is no difference between the Iraq War and World War II. They're both wars, you see.

"Yeah, I think Iraq was an important war to fight, and like I say, I think we're enjoying the benefits of it now, thank you, George Bush!"

Besides the ridiculous simplification that Coulter makes here, the CRS projects the Iraq and Afghanstan War to top one trillion dollars by the end of this year. Added to the Bush tax cuts and recent economic downturn, President Obama got to inherit a staggering deficit that will take decades from which to recover. Then there's the 6300 dead coalition troops and 41,100 additional coalition casualties who have paid the price of fighting in the Middle East since 2001. As we watch Iraq turn into a Shia-dominated government that backs Iran's power plays in the region, condones continued sectarian violence, and (my favorite part) uses US foreign military sales to obtain M1 tanks and F16 planes (in addition to other "leave-behind" defense systems), we all get to say, "thank you, George Bush. May we have another?"

I assume the administration thinks they're doing the right thing by pouring billions into the banks, but things seem to be getting worse for everyone else, don't they?

A registered nurse came close to losing her $1,550-a-month apartment on the Upper East Side after being let go from two jobs in three months. A woman found herself dipping into a 401(k) to keep her $3,375 unit in Peter Cooper Village after her husband was laid off in February from his six-figure marketing job. A father of two with an M.B.A. and a law degree owed $5,400 in back rent in Stuyvesant Town after he struggled to find steady work and lent money to his wife’s family.

Lawyers, judges and tenant advocates say the staggering economy has sent an increasing number of middle-class renters across New York City to the brink of eviction, straining the legal and financial services of city agencies and charities. Suddenly, residents of middle-class havens like Rego Park in Queens and Riverdale in the Bronx are crowding into the city’s already burdened housing courts, long known as poor people’s court.

Even some affluent people in high-end places are finding themselves facing off with landlords. One man, laid off by Merrill Lynch, was forced to move out of his $5,700 apartment in TriBeCa, owing $20,000 in back rent. Todd Nahins, a lawyer who represents owners of luxury residential buildings, has been busy negotiating payment plans for tenants in arrears.

“There’s definitely an uptick of people who were basically very good rent payers until the economic downturn,” Mr. Nahins said. “There’s so many of them. People who at one point had made money are now not earning enough to pay their rent.”

I know in the ideal Republican world, only the children of the wealthy should be able to attend college, but the rest of us are worried about the effect the economy has on everyone's else's educational options. Looks like there are good reasons to worry:

Facing fallen endowments and needier students, many colleges are looking more favorably on wealthier applicants as they make their admissions decisions this year.

Institutions that have pledged to admit students regardless of need are finding ways to increase the number of those who pay the full cost in ways that allow the colleges to maintain the claim of being need-blind — taking more students from the transfer or waiting lists, for instance, or admitting more foreign students who pay full tuition.

Private colleges that acknowledge taking financial status into account say they are even more aware of that factor this year.

“If you are a student of means or ability, or both, there has never been a better year,” said Robert A. Sevier, an enrollment consultant to colleges.

The trend does not mean colleges are cutting their financial aid budgets. In fact, most have increased those budgets this year, protecting that money even as they cut administrative salaries or require faculty members to take furloughs. But with more students applying for aid, and with those who need aid often needing more, institutions say they have to be mindful of how many scholarship students they can afford.

Colleges say they are not backing away from their desire to serve less affluent students; if anything, they say, taking more students who can afford to pay full price or close to it allows them to better afford those who cannot. But they say the inevitable result is that needier students will be shifted down to the less expensive and less prestigious institutions.

“There’s going to be a cascading of talented lower-income kids down the social hierarchy of American higher education, and some cascading up of affluent kids,” said Morton Owen Schapiro, the president of Williams College and an economist who studies higher education.

Bowtie Guy thought he was the only one man enough to criticize Jon Stewart in the media, but now his old boss is taking up the slack and going on the offensive, attacking Stewart for having the audacity to tell the truth about CNBC's coverage of the financial sector.

NBC Universal's CEO said this at the BusinessWeek media summit:

NBC Universal CEO went out of his way to blast Jon Stewart's ongoing dissection of CNBC's ludicrously amped-up coverage of the stock market train wreck, saying that "just because someone who mocks authority says something doesn't mean it's true." Of course, that's the exact definition of being out of touch: When everyone else is looking at your financial network and seeing a bunch of ratings-obsessed charlatans who, though they surely knew better, talked up a host of terminally ill companies that were about to collapse, you look at your financial network and tell a media conference that "CNBC is a spectacular organization that's done a tremendous job."

The next thing you know, Zucker will be saying Ben Silverman is doing a wonderful job of running NBC too.

What I found especially appalling about Zucker's remarks was his faux populism. Here's a guy who travels on a corporate jet, whose salary, bonuses and stock options are probably right up there with most of AIG's bonus babies (Zucker doesn't have to disclose his compensation, but his predecessor in the job, Robert Wright, earned $17.8 million in 2006), yet he has the nerve to act like he's in the same boat with the rest of us, telling the audience, "Everybody wants to point a finger -- I'm upset that my 401(k) isn't what it was too. ... But to suggest that the business media is responsible for what's going on now is absurd."

Buzzmachine has a good observation too:

The press didn’t cause us to go to war in Iraq, he said; a general did. The press missing the financial crisis didn’t cause it. “Both are absurd,” he said.

Really? I think that says that the press has no importance and no role in public policy. Doesn’t matter if we miss the story, he’s saying. It’s not our fault. Will he take no responsibility?

I'm confused. What is the function of the press then? Are they only supposed to hand out doughnuts to their favorite politicians during a major campaign? Is that their role?

They have been given certain freedoms so they can police the government, but Zucker is abdicating that right. We need investigative reporting immensely because of the need to uncover the Watergates in the Beltway. Without the press monitoring the system all hell could break loose. Oh, wait. it already did.

See also:

Moyers on the Neocons and William Kristol

Moyers and Russert and Cheney Oh, My!

Bill Moyers Rips MSM Complicity on "Real Time"

Moyers: Roger Ailes didn't want to "Scoop himself." WTF?

Are we heading towards a 1929-like economic crash?

Bill Moyers' Journal: Inside The White House's War on Terror

Market analysts - at least of the cable TV variety - seem to tiptoe around the obvious: if you don't cull the herd of insolvent banks and let the market bottom out, you won't be able to start the climb back up.

NEW YORK, Feb. 20 -- With the Dow Jones industrial average plunging past its lowest point since the financial crisis began, panicked investors are asking: How much uglier can it get?

Many market analysts and technicians armed with reams of historical data say that even though the Dow has given back all its gains -- and more -- from the five-year bull market that ended in 2007, it is unlikely the market has hit bottom.

Mark Arbeter, chief technical strategist at Standard & Poor's Equity Research, said the current market environment is showing few of the signs that have characterized previous lows -- high price volatility, high volumes of trading and even higher levels of fear.

"Bear market bottoms tend to be violent affairs," he said. "You sell hard, you rally hard, you go down hard and then you're off to the races. And that's not what were seeing right now. Until this week, the market was really drifting sideways."

And for all the jitteriness out there, Arbeter added, the options market, where investors trade contracts that bet on the future direction of the stock market, is not showing the fear that signals that true capitulation has arrived. Many market participants think capitulation -- when investors take their losses and get out of the market altogether -- must precede a major market recovery.

"We have not reached high enough levels of fear in the options market to suggest that this test of the lows is going to be successful," Arbeter said.

Yeah, we've all seen the strip mall and office vacancies growing. And despite the tone of this article, some people believe it will be worse than the residential crash:

Contractors, investors and developers are bracing for what could be the worst real estate crunch since the early 1990s, when the industry built a small city's worth of speculative office buildings that later went begging for tenants. Commercial property sales plunged 73% last year, according to Real Capital Analytics. Vacancy rates are rising, and hundreds of large properties are in default. The American Institute of Architects' billing index, a leading indicator of construction six months ahead, is at a record low. Unemployment in the construction industry is 15.3%, well above the average 7.2% jobless rate.

The 1990s crisis was sparked by federal tax breaks that encouraged overinvestment and overbuilding. This time around, the real estate frenzy was fueled by cheap credit, which allowed investors and developers to bid up prices of existing properties. But the economic fallout could be similar: rising bankruptcies and unemployment and slower economic growth at a time when the economy is already reeling from a historic housing depression.

"This is a rolling problem that's only going to get worse," says Jeffrey DeBoer, president of the Real Estate Roundtable, estimating that about $400 billion worth of commercial real estate mortgages will come due by the end of 2009. Investors and developers might have trouble refinancing many loans, due to tight credit and falling rents and property values.

"Businesses need to be able to access the credit market when their debt comes due and their business needs require. Right now, they're not able to," DeBoer says.

The Roundtable is part of an industrywide coalition that's pushing the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department to create a special lending program to resuscitate the commercial mortgage-backed securities market. The industry says such a move would provide liquidity and restore confidence to a sector of the credit market that has essentially frozen. The Treasury Department and Fed have not issued a formal decision, but Treasury noted in November that a similar program aimed at auto, credit card and student loan lenders could be extended to include commercial mortgage-backed securities.

[...] Though the problems in the non-residential sector of the real estate market aren't likely to be nearly as calamitous as the housing market collapse, they could contribute to a deeper and longer recession. The non-residential real estate decline could shave about a third of a percentage point, or $30 billion, from U.S. economic growth in 2009, says Aaron Smith, senior economist at Moody's Economy.com.