Department of Bust Out Profit Models and Vampiric Capitalism
Joseph M. Firestone and Lambert Strether
Many people, and especially Obama supporters, characterize the ACA (ObamaCare) as just starting or a work in progress and then go on to urge that the program will have glitches, needs to be tweaked, isn't yet fully implemented, and so forth. We think it's a mistake to see the ACA as just starting. We also think it's a mistake not to weigh the costs of ObamaCare's stately three-year progress toward partial coverage for the the American people, and just as important to weigh the opportunity costs.
The ACA was passed in March 2010, incorporating many features designed to meet Republican objections to the Bill. Yet, in the end, Democrats never put Medicare for All on the table, abandoned the public option and many other features, and did not get a single Republican vote in either chamber.
The Democrats even saw to it that the bill was fiscally neutral over a 10 year projection at a time when the tanked economy needed more deficit spending and the jobs that would have brought. And to do that, they postponed implementation of most of the bill for more than three years, until now, allowing people to go without care, to die, to divorce, and to lose their homes or go bankrupt due to medical bills, just so they could argue that the bill was fiscally neutral. In gauging the record of the bill, these 3 to 3.5 years of waiting for its implementation and their real costs to the people of the United States must be taken into account. Read more about ObamaCare’s Shameful and Lethal Three-year History — and Future
MSNBC continues on with its campaign to cast the Tea Party Republicans in the role of principal villains in the imminent Government budget/ government shutdown crisis and the likely coming debt ceiling crisis. The teabots, you see, are using the Republican majority in the House to demand more austerity in government and defunding of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Read more about Stop the Kabuki: It's About “the Great Betrayal”
Here's an exchange from last Friday's Chris Hayes “All In” MSNBC show among Chris, Robert Costa of the National Review, and Ezra Klein of The Washington Post's “Wonkblog.” In what follows I've slightly edited the MSNBC transcript to get rid of obvious verbal deviations but haven't corrected for punctuation.
Robert: i think ezra brought up a great point. you saw eric cantor trying to come up with this plan and that would allow conservatives, allow the right to have a vote on defunding, but not really attach it to the continuing resolution. the minute he brought this up, the conservatives they revolted. you have a republican leadership that wants to fund the government, but they don't have the votes.
Chris: you've got 233 house republicans. you need 218 to pass something and 33 republicans want to fully defund obama care. you had harry reid today saying about john boehner, i feel sorry for him. everyone's constantly looking at him saying he has essentially the worst job in washington. what is the way out of this box? Read more about Ezra Is Terrified Because of His Framing
This post by Lynn Parramore makes the point that the next crash is coming and probably will be blamed on the Democrats. It's a great point, but it needs to be pursued further. Read more about Do the Democrats Really Want to Bear the Blame for a Crash that Wall Street Will Cause?
David Kravets in “Senators Authorizing Syria Strike Got More Defense Cash Than Lawmakers Voting No” declares:
Senators voting Wednesday to authorize a Syria strike received, on average, 83 percent more campaign financing from defense contractors than lawmakers voting against war.
Stories in The Washington Post and the New York Times have some in the blogosphere proclaiming that it's time to celebrate the death of the Grand Bargain, and others at least raising a question about its death. I'll go on record as saying that celebrating its death is definitely premature.
It is so because we've yet to go through the budget or continuing resolution-passing activities coming up in September, and also have yet to go through the debt ceiling conflict to come in October. Mainstream Washington commentators believe John Boehner is determined to avoid a government shutdown crisis of the budget/CR conflict and that one or the other will be passed before October 1. Assuming they're right, that still leaves the matter of the debt ceiling “crisis,” which the same commentators are saying will happen because Boehner has to promise his tea party caucus a chance to coerce the Administration, if he's going to get their acquiescence on the budget/government shutdown matter.
So, they think, we are looking at a debt ceiling crisis around October 15, when Jack Lew says the Government will run out of borrowing authority, and he will be reduced to juggling $50 Billion in available cash to both repay debt and pay for the other obligations of Government legislated by Congress. The position on the debt ceiling being taken by the Administration now is that it will not negotiate over it, and that it's demanding a clean bill raising the debt limit to pay for spending Congress has already approved. Read more about Declaring the Grand Bargain Dead Is Premature
With the end of the Summer break, now comes the return of the debt limit dance. From Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew's letter to John Boehner:
“Congress should act as soon as possible to protect America’s good credit by extending normal borrowing authority well before any risk of default becomes imminent.
“Based on our latest estimates extraordinary measures are projected to be exhausted in the middle of October. At that point, the United States will have reached the limit of its borrowing authority, and Treasury would be left to fund the government with only the cash we have on hand on any given day, The cash balance at that time is currently forecasted to be approximately $50 billion.
“. . . A cash balance of approximately $50 Billion would be insufficient to cover net expenditures for an extended period of time. And, on certain days, net expenditures could exceed such a cash balance.
“. . . Protecting the full faith and credit of the United States is the responsibility of Congress because only Congress can extend the nation’s borrowing authority . . .“
OK. So, only Congress can extend the nation's borrowing authority. But it doesn't follow from that fact that protecting the full faith and credit of the United States is the sole responsibility of Congress. Read more about Jack Lew: Avoiding Default Is Your Responsibility Too
The Five Worst Reasons Why the National Debt Should Matter To You: Part Four, The Three Real Reasons
This is the concluding post in a four part series on the “Top” reasons why the national debt should matter. In Part One, I considered “Fix the Debt's” claim that high levels of debt cause high unemployment and argued that this is a false claim. In Part Two, I followed with a review of the historical record from 1930 to the present and showed that it refutes this claim throughout this period, and that there is not even one Administration where the evidence doesn't contradict “Fix the Debt's” theory. In Part Three I showed that the other four reasons advanced by “Fix the Debt” also had very little going for them. In this part, I'll give reasons why the national debt does matter, and why we should fix it without breaking America, or causing people to suffer. Read more about The Five Worst Reasons Why the National Debt Should Matter To You: Part Four, The Three Real Reasons
The Five Worst Reasons Why the National Debt Should Matter To You: Part Three, The Other Four Worst Reasons
In Part One of this series, I considered “Fix the Debt's” claim that high levels of debt cause high unemployment and gave a few reasons why this is a false claim. Read more about The Five Worst Reasons Why the National Debt Should Matter To You: Part Three, The Other Four Worst Reasons
In Part One, of a critique of the most important of "Fix the Debt's" reasons for "Why the National Debt Should Matter To You," I asserted that high debt levels haven't caused high unemployment in the United States, and that, if anything causation was in the other direction. I didn't want to disturb the flow of the argument there with a relatively lengthy survey of some of the numbers in the historical record since the 1930s. But let's test the idea that High debt causes fewer jobs and lower wages in the United States by looking at that record now. Read more about The Five Worst Reasons Why the National Debt Should Matter To You: Part Two, the Record Since 1930
The Five Worst Reasons Why the National Debt Should Matter To You: Part One, High Debt Levels and Jobs
I came across a post from the “Fix the Debt” campaign last month called “The Top Five Reasons Why the National Debt Should Matter to You.” It's a post full of debt/deficit lies that cry out for correction. That's what I'll provide in this series. Read more about The Five Worst Reasons Why the National Debt Should Matter To You: Part One, High Debt Levels and Jobs
I found a segment on MCNBC's Up With Steve Kornacke show revealing for what it did not say. The segment started off with a clip from a Recent Town Hall of John McCain's. Senator McCain took a question from a woman who said, with more than a little emotion. Read more about “Makers and Takers:” They're Projecting Again!
The first two Parts in this series began answering the question “what would u have him do?” It arose in the context of a Post at Naked Capitalism by Michael Hudson with some additions by Yves Smith. A commenter, objecting to the criticism of the President's Knox College speech, issued the challenge in connection with the President's promised effort to restore prosperity to the middle class and the poor.
In Part I, “Necessary First Moves,” I offered and described two of these: ending the filibuster, and using High Value Platinum Coin Seigniorage (HVPCS) to fill the Treasury General Account (TGA) with $60 Trillion in reserves. In Part II, I offered a number of proposals aimed at getting to full employment.
These included: a full payroll tax holiday; a guarantee of annual entitlement spending without regard to “trust fund” balances; State revenue sharing grants of roughly $1600 per person; and a Federal Job Guarantee program establishing jobs in local communities at a living wage with full fringe benefits. This third and last part will offer proposals for doing some economic and social justice to begin to right the wrongs the neoliberal globalizing political/economic/ideological system has inflicted on the American middle class and those living in poverty. Here are the proposals. Read more about What Would You Have the President Do? Part III, Doing Some Economic and Social Justice
Responding to a Post at Naked Capitalism by Michael Hudson with some additions by Yves Smith, a commenter, objecting to the criticism of the President's Knox College speech, issued the challenge ”What would u have him do?” in connection with his promised effort to restore prosperity to the middle class and the poor. In this series I'm giving my answer to that question. In Part I, “Necessary First Moves,” I offered and described two of these. Ending the filibuster, and using High Value Platinum Coin Seigniorage (HVPCS) to fill the Treasury General Account (TGA) with $60 Trillion in reserves.
The purpose of the first was to prepare the way for substantive policies by removing the Republican minority's power to tie up legislation. The purpose of the second, was to neutralize austerian fiscal responsibility justifications for subjecting every policy proposal to a deficit neutrality test, and for opposing deficit spending on grounds that it adds to the national debt and imposes heavy risks that the bond markets will demand very high interest rates on US debt. Of course, HVPCS gets rid of both the debt and bond market concerns for good.
Neither of these two policies, however, addresses substantive needs such as creating and maintaining full employment. This post is about the policies for getting to full employment I want the President to propose and try to implement. All of these policies have been previously proposed by MMT economists including Warren Mosler, Randy Wray, Bill Mitchell, Stephanie Kelton, and others. Read more about What Would You Have the President Do? Part II, Getting to Full Employment
There were varying reactions to the President's recent speech at Knox College this week. My reaction was that the speech was deeply dishonest in light of the President's previous policies, actions, and results, and I intended to do a critique, but Michael Hudson and Yves Smith beat me to it. Read more about What Would You Have the President Do? Part I, Necessary First Moves