...but the U.S. Senator known as "Dr. No" is on the side of angels.
Or at least the side of the U.S. taxpayer.
So "get stuffed" Harry Reid.
And here is to hoping that Dr. No soon has a new senatorial crime fighting partner known as Dr. Transparency.
Now that's hope we can believe in.
Noted: We're still on vacation through Thursday. But a well-built soapbox waits for no man, so...
Bill Moyers is one of the best in the media business. Without question.
And this transcript of Moyers and The Nation's William Greider discussing the current state of the U.S. economy is fascinating. Even though we don't agree with everything that they say.
One highlight:
BILL MOYERS: Do you think Washington really knows what's going on [with the current economic crisis]? Do you think they really understand what's happening out there in Cleveland and places like that all over the country?Or, to put it another way:
WILLIAM GREIDER: The short answer is, no, I've been in Washington as a citizen andresident for 40 years. And I'm still occasionally shocked by its ignorance of the rest of the country. And some of that is willful, of course. But some of it is just, it's a very nice life in Washington. You get used to certain protective qualities.
We saw that recently with these political players, who got good mortgages. How do they do that? Well, we know how they did it. And in any case, Washington doesn't yet see the depth of the problem.
If you ask me, well, who's figured this out? Who understands, at least in general terms, where we are? The guys in Washington? The politicians and their governing policy advisors? Or the dimwitted public? I would say the public. And I think there's a lot of evidence in that. You know, they keep seeing these polls where the public expresses doubt about this, about-
BILL MOYERS: Eighty-one percent of the people in the most recent polls say we're heading in the wrong direction.
WILLIAM GREIDER: I call that an extreme consensus. Why do the newspapers not celebrate that? They're always looking for consensus politics. Here's the American public, they've got an eighty-- you know, that's extraordinary.
WILLIAM GREIDER: We have an opening in this crisis for, this is really going to sound grandiose. We have an opening in this crisis for a deep transformation in American politics. I don't say it happens this year, next year, or it's going to take a number of years. But we are in the shock of reality. And people get it everywhere and see the blood in the streets. And you tell them how this worked and who did what to whom, and that's a basis for a new politics.
But it requires people - this is the hard part - to get out of their sort of passive resignation to, "Well, we follow the Democrats" or "we follow the Republicans" or "we let this group or that group tell us how to think" and engage among themselves in a much more serious role as citizens. And when, as they do that, they have to be willing to punish the political powers, in smart ways or crude ways, however they can, first, to get a place in the debate. But, secondly, to force the changing values of the system.
And I, this may be wishful, but I think in the next year, two years, five years, you're going to see both political parties floundering. What do we believe about all this stuff? We've told folks this, you know, lovely story for 20, 25 years about the magic of the marketplace. Do we still want to kind of prop that up? That's where they are now. They're still trying to prop up the marketplace vision and make it work again. It's over.
I think events will demonstrate that. So if they're not willing to change then we need to change the politicians. And that's all a bloody process and doesn't happen quickly. But that's why I'm optimistic.
That's PANIC.
And it's always darkest right before it's pitch black.
Meanwhile, both political parties in Washington are talking absolute economic nonsense (aka talking points dug out of the 20th century).
Typical.
...Bryan Burrough's "Bringing Down Bear Sterns" in the latest issue of Vanity Fair.
Worth a beach read.
A good friend of ours caught this at Sundance and called it "stunning".
He's now thinking of shorting the U.S. dollar.
And he's one of the smartest people we know, which makes us really sad. And scared.
h/t the boys and girls at the Peterson Foundation.
Remember in the late 1990s when Dow 10,000! was all anyone could talk about (when our mouth wasn't jammed with lobster tail and champagne)?
Well, we all might get another chance here again shortly (when our mouth isn't choking on dust and squandered opportunities).
The back of the envelope calculation is really quite simple:
$10 trillion in national debt is a b*tch for a country's currency to carry on its back. Throw in the growing wealth gap, the trade gap, our addiction to outdated energy technology, financial sector uncertainty (greed/stupidity), two wars, high interest consumer debt and upside down entitlement programs and well, we laugh out loud when the "eggheads" tell us that the underlying fundamentals of our economy are sound at the present time.
Or that people aren't hurting.
Phil Gramm's recent comments do not reflect the thinking of economic conservatives who want to be taken seriously in 2008.
And believing that doesn't mean that we're a New York Times worshiping Communist.
Or Chicken Little.
Or that we don't think that America is the greatest f*cking country on the planet.
It just means that we believe that these guys are the smartest folks in the room.
Not some GOP dinosaur who hasn't had a good new thought in 15 years.
Why do we think it's pretty good?
Well, we wrote it. For a targeted '06 U.S. House race in Vermont. With help from several energy experts from across the political spectrum.
And with the price of a barrel of oil hitting another record today, we thought now would be the prefect time to dust our plan off.
We know, we know, cue the calls from some quarters of "Plagiarist!" and "Burn him at the stake!"
But we'll let our readers make up their own mind as to whether we lifted this energy proposal from Hillary Clinton.
And we might even dare hope that forward thinking GOP political operatives find parts of this plan useful in their ongoing '08 races.
For Immediate Release
Thursday July 27, 2006
Rainville Unveils National Energy Plan
Calls American energy stability “vital for national security”
Outlines short and long-term steps to protect the environment
WILLISTON, Vt. — U.S. House Candidate Martha Rainville today unveiled a comprehensive plan to address America’s energy future. Rainville’s plan includes short- and long-term steps to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, protect the environment and ultimately help move the world away from the use of fossil fuels entirely.
“Now is the time to act. A growing American economy needs energy to maintain its strength and to enhance our quality of life,” Rainville said. “My plan will help protect our national security, protect our pocketbooks and protect our environment.”
The plan recognizes that world economic growth — notably in China and India — is bidding up the demand for and thus the price of energy. Rising energy prices mean that energy will claim a larger portion of Vermonters’ income — for transportation, home heating, business and industry, governments and schools.
The plan also takes into account that the world’s dependence on ‘traditional’ forms of energy has had an adverse effect on the environment, especially strip mining for coal, air pollution from fossil fuel burning and the serious problem of nuclear waste disposal. Congress must begin the process that moves the world away from fossil fuels as an energy source and Rainville’s long-term energy plan starts that conversation.
“When I graduated from high school, more than 30 years ago, the keynote speech was on alternative energy. We cannot afford to wait another 30 years,” said Rainville.
“My energy plan acknowledges short-term realities while planning a long-term solution,” she added.
In the short term, Rainville’s plan has four goals for immediate action, which will have long-range effects:
1. Increased conservation and home energy production.
2. Increase supply of alternative fuels by repealing import duties and support for development of cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel production.
3. Mandate government fleet vehicles be flex-fuel or hybrid.
4. Increase domestic offshore production of oil and natural gas.
Rainville’s plan also sets out two long-range goals:
1. Support programs to get American students interested in studying math, science and engineering
2. The creation of a far-sighted International Advanced Research Projects Agency on Energy
“My short-term plan will lessen America’s dependence on foreign sources of oil from unstable regimes by increasing domestic production, promoting ethanol use and enhancing commonsense conservation,” said Rainville. “My long-range plan might be far reaching but I believe it is important for elected officials to have vision and goals for the future.”
Increased conservation and home energy production.
Rainville’s plan will curb America’s energy demand by encouraging household energy conservation through “green construction” and Energy Star homes. The plan encourages individual household electric generation through small scale wind power generation, rooftop solar photovoltaic cells and mini-hydroelectric projects. The plan also calls for increased funding for public transportation and car pooling support programs.
“These are commonsense steps that Vermonters can take in our own back yards and must be encouraged,” Rainville said. “It’s amazing to me how many of the world’s problems can be solved locally.”
“In my own house, when my incandescent light bulbs burn out, I make sure to replace the bulbs with compact fluorescent lighting, which reduces my household electricity use,” she added.
Increase supply of ethanol by repealing import duties and increased support for development of cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel production.
“We cannot seriously address America’s oil consumption without talking about our transportation system,” said Rainville. “In addition to looking at ways to conserve gas, we also need to look at other sources of vehicle fuels.”
The plan would repeal the 54-cent per gallon import duty on Brazilian ethanol, made from sugar cane. It is one of the most efficient ethanol processes and requires less energy to produce than it generates.
Rainville’s plan calls for increased support for research on cellulosic ethanol production using biomass waste and switchgrass. This is preferable to subsidizing corn-based ethanol production, which arguably consumes more petroleum energy than the product yields.
Mandate government fleet vehicles be flex-fuel or hybrid.
“We need to promote not only the availability but the use of alternative fuels,” Rainville said. “Government can lead by example.”
The plan calls for a “Golden Carrot” program of targeted procurement of high mileage flex-fuel and hybrid vehicles with four year payback periods for government fleet use. Rainville credited the “Golden Carrot” idea to Amory Lovins, author of Winning the Oil End Game.
The plan would also assist domestic auto manufacturers in retooling for flex-fuel and hybrid vehicle production with a series of tax credits, which would apply to vehicles produced for the commercial market.
Increase domestic offshore production of oil and natural gas.
Rainville’s plan calls for increased oil and natural gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Florida, with federal royalty payments to affected states and sensible, 100-mile buffer zones to protect scenic costal property and public beaches.
Rainville’s plan would not permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
“The natural gas resources we could tap by exploring the outer continental shelf could make a difference in the way we use oil,” Rainville said. “By shifting power plants over to natural gas use we will make the oil currently used in the plants available for transportation and for heating homes in the winter.”
Increase student interest, confidence and achievement in science, math and technology
“Through the STARBASE Vermont program I’ve seen thousands of students get very excited about science and technology,” Rainville said. “We need more programs like this and we need to support those students when they go on to pursue higher education in math, science and engineering.”
STARBASE, which stands for Science and Technology Academies Reinforcing Basic Aviation and Space Exploration, is a program of summer activities for students in grades four through six. Its goals include getting students interested in science math and technology, supporting young women who get involved in those fields, and building teamwork, decision making skills and self esteem.
Rainville’s plan calls for more such programs nationally, because the energy future of the world will need America’s best and brightest minds in science.
The creation of a far-sighted International Advanced Research Projects Agency on Energy.
“I believe America should join with the world’s other big energy consumers, such as China and India, to coordinate our technology and manpower to end our dependence on fossil fuels. When all of humankind works toward a common goal, there is nothing we can’t achieve,” Rainville said.
The sole mission of the International Advanced Research Projects Agency on Energy (IARPA-E) would be to create a renewable, clean and affordable energy source for the world’s future.
Rainville’s plan calls for three global scientific headquarters for the agency, one in Asia, the second in India and the third in the United States. The IARPA-E would be the equivalent of Lockheed-Martin’s famous “Skunk Works” when it built the famed U-2 and SR-71 “Blackbird” reconnaissance planes.
IARPA-E would harness the intellectual capital of the finest minds around the world to discover a new, clean, renewable and affordable energy source.
“In the interest of our children and our children’s children we must inspire the world to find the answer to our energy future,” Rainville said. “There is no greater gift we can give to future generations.”
Rainville’s plan would fund America’s portion of the international project in two ways. First, she supports eliminating “royalty-relief” for oil companies drilling on public lands. Royalty-relief, started in 1995 by President Bill Clinton and expanded in 2001 by President George Bush, would cost the federal government $7 billion dollars over the next five years. Rainville believes that this money will be better spent funding the IARPA-E.
She also supports a “windfall profit tax” of 50 percent for any profit oil companies make for oil sold above $40 a barrel, which should generate between $3 billion and $4 billion per year.
###
Paid for by Martha Rainville for Congress
Or, as our grandmother says, "Eat it today, wear it tomorrow."
Excellent!
Saudi Arabia's Royal Family continues to play an enormous role in our national and economic security.
Snark.
This isn't a "drill more at home" post. If that non-starter was such a good idea to bring down the cost of oil (five years from now), wouldn't the Saudis drilling more (right now) also bring down the price of oil?
Uh. Not according to Bloomberg.
Noted: What say you Phil Gramm & Doug Holtz-Eakin?
In any event, this is a "it's past time for a Apollo-type crash program to get us off fossil fuels entirely" post. Per GMP1 usual.
Get it?
Look Karl, we get it.
You're out.
You don't work at the White House anymore. The guy you backed in the Republican Primary didn't make it. The Republican Party you managed for the last 8 years is currently just a touch more popular than genital herpes. Scott McClellan's book hurt. And Team McCain is about as interested in taking your advice as they are in taking the political advice of the guy who cleans McCain's pool (does he even have a pool?).
So what does a "has-been" like you do Karl?
You bitch and moan about the people who took your place in the new pecking order using the one tool that a Washington has-been always has left - a newspaper column!
And your column in today's Wall Street Journal is a beaut Karl. Even for you.
You really bring the "tsk-tsk" to Senator Obama and Senator McCain for letting politics and a close election interfere with their economic policies.
You column is so "Senior Adviser to The President" like. So Washington Wise Man.
And such absolute total bullshit.
For 7 years Karl, you and the President cut taxes AND increased government spending. Which is politically a hell of a lot of fun in the short term. But absolutely disastrous in the medium and long term.
Just ask David Walker, a real Washington Wise Man.
When the next President takes over he will inherit about $10 trillion dollars in government debt. Debt that will ultimately end up increasing our taxes and decreasing our benefits. And a very good chunk of that debt is the direct result of your advice Mr. Rove.
So Karl, we don't think that you should be giving anyone economic advice. Let alone the next President of the United States.
We suggest that you simply shut your yap and fade away like a good little has-been.
We're just saying.
We get a lot of questions about why we are so concerned with federal spending/debt. This Saturday morning post is a quick response to those emails and conversations:
The Federal Government's financial books are a joke. But not the "ha-ha" kind.
Noted: Watch Walker, David on 60 Minutes. And then watch it again.
We agree with Mr. Walker that America's debt is the #1 national security threat facing us right now. Period. End of story.
And it drives us absolutely bananas that politicians who we gift 30 cents on our earned dollar to "represent our interests" in Congress just keep spending and borrowing this country right off a cliff.
Read Peterson, Pete. Then read him again.
Our $10 trillion dollar debt is a different type of problem than any Washington has faced in the past. It eats at us from the inside out (as opposed to the outside in). It colors everything that this country does (or is forced to do).
We are a debtor nation. (if The Nation isn't your cup of tea at least note the part in the article about super capitalist Warren Buffett). A debtor nation! Like 3rd world countries. And how "stable" can that really be?
Put simply, America's current financial status quo will not hold. It can't. And if changes are not made, and made quickly, the whole pyramid scheme is going to come crashing down around our heads.
If this is allowed to happen, Washington's failure to act now will be considered the greatest example of governing malpractice that this country has ever seen.
Believe. It.
And while the "after the fall mess" won't be fun for us (or the rest of our global village), it will be great for people like true believers (nuts) of Sergey Genadievich Nechayev's The Revolutionary Catechism, who will find plenty of new grist for their mill to try to start a new global revolution with.
And then where will we be?
In serious, serious trouble.
We're just saying.
CNN (and the AP) is reporting.
The first and twelfth story graphs are so "through the looking glass" we think that we might have been slipped some acid earlier in the day:
Iran, OPEC's second-largest producer, has stopped conducting oil transactions in U.S. dollars, a top Oil Ministry official said Wednesday, in a concerted attempt to reduce reliance on Washington at a time of tension over Tehran's nuclear program and suspected involvement in Iraq...
However, the U.S. has been wary of targeting Iran's oil industry directly, apparently worried that such a move could drive up crude prices that are already at record levels."Reduce reliance on Washington".
to break the Exxon Mobile/Saudi Arabia/incumbent bureaucracy's stranglehold on America's current (lack of a) energy policy.
Money to organize and communicate at the neighborhood level in key states across the United States. Money to operate through 2012 (maybe even the '14 midterms, maybe beyond). Money to snap up the best political talent in America and keep them happy and willing to throw political haymakers. Money to go to war with a century of entrenched interests. Money to fight people who built their empires literally by digging in forgotten places around the globe with their bare hands. Money for a crusade. Money to turn on the DC money spigot for the best and brightest scientists and engineers and keep it on for as long as they need.
In other words, you need political "F*ck You" money.
And you're going to need a ocean of it.
The good news? It's out there.
And then some.
All it's doing now is looking for political representation.
And the Smithsonian is holding a choice spot in its American History Museum for whoever that turns out to be.
The Fed's Bender on today's WSJ Editorial Page.
The 3 key graphs (from a presidential election standpoint):
The practical impact [of the Fed rate cuts] has been to send energy and food prices soaring. This is a direct tax on both the world's poor and America's middle class. Just when the U.S. economy needs a resilient consumer given the fall in housing prices, these price increases have eviscerated consumer pocketbooks. In its attempt to help Wall Street and the financial system, Fed policy is punishing average Americans. The public is frustrated and angry with these price increases, and it has a right to be. Inflation is the thief of the thrifty middle class.The Fed's weak dollar policy has also done great harm to overall financial confidence, which is essential to any growth revival. A main source of the credit crisis is a lack of trust. Investors stop taking risks, bankers stop lending, and everyone flees to the safety of Treasurys or cash. But how can the Fed expect people to calm down and begin taking risks when it is clearly debasing the currency? Monetary easing itself also becomes less effective, because without confidence more liquidity is merely "pushing on a string," in the famous phrase.
The Fed's problem has been both political and intellectual. Politically, Mr. Bernanke has been unwilling to say no to Wall Street and the Beltway political class, which reflexively demand easier money in a crisis. This demand has become almost Pavlovian since Wall Street came to believe during the late 1990s in what was known, fairly or not, as the "Greenspan put." It takes character to resist this political pressure, but that is what Fed chairmen are supposed to have.
Read the whole thing.
And then, if you're a legitimate member of the political press corps, wipe the fog away from that jackass party you went to this weekend and ask one of the presidential candidates what they think about all this.All 3 candidates had their financial plans hammered by very serious, nonpartisan smart guys (and gals) in today's New York Times.
It's a big problem.
For all three candidates. And the country.
The federal government (read: us) will owe $10 trillion (ish) by the time the next President takes office.
What don't people understand?
That's a huge chunk of financial cancer that adversely affects everything up and down the line. And the $10 trillion doesn't include what's coming down the pipeline with the entitlement programs.
You don't "grow" your way out of a debt that large. And you sure as hell don't spend your way out of it.
Borrow and spend Republicans are just as bad as tax and spend Democrats.
When you are in a hole stop digging.
All this is getting really tiresome.
Really.
Republican Senator George Voinovich is speaking fiscal sense.
Even if it's politically radioactive, which it is.
But both political parties face the same choice: make deep cuts in the entitlement programs, or raise taxes.
The spending/borrowing status-quo in Washington is why the value of our dollar is in the toilet.
$10 trillion in federal debt doesn't just go away.
Time for both political parties to get serious.
Believe it.
Just ask David Walker:
Does that mean we don't have to pay our credit card bill this month?
Seriously.
We're more Ayn Rand than Karl Marx (though both are far from perfect), but Wall Street's double standard is APPALLING.
As the WaPo's E.J. Dionne so aptly puts it.
Noted: Look at the smirk on W's face from yesterday's "Big Financial Meeting". You'd think that his savings account was going to weather this latest storm just fine.
Wait. What's that?
It's going to?
Oh thank God!
Noted: This conversation started here. Then here.
Below is a email from a good friend.
The title of his email to us was "Just The Facts". And then this:
Attached above is the graph of $US versus the EUR for the past 5 years, as well as a graph of the Oklahoma WTI spot price since January 2006. Looking at January 1, 2006, the exchange rate was $1.2/EUR. Today the rate hit about $1.58/Euro, an all-time low.Eat your heart out seven years of pretty foolish Bush Administration fiscal policies.
The oil price today for WTI Cushing is at about $105.86/barrel.
Since Jan 2006, the $US has depreciated by about 31.66% against the euro (1.2 to 1.58), which would equate to a 31.66% increase in the price of oil if they were perfectly correlated. Oil in early January 2006 was at $65/barrel, so the dollar depreciation component would take the price up to approximately $85.58, which is basically a $20/barrel increase. Oil today is at $105, which is another $20/barrel increase. But that means that out of a $40/barrel increase in that period, roughly 50% is attributable to the declining value of the dollar, since global crude markets price all oil in $US. So is your reader correct in suggesting that there are a number of production-related, demand-side (China, etc.) and geopolitical reasons that have contributed to the recent run-up in oil prices? Certainly. But given that oil is a global commodity that is traded in dollars, the declining value of the dollar has necessarily increased the price, and all things being equal, has been responsible for approximately 50% of the overall change in the last two years.
