Start Spending Cash Now!

Our venerated James A. Bacon had a recent post that had a bunch of charts (where the man gets them no one knows) that stirred quite a bit of discussion about savings and the economy.
One chart rubbed me the wrong way — one showing how much cash U.S.companies were hording. The Baconaut-in-Chief wrote: “On the positive side, U.S. business is piling up large sums of cash — the most since the 1970s.” To be fair, he did note that this wasn’t creating many jobs but it is obvious where he places his priorities.
Mr. Bacon is sort of like Mohamed or Martin Luther — the creator of a new religion. In this case, it is the faith of the “Boomergeddon” (bible to be released soon) which warns of hellfire and brimstone unless we stem our profligate ways. In this sense, hording cash is a good thing and as I open my empty desk drawer in my office I see where he may have a point.
But not really. Hording cash is killing us. This week’s BusinessWeek, my old alma mater, notes that American households are sitting on nearly $8 trillion in cash that’s earning nothing because everyone is so shell-shocked by the 2007-2008 market losses. In this year’s first quarter, non-financial U.S. firms held $1.84 trillion in cash, which is 27 percent more than in early 2007.
This is NOT good news, despite what you might hear from the High Priest. Not spending cash means that no jobs are being created. Cash cannot do what it is supposed to do — beget more wealth. BW notes shareholders are getting antsy because by hording cash, big companies are not making it work for them. Says on analyst: “Why pay a stock market multiple for a company that is essentially acting like a bank — and a bad one at that?”
For the impacts of all this, look no further than Richmond. About 25 percent of the houses in the city are in foreclosure. That’s a lot. The reason, the head of a local realtors’ group told me, is that we’re seeing the second in a wave of layoffs and tight money. The first came around 2007-2008 when the financial crisis flared and home borrowers with adjustable rate mortgages got nailed. We’re now in Wave Two which is happening because so many people have either been laid off or have been forced to take lower-paying jobs, meaning they can’t pay their mortgages any more.
The only way this downward curve can change is if jobs are being created. They won’t be unless some of that precious cash starts circulating. Even more bizarre is that mortgage rates are at incredible lows. Yet with the New Sternness applied by banks and mortgage lenders (who would loan to a dog or a cat three years ago), no one qualifies any more for a loan.
Now all you Republican yahoos out there are going to blame this all on Obama and Barney Frank’s new, sort-of-tough financial regulation law. I say to you all: “Baloney, Macaroni!” The new law hasn’t even taken effect yet. What we are seeing is those very same financial institutions (you know, the ones too big to fail) beating up on hard-working, frugal Americans as a reaction to their greedy forays into the profitable sub prime market that helped cause the crash in the first place.
And this, of course, leads us to the elemental point and flaw in the New Frugality being pushed by the Reverend Bacon and others. We’re not out of the recessionary woods. These new-found preachers are testifying to the need for discipline and belt-tightening. If you listen to these piney woods types, we’ll turn a weak recovery into a Great Depression.
What we need now is spending and releasing some of that cash. We need new trust and new ideas — not GOP-minded naysayers who will do whatever they can to vote out Democrats in November.
Beware false religions.
Peter Galuszka
.

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

65 responses to “Start Spending Cash Now!”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Not me man, my money is in that gambling venue called the market, making 26% or something.

    And I'm spending like crazy (refurbishing my homes). Like my father said, I'm trying to plan it so my last check bounces, that way I win.

    But, we are on the horns of a dillema on a field of blue confusion: if government doesn't spend the economy stops and if it does spend, then government stops.

    If I had my druthers………

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I just refinanced, too. I got through it, but it was a drag. They wanted everything including the dog's rabies vaccination certificate.

    Too bad it didn't drag out a littl;e longer, I got a good rate and then it went down again!

    Lots of people would never qualify, now. Too bad, because at these rates it is basically free money.

  3. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    good one Peter!

    We await the Baconinator's response with baited breath…

    never knew that baited breath really was .. thoug….

  4. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    I believe that economists have a phrase to describe the problem Peter raises: the paradox of thrift. While frugality may be praiseworthy for individual households, if everyone is frugal, it reduces demand for goods and services, thus harming the economy overall. I acknowledge the paradox, and there is some truth to the concern. But Big Government has abdicated its fundamental responsibilities to the people and has no right to expect us to sacrificeour well being on its behalf.

    The fact that the government has racked up a $13 trillion national debt and has no plan to stop the flow of red ink (sounds like the Deepwater Horizon gusher, doesn't it) suggests that we are all headed to disaster regardless. The nationally sponsored Ponzi scheme will come to an end, and when it does, the government will fail to fulfill its solemn promises to the American provide people with scheduled Social Security and Medicare benefits that they contributed to and planned all their lives on receiving.

    How much those benefits will be cut, we cannot say, but people would be fools to entrust the security and welfare of their old age to the shysters, blowhards and incompetents who run Washington. Everyone needs to look out for himself and his/her loved ones because, when the crunch comes, the government will not.

  5. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Just want to point out that as long as people are working that the govt is taking in money for SS and Medicare.

    It's not like it's a static account that we will soon draw down to zero.

    What we are doing is spending more than we are taking in and that's a problem more fixable than having no money coming in – which is not very fixable.

    so .. Armageddon/Boomergeddon LITE?

    so we fight two wars on the credit card while wringing our hands about this?

    where is the consistency in the goal?

    It's okay to spend out the wazoo for shooting bad guys and building electric plants and roads in other countries…

    we can do that on a deficit basis…

    but we can't do the same thing for other costs?

    I have to say – I'd be a WHOLE LOT MORE PERSUADED if we looked at this problem – ACROSS THE BOARD.

    It lacks a certain complellingness when it' Armageddon for domestic spending but just dandy for foreign cowboy games.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We need a super-majority to pass any federal budget. The lefties could stop the righties who want to spend too much on military pork and giveaways to corporations. The righties could stop the lefties who want to spend too much on domestic programs that don't work and giveaways to corporations. We'd have much less debt, lower taxes, and fewer lobbyists.

    TMT

  7. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    just hard to buy the big bad deficit argument when the same folks making that argument have no problems with deficits for our foreign military adventures.

    We pass tax cuts when we go to war instead of a supplemental tax to fund the war…

    then we cry about deficits..

    wah wah wah

  8. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim:

    "But Big Government has abdicated its fundamental responsibilities to the people and has no right to expect us to sacrificeour well being on its behalf."

    Is this a fact, guess, supposition or wishful thinking?

    PG

  9. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, It's certainly not "wishful thinking" — I very much would like to receive my scheduled retirement benefits. Supposition is more like it. But it is supposition based upon a vast body of evidence. Everyone in Washington gives lip service to protecting the social safety net, but no one is governing the country in such a way as to preserve it over the long haul.

  10. "…but people would be fools to entrust the security and welfare of their old age to the shysters, blowhards and incompetents who run Washington."

    While I agree with you, where is Wall Street on your list of biggest crooks after the Government, second, third, fourth???

    What's the average guy supposed to do?

  11. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    RBV, Wall Street is very high on my list of villains. As the biggest, greediest sucklers at the federal teat, they rank No. 2 in my book.

    As for what the average guy can do…. it's pretty simple. Pay down debt and save, save, save. (Don't ask me how to invest the money. There are reputable financial advisers who can do that.)

  12. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    well.. not so reputable that they can keep your 401K from being eaten alive…

    what do folks do about their 401K's?

  13. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    JB sez Average Joe needs to pay down debt and save, save, save. Ole Joe is saving money alright, by defaulting on his loans. He's hoarding cash, just like the big boys, for darker days ahead. Besides, when his house is worth 100k less than he owes, what bank is going to refinance without a large down that Joe doesn't have? Zombie banks and now Zombie houses.

    Then along comes Peter who says Business Bob needs to start spending money instead of hoarding it. But one has to wonder where Bob got all that cash in a recession. Answer: By cutting the bottom line, layoffs, and other nifty ways to make a company appear profitable. Bob has been very busy, buying back stock shares and pushing earnings so guys like Ray and The Computer can still get their 26 percent. You see, Bob isn't spending money to grow his business. He's using the cash to stay alive. Others are using it to merge, praying that they too can become Too Big To Fail.

    Zombie banks, Zombie houses, and Zombie companies. There won't be any Zombie people.

  14. Larry G Avatar

    interesting observation. So if people are going to hoard cash, what should the govt be doing?

    If you believe some folks, the govt should stay out of it altogether because anything the govt does – adds to the debt that has to be paid back.

    I think it is safe to say – that there are few folks alive that went through the last depression – and understood what happened.

    This fellow Bernanke ..if not mistaken got his PHD on the depression and it's causes.

    How about that guy Paulson or that guy Geitner?

    or how about this – the same politicians whom we cannot trust to not bankrupt SS and Medicare and fight 2 wars on the credit card.

    do they know what we ought to be doing?

    do the guys who screwed up te last 8 years know what we need to be doing right now?

    that's what is comical about this.

    The same guys who ran the country into an economic ditch.. are the ones we need to listen to now with respect to the current economy and how to recover?

    Excuse me while I snicker here.

    I keep asking why we should listen to these same Yahoos and the predominate answer that I get is that they are the Republicans, the party of fiscal conservatism .. and they know they way….

    uh huh…

    At least the Baconnator is consistent – both parties are screw-ups… and we are doomed.

    not convinced.. even at 25% unemployment ..it would mean 75% employment and each of them continues to pay payroll taxes into SS and Medicare, right?

    Losing your house – your investment is pretty bad.. but I'm betting that most people find a roof with heat and cool to live… and even though I've heard that there are folks who are undernourished… I have to say..that we seem to be having an invasion of fat butts lately.

    It's getting to the point where a skinny person in a crowd is an oddity – truly.

  15. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    "even at 25% unemployment ..it would mean 75% employment and each of them continues to pay payroll taxes into SS and Medicare, right?"

    Well sure 75 per cent would have jobs, but at only half the salary. "Take it or leave it" will be the motto of the day as it was in the 30s.

    The 3.3 workers currently paying SS taxes to support one beneficiary today becomes a virtual 1.24 under your scenario. The ratio will actually decrease even more as those that hit 62, or who find some 'disability' before then, will be expanding the rolls to get theirs before the default. Call it a run on the benefit bank, with the tax paying workers losing out.

    25 percent unemployment creates much more hazard than you think.

  16. Larry G Avatar

    no.. I don't make light of it. The impacts of 25% employment would be devastating as you point out both from the jobs that are available and the impacts on money for entitlements.

    Here's the issue.

    In that scenario – revenues that pay entitlements are actually going in the wrong direction.

    the more unemployment we have, the bigger and longer the deficit.

    right?

    What would happen eventually?

    Well you move the retirement age UP since the 65 was originally pegged to be within a few years of your expected demise….

    we need to move that number to what it was always intended to be.

    What will happen to those who are 65 and unemployed?

    they'll end up with unemployment benefits – for a while and then they'll end up doing what they must to survive.

    I think this is the picture that most folks should be seeing.

    At some point, the govt is not going to rescue you.

    The safety net is still there but has holes in it.

    I still think that anyone who retires should not expect to get back much more than what they paid into the system (plus interest).

    SS is basically a forced savings plan for retirement – on the premise that if we don't force people to set aside money – that they will not – then at age 65-70.. come back saying that if we don't house, feed and clothe them that they'll die on the streets.

    No… but the alternative may be so bad that they wish they had.

    I'll make a wager … despite those that think this President is a socialist.

    I think after the fall 2010 is over, you're going to be shocked.

    Obama is going to do his version of tough love… and you're going to hear pig squeals all over the hog pen.

    The deficit commission is going to issue it's report – and don't be surprised if it is will be largely followed just as the current policy is pretty much following what the majority of economists are saying.

    We made a very huge mistake – all of us – when we believe – foolishly – that a house was a "sure fire" investment with no risk of failure.

    That was OUR FAULT – not Wall Streets.

    All Wall Street did – was take advantage of us rubes who drank the kool aid and we lose and they win.

    You only own – what you own – not what the mortgage company owns – the same thing folks found out back in the depression.

    Like I said – most of us were at least partially complicit.

    We thought … get a house…pay into a 401K ..and no worries… right?

  17. Larry G Avatar

    no.. I don't make light of it. The impacts of 25% employment would be devastating as you point out both from the jobs that are available and the impacts on money for entitlements.

    Here's the issue.

    In that scenario – revenues that pay entitlements are actually going in the wrong direction.

    the more unemployment we have, the bigger and longer the deficit.

    right?

    What would happen eventually?

    Well you move the retirement age UP since the 65 was originally pegged to be within a few years of your expected demise….

    we need to move that number to what it was always intended to be.

    What will happen to those who are 65 and unemployed?

    they'll end up with unemployment benefits – for a while and then they'll end up doing what they must to survive.

    I think this is the picture that most folks should be seeing.

    At some point, the govt is not going to rescue you.

    The safety net is still there but has holes in it.

    I still think that anyone who retires should not expect to get back much more than what they paid into the system (plus interest).

    SS is basically a forced savings plan for retirement – on the premise that if we don't force people to set aside money – that they will not – then at age 65-70.. come back saying that if we don't house, feed and clothe them that they'll die on the streets.

    No… but the alternative may be so bad that they wish they had.

    I'll make a wager … despite those that think this President is a socialist.

    I think after the fall 2010 is over, you're going to be shocked.

    Obama is going to do his version of tough love… and you're going to hear pig squeals all over the hog pen.

    The deficit commission is going to issue it's report – and don't be surprised if it is will be largely followed just as the current policy is pretty much following what the majority of economists are saying.

    We made a very huge mistake – all of us – when we believe – foolishly – that a house was a "sure fire" investment with no risk of failure.

    That was OUR FAULT – not Wall Streets.

    All Wall Street did – was take advantage of us rubes who drank the kool aid and we lose and they win.

    You only own – what you own – not what the mortgage company owns – the same thing folks found out back in the depression.

    Like I said – most of us were at least partially complicit.

    We thought … get a house…pay into a 401K ..and no worries… right?

  18. Larry G Avatar

    no.. I don't make light of it. The impacts of 25% employment would be devastating as you point out both from the jobs that are available and the impacts on money for entitlements.

    Here's the issue.

    In that scenario – revenues that pay entitlements are actually going in the wrong direction.

    the more unemployment we have, the bigger and longer the deficit.

    right?

    What would happen eventually?

    Well you move the retirement age UP since the 65 was originally pegged to be within a few years of your expected demise….

    we need to move that number to what it was always intended to be.

    What will happen to those who are 65 and unemployed?

    they'll end up with unemployment benefits – for a while and then they'll end up doing what they must to survive.

    I think this is the picture that most folks should be seeing.

    At some point, the govt is not going to rescue you.

    The safety net is still there but has holes in it.

    I still think that anyone who retires should not expect to get back much more than what they paid into the system (plus interest).

    SS is basically a forced savings plan for retirement – on the premise that if we don't force people to set aside money – that they will not – then at age 65-70.. come back saying that if we don't house, feed and clothe them that they'll die on the streets.

    No… but the alternative may be so bad that they wish they had.

    I'll make a wager … despite those that think this President is a socialist.

    I think after the fall 2010 is over, you're going to be shocked.

    Obama is going to do his version of tough love… and you're going to hear pig squeals all over the hog pen.

    The deficit commission is going to issue it's report – and don't be surprised if it is will be largely followed just as the current policy is pretty much following what the majority of economists are saying.

    We made a very huge mistake – all of us – when we believe – foolishly – that a house was a "sure fire" investment with no risk of failure.

    That was OUR FAULT – not Wall Streets.

    All Wall Street did – was take advantage of us rubes who drank the kool aid and we lose and they win.

    You only own – what you own – not what the mortgage company owns – the same thing folks found out back in the depression.

    Like I said – most of us were at least partially complicit.

    We thought … get a house…pay into a 401K ..and no worries… right?

  19. Larry G Avatar

    no.. I don't make light of it. The impacts of 25% employment would be devastating as you point out both from the jobs that are available and the impacts on money for entitlements.

    Here's the issue.

    In that scenario – revenues that pay entitlements are actually going in the wrong direction.

    the more unemployment we have, the bigger and longer the deficit.

    right?

    What would happen eventually?

    Well you move the retirement age UP since the 65 was originally pegged to be within a few years of your expected demise….

    we need to move that number to what it was always intended to be.

  20. Larry G Avatar

    wow .. methinks the blogger software had a software fart, eh?

  21. May I suggest;

    http://watch.weta.org/video/1540883182/

    Just watched it on WETA's "Need To Know"…..it's 9 minutes long and worth every second.

  22. We lose and they win

    I have not had that experience. My investments are still sort far more than input in and long since took back out. If the wall street types made something on the deal,that's OK with me.

    Have I "lost"since the bubble? Sure,but that is the wrong measure.

    Rh

  23. If you are planning on SS being all or most of your retirement income,then plan on loving modestly. A better plan would be 25 to 33% SS.

    I can't see govt raising the retirement age for people about to retire. I expect to be fully disabled by the time I'm 65, if not dead. I'm not a violent person but backing people into the corner Larry describes strikes me as a recipe for growing aging terrorists with not much to lose.

  24. I don't see much point in saving or earning at this point, since govt is likely to take it away anyway.

    Nor do I see anything wrong with 25% unemployment except we don't know how to deal with it. After working continuously since I was12, I'll take my 25% any time

    RH

  25. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim,
    Well gee, nice to know your ranking of enemies.
    As for the avergae guy saving, saving, saving, what happens when pentup inflation finally kicks in and eats away all that precious loot?

    PG

  26. Larry G Avatar

    Ray has pointed out the folly of trying to "park" your money although I think there must be options available or else the big company cash hoarders would be risking negative value also.

    I looked at the video provided by RBV and it pretty much as described – ordinary people are totally weirded out by what is going on … but saving money and paying down the deficit at this point is not going to fix it and may well finish the job of running us into an economic ditch.

    re: SS retirement age and aging "terrorists"..

    oh you mean like the riots in Greece?

    When SS was first invented it was predicated on the fact that you probably had ..statistically 5 years to go before you stopped collecting benefits.

    That was a very important premise behind keeping SS sustainable…

    look at it like what happens when you don't index the gas tax.

    Both of them need to be indexed so that the demographic trends don't destroy the sustainable of the taxes and benefits.

    You are not "owed" anything more than sustainability of the program – FIRST and FOREMOST and just like you are not entitled to a house that will forever gain in value.. ditto with the other realities of finance life.

    That's the problem with this country right now.

    We all bleat about the "entitlement" problem but we all still want them.

    So.. we have folks like the Tea Party folks who say govt is the problem.. incompetent, big, bloated, smelly, ugly…

    but .."keep your stinking hands off my Medicare" or.. my SS or my housing deduction, or my tax breaks, etc.

    Time for change.

    We voted in this President for Change – and despite the blatherbutts calling him a "socialist", I'm betting that after the Fall 10 elections, that there is going to be Obama's own version of "shock and awe" or entitlements and the deficit…

    I'm going to richly enjoy the pig squeals from the Tea Pots when Obama says he is cutting SS and Medicare and increase the payroll taxes for them and offers folks the option of which to do .. cut benefits/increase taxes – you pick your poison but we're going to do something to address the problem.

  27. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, I agree, the inflation scenario definitely could be a problem for middle-class savers. For the moment, though, I'd say the greater danger is deflation rather than inflation… Over the long run, there are no easy choices, and there are no sure-fire strategies. I argue that we should all try to become as self sufficient as we can, to insulate ourselves from the volatile markets to come. Easier said than done.

  28. Larry G Avatar

    " we should all try to become as self sufficient as we can,"

    does that mean we should move away from 30 yr mortgages and the incentivizing of them by the govt?

    this is sort of like the realizing that 100 yr floods are occurring at much more frequent intervals and calls into question the basis behind them.

    Similarly, if you are a mortgage lender – by what premise do you assume that the borrower is always going to have a job or a job earning as much as he does now ?

    Hasn't that whole concept been proven false in recent years with automation, globalization and outsourcing?

    The RBV video talks about the permanent loss of middle-class jobs.

    That we're headed to the upper wealth class and the folks who cook food, cut hair, and ring up purchases.

    Pointed out recently is how ridiculously low mortgage rates are but also how hard it is to even qualify for them.

    so… are we going to see sea changes in the way that mortgage companies look at your potential to pay back a 30-year mortgage?

  29. Larry G Avatar

    "The commission leaders said that, at present, available federal revenues are fully consumed by just three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

    "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans, the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

    We can't grow our way out of this," Bowles said. "We could have decades of double digit growth and not grow our way out of this enormous debt problem. We can't tax our way out . . . The reality is we've got to do exactly what you all do every day as governors. We've got to cut spending or increase revenues or do some combination of that."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?nav=hcmodule

    okay.

    so… as Bacon and Groveton have repeatedly counseled .. we will have no choice but to cut and I agree.

    the question is – what is we need to cut?

    no brainer answer: SS, Medicare, Medicaid

    right?

    In fact, if this is what we cut, we solve the structural deficit – right?

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One small item that Keynes, Peter, et al are leaving out of the discussion: Keynes' thesis of spending relies on the assumption that *all* consumption is homogeneous. I.E. if you were to buy an inferior GM product instead of a Subaru, so long as there is consumption of inferior products, that is a good thing.

    This leads to malinvestments. Continuing to prop them up via Keynes only delays the inevitable.

  31. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    "The commission leaders said that, at present, available federal revenues are fully consumed by just three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

    Social Security – Funded by payroll taxes to a 'dedicated' trust fund.

    Medicare A – Funded by payroll taxes to a 'dedicated' trust fund.

    Medicare B/D – Funded by general taxes and beneficiary premiums to a 'dedicated' trust fund.

    All excess trust fund money is loaned to the federal government as special bonding with interest.

    Medicaid is a welfare program. Once upon a time people on welfare were supposed to get jobs and become contributors to the nation, reserving Medicaid as a program for the permanently disabled and temporary unfortunates. Instead, we allowed the politicians to create a budget busting life time entitlement. Just when the country needs this program the most, medicaid is merely another case of governmental incompetence.

    If the only available revenue is as the debt commission says, then this country is dead.

    "the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries"

    SS is not discretionary. It is a mandatory financed fund that the government stole money from to pay for discretionary budget items. If you want to cut something, start with Air Force 1. Then maybe Obama would spend more than 5 minutes a week in the White House.

    If you want to increase taxes, you can start by increasing the measly 140 billion a year you received in corporate taxes during the largest expansion in the nation's history. After all, Wall Street alone pumped out nearly 50 billion in bonuses this year, and a tax increase might push Corporate America to start using their hoarded cash to grow out of this mess.

    Nah, it's a no brainer. Let's go where the money ain't, like empty pockets in podunk city, instead of where it is.

  32. Darryl:

    Nice collection of meaningless statistics.

    What they make me pessimistic about is the numeracy ao anyone who takes them seriously.

    The bottom 40% in income own less than 1% of the wealth. OK, that's why they are poor. What exactly is the point being made? That we should redistribute wealth?

    If you follow Bacons argument, what are these people supposed to save?

    If you think higher taxes to pay for war and or SS are on the way, why save now? Whatever you earn, government is going to take away anyhow.

    If you decide to save anyway, what will you do with the money? Wall street is a scam and american business is dead.

    We cannnot get our head around the idea that maybe we neither need nor want everyone working to produce goods and services we don't really need. Maybe 25% unemployment is what we need, or what we are going to have anyway.
    better teach people to enjoy fishing and smelling the roses.

    At the same time we are not willing to pay for the environmental goods and services that people seem to think are critical needs.

    If we raise taxes enought to keep the government and SS from collapsing the tax burden will killthe economy and if we don't the debt burden will kill the government.

    Meanwhile the emerging economies of Russia, China, India, and Brazil will grow like crazy, so Ameican investment will chase that growth instead of investing in America. And growth of the emerging economies will put further demands onthe environment.

    What's to worry about?

    If no one can outrun the bear in the woods, I'm still better off if I can outrun the guy behind me. For a while.

    The bear can't eat eaveryone, besides, bears are omnivores.

    RH

  33. Just when we need medicare the most….we need to get rid of it because we can't afford it.

    We'll just throw the burden on the sick, disabled and elderly poor, instead of raiding empty pockets in podunk city.

    We can't saddle out grandchilden with debt, especially the debt of caring for their grandparents. We'll just play urban eskimo and set those people on the back porch until the problem goes away.

    How many of those people do we let die like the ten in Montgomery county last week that died from the heat? How many do we get rid of to solve our unemployment problem?

    Sorry Darrell, I'm not following you here.

    RH

  34. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim,
    If you say that deflation is now a bigger problem than inflation, then why are you advocating remedies designed to fight inflation?
    When you fight inflation, you hunker down, cut spending and deficits. To get out of deflation, you need to spur spending and lending.
    This seems to be a core contradiction that you really haven't addressed yet.

    PG

  35. Larry G Avatar

    just keep in mind that as long as people work – even if we have high unemployment – the vast, vast majority – still work.

    Every week, when they get their pay, money is sent to the Feds …payroll taxes for Medicare, SS and income taxes.

    Thinking of the problem as a static fund balance that is being drawn down is wrong.

    It's more a cash flow problem and less an "out of money" problem".

    We don't – no more "use" the parole taxes for Medicare and SS for other govt funding instead of what it was intended for.

    If that were true, then people would not be receiving their SS and Medicare benefits.

    When we say the "fund" is "gone" it totally misrepresents the reality.

    Money is coming in every day from people working and money is going out every day to people who are on SS and Medicare.

    From an accounting viewpoint, we have "used" the SS fund to make our structural deficit look smaller than it really is by counting the SS money as offset money for the other debt.

    Fixing SS and Medicare – which as the article said – is the big Kahuna means either increasing payroll taxes or reducing benefits or a combination.

    Both are doable – and, more important, justified.

    SS was designed to work based on an assumption that recipients were near the end of their lives and when life-expectancy went up …without adjusting the retirement age – they set up the problem and now it has to be fixed.

    SS and Medicare were never designed to pay you more in benefits than they collected in payroll taxes – and yet most folks think that because they paid into the system – they are due back benefits no matter how much in excess of what they paid into it.

    That's not the politicians fault.

    that's the same people's fault who now are jumping up and down about govt waste and the unsustainability of it's spending.

    EXACTLY!

    but these same folks do not see their own involvement in that problem…..

    they rail about "socialism" but when it comes to SS and Medicare benefits – they are the ultimate socialists themselves because they want more out of these funds that they put into them and they expect the govt to take care of them – until they die.

    This is not the govt fault nor politicians fault – this is the folks who have this attitude fault.

    We've become a nation of whiners and complainers who want to put blame on others and not assume personal responsibility and despite what we say – we do believe the govt is "big daddy".

  36. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, I agree that deflation may be a bigger threat than inflation right now (although no one knows for sure). And I agree that following my advice would aggravate the problem in the short term, at least from a Keynesian macro-economic perspective. But I also believe that we're going to have to take our licks sooner or later. There is no avoiding the pain. But eventually, the economy bottoms out and starts growing again. If we prolong the agony with more deficit spending, we won't get the growth we're looking for. But we do pile up debt that will make Boomergeddon inevitable. And that will bring on a depression that will surpass in pain and misery anything that we would experience from a double-dip recession.

    There is one other factor that, though impossible to quantify, will help offset the pain caused by reducing government spending to a sustainable level. Businesses and small investors are increasingly worried about the government's unsustainable fiscal path. That fear and uncertainty is one of the factors (not the only one, but an important one) causing people to stuff their cash into their mattresses rather than put it to work in the economy. Restoring confidence in the integrity of government finances would put some of that mattress money back to work.

  37. Larry G Avatar

    re: " There is one other factor that, though impossible to quantify, will help offset the pain caused by reducing government spending to a sustainable level."

    are these the same companies that were just fine with credit default swaps and derivatives and gaming the system types like Enron and Goldman-Sachs?

    I'm not sure I buy that premise because some of these companies make the point that it's the govt regulation that is the problem.

    In other words "if you regulate our derivative activity we'll stop doing derivatives" and that will ultimately harm the economy.

    isn't this sort of like the banks saying that the FDIC hurts banking and makes it less predictable?

    I'm trying to understand what folks like Jim think the role of govt should be or not on these issues.

    Should the govt address deflation or consider it not their duty and let the chips fall where they may?

    No modern industrialized country has this view – correct?

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Stephen Spruiell, "Mechanical Failure," http://article.nationalreview.com/437879/mechanical-failure/stephen-spruiell

    "If the Democrats [were to] prevail [with more stimulus], it will be the third time that Congress has extended provisions of the 2009 stimulus bill since its passage in February of last year. Counting the stimulus bill that President Bush signed into law in 2008, it will be the nation’s fifth round of fiscal stimulus since the first flickers of the subprime-mortgage conflagration began to appear at the edges of the economy. It will bring the total amount we have spent on such measures to $1.085 trillion — more than we have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined."

    Reasonable arguments can be, and have been, made that both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been worth while or have been total wastes of money. I know good people on both sides of the debate. I don't intend to discuss that argument, but shouldn't we be just as concerned about the huge cost of stimulus and its results or lack thereof?

    Why has the MSM discussed this issue? Do they even know about the comparable spending level? We can no longer afford to live in a "Fred Hiatt" world whether we are on the left or right, or in the center. We need a California-style 2/3 vote for any federal budget.

    TMT

  39. Larry G Avatar

    the question is – what is the best way to manage the disease?

    The pro-stimulus folks say that even if it is a longer-lasting disease than we'd like – that – that is the reality and that just like with Cancer, you don't give up treatment 3/4 of the way though it and let the cancer prevail.

    The anti-stimulus folks are like those that say that Chemo-therapy does not work.. that ultimately the patient is going to have to survive without the chemo anyhow.

    so the question is – is the chemo really worth doing because we know that it has some terrible side effects and some may be even longer lasting than the disease itself if the patient survives.

    Most economists right now, even those who are opposed to the premise of the stimulus – will admit that we are likely headed for 20%+ unemployment if we don't continue some form or level of stimulus.

    And they further agree that with that level of unemployment that the deficit itself will get much worse because less employment means less tax revenues.

    so then folks say.. well "cut" the expenses..

    okay.. what exactly are the expenses besides the wars?

    in a word: entitlements – SS and Medicare.

    I just want to get straight with the folks who don't like the stimulus – what we should be cutting…. (or not).

    cutting the Park Service or the EPA or Education dept …from what I understand is nicking off the warts …

    isn't the structural deficit primarily an entitlement problem?

    and if you agree. then what should be done – right now – in terms of cuts?

  40. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Inflation vs. deflation?

    Inflation is less life threatening to an economy but very hard to cure. I was working a lot in Brazil when they were in the midst of hyper-inflation. we had to readjust everybody's salary every 2 weeks of our employees would have starved. There were two prices for everything – a cash price and a credit card price. The credit card price was usually a lot higher because the storekeeper was going to get paid in less valuable currency. However, what amazed all of us Americans was how well the Brazilians dealt with hyper-inflation. Eventually, Brazil changed out its currency and, over 10 – 15 years, got inflation relatively under control. There was displacement but not crisis.

    I have never seen substantial deflation across an economy. However, I hear that it's a real bear. Your money is worth more tomorrow than it's worth today so why buy anything? Every mortgage payment costs more in real terms so, eventually, why bother to pay? Every paycheck costs the employer more than the last one so why not lay off people and re-hire someone else at a newly reset pay scale.

    So, for now, I am supporting continued stimulus spending. We may end up like Brazil – forced to re-issue new currency every so often. However, that makes for exciting times for coin and currency collectors. Here's what happened in Brazil:

    Portuguese real

    Brazilian real (old) (Rs$), pl. réis; from colonial times to 1942

    cruzeiro (first) (₢, Cr$) = 1,000 réis; from 1942 to 1967.

    cruzeiro novo (NCr$) = 1,000 cruzeiros; from 1967 to 1970

    cruzeiro (second) (Cr$) = 1 cruzeiro novo; from 1970 to 1986

    cruzado (Cz$) = 1,000 cruzeiros novos; from 1986 to 1989

    cruzado novo (NCz$) = 1,000 cruzados; from January 1989 to March 1990

    cruzeiro (third) (Cr$) = 1,000 cruzados novos; from 1990 to 1993

    cruzeiro real = 1,000 cruzeiros; from August 1993 to June 1994

    real (modern) (R$), pl. reais = 2,750 cruzeiros reais; from 1994 to present (as of 2010)

    Thus, one modern Brazilian real is equivalent to 2,750,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the old real, that is, 2.75 sextillion réis.

  41. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Groveton:

    You say cruzada
    I say cruzeiro

    you say pinata
    I say dinero

    You peg the yuan a
    I say manyana

    You say deflation
    I say inflation

    You say Obama
    I say why not ah?

    You say Friedman
    I say Krugman

    Armageddon
    Boomergeddon
    Let's call the whole thing
    Off

    Peter Galuszka

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Before we call the whole thing off, let us sort the wheat from the chaff:

    First the best idea in this string is TMT’s super majority to pass ANY spending bill at Federal, State, Regional or Community level. That will undercut the pork AND the view that a 50.1 percent vote for the Elephant Clan or for the Donkey Clan is a WIN.

    Next Larry’s List makes a lot of sense. Cut entitlements and raise taxes / fees to get balanced cash flow.

    The most important items jump on are limits on mortgage deductions, a needs basis for Medicare payouts, and a work requirement for Medicaid, food stamps, cut dependency of petroleum to reduce the need for fighting wars, etc.

    Peter’s big contribution is that HOUSEHOLDS have $8-TRILLION in the mattress.

    Now there needs to be a graduated tax on ‘retained earnings’ held by Enterprises AND Institutions.

    Oh yes and do away with the ‘corporations are persons’ foolishness per Robert Reich.

    Now with all that Household, Enterprise and Institutional money do NOT ‘spend,’ but rather INVEST.

    Invest in what?

    Invest in opportunities that the investor can see and touch:

    Cluster investments, Neighborhood investments, Village investments, Community investments offered by Enterprises, Agencies and Institutions.

    Tax excess profits on all investments.

    Agency guarantees (like FDIC) for investments that have certified impact on REGIONAL ECONOMIC RESILIENCY. Regional Import Replacement. Also Community Import Replacement. That is Balanced Communities and sustainable Regions.

    If citizens saw an overarching plan rather than business as usual, they would join an effort like buying war bonds.

    But where is Prof. Risse and his ‘What Comes After the Car’ essay? I have reviewed it draft three times. What is the hold up? It lays the groundwork for functional settlement patterns that are not auto-dependent.

    Only Fundamental Transformation of human settlement patterns will result in lower per capita consumption without lower quality of life.

    Observer

  43. Larry G Avatar

    Kudos to Peter for his clever poem.

    I could be wrong ..and wait to be corrected but the structural deficit is not caused by what most of us view as "govt spending" and even though I'd support the super-majority idea, the 600 lb gorilla is entitlements.

    We can cut govt out the wazoo and if we don't deal with the big 3 – SS, Medicare, and Medicaid – we're dealing with gnats on dog butts.

    That's the heck of Boomergedden.

    it's not really "out-of-control" govt spending on …govt…

    it's out of control giving of SS, Medicare and Medicaid benefits – more than we are taking in.

    …. and the justifiable concern that if those benefits don't come from payroll taxes, then they WILL come from the General Fund and yes… that's not sustainable if the benefits keep going up and we don't control them.

    but we need to recognize that ….GASP – ….OBAMA got this right….

    Now.. I realize that there is a disconnect between what he said and what he is doing right now but that's almost a separate issue … the patient is super sick …and all this talk about what to do about his unsustainable benefits is moot if the patient gets worse and contracts flesh-eating disease or worse.

    first thing first.

    Get the money flow going again so that we get unemployment down.. then as soon as the patient gets healthy – put him on a diet…

    but you don't put a fatty on a diet when he needs a bypass operation.

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "it's out of control giving of SS, Medicare and Medicaid benefits – more than we are taking in."

    Those are big eaters. I do think, however, that they raise huge political issues. Either reductions in growth, freezes, or even cuts hit everyone relatively proportionately, which raises lots of issue re wealth and poverty, or they are cut more from the top and middle, which raise lots of political issues.

    As I've posted before, Social Security and Medicare were sold as you pay and then you get programs. Any meaningful cost savings will reduce benefits not just for the rich, but also for the middle class. Turning SS and Medicare into welfare programs will greatly undermine support for them.

    There are no easy solutions.

    TMT

    P.S. I loved Peter's poem as well.

  45. Larry G Avatar

    so.. we agree that it's entitlements and not the "other" govt spending that is the issue with the structural deficit?

  46. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Gang,
    Let's face it. My poem was lame.
    I just did it to keep Groveton amused.
    We really need to get EMR to write poetry. I bet he could best Keroauac in a 50s road trip. Who knows how much shit that man has been through.
    Peter Galuszka

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, I also think Congress should eliminate lots of programs. For example,limit transportation spending to interstate facilities. Why the devil is Uncle Sam funding local transit?

    But without tackling entitlements, not enough is achieved.

    TMT

  48. Tax excess profits on all investments is a good way to have 16 trillion under the mattress.

    What is excess profits?

    More than 30%?

    RH

  49. Larry G Avatar

    Important to recognize the SOURCES of the Federal Revenue and what part of government they fund and then where the structural deficit is.

    Payroll Taxes, Income Taxes and Gasoline Taxes. (probably others).

    The gas tax, so far, does not eat into the General Fund and has cut back expenditures to match what is coming in – and the future of the Fed gas tax without an increase is not going to add to the debt.

    The non-entitlement part of the govt is primarily the military and then hundreds of agencies ranging from the FDA to the CDC to the NRC to the MMS.

    We could an should be concerned about the size of extent of the Federal Govt but the narrative that is out there right now does not seem to recognize that the current and future structural deficits are primarily in the area entitlements.

    The problem is as TMT stated that the vast majority of folks deem these entitlements as promised in the status quo form without changes.

    Any changes are considered a betrayal of the "promise" but they apparently believe that it's not the entitlements themselves that is the problem and instead the reason the entitlements are threatened is that the money is being diverted to General Govt.

    The truth is – they're not and that it's the entitlements themselves that are out of control.

    Because people do not recognize this AND become the narrative about it continues to be a "blame stupid govt" narrative – the same folks who are concerned about the deficit and the problems don't realize that they and their entitlements are the problem.

    If the American people do not truly understand the problem – how will we solve it?

    Can you blame a politician for telling people the truth that those folks will not face themselves even when it is staring them in the face.

    That's my biggest complaint with the Tea Pots.

    They're mad as heck and are not going to take it any more but they truly don't know their head from a hole in the ground when you get right down the what the real deficit issues are.

    2/3 of them don't want Medicare and SS changed and say that they are "entitled" to those programs – even as they rally about this "socialist" President.

    And the Republicans – who do know the truth – where are they on this?

    What is the solution that they advocate?

    well..heckfire..cut income taxes …stop the stimulus, and cut useless govt of course.

    Not a word about entitlements – not now and not in the prior 8 years.

  50. Commit Suicide.
    Cut Entitlements.

    Commit Political Suicide.
    Cut Entitlements.

  51. …lower per capita consumption without lower quality of life.

    That's going to be a hard idea to sell. How do you measure quality of life? Gross Domestic Happiness?

  52. Wall street hires 2000 people in expectation of better days ahead.

  53. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, your argument on entitlements and Republicans goes along fairly well, but finally falls apart. If we have an entitlements problem (and we do, as you correctly point out), why is it OK for the Democrats, especially Obama, to take action to expand the depth and breath of the problem?

    HCR was chiefly about expanding access to health care. Whether that is a good thing morally or socially is debatable, but this is an expansion of entitlements. It's tossing a bowling ball to a drowning man.

    Second, immigration reform. Again, let's put aside the moral and social aspects for a moment. But legalizing millions of people, many of whom are low-skilled (hard-working), who would then be eligible for many entitlement programs, along with family members, will make the entitlement problem worse. Moreover, the nation's family unification program will bring in millions more, many also eligible for entitlements.

    This is the same as tossing three bowling balls to a drowning man.

    So Obama needs to reduce entitlements to many U.S. citizens who (rightly or wrongly) believe they earned/paid for those entitlements, either from the federal government (SS or Medicare) or from their employers (health insurance) for the federal government to "give" the same entitlements to others, many of whom entered the U.S. illegally.

    As people start understanding this (and they have begun to do so), it's no wonder Obama's numbers are sinking as rapidly as the Titanic. And he won't be the only Democrat going down. This has nothing to do with whether the GOP has any good alternatives. It's a pure defensive reaction by people who have good reason to believe that their president is out to get them.

    TMT

  54. This has nothing to do with whether the GOP has any good alternatives. It's a pure defensive reaction by people who have good reason to believe that their president is out to get them.

    Oh brother. Conspiracy. Your president is out to get you. What, exactly can Obama gain by "getting" me?

    And why would people dump Obama for the GOP which will face the same problems and has no better answers?

    Because they want an instant solution. Wether it is oil spill or more jobs, or financial reform, they want it now.

    It doesn't work that way.

    ——————————-

    Who says we have to give immigrants entitlements to make them legal? We could have a guest worker program in which we charge them SS, FICA, etc. and send them back home, collecting nothing.

    Most economists calculate that increasing immigration is a cure for SS, not a problem.

    =================================

    GOP was howling mad about unconstitutionally requiring people to buy healthcare.

    Now it is an entitlement?

    Sure some people on the bottom or with prexisting conditionw will be entitled to buy health are where before they could not, and they may even get a discount or some other (entitlement) like help from the government.

    But what about all the other people who formerly took a pass on health insurance? How are they costing the government anything? But putting them in the pool will lower costs for everyone.

    Meanwhile, those in the first group would wind up getting healthcare on an emergency basis, which would have cost government far more than having the government chip in to cover them (at a far lower rate) due to all the new enrollees.

    If this is an entitlement program the (persons) getting this entitlement will be big insurance.

    RH

  55. This morning a woman slammed on her brakes behind me and swerved into the breakdown lane to keep from hitting me.

    As soon as she stopped the car, she continued texting.

    I imagine she was complaining to her tea party buddies about big government interference. She's going to be really ticked off when the government mandates that autos come equpped with cell phone jammers.

  56. "Stocks surge after Alcoa, CSX report strong profitStocks surge after Alcoa, CSX report strong profit."

    Dow Gambling Venue up 166 points.

    Yep, we are all screwed now.

    RH

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Who says we have to give immigrants entitlements to make them legal? We could have a guest worker program in which we charge them SS, FICA, etc. and send them back home, collecting nothing."

    I agree that we could develop a guest worker program like this and that would also protect the workers from being stiffed on wages, etc.

    But that is not what is being proposed. What is being proposed is a pathway to citizenship, probably with early eligibility for at least some entitlement programs. Citizenship then bestows full eligibility for entitlements and the ability to bring more family members over, which, in turn, will trigger more entitlements. Meanwhile Obama will likely propose caps on entitlements for U.S. born and naturalized Americans. There is no other way to get spending under control, but to address entitlements in some manner.

    Cutting entitlements for some, while expanding them for others is not a prescription for acceptance by the American public. I think the resentment generally transcends the political spectrum, except for the fringes.

    TMT

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    But that is not what is being proposed.

    ===============================

    I have not seen anything proposed, just a lot of yak from both sides. Is there really an immigration reform proposal out there somewhere? Has a bill been entered?

    In the first place, why is an accearated path to citizenship off the table? I have a friend who was recently naturalized, and it took her years and years to complete the process. Is it so unfair to her that she had to endure "the process" and then then "the process" is changed that we should not change the process?

    That's the same argument that was used to justify hazing in the military and fraternity initiations.

    Assuming we had a process that works, then we ought to ensure that it is initiated from the other side of the border, meaning you would have to go home to start the process. One guage of how fair the new process is would be how many are willing to go home to initiate it.

    With such a process in place, you would then be justiied in prosecuting severely those that chose to ignore it and stay.

    Or else apply for th eguest worker program. And nothing says that whatever gets proposed eventually cannot include both a guest worker program and a more realistic citizenship process: both designed to improve government revenues and not increase government entitlement costs.

    One thing I can tell you from personal experience: A guest worker program that takes five years to apply for is one that does not work. That syste is compl;etely and utterly broken, and there is no reason it cannot be fixed, except for complaints from people who don't like and don't want foreigners around.

    RH

  59. One way to help solve the entitlements problem would be to change the rules on how much you can earn while "retired".

    A lot of people might like to work some and collect some retirement, but now the rules cut off your retiremint income (or tax your other retirement income) too drastically.

    A different kind of blend might encourage more to work part time, which would also mean more people employed.

    RH

  60. Larry G Avatar

    at the end of the day, the solution to entitlements is simple but mandatory and that is that you cannot be paying out more in entitlements than you are collecting.

    Part of this depends on whether we view entitlements as a forced savings program or if you view it as a redistribution of wealth.

    Part of the reason why the formal name for Social Security is Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and Medicare is characterized as a social "insurance" program is similar to the way that private insurance works and that is – you pay into it in return for a certain amount of coverage if you have a loss.

    Paying insurance premiums does not entitle you to your money back if you don't have a loss unless you buy Whole Life Insurance.

    So Social Security and Medicare are "insurance" programs designed to provide you with a safety net …on the front end of your career such that on the back end of your career – it turns out that you did not become a millionaire or even someone who has gold-plated health insurance and a monthly income of 10K…

    .. that you are "covered" from being driven out of your home, lose all our assets and possessions and end up in a cardboard box under a bridge.

    You're really only "entitled" to a minimum safety net… and that… only if you need it.

    That's not the way most folks view SS and Medicare.

    They view it as a "right" that no matter how much they paid into the system nor how much they take out of it .. even if they take out far more than they ever put into it – that it is a "right".

    We cannot operate a system like that – that does not have it's revenues match it's expenditures.

    Once we start paying more out than the program takes in – we are severely compromised as a capitalistic enterprise.

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, at 7/14/10 10:58 AM.

    Well-stated. But getting to a solution will be difficult.

    TMT

  62. "We cannot operate a system like that – that does not have it's revenues match it's expenditures."

    ==============================

    Not really, think of it like a water tank. You can take out more than you put in – for a while. You can put in more than you take out – for a while. In the long run you are right.

    If we had not been so successful with our anti-smoking campaigns we would not have a prolem with SS and medicare.

    Meanwhile we've got 12 million workwera who coul be paying and are not, except, some of them ARE paying illegally with false SS numbers.

    RH

  63. Larry G Avatar

    we're there.. the payouts now exceed the FICA.

    from this point on, we're paying from the General Fund to make up the shortfalls…

    This is what this President has been saying.. that we are not going to fix the structural deficit by doing govt or military cuts.

    It's entitlements.

    All this blather about big, expensive, dumb, incompetent, wasteful govt is … CORRECT… but as bad as it sounds.. it's the entitlements that are going to get us in the end.

    This is a big problem in my view from a political perspective because many of those involved in the dialog ..talk like they think that cutting the size/extent of govt is what we need to be doing.

    Right now.. we do not even have agreement …even from conservatives .. as what the actual problem is…

    much less any words from them on now to go about fixing it.

    cutting taxes is not going to fix entitlements….

    deregulating business is not going to fix entitlements.

    building less $600 toilets is not going to fix entitlements…

    and not fixing the entitlements means the deficit does not get fixed.

  64. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    They have guest worker visa programs H1A, H1B, H2A, H2B, L1, and others. They're already being abused. Business wants new guest worker programs that strip the labor protections out of the present visa programs, not that the government would actually enforce regulations as we've seen with banking regulations, abusive consumer lending, offshore oil drilling, and illegal immigration to name a few.

Leave a Reply