Since everybody in the media and in Washington wants to know where the TARP money went, I've been thinking about the mechanics. (Please note: I'm not an accountant or an auditor and, although I am an IT person, I don't know how bank systems are designed.)
As I believe the CEO of BofA told one committee, the government's money doesn't get a color-code. And some in Congress do recognize that money is fungible. This, however, only makes them angrier (as if being angry would make money less fungible or more trackable).
Input
So, anyways, in this thought experiment, let's start on the input side. I assume it is easy to set up a new account called "TARP" and, for all I know, that is what the banks have done. It's the output side that is the problem.
Output
I suppose one could tag the TARP money, but that would mean changing who knows how many computer systems in these banks. It would probably take years and cost a bundle. Not a realistic idea. And this is why, I assume, it is so hard for Treasury or anybody to answer the question of "where did the TARP money go?"
But let's take a very simple, and unrealistic, system. One input account labeled "TARP". All the hundreds or thousands of loan officers in all the branches of these banks are given access to this account. (Practically speaking, programmers would have to add all the controls needed to assure only authorized access and limits and to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. Naturally, the implementation of even this simplified system would take at least months - but for this thought experiment we will ignore this little problem.)
So, what do the loan officers do next? Well, given the mood in Washington and the country, they will be told to make all their loans from this one pot until they have reached their limit. Wonderful. Now we know where the TARP money went. Problem solved.
No, it isn't. Why? Because TARP was supposed to make it possible for banks to lend more than they would have lent without it. But in this very simple case, all we know is that the TARP money was spent. Had it not existed, the banks might have made all of those loans from their own non-TARP money. We would have no way of knowing if that was true or not.
What we need to know and why it's not easy to find out
Basically, we really want to know two things. First, who got the loans. Second, did the bank's lending increase over what it would have been otherwise.
We could answer the first question in my simple system. But I suspect that answering it in the real world is imposssible because of the complexity of the systems involved. (See Input and Output above.)
What about the second question? Well, one could compare loans this year to loans last year and if more are made now than before, we could assume that TARP was the cause.
Not so fast. We're in a major recession. For 4 months in a row, over 600,000 jobs have been lost. (There have been only 10 such months since records began.) An enormous amount of wealth has disappeared (predominantly in homes and 401Ks). People are saving, not spending. And they are not borrowing either. So, total loans could still be down this year - because people are not borrowing or because the borrowers are no longer credit-worthy - even though the TARP money is letting banks make more loans than they would have made otherwise. That is to say, one can't reach any conclusion about whether or not more loans have been made simply by comparing loan rates or amounts because the recession muddies the waters.
No doubt there are ways to track the TARP money (to some degree) that do not require a massive redesign of computer systems and that can take into account reduced borrowing, but I suspect they are not easy to implement and will, therefore, take time to develop and put in place.
Unfortunately, complexity is not something the media or Washington understands.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
TARP and the Congress: Neel Kashkari vs. Dennis Kucinich
Well, Mr. Kashkari underwent another multi-hour grilling by, this time, Kucinich's Oversight Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, and one wonders why he has chosen to subject himself to this continuing abuse.
The more I watch committee hearings on C-SPAN, the more I wonder how our country has survived. Although there are some smart people in the Congress, the number of idiots and ideologues (sometimes the same, sometimes not) surely exceeds their presence in the population (I hope).
First, Mr. Kashkari must deal with the incredible ignorance of the people who are questioning him. They know next to nothing about banking, about finance, about economics in general.
Second, they are like children who want their candy NOW! The stimulus package, passed less than a month ago hasn't worked yet! (The money has only started to trickle out the door). The 1/2 of the TARP given to the banks in the Fall hasn't stopped the recession. (Note: that wasn't its job. Its primary purpose was to stabilize the financial system.) And they don't understand that our financial institutions are in a precarious balancing act: they want to lend but they also have to maintain their capital levels (Tier 1 and, now, TCE)to avoid going bankrupt. Doesn't matter to these financial geniuses. The banks are supposed to do both.
Third, some are still angry because Treasury injected capital rather than bought up the bad assets - no matter that multiple people from the FED, FDIC and Treasury have explained what happened on multiple occasions. They still don't realize that buying up those assets has turned into a hugely complex problem - and Treasury, to its credit, realized it had to do something fast, something specifically authorized by the legislation (capital injection).
Fourth, he is constantly required to respond to conflicting ideological demands between the "free market over everything" and the "throw the bums out" groups.
Fifth, they don't understand that these multinational banks have customers and businesses around the world. They want the TARP money to be used "only" in the U.S. A few recognize that money is fungible, but still want to control how the banks conduct their business.
One of the dumbest questions/ideas came from Issa who thought it would have made more sense for the government to just buy up/renegotiate all the bad mortgages. It didn't occur to this doofus (although Kashkari did his best to gently point it out) that the government would have to hire thousands of employees who knew something about mortgages and those people would have to come from the very industries under scrutiny. Amazing, isn't it? Issa, foe of all government, convinced that the federal bureaucracy is the devil, thinks that same government should have gotten into the mortgage modification business down at the individual level.
The biggest complainer was Kucinich, appalled by the lack of oversight on how the money is being spent. Sure, it could probably be better. But since Sept., a new Administration has taken office, the economy has gone into a tailspin, banks are failing weekly, and the stock market may be headed toward 5000. You'd think it would have occurred to Kucinich that, just maybe, the Treasury has a lot on its plate and expecting penny-by-penny accounting of the money would be impossible under the best of circumstances and impossible given the speed with which the economy has deteriorated.
The more I watch committee hearings on C-SPAN, the more I wonder how our country has survived. Although there are some smart people in the Congress, the number of idiots and ideologues (sometimes the same, sometimes not) surely exceeds their presence in the population (I hope).
First, Mr. Kashkari must deal with the incredible ignorance of the people who are questioning him. They know next to nothing about banking, about finance, about economics in general.
Second, they are like children who want their candy NOW! The stimulus package, passed less than a month ago hasn't worked yet! (The money has only started to trickle out the door). The 1/2 of the TARP given to the banks in the Fall hasn't stopped the recession. (Note: that wasn't its job. Its primary purpose was to stabilize the financial system.) And they don't understand that our financial institutions are in a precarious balancing act: they want to lend but they also have to maintain their capital levels (Tier 1 and, now, TCE)to avoid going bankrupt. Doesn't matter to these financial geniuses. The banks are supposed to do both.
Third, some are still angry because Treasury injected capital rather than bought up the bad assets - no matter that multiple people from the FED, FDIC and Treasury have explained what happened on multiple occasions. They still don't realize that buying up those assets has turned into a hugely complex problem - and Treasury, to its credit, realized it had to do something fast, something specifically authorized by the legislation (capital injection).
Fourth, he is constantly required to respond to conflicting ideological demands between the "free market over everything" and the "throw the bums out" groups.
Fifth, they don't understand that these multinational banks have customers and businesses around the world. They want the TARP money to be used "only" in the U.S. A few recognize that money is fungible, but still want to control how the banks conduct their business.
One of the dumbest questions/ideas came from Issa who thought it would have made more sense for the government to just buy up/renegotiate all the bad mortgages. It didn't occur to this doofus (although Kashkari did his best to gently point it out) that the government would have to hire thousands of employees who knew something about mortgages and those people would have to come from the very industries under scrutiny. Amazing, isn't it? Issa, foe of all government, convinced that the federal bureaucracy is the devil, thinks that same government should have gotten into the mortgage modification business down at the individual level.
The biggest complainer was Kucinich, appalled by the lack of oversight on how the money is being spent. Sure, it could probably be better. But since Sept., a new Administration has taken office, the economy has gone into a tailspin, banks are failing weekly, and the stock market may be headed toward 5000. You'd think it would have occurred to Kucinich that, just maybe, the Treasury has a lot on its plate and expecting penny-by-penny accounting of the money would be impossible under the best of circumstances and impossible given the speed with which the economy has deteriorated.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Media Missing in Action: Small Business and Obama's Awful Tax Increase
Well, Republicans have been screaming for days about how Obama's tax increase on those earning over $250,000 will kill small business.
It turns out that only 3% of the small businesses in this country would be affected. (Thank you Peter Orszag for this rather important fact that none of our useless media ever bothered to ferret out.)
When faced with that fact, a Republican changed tactics. Yes, that's true. But that 3% employs 50+% of all small business employees. So?
And, remember, we're talking about turning back the top marginal tax rate to where it was in 2000. Less than a 4% increase.
But we are supposed to believe that a 4% tax increase on 3% of the small businesses in this country will cause these business people to ... what? Shut down their businesses? No, I don't think so. Refuse to expand or hire new employees? That's kind of hard to see, too. Don't most businesses expand when there is increased demand for their products? So unless a tax increase is confiscatory - costs the company more than it can earn through expansion - I find it truly difficult to imagine this outcome either. (Any of you small business people earning more than $250,000, please let me know if I am wrong.)
This reminds me of an argument that I haven't heard in a couple of decades:that the progressive income tax on individuals will cause them not to seek promotions. Because promotions come with salary increases, usually, and some salary increases come with increased taxes. Now, I have never known anybody to turn down a promotion because of an associated tax increase. Again, if the increase totally wipes out the salary increase, I suppose a person might refuse the promotion - but being primates, I suspect most of us would still go for the promotion.
It turns out that only 3% of the small businesses in this country would be affected. (Thank you Peter Orszag for this rather important fact that none of our useless media ever bothered to ferret out.)
When faced with that fact, a Republican changed tactics. Yes, that's true. But that 3% employs 50+% of all small business employees. So?
And, remember, we're talking about turning back the top marginal tax rate to where it was in 2000. Less than a 4% increase.
But we are supposed to believe that a 4% tax increase on 3% of the small businesses in this country will cause these business people to ... what? Shut down their businesses? No, I don't think so. Refuse to expand or hire new employees? That's kind of hard to see, too. Don't most businesses expand when there is increased demand for their products? So unless a tax increase is confiscatory - costs the company more than it can earn through expansion - I find it truly difficult to imagine this outcome either. (Any of you small business people earning more than $250,000, please let me know if I am wrong.)
This reminds me of an argument that I haven't heard in a couple of decades:that the progressive income tax on individuals will cause them not to seek promotions. Because promotions come with salary increases, usually, and some salary increases come with increased taxes. Now, I have never known anybody to turn down a promotion because of an associated tax increase. Again, if the increase totally wipes out the salary increase, I suppose a person might refuse the promotion - but being primates, I suspect most of us would still go for the promotion.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Same-Sex Marriage Ban: California Supreme Court Hearing (Mar. 5, 2009)
Well, I've been watching the replayed hearing on C-Span and, as an opponent of Prop. 8, am utterly disappointed in the arguments by its opponents.
With the exception of Maroko, none of the lawyers seems to have given much thought to the questions they would be asked, especially since they are presenting an admittedly novel argument: that the difference between an amendment and a revision is relevant only when considering the structure of government, not inherent rights.
Their arguments, to this non-lawyer, were weak. Their presentations (Maroko excepted) were weak. Their answers to questions were, to be kind, unimpressive.
Ken Starr (a man I truly despise), on the other hand, was masterful. He was prepared for the questions he got. His responses were to the point.
My guess: the court will let Prop. 8 stand but will not make it retroactive.
With the exception of Maroko, none of the lawyers seems to have given much thought to the questions they would be asked, especially since they are presenting an admittedly novel argument: that the difference between an amendment and a revision is relevant only when considering the structure of government, not inherent rights.
Their arguments, to this non-lawyer, were weak. Their presentations (Maroko excepted) were weak. Their answers to questions were, to be kind, unimpressive.
Ken Starr (a man I truly despise), on the other hand, was masterful. He was prepared for the questions he got. His responses were to the point.
My guess: the court will let Prop. 8 stand but will not make it retroactive.
Media Missing in Action: The Stimulus Package (If only the Democrats hadn't shut out Republicans)
I am sooooooooo tired of the endless whining by Republicans that they were shut out of the writing of the Stimulus Package and that, if they had been able to participate, it would have passed with overwhelming support of both parties. Bull.
But our useless media, of course (including NPR), continue to repeat this idiocy, to rail against Pelosi (who has become this decade's Hillary Clinton).
Now, I realize that these blow-dried, 6-figure media figures can't be expected to actually report on anything, but couldn't NBC or CNN or ABC hire an unemployed liberals arts graduate to watch C-SPAN? If they had, they would have learned that Republicans were involved. I watched the mark-up committee; I watched the arguments on the floors of both chambers.
Dozens (maybe a hundred or more)of amendments were offered by both parties. Most, but not all, of the Republican amendments were defeated. But a number of the tax cuts survived solely to garner Republican support - not that they did much good.
What proposal did Republicans think would gain bipartisan support? A $450 billion dollar bill focused almost solely on tax cuts.
The Republican amendments failed not because they were not allowed to participate but because they implemented Republican theories of government and spending. Republicans, it should be obvious to our dolts in the media, lost the election in Nov. 2009 by substantial majorities. They have no right to expect a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress to throw over Democratic principles in favor of Republican principles.
One wouldn't think that this simple fact should need to be pointed out to those self-defined experts on politics. Republicans lost. Lost. Lost. If they want to have some input, they have to be willing to step outside their hard-right ideological base. If they don't, they cannot expect Democrats to move right to join them. That is what elections are about.
To quote Republicans after 2000: get over it.
But our useless media, of course (including NPR), continue to repeat this idiocy, to rail against Pelosi (who has become this decade's Hillary Clinton).
Now, I realize that these blow-dried, 6-figure media figures can't be expected to actually report on anything, but couldn't NBC or CNN or ABC hire an unemployed liberals arts graduate to watch C-SPAN? If they had, they would have learned that Republicans were involved. I watched the mark-up committee; I watched the arguments on the floors of both chambers.
Dozens (maybe a hundred or more)of amendments were offered by both parties. Most, but not all, of the Republican amendments were defeated. But a number of the tax cuts survived solely to garner Republican support - not that they did much good.
What proposal did Republicans think would gain bipartisan support? A $450 billion dollar bill focused almost solely on tax cuts.
The Republican amendments failed not because they were not allowed to participate but because they implemented Republican theories of government and spending. Republicans, it should be obvious to our dolts in the media, lost the election in Nov. 2009 by substantial majorities. They have no right to expect a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress to throw over Democratic principles in favor of Republican principles.
One wouldn't think that this simple fact should need to be pointed out to those self-defined experts on politics. Republicans lost. Lost. Lost. If they want to have some input, they have to be willing to step outside their hard-right ideological base. If they don't, they cannot expect Democrats to move right to join them. That is what elections are about.
To quote Republicans after 2000: get over it.
Media Missing in Action: More on Earmarks
Does anybody in the media ever read anything, do anything other than gossip with their counterparts and political operatives?
As I pointed out before, the earmarks in the Omnibus Appropriation Bill for 2009 constitute less than 2% of the total. 2 billion dollars. The effect on the debt or the deficit? Invisible. And we are in a major, major recession by any criteria. Government spending in this environment pretty much can't be bad. And if Representatives and Senators want to direct some of that money to projects of particular interest to them, who cares? (If earmarks were 50% or 75% of the bill, I might argue differently although, again, in this economic climate, I'm pretty much for government spending of any kind.)
Two of the earmarks that have gotten special treatment from John McCain and the media particularly irritate me as examples of "unprincipled" spending: the research on hog smells & manure in Iowa, and on termites in Louisiana. I am neither a farmer, nor a Southerner. But I do read widely. So I know that the effluent from factory hog farms (smells and manure disposal) are both major environmental problems that also have significant economic consequences as well. But nobody on TV (or, unfortunately, on NPR) seems to have read Michael Pollen. As for the termites, I'm not up-to-date on the current situation, but I recall reading that termites in New Orleans are especially destructive, hard (impossible?) to kill, and moving north. That isn't good for anybody who lives in a wood building.
As I pointed out before, the earmarks in the Omnibus Appropriation Bill for 2009 constitute less than 2% of the total. 2 billion dollars. The effect on the debt or the deficit? Invisible. And we are in a major, major recession by any criteria. Government spending in this environment pretty much can't be bad. And if Representatives and Senators want to direct some of that money to projects of particular interest to them, who cares? (If earmarks were 50% or 75% of the bill, I might argue differently although, again, in this economic climate, I'm pretty much for government spending of any kind.)
Two of the earmarks that have gotten special treatment from John McCain and the media particularly irritate me as examples of "unprincipled" spending: the research on hog smells & manure in Iowa, and on termites in Louisiana. I am neither a farmer, nor a Southerner. But I do read widely. So I know that the effluent from factory hog farms (smells and manure disposal) are both major environmental problems that also have significant economic consequences as well. But nobody on TV (or, unfortunately, on NPR) seems to have read Michael Pollen. As for the termites, I'm not up-to-date on the current situation, but I recall reading that termites in New Orleans are especially destructive, hard (impossible?) to kill, and moving north. That isn't good for anybody who lives in a wood building.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Campbell Brown's No Bias, No Bull - Appropriations Bill "Loaded with Pork" - Earmarks: Another Look
Well, snarky Brown opened up her show tonight with another slam about the "loaded with pork" appropriations bill. And what is her definition of "loaded with pork"? 7 billion out of 410 billion. That's less than 2% of the entire bill. 40% came from Republicans, 60% from Democrats. One wonders how she would describe a bill that were oh, say, 50% earmarks?
Worse, I have recently learned that earmarks are not what I thought they were: spending added to a bill by a Senator or Representative to benefit a special project. That's not true, and it is time that our useless media got it right.
From the Wikipedia:
In short, this is not new money but the allocation of money already authorized but not directed.
The argument in favor of earmarks that I heard during the debates this week is that Congress has a right, and a duty, to direct spending. The issue is not whether the money should have been appropriated but where it should be spent. So who should decide? For conservatives (one of whom I am not) the quandary could be stated thusly: who can better decide where to spend money? A faceless Federal bureaucrat or the person representing the district or state?
Looked at in that light, maybe earmarks aren't so bad. Yes, some are dumb, from one perspective or another. But Representatives are elected to represent the needs of the people in their district. And Senators are elected to represent the interests of their states. As a Californian, I might think a project in Minnesota is stupid and wasteful while a Minnesotan might think the same of a project in California.
Obviously, our elected officials have obligations to the country as a whole, in addition to their parochial issues, but I can't see any bright hard line telling them when to give priority to their personal morality, their constitutents, or the country.
Bottom line: earmarks do not increase the cost of spending bills, they simply direct some of the spending. One can argue about who should direct the spending (the Federal government or Congressional representatives), and whether specific projects benefit the country as a whole and even whether that kind of test is realistic or practical in our federal system. But it is time that Americans learned that when we are arguing about earmarks we are arguing not about how much money has been authorized but where it is being spent and who has the right or duty to decide where it is spent.
Grunwald's March 5, 2009 Time piece does a better job than I have done at pointing out where the real problem may be.
Worse, I have recently learned that earmarks are not what I thought they were: spending added to a bill by a Senator or Representative to benefit a special project. That's not true, and it is time that our useless media got it right.
From the Wikipedia:
The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.
Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:
"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]
In short, this is not new money but the allocation of money already authorized but not directed.
The argument in favor of earmarks that I heard during the debates this week is that Congress has a right, and a duty, to direct spending. The issue is not whether the money should have been appropriated but where it should be spent. So who should decide? For conservatives (one of whom I am not) the quandary could be stated thusly: who can better decide where to spend money? A faceless Federal bureaucrat or the person representing the district or state?
Looked at in that light, maybe earmarks aren't so bad. Yes, some are dumb, from one perspective or another. But Representatives are elected to represent the needs of the people in their district. And Senators are elected to represent the interests of their states. As a Californian, I might think a project in Minnesota is stupid and wasteful while a Minnesotan might think the same of a project in California.
Obviously, our elected officials have obligations to the country as a whole, in addition to their parochial issues, but I can't see any bright hard line telling them when to give priority to their personal morality, their constitutents, or the country.
Bottom line: earmarks do not increase the cost of spending bills, they simply direct some of the spending. One can argue about who should direct the spending (the Federal government or Congressional representatives), and whether specific projects benefit the country as a whole and even whether that kind of test is realistic or practical in our federal system. But it is time that Americans learned that when we are arguing about earmarks we are arguing not about how much money has been authorized but where it is being spent and who has the right or duty to decide where it is spent.
Grunwald's March 5, 2009 Time piece does a better job than I have done at pointing out where the real problem may be.
Jon Stewart - The Daily Show on Mar. 4, 2009 - Roasts CNBC (incl. Rick Santelli & Jim Cramer)
The Daily Show keeps getting better. Having a liberal in the White House has in no way affected its quality.
Last night's roundly deserved roast of CNBC's coverage of the stock market showed TDS at its best: a stinging montage of CNBC prognostications showing just how often, and consistently, wrong its predictions have been.
I especially enjoyed the sequences that focused on Jim Cramer. I've been watching Cramer for a couple of months now and the one constant is his inconstancy. His advice varies almost daily and rarely holds up over the long haul. (Only a few months ago, he declared Bank of America, Well Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase to be among the 5 "gold standard" banks.) Yes, I know he was a successful hedge fund manager but as such he could and did trade daily, probably almost every minute. Most of the people who watch him can't do that. He's a lot of fun to watch, but unless you have money to burn and want to buy and sell stocks all day, he's not going to help you.
The Mar. 4, 2009 montage was just one of many that Stewart's staff has put together over the past year. One recent montage I recall contrasted statements by Gibbs (Obama's press secretary) with those from prior press secretaries. Not a word's worth of difference. It takes a lot of skill and research to put together these montages. You must realize that there is something worth looking for, then locate the sound bites or videos that will support your thesis. Google and the other search engines help, but anybody who's used them for serious research knows just how hard it can be to find just what you need.
So, yes, I adore Stewart. But his staff deserve special credit for providing the material. Give Thain's bonus to them.
Last night's roundly deserved roast of CNBC's coverage of the stock market showed TDS at its best: a stinging montage of CNBC prognostications showing just how often, and consistently, wrong its predictions have been.
I especially enjoyed the sequences that focused on Jim Cramer. I've been watching Cramer for a couple of months now and the one constant is his inconstancy. His advice varies almost daily and rarely holds up over the long haul. (Only a few months ago, he declared Bank of America, Well Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase to be among the 5 "gold standard" banks.) Yes, I know he was a successful hedge fund manager but as such he could and did trade daily, probably almost every minute. Most of the people who watch him can't do that. He's a lot of fun to watch, but unless you have money to burn and want to buy and sell stocks all day, he's not going to help you.
The Mar. 4, 2009 montage was just one of many that Stewart's staff has put together over the past year. One recent montage I recall contrasted statements by Gibbs (Obama's press secretary) with those from prior press secretaries. Not a word's worth of difference. It takes a lot of skill and research to put together these montages. You must realize that there is something worth looking for, then locate the sound bites or videos that will support your thesis. Google and the other search engines help, but anybody who's used them for serious research knows just how hard it can be to find just what you need.
So, yes, I adore Stewart. But his staff deserve special credit for providing the material. Give Thain's bonus to them.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Bernanke, Geithner, and Orszag Face Congressional Committees Mar. 3, 2009
Well, I've now seen Geithner and Bernanke testify before several Congressional committees and yesterday I saw Orszag's first budget presentation.
Here's my assessment of the three as performers.
Geithner
Without question, he is the worst of the three. He is simply not a good salesman - in large part because of a number of quirks. First, he has a tendency to hunch over the mike and look up at the committee from under his eyebrows. Second, he has a habit of starting answers with phrases such as "that's an excellent question". Third, he has an Obama-like tendency to repeat the same phrases over and over and over. Fourth, and worst of all, he is defensive. He may be very, very smart. And his plans may, indeed, pull us out of this mess. But he does not give that impression and right now we need somebody who can be seen to be confident, optimistic and in charge. (It also doesn't help that he continues to talk in generalities.)
Bernanke
Calm and respectful. Sometimes, I think, too respectful. Like Geithner, he is smart. And he has acted decisively. But in front of Congressional committees, he comes off as a bit of a mouse. Perhaps he feels constrained because of the position he holds, but he seems to bend over background not to get into any kind of argument with any of his questioners - which limits his ability to sell, to Congress and to citizens, the actions he has taken.
Orszag
Triple A+. His performance yesterday was masterful. His command of budget details was awesome. His answers to the questions posed were concrete and short. No endless justifications of the general strategy, goals, etc. Moreover, he was not intimidated by the Republicans and he was indulgent toward those Democrats whose questions were designed solely to prove how good this budget is in contrast to the Bush budgets. Not only was he never defensive, he seemed to enjoy the give-and-take. Orszag came across as a man who understood the budget, who supported the budget, who was not ashamed of the choices made in creating the budget. Cheers.
Here's my assessment of the three as performers.
Geithner
Without question, he is the worst of the three. He is simply not a good salesman - in large part because of a number of quirks. First, he has a tendency to hunch over the mike and look up at the committee from under his eyebrows. Second, he has a habit of starting answers with phrases such as "that's an excellent question". Third, he has an Obama-like tendency to repeat the same phrases over and over and over. Fourth, and worst of all, he is defensive. He may be very, very smart. And his plans may, indeed, pull us out of this mess. But he does not give that impression and right now we need somebody who can be seen to be confident, optimistic and in charge. (It also doesn't help that he continues to talk in generalities.)
Bernanke
Calm and respectful. Sometimes, I think, too respectful. Like Geithner, he is smart. And he has acted decisively. But in front of Congressional committees, he comes off as a bit of a mouse. Perhaps he feels constrained because of the position he holds, but he seems to bend over background not to get into any kind of argument with any of his questioners - which limits his ability to sell, to Congress and to citizens, the actions he has taken.
Orszag
Triple A+. His performance yesterday was masterful. His command of budget details was awesome. His answers to the questions posed were concrete and short. No endless justifications of the general strategy, goals, etc. Moreover, he was not intimidated by the Republicans and he was indulgent toward those Democrats whose questions were designed solely to prove how good this budget is in contrast to the Bush budgets. Not only was he never defensive, he seemed to enjoy the give-and-take. Orszag came across as a man who understood the budget, who supported the budget, who was not ashamed of the choices made in creating the budget. Cheers.
Coburn & Education - A Lot of Neurons Short of a Full Deck
In arguring against Harkin's earmark for repairing schools in Iowa,Mr. Coburn asserted that, of course, our schools only declined in quality after the federal government got involved (out in here in California, it's pretty obvious that schools began to decline after the passage of Prop. 13 rolling back & limiting property tax increases), and that students could learn just as well in a quonset hut as in a high-tech building.
Now, I suppose one could build a quonset hut that would hold labs for biology, chemistry, physics, computer science, etc. And that would have running water and indoor toilets - but after one has done all that, how many students could be accommodated? So, unless he thinks that one-room schoolhouses with chairs and a blackboard provide the same quality education as a high-tech school building (a very dubious claim in 2009), Mr. Coburn must be given credit for one of the dumbest arguments ever made against an earmark.
Further, he argued that to spend money repairing schools in Iowa in today's difficult financial situation would mean placing - yes, you guessed it - a burden on our children and grandchildren.
Although one can argue about the value of earmarks, or the value of this earmark in particular, it seems to me that arguing that improving the educational environment of students who will be creating those future generations could be bad for those future generations is absurd. Educated parents generally raise educated children.
One wonders if Coburn would be where he is today if he had been educated in a quonset hut.
Now, I suppose one could build a quonset hut that would hold labs for biology, chemistry, physics, computer science, etc. And that would have running water and indoor toilets - but after one has done all that, how many students could be accommodated? So, unless he thinks that one-room schoolhouses with chairs and a blackboard provide the same quality education as a high-tech school building (a very dubious claim in 2009), Mr. Coburn must be given credit for one of the dumbest arguments ever made against an earmark.
Further, he argued that to spend money repairing schools in Iowa in today's difficult financial situation would mean placing - yes, you guessed it - a burden on our children and grandchildren.
Although one can argue about the value of earmarks, or the value of this earmark in particular, it seems to me that arguing that improving the educational environment of students who will be creating those future generations could be bad for those future generations is absurd. Educated parents generally raise educated children.
One wonders if Coburn would be where he is today if he had been educated in a quonset hut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
