New York Times Editorial, "A Poison Pill for the Recovery": Alternative Facts

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "A Poison Pill for the Recovery," The New York Times attacks Donald Trump's order yesterday to roll back Dodd-Frank. Don't misunderstand me: Trump's directive is a disaster in the making, but let's take a closer look at the Times editorial, which continues to pay homage to Obama:

"[Donald Trump] has been lucky enough to inherit an economy that added 11.5 million jobs during President Obama’s tenure, the fourth-highest tally of the 12 administrations in the post-World War II era. There is, of course, much work still to be done: Growth in wages is not yet strong, and too many people are able to find only part-time work. But the foundation on which to build — economic growth, financial stability, monthly job tallies and low unemployment — is firm."

Ah yes, "the foundation on which to build" ...

But now consider what Andrew Soergel had to say in a July 16, 2015 U.S. News & World Report article entitled "Where Are All the Workers?":

"Americans are actually trickling out of work at an alarming rate. The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent.

Unemployed individuals who haven't actively looked for a job in the last four weeks, for any number of reasons, actually slip away from the Labor Department's unemployment calculations. So although the unemployment rate ticked down to a seven-year low of 5.3 percent in June, that number didn't do justice to the 640,000 individuals who exited the labor market last month and the nearly 94 million people who were neither employed nor looking for work."

Also consider that Obama left the United States with a crippling national debt of $20 trillion, or some $800,000 per family. Moreover, seven percent of that debt is held by China, a country with respect to which Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon declared in March 2016:

"We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years, aren't we. There’s no doubt about that."

Do you laugh or cry? Me? I'm headed back to my dogs and vegetable garden.

Thomas Friedman, "Who Are We?": Hands Off Hillary!

Tweet

Yesterday, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Roosevelt Approach," David Brooks trashed Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Today, in a Times op-ed entitled "Who Are We?," Thomas Friedman lambastes Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. Friedman begins his opinion piece by observing:

"I find this election bizarre for many reasons but none more than this: If I were given a blank sheet of paper and told to write down America’s three greatest sources of strength, they would be 'a culture of entrepreneurship,' 'an ethic of pluralism' and the 'quality of our governing institutions.' And yet I look at the campaign so far and I hear leading candidates trashing all of them.

Donald Trump is running against pluralism. Bernie Sanders shows zero interest in entrepreneurship and says the Wall Street banks that provide capital to risk-takers are involved in 'fraud,' and Ted Cruz speaks of our government in the same way as the anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist, who says we should shrink government 'to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.'"

Okay, I have no love for Trump, Sanders or Cruz, but how the heck does Tom Terrific make reference to "the quality of our governing institutions" without making reference to Hillary's installation of a home email server in flagrant disregard for America's national security?

Friedman continues with regard to Sanders:

"Sanders seems to me like someone with a good soul, and he is right that Wall Street excesses helped tank the economy in 2008. But thanks to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, that can’t easily happen again."

Unfortunately, Dodd-Frank addresses past financial abuses, while ignoring newer manipulative and predatory tactics devised by hedge funds to line their pockets. With the cancellation of the Uptick Rule in July 2007 and the advent of high-frequency trading, it can happen again, yet the Obama administration has done absolutely nothing to address this problem.

Also, consider what Robert B. Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, has to say about the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Bill Clinton:

"Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton’s campaign. 'You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,' Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.

This is a big mistake.

It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.

It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one."

I agree with Reich.

It is sickening how The New York Times - with the notable exception of Maureen Dowd - is determined to ignore Hillary's transgressions in order to grease her way into the White House.

Question: If the FBI recommends indicting Hillary, will the Gray Lady push its coverage of this story onto one of its back pages? Actually, news concerning the demise of Hillary's candidacy might well belong on the obituary page.

Paul Krugman, "Obama’s Other Success": Another Such Success Could Ruin the Country

"A few such Victories would Ruin the Army"

- British Lieutenant-Colonel James Abercrombie, dying from his wounds after the Battle of Bunker Hill

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama’s Other Success" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/opinion/paul-krugman-dodd-frank-financial-reform-is-working.html), subtitled "Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Is Working," Paul Krugman would have us believe that after five and a half years as president, Obama can point to two successes: Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. Concerning Obamacare, Krugman writes:

"Although the enemies of health reform will never admit it, the Affordable Care Act is looking more and more like a big success. Costs are coming in below predictions, while the number of uninsured Americans is dropping fast, especially in states that haven’t tried to sabotage the program. Obamacare is working."

Fascinating. Needless to say, Krugman avoids reference to the most recent Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll. As observed a few days ago by Aaron Blake writing for The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/01/obamacare-hits-a-new-low-in-popularity-but-its-not-a-dominant-issue/):

"The Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll, which has been keeping constant tabs on public sentiment on the Affordable Care Act for nearly four years, shows 53 percent of Americans now have an unfavorable impression of the law. That's the highest on record and an increase of eight percentage points in one month."

Yes, I know: We shouldn't pay attention to what a majority of Americans think. They are stupid and don't know what's best for them. Obama knows best.

But then there was also a recent Forbes article entitled "How Obamacare Encourages Some Millennials To Become Uninsured" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/07/31/how-obamacare-encourages-some-24-year-olds-to-become-uninsured/) by Chris Conover, which informs us:

"About 30% of 24-year-olds have incomes at 275% or more of poverty. The chart demonstrates starkly how Obamacare makes life worse for such individuals. Prior to Obamacare, such individuals would have been slightly better off buying a non-qualified health plan with an actuarial value of 50%. But Obamacare gets rid of such plans, substituting plans with a higher actuarial value and more comprehensive benefits. So now the privilege of buying health insurance costs 44% more than the expected cost of remaining uninsured–and that’s AFTER taking into account the individual mandate penalty."

More about the cost of Obamacare? Have a look at a Washington Post article entitled "Older women bear the brunt of higher insurance costs under Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/06/24/older-women-bear-the-brunt-of-higher-insurance-costs-under-obamacare/) by Joann Weiner, which states:

"[W]omen age 55 to 64 will face a huge spike in cost when they go out to buy individual insurance on the federal exchange. These women bear the brunt of the increased premiums and out of pocket expenses after the Affordable Care Act."

Or in other words, not everyone is benefiting from Obamacare. In fact, there are those who are paying a very heavy price to subsidize this highly unpopular "success."

But what about Obama's other "success," Dodd-Frank, which was intended to prevent a recurrence of the events responsible for the 2008 financial crisis? Krugman writes:

"The Dodd-Frank reform bill has, if anything, received even worse press than Obamacare, derided by the right as anti-business and by the left as hopelessly inadequate. And like Obamacare, it’s certainly not the reform you would have devised in the absence of political constraints.

But also like Obamacare, financial reform is working a lot better than anyone listening to the news media would imagine. Let’s talk, in particular, about two important pieces of Dodd-Frank: creation of an agency protecting consumers from misleading or fraudulent financial sales pitches, and efforts to end 'too big to fail.'"

Krugman fails to understand that Dodd-Frank addresses past financial abuses, while ignoring newer manipulative and predatory tactics devised by hedge funds to line their pockets. With the cancellation of the Uptick Rule  (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/maureen-dowd-summers-of-our-discontent.html) and the advent of high-frequency trading (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/05/paul-krugman-now-thats-rich-hedge-funds.html), we have another catastrophe in the making, yet the Obama administration has done absolutely nothing to address these problems.

Obamacare and Dodd-Frank? Another such "success" could send the US into a death spiral.