A new study backed by pro-business groups takes a harsh stance on rules intended to bring transparency to the $600 trillion derivatives market. The report, published on Monday, claims that proposed regulation could cost 130,000 jobs and could cut corporate spending by $6.7 billion.
The findings are clearly meant to scare politicians and drum up public support — just as financial regulators are set to testify on the issue before a Congressional committee on Tuesday. And at first blush, the study would seem to be good ammunition for the Chamber of Commerce and its other supporters. Continue reading “Vanishing act”→
On the budget call. Seriously, when you want to get into the weeds of something like the budget, David Dayen’s the guy you want to read. The SG Seal of Approval!
A former official with BP’s drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico resigned just months before last year’s oil spill because of disagreements with the oil giant over its commitment to safety, according to a class-action federal lawsuit related to the spill.
Documents filed Monday night in Houston claim Kevin Lacy, BP’s former senior vice president for drilling operations for the Gulf of Mexico, reached a mutual agreement with the company to resign in December 2009 because he believed the company was not adequately committed to improving safety protocols in offshore drilling operations to the level of its industry peers. The Deepwater Horizon rig explosion occurred on April 20, 2010, killing 11 workers and causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
The claims come in an amended version of the lawsuit, originally filed last year, that alleges BP inflated its stock price by hiding information and making false and misleading statements about its safety practices before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. BP’s stock value dropped roughly in half following the oil rig explosion and spill.
BP spokesman Daren Beaudo declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Eric Alterman points out the working pieces of the Obama budget strategy and what they accomplish: Namely, backing Republicans into a corner where they basically have to attack widows and orphans.
Of course, the drawbacks of this approach, as he points out, is that it doesn’t adequately address pressing issues like climate change and clean energy development; doesn’t address a runaway Pentagon budget propped by defense-friendly congressmen; and does not a thing to counter the narrative that in a time of enormous and prolonged economic pain, deficit-cutting should be at the top of the presidential agenda.
But other than that, it’s just fine!
Whether liberals wish to defend Obama or give up on him pretty much depends on whether they have already decided to give up or keep defending him. It’s the same argument as always, which is “yes it stinks, but have you seen what those other guys want?” True, but other guys always manage to get more of what they want in the end. For instance, Obama proposes to cut oil and gas tax incentives: by $46 billion over 10 years and use that money for research and development into greener and more efficient means of energy production. Atlantic Monthly writers suggest this should “please progressives.” But where in the document does Obama explain how he is going to get one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington to lie down and die for the sake of plowing the money back into research and development support? And even if they did—which, I repeat, IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN—a measly $4 billion a year is nowhere near enough to make clean energy available the quantities needed to prevent dangerous climate chaos from taking place.
Obama also accepts Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ proposed $78 billion in defense cuts and wants to use that money to invest in a $50 billion infrastructure “bank” for improved transportation. Again, yes, but $78 billion over a 10-year period is a rounding error, given the size of the military budget, which is so large the Pentagon insists it isliterally un-auditable, despite myriad congressional mandates to do so. As Ezra Klein points out, compared with the $400 billion Obama plans “to cut from domestic discretionary spending—that’s education, income security, food safety, environmental protection, etc.—over the next 10 years,” an allocation that turns out to be barely half the size of the military’s budget is yet another bum deal for liberals: a forfeit before both teams even take the field.
Yes, it could surely be much worse, and perhaps it will be. Bob Greenstein of the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities makes the case for what in Washington is considered “adulthood.” He approves of the “expansions in refundable tax credits for the working poor, major expansion of student financial aid for low-income students so that more of them can go to and complete college, and of course, major health-care reform that will extend coverage to 32 million uninsured people,” and the kicker: “Obama’s spending request looks even better when you consider what the Republicans would do if left to their own devices.” And yes, politically, it’s quite savvy. Tea Party types forced their leaders in the House to demand $100 billion in cuts, rather than the $35 billion or so they had originally planned. That will force a bunch of congressmen to vote against a whole host of popular programs, including food inspection, home heating assistance and aid to education—which could cost some of them their seats in 2012. Americans, after all, are awfully fond of spending cuts except when the spending affects them directly. (Just try, for instance, to eliminate the mortgage deduction…).
Bill Clinton’s ability to box Gingrich’s Republicans into a politically untenable “throw the widows and the orphans to the wolves” position was predicated, we should all recall, on his willingness to embrace, at least in theory, their demand for a balanced budget over a definable (but never actually reachable) period of time. Obama is taking the same tack. By agreeing to a whole host of Republican-inspired “fiscal austerity” measures, he hopes to be able to strengthen the programs he really cares about, particularly investment in infrastructure, broadband, and education for the middle and lower-middle classes. It’s a gamble that could work, particularly given the favorable reception his 2011 State of the Union speech enjoyed, which made exactly this case in the wake of the November 2010 “shellacking” the Democrats earned themselves.
What’s the alternative? A full-throated rejection of the conventional wisdom that puts deficit-reduction at the top of the agenda at a moment when the jobs crisis remains as recalcitrant as ever and the base is yearning for some of that old-time Rooseveltian religion.
But if you expected that, well, you haven’t been paying attention. That fellow played some mean ball back in 2007-2008, but retired from the court with a swish on Election Day.
Because the “of course we’ll exempt everyone 55 and older” from getting their promised benefits is just how the politicians on both sides of the aisle are covering their asses as they toil away for the banker class, and maybe it’s time those shiny pink butts should be exposed to the light.
Not to mention, this is classic “divide and conquer” strategy. We should stick together. We should present a united front. You want to cut Social Security? Then you need to face the universal wrath of the voters in the next election, instead of putting some of us in a protected class. (Of course, it’s a rather desirable side effect that if we do present a united front, the chances of actual Social Security cuts drop precipitously.)
This could be our Egypt moment. Just as Christians surrounded the Muslims at prayer, we should surround the younger generation with our promise that if they try to take their future Social Security, they’ll have to go through us.
A conference call with Congressional Budget Office spokesman Ken Baer and White House adviser David Plouffe tonight was probably aimed at growing indignation in the blogosphere over the proposed Obama budget, which features your proverbial draconian cuts to just about every social program — except Social Security and Medicare.
It wasn’t likely that bloggers would be happy with the conversation, since once we got into the details of arguing different cuts, it looked as though we were buying into the White House frame that the cuts were urgently needed in the first place, and most of us don’t believe that’s true.
Baer’s opening remarks focused on “shared sacrifice.” Some bloggers weren’t buying it. (I know I didn’t.)
My question: “When you’re talking about shared sacrifice, clearly, the working and middle class is getting a disproportionate slam everywhere they turn with this budget, and you’re talking about a few, what sound like token items to the rest of us out here, and I wonder how you rationalize that during this severe economic recession.”
Baer said people got that impression from the stories that were released early, without looking at the big-budget picture. (Click here.)
Anyway, no one on the outside really knows what they’re up to. Is this a ploy to back Republicans into a corner over popular programs? Is this a strategy to get the public to support Social Security cuts later? Your guess is as good as mine. I wouldn’t take it too seriously just yet.
In the meantime, here’s a roundup of some budget stories:
Ezra Klein: The U.S. Government: An insurance conglomerate protected by a large, standing army.
HuffPost: Republicans Response: It would be better to pass nothing.
TEHRAN, Iran — Clashes between Iranian police and tens of thousands of protesters wracked central Tehran on Monday as security forces beat and fired tear gas at opposition supporters hoping to evoke Egypt’s recent popular uprising.
The opposition called for a demonstration Monday in solidarity with Egypt’s popular revolt that a few days earlier forced the president there to resign after nearly 30 years in office. The rally is the first major show of strength for Iran’s cowed opposition in more than a year.
Police used tear gas against the protesters in central Tehran’s Enghelab, or Revolution, square and in Imam Hossein square, as well as in other nearby main streets. Demonstrators responded by setting garbage bins on fire to protect themselves from the stinging white clouds.
Eyewitnesses said at least three protesters injured by bullets were taken to a hospital in central Tehran while dozens of others were hospitalized because of severe wounds as a result of being beaten.
“An Iranian dies but doesn’t accept humiliation,” demonstrators chanted. “Death to the dictator,” they said, in a chant directed at hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
It’s understood that Obama’s budget is a wish list, one that Congress is unlikely to fulfill. Keeping that in mind, it looks like he’s trying to cover his butt on the recent tax cuts. If he thought they were so bad, why didn’t he veto them?
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — President Barack Obama’s new budget proposes to end Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, returning to a longstanding pledge while also giving small businesses a number of breaks but rescinding preferences for oil and gas companies.
Sent to Congress on Monday, Obama’s spending and tax blueprint for fiscal 2012 eliminates the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 annually. Late last year, Obama and congressional Republicans struck a deal to extend those cuts for two years, but Obama has now painted a target on the cuts again.
“These policies were unfair and unaffordable when enacted and remain so today,” Obama said in his budget message. He said he’ll push for them to expire in 2012. Read 2012 budget documents on White House web site.
The budget also seeks to raise about $46 billion by taking away oil and gas companies’ tax deductions and credits, including a credit for oil and gas produced from marginal wells. The energy proposals are repeats of last year’s budget and are staunchly opposed by the oil industry. Obama intends to use the extra revenue to fund clean energy research. Read story about Obama’s 2012 budget proposal.
Obama also wants to end tax breaks on U.S. companies’ overseas income which would reap a total of $129 billion over 10 years. Obama proposed the same thing in last year’s budget. This year’s proposal comes as the White House is working with corporations and lawmakers on proposals to overhaul the corporate tax code — though the budget contains no specific proposals on corporate tax reform.
As part of his overall $3.7 trillion request for 2012, Obama is also proposing a “patch” for the alternative minimum tax that’s paid for by a 30% reduction in itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers. The AMT was originally intended to be levied on wealthy Americans.
Meanwhile, the budget also extends or expands a number of credits for families and individuals, including the earned income tax credit and the child and dependent care tax credit.
In the weeks leading up to the release of the budget, Obama spoke repeatedly about the need to invest in areas like clean energy and high-speed rail, and the budget gives a number of tax cuts to businesses.
Included are an elimination of capital gains taxes on investments in small business stock; making permanent the research and experimentation tax credit; and extra credits for properties used for advanced energy research.
Looks like a lot of “See, folks, I’m really on your side” without any real strategy to back it up.
