Sunday, February 22, 2009
2.22.09: Anger or Despair
In the wake of the stimulus bill passing with only three Republicans voting for it, none in the House, it's curious as to what Sen. Arlen Specter (PA), Sen. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (ME), and one of today's MTP guests Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL) were all thinking. They are all for the stimulus package, be it they all have their amendments (everyone does), but nonetheless they bucked the rest of their party.
But why would Gov. Crist be for the stimulus? Florida residents have seen their savings [read: retirement savings] decimated and hence have had their homes foreclosed on at staggering rate. They need the money... Virtually every state is running at a deficit with the possible exception of Alaska. Spending is at a trickle and Gov. Crist believes that the government, the only ones with cash, need to come into the picture.
Like we said, every state runs at a deficit so why would today's other Gubernatorial guest, Bobby Jindal (R-LA). His reasoning, in the context of his of his state, isn't shallow rhetoric. He says that changing or extending the employment benefits in the state as a temporary solution would require a permanent change in state law that would event raise taxes on small businesses. It's refreshing to hear from a Republican who actually gives an informed reason as to why the stimulus is not a good idea instead of answers with bad posture. Also, he stated that Louisiana, despite running a deficit, is still a 'doner' state with it's offshore gas and oil interests.
This latter proclamation doesn't carry any weight in that it doesn't mean that the state is doing well. It can certainly mean that they are not as bad off as others. Surprisingly, Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans (show clip) made succinct sense, "Any money that Gov. Jindal does not want, New Orleans would take happily." Gov. Jindal also mentioned that the stimulus is an unreasonable bill to hand future generations.
This brings us to state clearly: Whether it be a heavily based Republican tax cut plan or what's in place now, an enormous stimulus spending bill, future generations will get the bill. No matter how it's done, future generations are paying.
Without seeing the fine print, the increase in taxes for small businesses that Gov. Jindal talked about, could be looked at in different ways. First, without extended unemployment benefits you could begin to see another sort of mass drowning in New Orleans, one of the unemployment and homeless variety. Extraordinary circumstances, which this column believes have not yet truly have hit us, means that this temporary solution is a necessity for the people. If the tax is proportional, this eventual tax increase would be in response to increased production on the part of the small business and hence making more money. Again, without knowing what the percentage increase is, the increased tax becomes the result of more money coming in. And then there is just the naive question: Can't you just change the law back after time when it is advantageous to do so?
Governor Crist talked about common sense and doing what was right for the people of Florida. Isn't that another way of saying that the Republican party, generally, is not acting with common sense? It's a better question than David Gregory asking both guests about their future political ambitions at this time. If the purpose is simple to have the clip for use in the future, then it's trite.
But back the 'Republican' question. We can understand the concern with being handed a 1,000 page bill and then being asked to vote on it 5 hours later, but the problem is that the main counter idea from the Republicans, voiced most loudly, is that more tax cuts are needed. Ad nauseam... Having done this for the past eight years simple didn't work. The proof is the state we're in now.
And the crisis we're in now starts with the banks, which leads us to that nasty multi-syllabic word, 'nationalization.' Today's panel consisting of Bloomberg News' Al Hunt, NPR's Michele Norris and CNBC's Becky Quick addressed this in reaction to what Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) said earlier this week to Al Hunt. He said that a temporary nationalization (and we're paraphrasing here) of the banks may be necessary sending the stock market further into the deeper end of the pool. However, Mr. Hunt's reaction on today's program, was quite interesting in that he said that Mr. Dodd's statement was actually quite benign. And though, the reaction was one of alarm, we agree with Mr. Hunt in that the statement did not deserve such a reaction, in the press at least. At this time, 14 banks have been 'nationalized,' which is to say that the bank no longer had the cash to cover all of it's customers' holding (the money in your savings accounts for example) so the FDIC, the government agency that ensures those savings, had to step in and take control. It's funny, when the ordinary American puts his/her money in a bank, that person would always take a small assurance away that the bank was FDIC insured (we did). And now that those insurers have to act, we have trepidation in them do so.
And lastly, and rightly, the panel reacted to an on-air commentary by CNBC's Rick Santelli on the program Squawk Box, which Ms. Quick co-anchors. His commentary basically made the argument as to why the stimulus for the housing market is wrong in that the 'losers' in the market get bailed out at everyone's expense. On a ground level, one neighbor is paying for another mortgage. Ms. Quick did point out that Mr. Santelli makes these kinds of comments a lot, but this one in particular was addressed by the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in which he invited the editor to sit down with him and read over the plan. Unfortunately, it's a lose-lose situation for that 'neighbor' who takes the hit in Mr. Santelli's illustration. That person is angry that his/her tax dollars are going to help in someone else's financial woes (forget about the notion of Americans being in this together we guess) so that is a losing proposition. However, when three in ten homes on his/her block are foreclosed on, then the person is in despair, because he/she is now underwater with their mortgage, paying more than the house is actually worth.
So that person has to decide on either anger or despair. We suggest anger, it tends to be a motivator.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
2.15.09: The Opposite of 'Pro'
The biggest spending bill in the history of the United States... that is what was passed this week by the Democratically controlled Congress. The stimulus 'bridge' is the legacy of the Bush Administration and the signature plan of the Obama Administration all at the same time. It was a foregone conclusion that the bill would pass and the only true anticipatory factor was how many Republicans would sign on, which turned out to be very few - three to be exact. Key questions still remain of course - For example, is the amount of the bill too big or too small? David Axelrod, today's first guest, seems to feel that in the midst of that argument the size is just right [insert a gut tightening 'we'll see' here].
A Republican concern, most loudly voiced last week by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is that the largest spending bill in our history is being passed to quickly and we should slow down - scrutinize every part. That's simply not going to happen. But now that it is passed, the concern is that the money won't be spent quickly enough to make a difference. This is one of the truest examples of the modern American mentality. Should we borrow the money, we don't know... is it too much?... Oh my God...but now that we have it, we can't spend it fast enough.
If it isn't one thing, it's the other
What we do know is that we need spending to spur the economy and the government is the only entity capable of doing so at the this point... so, they must. This is according to most economists. Mr. Axelrod stated that they are a number of ready projects that have been 'cleared and vetted.' (Obama Administration Personnel Note: Stay away from that word, 'vetted,' or any form of the word 'vet' for a long while. It hasn't been working out for them lately.) He was also asked to defend against editorials that stated that we would see tangible job results from the stimulus until the 4th quarter of 2010. We'd like to jump in here and defend this one instead...
That is about 20 months from now, less than two years. Given the size of our country and the amount of people affected (everyone), the fact that this is a world-wide crisis, and the amount of dollars that need to be delegated, that is a relatively short time. Remember the Japanese economy in the 1990's with zero growth - they called that the 'Lost Decade.' In that context, less than two years is quite fast... Imagine a full recovery in three years. Most people would take that situation if they were 100% sure that in three years time, jobs would back and the economy was going really well. "Yeah, I can gut it until then... I can make it happen," everyone would say. But don't hold your breathe because you will die. We are talking about the U.S. government, President Obama or no President Obama, it still remains the U.S. Congress in control of things and it is going to take much longer than people think or think they know.
A program recommendation: We'd like to point out that it's a good idea to watch any interview on any program when the guest is David Axelrod. If you want to gain an insight on the Administration's train of logic and priorities, then always listen to the chief advisor. The only way to have vaguely understood President's Bush's true modus operandi was to get a statement from Karl Rove - rare as those were.
On the other hand, you still have Vice President Dick Cheney making statements of hyperbole with regard to the 'war on terror,' which David Axelrod on today's program properly called out as irresponsible. And frankly, this column agrees with that assessment The former Vice President would blatantly continue to stoke a culture of fear for party political gain (that's the definition of terrorism by the way) at this juncture serves no constructive purpose.
And unfortunately, stoking fear has not dissipated in the Republican minority of Congress.
It reminds us of the Steven Wright joke: If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con,' then what is the opposite of 'progress?'
The Republicans were crying for more tax cuts - $2.5 trillion over the next decade - to be the center piece of the stimulus package, which is more of the same Bush policy, for which the track record is not good. But John McCain, earlier in the week, said that growing the deficit would put the burden on future generations, which is unacceptable. The tax cuts do exactly the same thing and aren't even a firm fixer.
As Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson, aptly summed up, "There aren't any deficit hawks in unemployment lines." Today's panel consisted of National Journal's Ron Brownstein, the aforementioned Mr. Robinson, Politico's Roger Simon, and The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel. With the exception of Ms. Strassel, it was a seasoned group to be sure, veterans who know how to create useful sound bites like the one above or what Mr. Brownstein termed 'generational theft.' We mentioned this because Mr. Gregory at times seemed to be that kid that was trying to get his opinion in, more waiting to talk, or as moderator - insisting, rather than listening. Three of the four on the panel have appeared with Mr. Russert numerous times in the past and Mr. Gregory still needs to work on his management of personalities when it comes to the biteheads.
And we concur with Mr. Brownstein's insistence that we keep things in perspective, three weeks into the man's Presidency and they are sitting there discussing the possible end of Citibank and GM. These two giants are just a few small examples of what is at stake and to do nothing would change from 'possible' to 'inevitable' very quickly.
A Republican concern, most loudly voiced last week by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is that the largest spending bill in our history is being passed to quickly and we should slow down - scrutinize every part. That's simply not going to happen. But now that it is passed, the concern is that the money won't be spent quickly enough to make a difference. This is one of the truest examples of the modern American mentality. Should we borrow the money, we don't know... is it too much?... Oh my God...but now that we have it, we can't spend it fast enough.
If it isn't one thing, it's the other
What we do know is that we need spending to spur the economy and the government is the only entity capable of doing so at the this point... so, they must. This is according to most economists. Mr. Axelrod stated that they are a number of ready projects that have been 'cleared and vetted.' (Obama Administration Personnel Note: Stay away from that word, 'vetted,' or any form of the word 'vet' for a long while. It hasn't been working out for them lately.) He was also asked to defend against editorials that stated that we would see tangible job results from the stimulus until the 4th quarter of 2010. We'd like to jump in here and defend this one instead...
That is about 20 months from now, less than two years. Given the size of our country and the amount of people affected (everyone), the fact that this is a world-wide crisis, and the amount of dollars that need to be delegated, that is a relatively short time. Remember the Japanese economy in the 1990's with zero growth - they called that the 'Lost Decade.' In that context, less than two years is quite fast... Imagine a full recovery in three years. Most people would take that situation if they were 100% sure that in three years time, jobs would back and the economy was going really well. "Yeah, I can gut it until then... I can make it happen," everyone would say. But don't hold your breathe because you will die. We are talking about the U.S. government, President Obama or no President Obama, it still remains the U.S. Congress in control of things and it is going to take much longer than people think or think they know.
A program recommendation: We'd like to point out that it's a good idea to watch any interview on any program when the guest is David Axelrod. If you want to gain an insight on the Administration's train of logic and priorities, then always listen to the chief advisor. The only way to have vaguely understood President's Bush's true modus operandi was to get a statement from Karl Rove - rare as those were.
On the other hand, you still have Vice President Dick Cheney making statements of hyperbole with regard to the 'war on terror,' which David Axelrod on today's program properly called out as irresponsible. And frankly, this column agrees with that assessment The former Vice President would blatantly continue to stoke a culture of fear for party political gain (that's the definition of terrorism by the way) at this juncture serves no constructive purpose.
And unfortunately, stoking fear has not dissipated in the Republican minority of Congress.
It reminds us of the Steven Wright joke: If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con,' then what is the opposite of 'progress?'
The Republicans were crying for more tax cuts - $2.5 trillion over the next decade - to be the center piece of the stimulus package, which is more of the same Bush policy, for which the track record is not good. But John McCain, earlier in the week, said that growing the deficit would put the burden on future generations, which is unacceptable. The tax cuts do exactly the same thing and aren't even a firm fixer.
As Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson, aptly summed up, "There aren't any deficit hawks in unemployment lines." Today's panel consisted of National Journal's Ron Brownstein, the aforementioned Mr. Robinson, Politico's Roger Simon, and The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel. With the exception of Ms. Strassel, it was a seasoned group to be sure, veterans who know how to create useful sound bites like the one above or what Mr. Brownstein termed 'generational theft.' We mentioned this because Mr. Gregory at times seemed to be that kid that was trying to get his opinion in, more waiting to talk, or as moderator - insisting, rather than listening. Three of the four on the panel have appeared with Mr. Russert numerous times in the past and Mr. Gregory still needs to work on his management of personalities when it comes to the biteheads.
And we concur with Mr. Brownstein's insistence that we keep things in perspective, three weeks into the man's Presidency and they are sitting there discussing the possible end of Citibank and GM. These two giants are just a few small examples of what is at stake and to do nothing would change from 'possible' to 'inevitable' very quickly.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
2.8.09: No Panacea
In the first part of today's program, the guests - Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) - debated the merits of the stimulus bill and specifically what should be the top priorities should be. Breaking it down to its basic level (which no one in Washington can really seem to do and then convey effectively to the American people) is that Republicans would like to see a larger portion of the stimulus go to tax cuts to put more money in people's pockets and the Democrats want more money for the states and more spending on public works projects to create jobs.
Now the question that every ordinary American has, including this humble columnist, is how will it help me in my particular situation? The answer is that which ever philosophy eventually wins out, neither may directly help you. Giving tax cuts to Americans, in the form of a check a la President Bush, is really just another form of the T.A.R.P. in as much as that when most Americans receive that pittance of a check, they will pay their respective credit bank infusing the banks with additional cash. On the other hand, investing in public works projects is necessarily going to better the working situation of the majority of Americans working in the private sector.
There really isn't any sense in getting into the specifics of what each politician said because it was mostly bluster, protecting philosophical turf. And they can't get it straight anyway. For example, when Mr. Gregory asked Rep. Pence about nationalizing the banks, the Congressman said that we can't nationalize them but they need more capital. So where are they going to get the capital from... the government of course. And if they get money from the government then they have to answer to the government, hence nationalizing them.
It was all about partisanship and that's what it is going to continue to be about. Democrats won the day in the elections but they don't want to bully. This column translates that into not wanting to take responsibility for making a decision that may fail. We're not saying that their strategy will fail, but they have to be willing to step up on their own without the other side. Republicans have no problem bullying and when they succeed, they gloat. When they fail, they deny.
So what do we do? Everyone needs cash and there simply just isn't enough to go around. Republicans, this columns feels, do not want any bill - let things take their course - free market economy and if you sink... that's just tough - you drown. That's not going to do. You can reference that the Japanese in the 1990's did stimulus after stimulus and nothing worked... a lost decade. This is going to happen with America - a lost decade. However, we need to do what ever we can and if that means the government spending obscene amounts of money to stem complete collapse then so be it. If there are lines for food, trust that there will be plenty of blame to go around.
Many commentators, the pundits, say that the general public doesn't understand the difference between the T.A.R.P. and the stimulus bill. We call them pompous 'think-they-know-it-all' asses. We know the difference, but what we don't know is if the money is being spent in the best possible way and that's because we don't have the key to the cash draw.
This stimulus is not panacea and endless tinkering isn't going to make it so. That's what we truly have to understand.
Speaking of a panacea, or lack thereof, MTP's second guest today, The Washington Post's Tom Ricks, discussed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the prism of his new book 'The Gamble.' With so much going on here at home, the ever more tenuous situations of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been relegated not to the back seat, but the trunk of the metaphoric auto. However, given this interview, we will not be able to get out of Iraq in 16 months. It is unrealistic so get your head around it now. Mr. Ricks pointed out that what supporters expect and what the generals will advise will increasingly be at odds with one another. Amb. Crocker, in Iraq, stated that the events that we will remember about Iraq have yet to happen. What that means, we don't know, but it sure does sound ominous and that we shouldn't expect some fledgling democracy in that country. When we relax in Iraq, the factions of Iraqi generals will take control and not necessarily to our liking. The administration has been correct in that the real fight, politically and militarily, is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a government sympathetic to the Taliban and the Mujahideen is the greatest threat we face. This is a situation way beyond the hand of our control, but like the spiraling situation that is our economy, we need to throw everything we have at it. Washington still operates in a bubble with both Democrats and Republicans picking their petty fights and in the meantime, we've all been thrown from the dock perpetually caught in the wake of a boat that has a broken rudder.
So Washington needs to make some tough decisions instead of putting them off and stick them... because God knows, we ordinary citizens have to live with them.
Now the question that every ordinary American has, including this humble columnist, is how will it help me in my particular situation? The answer is that which ever philosophy eventually wins out, neither may directly help you. Giving tax cuts to Americans, in the form of a check a la President Bush, is really just another form of the T.A.R.P. in as much as that when most Americans receive that pittance of a check, they will pay their respective credit bank infusing the banks with additional cash. On the other hand, investing in public works projects is necessarily going to better the working situation of the majority of Americans working in the private sector.
There really isn't any sense in getting into the specifics of what each politician said because it was mostly bluster, protecting philosophical turf. And they can't get it straight anyway. For example, when Mr. Gregory asked Rep. Pence about nationalizing the banks, the Congressman said that we can't nationalize them but they need more capital. So where are they going to get the capital from... the government of course. And if they get money from the government then they have to answer to the government, hence nationalizing them.
It was all about partisanship and that's what it is going to continue to be about. Democrats won the day in the elections but they don't want to bully. This column translates that into not wanting to take responsibility for making a decision that may fail. We're not saying that their strategy will fail, but they have to be willing to step up on their own without the other side. Republicans have no problem bullying and when they succeed, they gloat. When they fail, they deny.
So what do we do? Everyone needs cash and there simply just isn't enough to go around. Republicans, this columns feels, do not want any bill - let things take their course - free market economy and if you sink... that's just tough - you drown. That's not going to do. You can reference that the Japanese in the 1990's did stimulus after stimulus and nothing worked... a lost decade. This is going to happen with America - a lost decade. However, we need to do what ever we can and if that means the government spending obscene amounts of money to stem complete collapse then so be it. If there are lines for food, trust that there will be plenty of blame to go around.
Many commentators, the pundits, say that the general public doesn't understand the difference between the T.A.R.P. and the stimulus bill. We call them pompous 'think-they-know-it-all' asses. We know the difference, but what we don't know is if the money is being spent in the best possible way and that's because we don't have the key to the cash draw.
This stimulus is not panacea and endless tinkering isn't going to make it so. That's what we truly have to understand.
Speaking of a panacea, or lack thereof, MTP's second guest today, The Washington Post's Tom Ricks, discussed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the prism of his new book 'The Gamble.' With so much going on here at home, the ever more tenuous situations of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been relegated not to the back seat, but the trunk of the metaphoric auto. However, given this interview, we will not be able to get out of Iraq in 16 months. It is unrealistic so get your head around it now. Mr. Ricks pointed out that what supporters expect and what the generals will advise will increasingly be at odds with one another. Amb. Crocker, in Iraq, stated that the events that we will remember about Iraq have yet to happen. What that means, we don't know, but it sure does sound ominous and that we shouldn't expect some fledgling democracy in that country. When we relax in Iraq, the factions of Iraqi generals will take control and not necessarily to our liking. The administration has been correct in that the real fight, politically and militarily, is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a government sympathetic to the Taliban and the Mujahideen is the greatest threat we face. This is a situation way beyond the hand of our control, but like the spiraling situation that is our economy, we need to throw everything we have at it. Washington still operates in a bubble with both Democrats and Republicans picking their petty fights and in the meantime, we've all been thrown from the dock perpetually caught in the wake of a boat that has a broken rudder.
So Washington needs to make some tough decisions instead of putting them off and stick them... because God knows, we ordinary citizens have to live with them.
Friday, February 06, 2009
2.6.09: From Friday's Huffington Post
The below title tells the story, but here is the link as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/meet-the-press-ratings-lo_n_164375.html
"Meet The Press" Ratings Lowest Since David Gregory Became Moderator
"Meet the Press" posted its lowest ratings since David Gregory became moderator this past week, with the show airing Sunday, Feb. 1 averaging just 3.9 million viewers. The show, which featured Senators John Kerry and Kay Bailey Hutchison, as well as a roundtable including Erin Burnett and Steve Forbes, was Gregory's first as moderator to average less than 4 million viewers (he came close on the Sunday between Christmas and New Year's, but he still crossed the 4 million threshold).
NBC notes that its Super Bowl Sunday coverage — which started with Matt Lauer's interview of President Obama and carried through to what the network described as the most-watched television event of all time — bumped "Meet the Press" to irregular start times in most markets and and meant that the public affairs program only aired in 96% of the homes it normally does. Because "Meet the Press" has become "appointment television," this may have contributed to the lower ratings for the week, as would many Super Bowl fans turning to pre-game coverage on, say, ESPN, between "Today" and the game. And were the program shown in 100% of its households, it would likely have crossed the 4 million viewer threshold.
Still, the gap between "Meet the Press" and its competitors — CBS' "Face The Nation" and ABC's "This Week" — is closing, as the below graph shows. This week it was down to just under 600,000 viewers. "Face The Nation" averaged 3.33 million total viewers, while "This Week" came in just behind with 3.32 million total viewers. "This Week" even beat "Meet the Press" on January 11, when George Stephanopoulos interviewed President-Elect Barack Obama (though the margin of victory, 40,000 viewers, was disappointing given the enormity of the interview).
Gregory's highest-rated broadcast — apart from his December 7 handover from Tom Brokaw, which averaged 6.6 million total viewers — came on December 21, when he hosted Condoleeza Rice and averaged 4.8 million total viewers. Since then, his total viewer averages have slid:
"Meet the Press" ratings (total viewer average)
December 21: 4.779 million
December 28: 4.060 million
January 4: 4.715 million
January 11: 4.300 million
January 18: 4.450 million
January 25: 4.190 million
February 1: 3.900 million
While general interest has waned as the fever over President Obama's inauguration has calmed, "Face the Nation" did grow each week between January 11 and January 25, though it did not match its January 4 high of 3.6 million total viewers.
"Face the Nation" ratings (total viewer average)
December 21: 3.124 million
December 28: 2.709 million
January 4: 3.633 million
January 11: 3.010 million
January 18: 3.180 million
January 25: 3.340 million
February 1: 3.330 million
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/meet-the-press-ratings-lo_n_164375.html
"Meet The Press" Ratings Lowest Since David Gregory Became Moderator
"Meet the Press" posted its lowest ratings since David Gregory became moderator this past week, with the show airing Sunday, Feb. 1 averaging just 3.9 million viewers. The show, which featured Senators John Kerry and Kay Bailey Hutchison, as well as a roundtable including Erin Burnett and Steve Forbes, was Gregory's first as moderator to average less than 4 million viewers (he came close on the Sunday between Christmas and New Year's, but he still crossed the 4 million threshold).
NBC notes that its Super Bowl Sunday coverage — which started with Matt Lauer's interview of President Obama and carried through to what the network described as the most-watched television event of all time — bumped "Meet the Press" to irregular start times in most markets and and meant that the public affairs program only aired in 96% of the homes it normally does. Because "Meet the Press" has become "appointment television," this may have contributed to the lower ratings for the week, as would many Super Bowl fans turning to pre-game coverage on, say, ESPN, between "Today" and the game. And were the program shown in 100% of its households, it would likely have crossed the 4 million viewer threshold.
Still, the gap between "Meet the Press" and its competitors — CBS' "Face The Nation" and ABC's "This Week" — is closing, as the below graph shows. This week it was down to just under 600,000 viewers. "Face The Nation" averaged 3.33 million total viewers, while "This Week" came in just behind with 3.32 million total viewers. "This Week" even beat "Meet the Press" on January 11, when George Stephanopoulos interviewed President-Elect Barack Obama (though the margin of victory, 40,000 viewers, was disappointing given the enormity of the interview).
Gregory's highest-rated broadcast — apart from his December 7 handover from Tom Brokaw, which averaged 6.6 million total viewers — came on December 21, when he hosted Condoleeza Rice and averaged 4.8 million total viewers. Since then, his total viewer averages have slid:
"Meet the Press" ratings (total viewer average)
December 21: 4.779 million
December 28: 4.060 million
January 4: 4.715 million
January 11: 4.300 million
January 18: 4.450 million
January 25: 4.190 million
February 1: 3.900 million
While general interest has waned as the fever over President Obama's inauguration has calmed, "Face the Nation" did grow each week between January 11 and January 25, though it did not match its January 4 high of 3.6 million total viewers.
"Face the Nation" ratings (total viewer average)
December 21: 3.124 million
December 28: 2.709 million
January 4: 3.633 million
January 11: 3.010 million
January 18: 3.180 million
January 25: 3.340 million
February 1: 3.330 million
Sunday, February 01, 2009
2.1.09: Head Spin
Like most Americans, all this column knows for certain is that we don't make as much money, things are more expensive, we have more credit debt than we would like, and we don't know if we going to have a job in another month or not. With that said, billions of dollars are needed to correct the trillions of problems and as evidence by today's Meet The Press, there are billions of answers and a trillion angles to go with them.
Today's program was only a microcosm of the collective opinions as to what should be done and if you were looking for a clear perspective of the Republican Opinion versus the Democrat opinion then you sure didn't get it from Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and her counterpart the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry with the exception of one aspect. How much of the stimulus should be devoted to tax cuts?
Ms. Hutchinson calls for a larger percentage of the stimulus to be devoted for tax cuts, which right now stands are $275 billion of the total $819 billion. The rest would go to spending. She feels that there is not enough tax relief in the bill and too much spending in form of social programs, which she says won't do enough. What does that mean - spending? That means providing money to the states for what have been deemed 'shovel ready' projects to jump start construction with the hopeful residual benefit of creating and improving roads, schools, transit, and energy consumption [think: infrastructure]. That is what the Obama Administration stimulus package proposes - relief down the road and have the tax cuts act as the short term fix. John Kerry didn't exactly inspire confidence in his answers today, but that is basically what he is backing.
Keep in mind that with any stimulus bill passed, the benefits will not be seen for a few years down the road. Not to mention that no one seems to know where we are in this crisis... Are we at the beginning, the middle, the end? Or are we famously at the end of the beginning... what is it?
What matters is the answer to this primal question, which speaks to the above statement of what we know for certain - How does the government get more money into the hands of ordinary Americans without giving them money? In typical fashion, they've given the money to corporations in the hopes that corporations would do the right thing with it. Well, that was the original $700 billion bailout money. This next installment is supposed to get all the rest going.
Now, the Republican perspective, as voiced by Ms. Hutchinson is that there should be more tax cuts and this was brought to be fact as not one House Republican voted for the stimulus bill last week. In explicably, Ms. Hutchinson also stated on today's MTP that spending should be increased - for the military. Granted, our military is broken but not a lack of spending rather a lack of sound judgement [read: unnecessary wars]. Which is to say that Ms. Hutchinson's stance is more tax cuts and further military spending. Haven't we been in the place before - say for the last eight years and look where that has taken us. One can not help but think that the Republicans in the House were playing politics with when it comes to bettering the lives of ordinary citizens. Mr. Kerry made an important point in that President Obama sat down with the Republican caucus to hear them out and try to compromise on some points. We can only assume that the compromise was not anything of the like judging from there vote. And then he pointed out that President Bush never once approached the Democratic caucus in that way. Well, the harsh reality is that he didn't have to. That's what is called the bully pulpit or the power of the majority. The Democrats and President Obama have to be comfortable and willing to pull out that tactic.
The above commentary alone is probably enough to make your head spin and the second half panel of CNBC's Erin Burnett, Forbes' Steve Forbes, and Moody's Economy.com's Mark Zandi didn't do anything but further grease the wheel. In the half an hour, Mr. Zandi tried to explain it to no avail, Mr. Forbes supported the banking industry making the case as well as he did in his Presidential run (not well), and Ms. Burnett tried to provide the affective corporate media sound bite when she could.
One of those sound bites was that the Wall Street vs. Main Street argument is a false choice and she explained it in terms of the corporate bonuses being given out by bailed-out corporations. If, for example, one of these corporate brokers makes the company $10 million dollars and his or her commission structure for making that amount is 10 percent, then that person makes $1 million dollars. Seems square. So if that is what you think then you have to say its only fair when a person makes a billion dollars for the company (regardless of the company losing billions beyond that) he or she is entitled to $100 million in commission.
So do you change the commission structure so that the more money you make for a company, the less your commission will be? Anyone in sales, any kind of sales, wouldn't agree with that. Or do you just change the wording so that when people talk about bonuses, they should simply change the syntax and go with commission? Or do you put a monetary cap on the money someone can make in commissions?
Now what Ms. Burnett is saying is that these bonuses, nay commissions, are part of what the national sales guys get at Citigroup and that they are Main Streeters as well, making the whole argument a moot point. Now that is just adding to the drudgery.
And before your head comes completely off your shoulders, we'll leave you this week with Mr. Forbes summarizing quotation that he who has the money makes the rules. But no one has any money (individuals and see graphic) so we're back to where we were in the first place - no rules. That's just great.
By the way, the grey is what they were worth in 2007, green in 2009.
Today's program was only a microcosm of the collective opinions as to what should be done and if you were looking for a clear perspective of the Republican Opinion versus the Democrat opinion then you sure didn't get it from Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and her counterpart the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry with the exception of one aspect. How much of the stimulus should be devoted to tax cuts?
Ms. Hutchinson calls for a larger percentage of the stimulus to be devoted for tax cuts, which right now stands are $275 billion of the total $819 billion. The rest would go to spending. She feels that there is not enough tax relief in the bill and too much spending in form of social programs, which she says won't do enough. What does that mean - spending? That means providing money to the states for what have been deemed 'shovel ready' projects to jump start construction with the hopeful residual benefit of creating and improving roads, schools, transit, and energy consumption [think: infrastructure]. That is what the Obama Administration stimulus package proposes - relief down the road and have the tax cuts act as the short term fix. John Kerry didn't exactly inspire confidence in his answers today, but that is basically what he is backing.
Keep in mind that with any stimulus bill passed, the benefits will not be seen for a few years down the road. Not to mention that no one seems to know where we are in this crisis... Are we at the beginning, the middle, the end? Or are we famously at the end of the beginning... what is it?
What matters is the answer to this primal question, which speaks to the above statement of what we know for certain - How does the government get more money into the hands of ordinary Americans without giving them money? In typical fashion, they've given the money to corporations in the hopes that corporations would do the right thing with it. Well, that was the original $700 billion bailout money. This next installment is supposed to get all the rest going.
Now, the Republican perspective, as voiced by Ms. Hutchinson is that there should be more tax cuts and this was brought to be fact as not one House Republican voted for the stimulus bill last week. In explicably, Ms. Hutchinson also stated on today's MTP that spending should be increased - for the military. Granted, our military is broken but not a lack of spending rather a lack of sound judgement [read: unnecessary wars]. Which is to say that Ms. Hutchinson's stance is more tax cuts and further military spending. Haven't we been in the place before - say for the last eight years and look where that has taken us. One can not help but think that the Republicans in the House were playing politics with when it comes to bettering the lives of ordinary citizens. Mr. Kerry made an important point in that President Obama sat down with the Republican caucus to hear them out and try to compromise on some points. We can only assume that the compromise was not anything of the like judging from there vote. And then he pointed out that President Bush never once approached the Democratic caucus in that way. Well, the harsh reality is that he didn't have to. That's what is called the bully pulpit or the power of the majority. The Democrats and President Obama have to be comfortable and willing to pull out that tactic.
The above commentary alone is probably enough to make your head spin and the second half panel of CNBC's Erin Burnett, Forbes' Steve Forbes, and Moody's Economy.com's Mark Zandi didn't do anything but further grease the wheel. In the half an hour, Mr. Zandi tried to explain it to no avail, Mr. Forbes supported the banking industry making the case as well as he did in his Presidential run (not well), and Ms. Burnett tried to provide the affective corporate media sound bite when she could.
One of those sound bites was that the Wall Street vs. Main Street argument is a false choice and she explained it in terms of the corporate bonuses being given out by bailed-out corporations. If, for example, one of these corporate brokers makes the company $10 million dollars and his or her commission structure for making that amount is 10 percent, then that person makes $1 million dollars. Seems square. So if that is what you think then you have to say its only fair when a person makes a billion dollars for the company (regardless of the company losing billions beyond that) he or she is entitled to $100 million in commission.
So do you change the commission structure so that the more money you make for a company, the less your commission will be? Anyone in sales, any kind of sales, wouldn't agree with that. Or do you just change the wording so that when people talk about bonuses, they should simply change the syntax and go with commission? Or do you put a monetary cap on the money someone can make in commissions?
Now what Ms. Burnett is saying is that these bonuses, nay commissions, are part of what the national sales guys get at Citigroup and that they are Main Streeters as well, making the whole argument a moot point. Now that is just adding to the drudgery.
And before your head comes completely off your shoulders, we'll leave you this week with Mr. Forbes summarizing quotation that he who has the money makes the rules. But no one has any money (individuals and see graphic) so we're back to where we were in the first place - no rules. That's just great.
By the way, the grey is what they were worth in 2007, green in 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)