Going down?

Writing at the NYT, Bob Herbert thinks that the U.S. desperately needs to turn things around. His concern is "frantic, debt-driven consumption, speculative bubbles, exotic financial instruments . . ." He's not buying talk of our economic "recovery":

We don’t hear a lot that is serious about the sorry state of the nation’s infrastructure or the trade policies that crippled so many American industries or our inability (or unwillingness) to compete effectively with China when it comes to the new world of energy for the 21st century or our abject failure to provide a quality public education for the next generation of American workers, scientists, artists and entrepreneurs. Speaking at a conference here on Wednesday, Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania said that if we don’t act quickly in developing long-term solutions to these and other problems, the United States will be a second-rate economic power by the end of this decade. A failure to act boldly, he said, will result in the U.S. becoming “a cooked goose.”

Continue ReadingGoing down?

Time to stop scoffing at those who worry about the budget deficit

How bad is the U.S. budget deficit? It's so bad that I've lost sleep over it during the past year, even though the extent of the deficit rarely makes any local news. Here's how Brett Arends of the Wall Street Journal summarizes the situation:

The federal government is expected to borrow $1.6 trillion this year, or about $15,000 for every household in the country. Over the next 10 years it's expected to borrow a total of $8.5 trillion. And the government was already deeply in debt to begin with. . . Remarkably, the Treasury market has not yet panicked about the deficits: Yields have barely risen this week. Embedded in the market is a long-term inflation forecast of about 2.5 percent. I call that a dangerous complacency.
After giving the bad news, Arends gives some advice on how to protect your savings, though he doesn't sound optimistic.

Continue ReadingTime to stop scoffing at those who worry about the budget deficit

Clarence Thomas wants only sterilized criticism.

Clarence Thomas is upset that many people have leveled intense criticism at the U.S. Supreme Court in light of the Citizen's United decision:

Questioning the Supreme Court and other government branches needs to stay within the range of fair criticism or "run the risk in our society of undermining institutions that we need to preserve our liberties," Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday.
Dear Justice Thomas: If you don't like the criticism, there are several things you can do about it. You can resign. Or you can quit supporting the conservative wing of the Court when it makes decisions that undermine the institutions that we need to preserve our liberties. What did you possibly think would occur when you invited corporations to pour unlimited money into the elections of our politicians (as if it weren't bad enough already). Consider, too that Citizen's United will allow corporations to purchase state judges too (and consider this revealing look at the "judicial philosophy of John Roberts, with whom you've aligned yourself). Didn't it occur to you that you could have invoked stare decisis, and at least not made the problem worse? And answer this: Why should people continue to have respect for the United States Supreme Court when it delivers repeated crippling blows to the ability of the People to run their own government? Do you think that letting corporations buy politicians was the "original intent" of the Founders? Can you think of any liberty that is more fundamental than the ability of the Citizens to elect representatives who will be honestly responsive to them, not corrupted by huge amounts of money? But you really don't want to hear any of this. You'd rather that people simple pretend that you are doing a great job now matter how badly you screw up.

Continue ReadingClarence Thomas wants only sterilized criticism.