He said this to Chris Matthews who was doing a knee pad interview of the emperor.

"The challenge, I think, that we have going forward is not so much my personal management style or particular issues around White House organization,” Obama said. “It actually has to do with what I referred to earlier, which is we have these big agencies, some of which are outdated, some of which are not designed properly.”
Obama: Health care problems don (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/barack-obama-affordable-care-act-obamacare-health-care-management-style-100759.html)

To that I say 'no sh*t' !
If it was his plan to eliminate ,streamline ,or even reform these agencies of government he'd get my support. Instead ,he uses their inefficiencies as a dodge to deflect blame away from his management .

This isn't the 1st time we've heard this dodge either . David Axelrod spoke of a big agencies disconnect from the leadership of the executive in his comments about the IRS scadal .
“Part of being president is there’s so much underneath you because the government is so vast. You go through these [controversies] all because of this stuff that is impossible to know if you’re the president or working in the White House, and yet you’re responsible for it and it’s a difficult situation.”
Axelrod: (http://thehill.com/video/administration/299829-axelrod-government-too-big-for-obama-to-have-known-about-irs-targeting?tmpl=component)

It's a trend ;the progressive statists who champion big government are the 1st to blame big government for their problems running it ,and their disconnect from it's operations . But you never hear them suggest that a solution to that would be to reduce the size of that unwieldy Leviathan .

well reality is it is government by the people, sometimes you have to let local people manage. the trick is to now what they can do. We have seen that somethings work at a local level and some do not.

Government is really about big ideas, not micromanaging but bureaucrats don't know this..
Now health care is a case in point, you had at a local level some people being denied benefits and coverage, this had to change; the big idea, but the level of management on the ground that really is the question

In the same interview he also excused the IRS targeting of conservatives as a local office struggling to navigate...er, "streamline" that bureaucracy to do the right thing.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/obama-dismisses-irs-targeting-of-conservatives-theyve-got-a-list-and-suddenly-everybodys-outraged/

Here's where big government does work. (sarcasm font engaged).

You know that big $13 billion smackdown of JP Morgan? They managed to work in some sweet cash for community organizers.

Will Eric Holder's Deal Create a New Mortgage Crisis? - Finance Post (http://usfinancepost.com/will-eric-holders-deal-could-a-new-mortgage-crisis-10558.html)

Nothing like throwing in some sweet kickbacks for your political friends and fueling the fire that led to the meltdown in the first place. What could go wrong?

This is the problem. Not trying to be overly critical here, but you don't seem to have the political will or the means to doing anything about it.

Reducing the size of government is only a partial solution. Probably more importantly, is the ability to allow government bureaucracies and departments evolve in line with a rapidly changing environment.

On a related issue.

You can discuss this issue all you like, but I can't see anything within your system that allows you to break away from the ruling elites.

Tal is close to being right. You defend the side that you believe will 'trickle down' the most benefits that help you.

'trickle down' is a complete misrepresentation of our position . It it's a clever mockery invented by humorist Will Rogers during the Great Depression, and before him populist William Jennings Bryant ..... and in no way represents my position or the conservative ,or free market ,or supply side positions. But I have to congratulate the left for getting away with this misrepresentation for decades . There is no 'trickle-down' school of economics which maintains that the trickle-down effect is the main justification for limiting taxes on the rich ,or anyone else .
But it's a nice straw man to knock down . Here is the only theory that can be attributed to me . Money left in the private sector is more productive than money confiscated by the government , and the path to growth is for the government to get out of the way.

Money left in the private sector is more productive than money confiscated by the government , and the path to growth is for the government to get out of the way




pardon, my bias is showing. Tom we all know that regulation can impede corporate progress but what you have now isn't progress and taxes isn't holding anything back. What you have is lack of business confidence and lack of investment. Even if you lowered the tax to zero it is not an incentive to invest because business has to believe it can succeed. The problem you have is the guts have been kicked out of your industry by the very people who should be investing in it. I think we all need a fresh approach to foriegn investment both internal and external. the price of doing business in the country should be the establishment of industry in the country. protectionist yes, but common sense. we have the same problem you do, in our case multinationals contracting but not to return manufacturing to their own country but to increase their volume from places like South Korea. This is not in the national interest and is a ghost town Detriot in your national interest? You can't pay your people asian wages, but you can insist on local content

and is a ghost town Detriot in your national interest?
Detroit is the inevitable outcome of decades of progressive rule. There is nothing that would've saved the city once the union's influence dominated the politics of the city . The fact is that foreign manufactures have come into the country and parked their manufacturing plants in business friendly cities and states ....and have thrived manufacturing here .

Detroit is the inevitable outcome of decades of progressive rule. There is nothing that would've saved the city once the union's influence dominated the politics of the city . The fact is that foreign manufactures have come into the country and parked their manufacturing plants in business friendly cities and states ....and have thrived manufacturing here .

So what does this tell you? I expect your response is unions are bad. But it should be telling you that Detroit was making dinosaurs no one wanted. lazy capital, not lazy people

'trickle down' is a complete misrepresentation of our position . It it's a clever mockery invented by humorist Will Rogers during the Great Depression, and before him populist William Jennings Bryant ..... and in no way represents my position or the conservative ,or free market ,or supply side positions. But I have to congratulate the left for getting away with this misrepresentation for decades . There is no 'trickle-down' school of economics which maintains that the trickle-down effect is the main justification for limiting taxes on the rich ,or anyone else .
But it's a nice straw man to knock down . Here is the only theory that can be attributed to me . Money left in the private sector is more productive than money confiscated by the government , and the path to growth is for the government to get out of the way.

Exactly right. Both sides realized there is a disparity but we disagree on how to solve it. Mandating wages and punishing the rich does nothing to solve the real problem of growing the economy and creating demand, it only exacerbates the situation. The rich will still be just fine while those in need will compete for the crumbs.

You guys never quit,

The Detroit Bankruptcy | Demos (http://www.demos.org/publication/detroit-bankruptcy)


The City of Detroit's bankruptcy was driven by a severe decline in revenues (and, importantly, not an increase in obligations to fund pensions). Depopulation and long-term unemployment caused Detroit's property and income tax revenues to plummet. The state of Michigan exacerbated the problems by slashing revenue it shared with the city. The city's overall expenses have declined over the last five years, although its financial expenses have increased. In addition, Wall Street sold risky financial instruments to the city, which now threaten the resolution of this crisis. To return Detroit to long-term fiscal health, the city must increase revenue and extract itself from the financial transactions that threaten to drain its budget even further.


Detroit's financial expenses have increased significantly, and that is a direct result of the complex financial deals Wall Street banks urged on the city over the last several years, even though its precarious cash flow position meant these deals posed a great threat to the city. The biggest contributing factor to the increase in Detroit's legacy expenses is a series of complex deals it entered into in 2005 and 2006 to assume $1.6 billion in debt. Instead of issuing plain vanilla general obligation bonds, the city financed the debt using certificates of participation (COPs), which is a financial structure that municipalities often use to get around debt restrictions. Eight hundred million dollars of these COPs carried a variable interest rate, which the city synthetically converted to a fixed rate using interest rate swaps.

These swaps carried hidden risks, and these risks increased after the Federal Reserve drove down interest rates to near zero in response to the financial crisis. The deals included provisions that would allow the banks to terminate the swaps under specified conditions and collect termination payments, which would entitle the banks to immediate payment of all projected future value of the swaps to the bank counterparties. Such conditions included a credit rating downgrade of the city to a level below “investment grade,” appointment of an emergency manager to run the city and failure of the city to make timely payments. Projected future value balloons in low, short-term rate conditions. This is because the difference between the fixed swap payments made by the city and the floating swap payments projected to be paid by the banks increases. Because all of these events have occurred, the banks are now demanding upwards of $250-350 million in swap termination payments.

These swap deals were particularly ill-suited for a city like Detroit, which had been hovering on the edge of a credit rating downgrade for years. Because the risk of a credit downgrade below “investment grade” was so great, the likelihood of a termination was imprudently high. The banks and insurance companies were in a far better position to understand the magnitude of these risks and they had at least an ethical duty to forbear from providing the swaps under such precarious circumstances. The law recognizes special duties that sophisticated financial institutions owe to special entities like cities in providing complex financial products. A strong case can be made that the banks that sold these swaps may have breached their ethical, and possibly legal, obligations to the city in executing these deals.


•The emergency manager's plan to pay the swap termination fees outside of the bankruptcy process should be abandoned. The bank counterparties should be made to bear the consequences of the original swap transaction, and they should be pushed to forego their projected profit (the measure of the termination payment), given the large profits they have already earned as a result of the unusually low interest rates that resulted from the financial crash. The emergency manager should also press for prorated rebates on the premiums for insurance on the swaps. And, if necessary, the state should be enlisted to guarantee the city's swaps to avoid payment of termination fees. The termination fees will become smaller as interest rates rise over time, which they are likely to do.

I copied and pasted just because I know wingers don't read or like too.

A deal that should be set aside using swaps and devrivative instruments to manage debt is a quick way to bankruptcy

No one has asked the obvious question but I will. What happened to the revenue sharing funds that they state didn't give Detroit?

Tom wrote:

"trickle down" is a complete misrepresentation of our position.




Good use of the royal plural. My post wasn't specifically addressed to you, but now you mention it I will sum up in a few words. In essence what you seem to be saying is there are Republicans and there are Conservatives.

It makes no difference who invented the term "trickle down theory" or where it came from. This has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the theory

You may be advocating a conservative view just as the left is advocating a socialist view. However, in reality both sides are actually getting a Democrat/Republican "trickle down". Might have something to do with big business hijacking government.

Might have something to do with big business hijacking government.

it is exactly that Tutt government by the corporation for the corporation that the profits of the corporation should not vanish from the Earth. These fellows arn't conservatives they are traitors, defending ideals that were never part of whatever capitalist utopia the founders founded. Wait a minute, the founders founded a liberal utopia the antithesis of what these guys believe

Yes, I am sure the Founders would be very disappointed if they could see how government has evolved into a system of ruling elites.

It's the new world order and the elites are entitled to run it, and the people are revolting. Austerity for all the many, but never the few will never work. It never has.

Tal ,what hasn't ever worked is the tyranny of the majority . What also has never worked long term is a Republic...and that has something to do with the tyranny of the majority too. Once the majority learn they can vote themselves largess at the expense of someone else ,the system declines,eventually crashes and burns. The founders tried to put safeguards into our ruling document ;but over a century of progressive chipping away at them have all but destroyed the foundation that built the nation.
That's one of the reasons I now think a new constitutional convention is in order .

Tal ,what hasn't ever worked is the tyranny of the majority . What also has never worked long term is a Republic...and that has something to do with the tyranny of the majority too. Once the majority learn they can vote themselves largess at the expense of someone else ,the system declines,eventually crashes and burns. The founders tried to put safeguards into our ruling document ;but over a century of progressive chipping away at them have all but destroyed the foundation that built the nation.
That's one of the reasons I now think a new constitutional convention is in order .

At last! this is not the constitutional republic created by the founders. The majority are not a tyranny, Tom, tyranny has always been in the hands of the minority the 1%. In case you hadn't noticed the only people voting largesse have been the representatives not the majority. the only people who have maintained the tyranny on behalf of the 1% have beeen the representatives who by strange coincidence have been representing noone by themselves and the 1% who bought them

You guys never quit,

Apparently we're supposed to take the spin of a left-leaning group as fact.

Either that or you can take the spin of right-wing groups as being fact. Not much of a choice.

ah but it's democracy don't you know? now Tom is going to tell us it isn't a democracy, but we know what it is a bullocracy

Either that or you can take the spin of right-wing groups as being fact. Not much of a choice.

I'm not asking anyone to take any spin as fact. It's just nonsense to try and shift the blame on Wall Street and banks for Detroit's bankruptcy.

Workers losing pensions is no spin.

Workers losing pensions is no spin.

Where exactly was that in what you quoted? It wasn't. Yes, some may lose pensions and that sucks, but that's what happens when you keep spending money you don't have. That's the sort of thing that led to Detroit's bankruptcy, not a breach of ethics on the part of banks.

So it's the workers fault?

So it's the workers fault?
Nah they just be pawns in the games the unions and the mob that ruled Detroit played .

it is exactly that Tutt government by the corporation for the corporation that the profits of the corporation should not vanish from the Earth. These fellows arn't conservatives they are traitors, defending ideals that were never part of whatever capitalist utopia the founders founded. Wait a minute, the founders founded a liberal utopia the antithesis of what these guys believe

You guys consistently misrepresent my positions so I will not attempt to defend the positions that you label me with ,

You guys consistently misrepresent my positions so I will not attempt to defend the positions that you label me with ,


Where does it say Tom in there, look I know you are good at reading between the lines and finding different meanings but you are not the only "conservative". So now we know precisely where you stand, with the corporations and exploiters. You didn't refute that. Call it a misrepresentation if you will

So now we know precisely where you stand, with the corporations and exploiters. You didn't refute that. Call it a misrepresentation if you will
And I do. 5 years ago Lehman Bros collapsed causing a panic in the governments of the West. A bailout was devised ,and all the libs supported the bailout. I didn't .I said let the big corporate banks fail . Bankruptcy is a natural occurrence in a capitalist system.
.It's the lib Dems and the Repubics that are the cronies of the big corporations .

so if you are not a republican and you are not a democrat then you must be the most dispised and prized person in your system, the swinging voter, sailing your fair weather ideas through the storm of idealogy.

If you say you are not a swinging voter and you expouse the ideas of a particular philosophy then what are you? the non voter? the arm chair commentator?

conservative .

conservative .

conservative what?

American conservative ;born out of classic liberal thought ....personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values , strong national defense. The role of the national government should be limited by constitutional restraints .

You forgot equality whether rich or poor. And what are "traditional" American values? If limited government and the free market means you have to be rich to make the rules I have to disagree, unless you have some mighty good rules of what's acceptable behavior by those that can afford to buy anything they want. We don't have a free market really, especially when you push tort reform for consumers and the common citizen, while employing the best high priced lawyers in the business and lobbyists and think tanks to insulate you from any liabilities.

You can't have a level playing field when you have two different playgrounds.

If limited government and the free market means you have to be rich to make the rules I have to disagree,
How many strawmen are you going to construct today ?

You forgot equality whether rich or poor. We believe in equality of opportunity ..You believe in a utopian version of equality of results.

You keep making my point by dodging the issues raised with rhetoric. Show me the data that equal opportunity exists and limited government works for the ordinary citizen as well as it works for the "free market".

And again, define "traditional" American values. If you have them express them.

You can't have a level playing field when you have two different playgrounds.

Like a 30 year exemption for killing endangered birds, preferential treatment for minorities, funneling kickbacks to liberal activist groups, using the IRS to harass your political foes, etc. etc.

I said 'equality of opportunity' not 'equal opportunity' .
In some cases it is an interchangable phrase ;but not exactly . Equality of opportunity is aspirational in that we are trying to acheive a society where equality of opportunity exists.

Or as Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner put it ;“The ....goal is equal opportunity, not equal results. But equality of opportunity is not a natural state; it is a social achievement, for which government shares some responsibility. The proper reaction to egalitarianism is not indifference. It is the promotion of a fluid society in which aspiration is honored and rewarded.”
« How to Save the Republican Party Commentary Magazine (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/how-to-save-the-republican-party/)
Individual liberty as the key driver of equal opportunity ,not government trying to force results

Dems vs Reps on fairness (http://www.fatherlyadviceandrants.com/democrat-fairness.html)...


A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, but her father was a staunch Republican. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to high taxes and welfare programs.

He stopped her and asked how she was doing in school. She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA, but it was really tough. She had to study all the time and never had time to go out and party.

She didn’t have time for a boyfriend and didn’t really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. On top of that, the part-time job her father insisted she keep left absolutely no time for anything else.

He then asked, “How is your friend Mary?”

She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, didn’t have a job, and went to all the parties. She was always complaining about not having any money, but didn’t want to work. Why, she often didn’t show up for classes because she was hung over.

Dad then asked his daughter why she didn’t go to the Dean’s office and request that 1.0 be taken off her 4.0 and given it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a respectable 3.0 GPA.

Then, she could also give her friend half the money she’d earned from her job so that her friend would no longer be broke.

The daughter angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair. I worked really hard for my grades and money, and Mary just loafs. Why should her laziness and irresponsibility be rewarded with half of what I’ve worked for?”

The father slowly smiled and said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Corporations don't care about equal opportunity, just the biggest bang for their buck, and they don't care how creating that revenue stream for themselves affects ordinary people. Government is the only counter balance to that reality. The weaker, or limited the government, the greater that imbalance tips away from the citizens in favor of the corporation.

Give corporations clear rules and certainty, they will invest more, and aggressively if they can make a longer range business plan, instead of short term reactions to changing government policies. Specifically congressional bickering every few months over that policy. We need a 10 year deal, not a 3 month one.

We can start with the premise of this thred . End the uncertainty of rule by a large bureaucracy that makes law on the fly ,outside of their constitutional mandate.

Hello,
We can start with the premise of this thred .
The government IS too big. Let's trim her down RIGHT HERE. I'll put up the DEA. What agency will YOU put up? You HATE the ATF. Why not put them up?

Or, do you just wanna snivel about Obama?

excon

I'll offer the Dept of Education as well. And the EPA.

And the IRS, the National Endowment for the Arts, and probably quite a few more (http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml).

So many agencies within the government to choose from .... But to add to the theme of cutting entire Depts ;let me add .... Commerce and Energy Depts

For one he didn't say big government doesn't work, he said the old ways of doing government could use some streamlining/consolidation to be more efficient and better serve the public good. That sounds like cutting through redundant red tape and shrinking bureaucracy. But congressional reps will never give up their chairmanships over those bureaucracies. Nor take risks during an ever growing election season. Financing a campaign is a growth industry, that takes away from governing.

Divided government that gets nothing done and finds no consensus forward, isn't effective. 2014 will be interesting in that regard.

So let's add thousands of agents to the IRS to enforce a healthcare law that's taller then me.to streamline government.

Hello again,

Hold on, righty's... I started with one agency, and you guys wanna DESTROY America... I can SEE this ain't gonna work.

For starters, the Energy Department manages our nukes, and the IRS collects cash. Those agencies need FIXING, but I ain't gonna indulge your right wing fantasy's. Somebody has to manage the nukes, and somebody needs to collect cash.. If you wanna talk SERIOUSLY, we can talk. But, I'm NOT a Tea Party crazy. I'm a SMALL government liberal.

Back to reality. I'll trade the DEA & the BOP for the Education Department, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Trident submarine.

Deal?? We can do more, but you righty's don't LIKE big, comprehensive deals.

excon

You do realize that it is a private company (http://www.pantex.com/Pages/default.aspx) that manages our nukes when they aren't in the hands of the military. I would know, I live in Nukeville, USA.

The nukes can be managed by another agency . The DOE didn't come into existence until the Carter Adm. Obviously the nukes were being 'managed ' by a different agency before 1977.

if you want to eliminate the F-35 ,I'm on board. It's a pig . I'll trade that for keeping the Warthog.

Hello again, tom:

I like the Warthog too. Let's curb the NSA back to what the Constitution says, and I'll give you DOE.

Hello again, tom:

I like the Warthog too. Let's curb the NSA back to what the Constitution says, and I'll give you DOE.

agreed

Hello again,

Ain't life with Republicans great??? As long as you CUT, you're their friend... But, we ain't gonna balance stuff with CUTS only.

So, I'll start off gentle. If we remove the caps on Social Security, which protect the wealthy, Social Security will be solvent FOREVER.. Why should HE pay a lower percentage of his income than EVERYBODY else does??? Well, he shouldn't.

Gimme that, and I'll give you a much smaller EPA. But, I ain't gonna let you pollute my country again.

excon

Why can't rich guys help build roads and bridges they use for all their trucks loaded with profits... I mean... goods to sell?

Why can't rich guys help build roads and bridges they use for all their trucks loaded with profits... I mean... goods to sell?

Take it out of Grayson's pocket, or Kohl's, or especially Kerry - he can afford it after skipping his yacht taxes.

Okay sounds good to me. That's a great place to start. Let's do it!! YEAH!! You want me to go first?? You got it!!

Why can't rich guys help build roads and bridges they use for all their trucks loaded with profits... I mean... goods to sell?

They do pay ... What do you think the taxes you/they pay at the gas station is for ?

They do pay ... What do you think the taxes you/they pay at the gas station is for ?

And Dems want to double that (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/04/rep-blumenauer-introduces-bill-to-double-gas-tax). Who do you suppose that might hurt the most?

wow ,when I add to that the gas tax that NY charges...... already it pays for me to drive across the border into NJ . I pay on average $ 0.30/gal.less for full service compared to NY self serve. The reason they want to increase it is of course because fuel efficiency has eroded their share .
It gets better ......Just wait and see how they manage to tax you with EZPass technology.

wow ,when I add to that the gas tax that NY charges...... already it pays for me to drive across the border into NJ . I pay on average $ 0.30/gal.less for full service compared to NY self serve. The reason they want to increase it is of course because fuel efficiency has eroded their share .
It gets better ......Just wait and see how they manage to tax you with EZPass technology.

Let 'em tax those expensive electric vehicles they're pushing instead of subsidizing them and putting a greater share of the burden on those who can least afford it. Sounds like a war on poor people to me.

I said 'equality of opportunity' not 'equal opportunity' .
In some cases it is an interchangable phrase ;but not exactly . Equality of opportunity is aspirational in that we are trying to acheive a society where equality of opportunity exists.

Or as Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner put it ;“The ....goal is equal opportunity, not equal results. But equality of opportunity is not a natural state; it is a social achievement, for which government shares some responsibility. The proper reaction to egalitarianism is not indifference. It is the promotion of a fluid society in which aspiration is honored and rewarded.”
« How to Save the Republican Party Commentary Magazine (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/how-to-save-the-republican-party/)
Individual liberty as the key driver of equal opportunity ,not government trying to force results

This is the usual false dichotomy we have become used to. The answer is obviously both. It is equality of opportunity and the attention to results.

no it isn't ... pursuing equality of opportunity and outcome are 2 distinct things. Pursuing equality of outcomes means an almost certain discrimination to get the results desired .You also sacrifice meritocracy and probably equal treatment under the law as you attempt to create 'remedies ' for different outcomes. It also necessitates a redistributive society and coercion by the government .
Whereas if we pursue equality of opportunity you necessarily have to assume and accept that results will differ .

Hello again, tom:

I like the Warthog too. Let's curb the NSA back to what the Constitution says, and I'll give you DOE.

I'll give you one even better . I have never said that the DOD was immune to huge cuts in spending .... Here is an article in the Wall Street Journal by John Lehman ;former Sec Navy under Reagan ;and member of the 9-11 commission.



As we lament the lack of strategic direction in American foreign policy, it is useful to remember the classic aphorism that diplomatic power is the shadow cast by military power. The many failures and disappointments of American policy in recent years, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Russia and Iran are symptoms of the steady shrinkage of the shadow cast by American military power and the fading credibility and deterrence that depends on it.

Although current U.S. spending on defense adjusted for inflation has been higher than at the height of the Reagan administration, it has been producing less than half of the forces and capabilities of those years. Instead of a 600-ship Navy, we now have a 280-ship Navy, although the world's seas have not shrunk and our global dependence has grown. Instead of Reagan's 20-division Army, we have only 10-division equivalents. The Air Force has fewer than half the number of fighters and bombers it had 30 years ago.

Apologists for the shrinkage argue that today's ships and aircraft are far more capable than those of the '80s and '90s. That is as true as "you can keep your health insurance."

While today's LCSs—the littoral-class ships that operate close to shore—have their uses, they are far less capable than the Perry-class frigates that they replace. Our newest Aegis ships have been upgraded to keep pace with the newest potential missile threats, but their capability against modern submarines has slipped.

Air Force fighter planes today average 28 years old. Although they have been upgraded to keep pace with the latest aircraft of their potential adversaries, they have no greater relative advantage than they had when they were new. There are merely far fewer of them in relation to the potential threat. In deterrence, quantity has a quality all its own.

There is one great numerical advantage the U.S. has against potential adversaries, however. That is the size of our defense bureaucracy. While the fighting forces have steadily shrunk by more than half since the early 1990s, the civilian and uniformed bureaucracy has more than doubled. According to the latest figures, there are currently more than 1,500,000 full-time civilian employees in the Defense Department—800,000 civil servants and 700,000 contract employees. Today, more than half of our active-duty servicemen and women serve in offices on staffs. The number of various Joint Task Force staffs, for instance, has grown since 1987 from seven to more than 250, according to the Defense Business Board.

The constant growth of the bureaucracy has resulted from reform initiatives from Congress and by executive order, each of which established a new office or expanded an existing one. These new layers have accumulated every year since the founding of the Department of Defense in 1947. Unlike private businesses—disciplined by the market—which require constant pruning and overhead reduction to stay profitable, each expansion of the bureaucracy is, to paraphrase President Reagan, the nearest thing to eternal life to be found on earth.

The Pentagon, like Marley's ghost, must drag this ever-growing burden of chains without relief. As a result something close to paralysis is approaching. The suffocating bloat of overstaffing in an overly centralized web of bureaucracies drives runaway cost growth in weapons systems great and small. Whereas the immensely complex Polaris missile and submarine system took four years from a draft requirement until its first operational patrol in February 1960, today the average time for all weapons procured under Defense Department acquisition regulations is 22 years.
The latest Government Accountability Office report, released in October, estimates that there is $411 billion of unfunded cost growth in current Pentagon programs, almost as much as the entire 10 years of sequester cuts if they continue. The result has been unilateral disarmament.

What is to be done? As with most great issues, the solution is simple, the execution difficult. First, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel must be supported in his announced intention to cut the bureaucracy of uniformed and civilian by at least 20%. Each 7,000 civilian reductions saves at least $5 billion over five years. Second, clear lines of authority and accountability, now dissipated through many bureaucratic entities, must be restored to a defined hierarchy of human beings with names. Third, real competition for production contracts must be re-established as the rule not the exception. Fourth, weapons programs must be designed to meet an established cost and canceled if they begin to exceed it.

While sequester is an act of desperation that adds more uncertainty to an already dysfunctional system, it does seem to be acting as a spur to focus Congress on the urgent need to stop our unilateral disarmament by making deep cuts in bureaucratic overhead throughout the Pentagon, uniformed and civilian.

The way forward for Republicans is not to default to their traditional solution, which is simply to fight sequester cuts and increase the defense budget. Instead, Republicans should concentrate on slashing and restructuring our dysfunctional and bloated defense bureaucracy. With strong defense chairmen on House and Senate committees already sympathetic to the overhead issue, and a willing secretary of defense, this Congress can do it. That will place the blame for the consequences of sequester and the earlier $500 billion Obama cuts squarely where it belongs, on the president and the Democrats.

The way will thereby be prepared for Republican victory in the 2016 elections based on a Reagan-like rebuilding mandate that can actually be carried out by a newly streamlined and more agile Defense Department.
John Lehman: More Bureaucrats, Fewer Jets and Ships - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303562904579227842506498188)

The way forward for Republicans is not to default to their traditional solution, which is simply to fight sequester cuts and increase the defense budget. Instead, Republicans should concentrate on slashing and restructuring our dysfunctional and bloated defense bureaucracy


Now that sounds like a foward thinking policy. I was wondering what ever happened to the sequester, did the sky fall?

The Costs of the Government Shutdown - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/the-costs-of-the-government-shutdown/)


The 16-day government shutdown is over, but the country has taken at least a $24 billion hit along the way...............“The bottom line is the government shutdown has hurt the U.S. economy,” Standard & Poor's said in a statement. “In September, we expected 3 percent annualized growth in the fourth quarter because we thought politicians would have learned from 2011 and taken steps to avoid things like a government shutdown and the possibility of a sovereign default. Since our forecast didn't hold, we now have to lower our fourth-quarter growth estimate to closer to 2 percent.”

Moody's Analytics reported a similar number Wednesday, saying by the end of the day the shutdown will cause a $23 billion hit to U.S. GDP or $1.4375 billion per day................
- $3.1 billion in lost government services. Although furloughed workers will get their back pay, taxpayers won't see the products. (Source: I.H.S.)

- According to the U.S. Travel Association: There has been $152 million per day in all spending related to travel lost because of the shutdown. As many as 450,000 American workers supported by travel may be affected.

- According to the National Park Service: They welcome more than 700,000 people per day usually in October and visitors spend an estimated $32 million per day impact in communities near national parks and contribute $76 million each day to the national economy. Those revenues were lost.

- According to Destination D.C., the official tourism corporation of D.C.: There is a 9 percent decrease in hotel occupancy from the last week in September before the shutdown to the first week of October during the shutdown. This year, hotel occupancy was down 74.4 percent for the week Sept. 29 to Oct. 5 compared to the 2012 numbers. (Source: Smith Travel Research, Inc.) In 2012, an estimated $6.2 billion of visitor spending supported more than 75,300 jobs.

That's what you guys did. But this was the outcome of what Obama did,

Treasury closes the book on GM bailout with final stock sale - Dec. 9, 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news/companies/gm-bailout-stock-sale/index.html)


The Treasury Department has sold its final stake in General Motors, closing the book on its 2009 bailout of the auto industry. GM has been revived and is now profitable, but taxpayers are out more than $10 billion dollars................Lew said that if both companies had gone out of business, which was a serious risk in 2009, it would likely have caused widespread business failures among suppliers across the country. Experts said that it could have even forced other automakers such as Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) into bankruptcy, due to a lack of auto parts.

Lew said the government also would have been on the hook for pension payments for retired autoworkers that were backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a federal agency.

The failure of GM and Chrysler would have cost the federal government between $39 billion to $105 billion in lost tax revenues as well as assistance to the unemployed, according to a study released Monday by the Center for Automotive Research, a Michigan think tank.

"Our goal was never to make a profit but to stabilize the auto industry," said one Treasury official speaking to reporters on background Monday. "By any measure, we succeeded."

Which one was the better deal, and which one saved hardworking Americans their jobs?

Just sayin'!

Now that sounds like a foward thinking policy. I was wondering what ever happened to the sequester, did the sky fall?

the sequester cuts work .

I notice that with all the belly aching about the shut down ... the unemployment rate improved in the period in question. I have yet to hear evidence that the cost of the shutdown that is claimed is real ...or if it came about because of attempts by the emperor to punish the people with silly games like shutting down memorials .

Who can I quote that you would believe Tom, or how much pain can you visit on the least to protect the rich?

Budget deal aims to avert another shutdown - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/10/politics/budget-negotiations/index.html)


Ryan and Murray have spent the past two months working on an agreement that would set government spending levels and replace the next round of deep automatic cuts -- known as sequester.

Employment growth, seems the sequester was a good thing, who would have thought or maybe it's just you can't keep a good economy down.

I remember when we used to depict our economy as a bloated python with people beating it to death with baseball bats, can't find an image but I wonder could that picture apply. Now if you could just get rid of all those public servants in the military/economic complex think what employment you could create I hear you have more bureaucrats than soldiers in the military

Ryan and Murray have spent the past two months working on an agreement that would set government spending levels and replace the next round of deep automatic cuts -- known as sequester.

fine ;good for them . I have no doubt that the majority in the House will pass a bill resembling their framework... Then it will either sit on Reid's shelf ;or in the unlikely event that it makes it to the emperor's desk ,he'll veto it . He plans on governing the rest of his term through executive fiat. That's why he has hired the Clintoon impeachment consigliore John Podesta as a special advisor to his Chief of Staff Denis McDonough.
No one likes the sequesters but they forced the government to trim a teeny tiny bit of fat .
There are $billions more where that came from ...even without addressing the unsustainable unfunded liabilities from entitlements .

Employment growth, seems the sequester was a good thing, who would have thought or maybe it's just you can't keep a good economy down.

I remember when we used to depict our economy as a bloated python with people beating it to death with baseball bats, can't find an image but I wonder could that picture apply. Now if you could just get rid of all those public servants in the military/economic complex think what employment you could create I hear you have more bureaucrats than soldiers in the military

the article I sourced dealt with that . I'm no fan of wasteful public spending ,no matter which agency does it.

Of course you think balancing the budget on the backs of the poor is great (Federal sequester cuts felt locally with job losses, program cuts First round of US cuts about to hit First round of US cuts about to descend First round of US cuts about to hit First round of US cuts about to hit - Boston.com), while refusing to raise taxes on the rich who have weathered the recession rather well.

When its spent on ordinary citizens then its waste, when its spent on tanks its security, and when its spent on rich guys its to create jobs? I know the elderly are to lazy to get their own meals so cut Meal on Wheels.

The Next Sequester: Head Start and Meals on Wheels Likely to Be Cut - Stateline (http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/states-brace-for-new-round-of-sequester-cuts-85899499021)


Another round of sequestration would reduce federal spending on everything from Meals on Wheels to Head Start, according to Federal Funds Information for States. FFIS is a Washington group that helps states manage their federal money.

On average, the federal budget accounts for about 30 percent of state revenues, making it the largest single source of money for many states. About 90 percent of the federal dollars come in the form of grants. About three-quarters of those grant programs would be subject to sequestration, according to an FFIS report.

Preliminary estimates by FFIS are that a second round of sequestration cuts would reduce domestic federal spending by $4.2 billion for the 2014 fiscal year starting Oct. 1. Budget analysts are in the process of estimating how much states would lose.



Federal Grants to States

Roughly a third of states' budgets come from federal funds. This chart shows the percentage of each state's budget that came from federal grants in fiscal year 2012, ranging from a high of 53.47% in MS to a low of 9.53% in CT.
Alabama 39.84%
Alaska 26.38%
Arizona 40.90%
Arkansas 30.44%
California 36.67%
Colorado 27.14%
Connecticut 9.53%
Delaware 19.87%
Florida 36.20%
Georgia 28.15%
Hawaii 16.96%
Idaho 39.00%
Illinois 19.35%
Indiana 35.25%
Iowa 34.06%
Kansas 26.41%
Kentucky 33.87%
Louisiana 36.24%
Maine 32.68%
Maryland 26.36%
Massachusetts 21.53%
Michigan 40.20%
Minnesota 27.57%
Mississippi 53.47%
Missouri 32.27%
Montana 36.00%
Nebraska 30.25%
Nevada 29.58%
New Hampshire 32.26%
New Jersey 24.85%
New Mexico 37.24%
New York 30.19%
North Carolina 33.56%
North Dakota 31.98%
Ohio 22.70%
Oklahoma 39.46%
Oregon 24.76%
Pennsylvania 37.20%
Rhode Island 34.49%
South Carolina 42.57%
South Dakota 40.24%
Tennessee 42.23%
Texas 33.06%
Utah 27.50%
Vermont 35.90%
Virginia 21.24%
Washington 20.81%
West Virginia 19.55%
Wisconsin 25.58%
Wyoming 25.24%
Average 31.20%

Congressional Research Service and NASBO.

Some of the areas to be cut include: Public housing assistance, money for schools with low-income students, food inspection, scientific research grants, and environmental protection programs.

like the states have a choice but to accept money the Federal Government pulls from the states .Of course before the progressive 16th amendment was passed ,the constitution in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 required a proportional allocation of direct taxes. Since the 16th ,the Federal government can bribe and blackmail states with revenues. (or at least that's how the progressives interpret this power of confiscation and redistribution.

So what happens to states that get more federal money than they actually pay? What if they pay more than they actually get?

How Blue America Subsidizes Red America (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/14/how_blue_america_subsidizes_red_america.html)

Economist's View: "Red States, Blue States and the Distribution of Federal Spending" (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/03/red-states-blue-states-and-the-distribution-of-federal-spending.html)


It will come as a surprise to some, but not to others, that there is a fairly strong statistical relationship, but that the direction is the opposite from what you would think if you were listening to rhetoric from Republican conservatives: The red states ... generally receive more subsidies from the federal government than they pay in taxes; in other words they are further to the right in the graph. It is the other way around with the blue states...

One reason is that the red states on average have lower population; thus their two Senators give them higher per capita representation in Washington than the blue states get, which translates into more federal handouts. The top ten feeders at the federal trough in 2005 were: New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky and Virginia. (Sarah Palin's home state of Alaska ranks number one if measured in terms of federal spending per capita. Alabama Senator Shelby evidently gets goodies for his state, ranked 7, by indiscriminately holding up votes on administration appointments.) The top ten milk cows were: New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado.

Perhaps in determining how the federal government redistributes income across states one should view its role more expansively than is captured in the budget numbers. ... The four congressional districts that receive the most in farm subsidies are all represented by “conservative” Republicans, located in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas. (Michele Bachmann's family farm apparently received $250,000 in such farm payments between 1995 and 2006.)

The most commonly ignored area of geographical redistribution is the federal government's permanent policy of “universal service” in postal delivery, phone service and other utilities (electricity; perhaps now broadband…). Universal service means subsidizing those who choose to live in remote places like Alaska, where the cost of supplying these services is much higher than in the coastal cities. Perhaps they should move…

Older stats but you can follow the trend and see we try so hard to pull you guys from the track,kicking and screaming, before they train runs you over. Need more recent stats?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/15/1065080/-Democrats-need-to-build-ways-to-turn-blue-state-subsidies-into-red-state-votes


Obviously, economics and taxes aren't the only issues people vote on, so there is more to it than proving to people how they actually benefit from the programs that many of them don't even know they are helped by. But there will always be hold-outs not unlike my step-grandmother. She lived the final 30 years of her life on Social Security with doctor visits paid out of Medicare while railing about how "the Democrats never did anything for me." Some people are presumably more flexible than she.

"Shrink government but keep your hands off my Social Security, and Medicare!"- TParty

So let me see if I get this right, you are borrowing money to prop up the states in various ways? I understand this makes sense in various ways but a range of 53% to 17% means there is a great deal of opportunity for improvement. Let me guess that in the days when support was tied to taxes raised, the poor areas just got poorer? Now I see that Tom, the arch conservative voice in our midst, is advocating a return to beggering the poor for the benefit of the rich. Obviously his state, being the home of the biggest city and the financial hub, would benefit most. So much for yankee largesse, Tom, the last carpetbagger, rides again

no it isn't ... pursuing equality of opportunity and outcome are 2 distinct things. Pursuing equality of outcomes means an almost certain discrimination to get the results desired .You also sacrifice meritocracy and probably equal treatment under the law as you attempt to create 'remedies ' for different outcomes. It also necessitates a redistributive society and coercion by the government .
Whereas if we pursue equality of opportunity you necessarily have to assume and accept that results will differ .


Yes, we accept the results will differ. Of course results will differ. Any group of people who are given the same opportunity will show varying results. We are not all created equal. However, this is not an argument for not doing anything about it.

This is why results are monitored in order to identify individuals and groups that are less successful when given the same opportunities.

And no, being lazy is not a valid reason for being less successful.

ah shucks you expect folks to get off their proverbal and do well because you throw some incentive their way. Don't work like that son! What you have to do is give them a long term view, called faith in the future. now you are a little short on that right now!

Ah hope this little down home lesson isn't lost on you. Don't you have any preachers left in that land or did you shoot the last one? I'm goin to give youse a prophesy because I'm a prophet. The end is neigh, you has ateall the potatas and all you got left is... well I don't know what it is, but it ain't nice, so get offen your buts and start cooperatin or down you go.

Democrats want to double the gas tax while subsidizing electric vehicles that only the rich can afford, I'm sure the irony of Tal's complaint is lost on him.

electric vehicles that means more emissions, I sort of look behind the bullshlt you see, there is a disconnect in the thinking, cuase and effect doesn'ts eem to get through. want to reduce emissions from transport get rid of the trucks and put it on rail

ah shucks you expect folks to get off their proverbal and do well because you throw some incentive their way. Don't work like that son! What you have to do is give them a long term view, called faith in the future. now you are a little short on that right now!

Ah hope this little down home lesson isn't lost on you. Don't you have any preachers left in that land or did you shoot the last one? I'm goin to give youse a prophesy because I'm a prophet. The end is neigh, you has ateall the potatas and all you got left is... well I don't know what it is, but it ain't nice, so get offen your buts and start cooperatin or down you go.

bin sippin that loco juice ?

electric vehicles that means more emissions, I sort of look behind the bullshlt you see, there is a disconnect in the thinking, cuase and effect doesn'ts eem to get through. want to reduce emissions from transport get rid of the trucks and put it on rail

All we need to know about climate change is that the lowest temp recorded in history recently happened in Antarctica. ( - 135.8 F )

It's been unseasonably cold in Texas for the last week. Dallas shut down, single digits here.

All we need to know about climate change is that the lowest temp recorded in history recently happened in Antarctica. ( - 135.8 F )

How do we know anything about what's possible in Antarctica, we are impressed by that but I'm more interested in what it means elsewhere, Speech says it's been cold in Texas, by coincidence we had snow last week in December (summer), one of those Antarctic blasts, had a few this year. I suppose what climate change means is that the jet streams become more unstable

Now I see that Tom, the arch conservative voice in our midst, is advocating a return to beggering the poor for the benefit of the rich. Obviously his state, being the home of the biggest city and the financial hub, would benefit most. So much for yankee largesse, Tom, the last carpetbagger, rides again

lol ,my state has been run by lefties for decades , Keep that in mind all you who think I'm the one promoting corporate interests . When corporate money talks ,it the progressives who hear it .
Take as an example the lefty organization 'Center for American Progress ' . They are the ones who fund 'Think Progress' which provides Tal with his rants. I posted about it's founder and chairman John Podesta going to serve as a senior adviser to the emperor
They recently released their list of corporate donors for the 1st time.
Among their corporate donors are ,Walmart, Goldman Sachs, Google, Northrop Grumman, T-Mobile, Toyota, Visa, GE,Wells Fargo...... and many others .
Our Supporters | Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/about/our-supporters/)

CAP says that individuals and foundations account for more than 90% of its funding, and corporations only around 6%. It would be interesting to see the individual and foundation donor list; my guess is that left-wing foundations, most of which spend money left by dead conservatives top their list (like Ford and Rockefeller foundations ) .

Large corporations are not supporters of free enterprise. They prefer to partner with government to suppress innovation and competition. Oddly enough ,that makes their position simpatico with the left ,which plays lip service to defending the poor from the rich ,but in reality sleep in the same bed with them.

When corporate money talks ,it the progressives who hear it .You are so fanatically driven by partisan politics to ever understand that it happens irrespective of party affiliation.

I'm not so sure NK. I think Tom is starting to realise there isn't " a dimes worth of difference between the two parties".

Now that's not true tutt the difference is in name only, once they were known as the democat- republicans or was it the republican democrats. I guess it's better than being known as the Whigs

I realized that many years ago ;after I shook off the indoctrination from years of attending the New York Public education system ,and a subsequent liberal arts education in college. For the record ......I was a registered Democrat ....I've never been a registered Republican.

so Tom what does that mean, you couldn't cast a vote for Bush in the primaries and wouldn't cast a vote for Obama in the primaries? It isn't obvious where your allegiences lie dispite your rhetoric

By the way Jefferson isn't on the ticket, perhaps you could write him in

so Tom what does that mean, you couldn't cast a vote for Bush in the primaries and wouldn't cast a vote for Obama in the primaries? It isn't obvious where your allegiences lie dispite your rhetoric

By the way Jefferson isn't on the ticket, perhaps you could write him in

there is no Republican party of any consequence in NY .I lose nothing from not voting in primaries .
And I'm a Madison type of guy.

there is no Republican party of any consequence in NY .I lose nothing from not voting in primaries .
And I'm a Madison type of guy.

amazing, must be terrible to live in a place where your vote doesn't count. what happened to carry the fight to them no matter what?

I realized that many years agoYou say that but your post are overwhelmingly in the republican camp. Actually the post are less pro-republican than anti-everything-liberal. You still don't realize that both sides do stupid things equally.

of course thay are both inept

Actually the post are less pro-republican than anti-everything-liberal.
yes ;only pro-Republican when they promote conservative positions.

Why do conservative positions always have to impact the poor, old, and minorities in cruel adverse ways?

right back at ya . You just THINK you policies help .

Well that's no answer. I have asserted you value rich humans over poor ones, and your policies reflect that as you export this attitude to all parts of the world forcing your own rights and attitudes while denying the rights of others.

Conservative don't seem to value anything but there own interest, thus isolating yourselves in your own thinking. I know you are a capitalist, and agree with a broken business model. Yet you still protect that broken model, and keep redistributing the wealth to the supply side, and ignore the demand side. Balancing both would benefit the whole economy, and more people not just the few.

I don't agree with your premise or your conclusions and will not defend positions you incorrectly attribute to me ..

you value rich humans over poor ones, and your policies reflect that as you export this attitude to all parts of the world forcing your own rights and attitudes while denying the rights of others.
We value all people equally . Our values have a proven track record of lifting people out of poverty .


Conservative don't seem to value anything but there own interest, thus isolating yourselves in your own thinking
I don't even know what that means .Conservatives spend a lot of time defending our values against persistent attacks from the left and those who would 'fundamentally transform ' the country and replace traditional values with a relativist view.

I know you are a capitalist, and agree with a broken business model.
Totally disagree that the capitalist model is broken . Where it falls short is where government tries to micromanage the economy .

Yet you still protect that broken model, and keep redistributing the wealth to the supply side, and ignore the demand side. Balancing both would benefit the whole economy, and more people not just the few.
I don't believe in redistribution ...period . Conservatives believe in expanding the pie so everyone benefits.

Expanding the pie equally? Show me a policy or position that does that.

I did not say equally .. I said everyone benefits when a rising tide lifts all boats . There was a time when the Dems believed that too. Before the radical progressives took over the party . Now ;in the immortal words of Madame Mimi ,we are told to "Embrace the Suck " . That's all your side has to offer .

We have accepted we don't get everything we desire and can compromise to move the process forward. Eliminating poor peoples welfare, and not corporate welfare hasn't worked to raise any tides for all to benefit either.

Good for you that the Beltway dinosaur media is circling the wagons around their favorite big government Repubics and spinning the tale about how they courageously standing up to conservatives.

What happened over there, you got a budget deal done with BO out of town for Mandela's funeral. you should send him out of town more often

What happened over there, you got a budget deal done with BO out of town for Mandela's funeral. you should send him out of town more often

the selfie Emperor .. It aint done yet ...The Dems may try to add an extension of unemployment benefits in the Senate . The budget deal is a classic "Wimpy deal" .....Wimpy is a character in the Popeye cartoons who says repeatedly ...."I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" .
The deal the Repubics cut with the Dems allows for an immediate increase in budget spending over the sequester numbers in exchange for the promise of budget reductions in a decade . How many times do the Repubics have to be suckered by Dem lies ?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/wimpy-hamburgers-i-will-gladly-pay-you-tuesdsay-for-a-hamburger-today-whimpy-sad-hill-news.jpg

hey Tom, it's a plan. Noone can do what they would like to do today. I think we have all come to realise the GFC did more damage than we would like to admit. What they are really saying is it will take generational change to get it done, the tried men of today's politics don't have the will to pull the kid off the teat and forceably wean it. Even in our wonderfull nation we see the deficit getting significantly bigger before it reduces, and don't forget we started from a zero base, how much worse must it be for a nation significantly in debt.

Now when are we going to get serious and stop this QE nonsense

Get your own Federal Reserve Clete, or go on the gold standard.

Australia shares set for cautious start ahead of Fed meeting | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/15/markets-australia-stocks-idUSL3N0JU0CS20131215)

Oh that's right you do.

you know my position on QE ... This is basically the same beggar thy neighbor mistake that happened in the 1930s . It made a very messy 1940s .

No doubt markets values will shrink as the easing gets more considerations. But that's no different than the shrinking that will occurs when municipalities shake the bond markets with bankruptcies.

Analysis: Little respite seen for U.S. municipal bonds in 2014 | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/15/us-usa-municipals-outlook-analysis-idUSBRE9BE06R20131215)


(Reuters) - The withering U.S. municipal bond market will shrink even more well into 2014, with interest rate and credit risks keeping both investors and borrowers away.

Barring an unforeseen turnaround in the final weeks of 2013, municipal bonds will post their first negative annual performance since the financial crisis, with investors fleeing municipal funds at a record pace and the market's overall size, now less than $3.7 trillion, contracting for a third straight year.

Analysts, portfolio managers and traders say concerns about the Federal Reserve scaling back its massive stimulus, and about the financial soundness of state and local governments, will keep hitting the market at least through the first half of next year. They expect debt issuance to fall further and investors to continue exiting bond funds....."In the growth years, 2000 to 2010, you had debt for new infrastructure growing significantly and you had refunding," said Chris Mier, managing director of analytical services at Loop Capital, which forecasts 2014 issuance only at $300 billion. "Now you're seeing ... new money volume for these infrastructure projects flat because of the political environment and the aversion for taking out new debt."

On the demand side, net outflows from muni funds - which have already hit a record $52.76 billion this year - could persist for three to six months, said Vanguard's Alwine.

Outflows during the third quarter alone, $32 billion, exceeded total net outflows of any entire year going back to 1992, according to Lipper, a Thomson Reuters company.

Many funds hold Puerto Rico bonds because they are exempt from state and federal taxes, and some outflows were driven by the territory's budget woes. Detroit's bankruptcy filing - the largest municipal one in U.S. history - also led to outflows.

Still, "maybe 80 percent was driven by fears of interest rates going higher," said BlackRock Managing Director Peter Hayes, who heads the firm's municipal bonds group.


The translation is tax payers will be on the tab for liabilities, while assets will be sold cheap. A ten year jobs/infrastructure plan while the interest rates were very low would have avoided defaulting on debt payments while making a strong revenue stream for cities and states facing financial insolvency.

It would also avoid the high cost of bankruptcy as banks will not be able to charge fees that are generally the projected interest and payments they would have received if those cash strapped municipalities had made, or could have made on time as contracted.

Get your own Federal Reserve Clete, or go on the gold standard.


Tom when will you learn that what you do echos, you wouldn't think your QE would effect us but it effects our currency and therefore our market. Over recent years your fiscal policy has driven up the value of our curency making us uncompetative in certain markets. The result of this is seen in the demise of our car industry, the demise of our airline industry and the struggle of other export based industries such as education and tourism. I don't think your own industries directly benefited but it is a begger my neighbour and my ally policy

Tom didn't make that statement, I did Clete, and if you squandered the time that QE allowed you to restructure you fiscal house using the low interest rates that's the fault of your own government policies. But don't feel bad, few did including my own government. Many banks and businesses did though, and profits were through the roof while governments cut to the bone, or tried to.

Yes we are interlinked and our politicians are as stupid as yours are. We just have more.

Well sorry Tal, but we do have our own federal reserve and sometimes it's policies are as inexplicable as yours. They have been forced to lower interest rates to hold down the value of the currency because the interest rates in your nation create an artificial market for capital and at the same time mean that currencies like ours become the home of speculators, probably your own hedge funds. Because of the
lower interest rates we are seeing once again an explosion in housing prices

As far as your politicians are concerned, it is a great pity that a revolution isn't in the offering. We succeeded in getting rid of some of ours who were causing great harm, but the electorate is fickle

They have been forced to lower interest rates to hold down the value of the currency because the interest rates in your nation create an artificial market for capital and at the same time mean that currencies like ours become the home of speculators, probably your own hedge funds. Because of the
lower interest rates we are seeing once again an explosion in housing prices
classic beggar thy neighbor. The ant--free trade people wouldn't understand the impact of government policies.

Posted by Clete,
Well sorry Tal, but we do have our own federal reserve and sometimes it's policies are as inexplicable as yours. They have been forced to lower interest rates to hold down the value of the currency because the interest rates in your nation create an artificial market for capital and at the same time mean that currencies like ours become the home of speculators, probably your own hedge funds. Because of the lower interest rates we are seeing once again an explosion in housing prices

As far as your politicians are concerned, it is a great pity that a revolution isn't in the offering. We succeeded in getting rid of some of ours who were causing great harm, but the electorate is fickle

Then its you who needs a revolution, like we over here are revolting now. Not our fault your electorate is fickle. We do not set your prices or interest rates YOU do through your own fed. Obviously somebody over there is making money whether you agree to the policies or not. Maybe you should complain to your own free market values and your fickle electorate.


classic beggar thy neighbor. The ant--free trade people wouldn't understand the impact of government policies.

I am not anti trade just FAIR trade, and reviewing the trade agreements from NAFTA to the newer TPP treaty I have doubts of fair. Cheap labor on steroids, that will costs us jobs at home. You have said the business model has been broken many times yourself. Yet you perpetrate the status quo. So now you are a libertarian or something?

You have said the business model has been broken many times yourself. Yet you perpetrate the status quo. So now you are a libertarian or something?

??? You love putting words in my mouth . For the record ,the capitalist system is fine . What you fail to admit is that when you put regulations in place that ONLY large corporations can afford to comply with,then you create the climate where only large corporations thrive.

Where the business model is "broken" per se is where government interferes .

Don't mistake NAFTA and the proposed Korea free trade agreement as true free trade .They are bastardized versions of free trade .

Tom at least you see they are begger my neighbour policies, but free trade isn't the answer, free trade has ruined your economy as much as ours. Employment on the home front should be protected and certain industries should be declared starategic industries which are protected. I see auto, aircraft, and ship building as strategic industries, I see instrument, steel and aluminium as strategic industries, I even see film making as strategic and if we are serious about stopping CO2 we should stop transporting heavy objects around the globe. Now this is radical thinking in this age. the time has come to junk these free trade policies that have advantaged people who might actually be our enemy, kick a few multinational corporations in the teeth and get real about what is important, and it isn't profit over people

Well for sure cheap labor and lax laws around the globe is what has destroyed our economy, and unfair distribution of the wealth. That's not free trade, that's the oligarchs exploiting the masses on a global level. That's not capitalism, its robbery. Its using money as a whip and chain.

Yes Tal but you will never get Tom and his ilk to agree, they think Adam Smith was a saint.

The whole system is built on greed, the need to accumulate, and you watch what happens when wealth is concentrated in the hands of the 1%, they squirrel it away for fear they might loose a little, they are actually afraid the middle class and the working class might actually get some money and not need their trickle down economics, trickle down what a myth

Trickle down is a real concept and the nick name of supply side economics that works very well for the top tier investor, but allows for huge disparities and undo influence of market forces on ordinary workers. Its no secret that the decline of unions and the shrinking of the middle class is directly related to stagnant wage growth by a large segment of the population, as their jobs are outsourced to less competitive countries with little or no regulatory structure.

There is NO school of economics that justifies tax cuts for the 'trickle down' effect. Let me make it very simple for you. Conservatives believe that money in the private sector is more productive than money in the government's hands. Therefore money in the public sector should be limited ;taxes and government spending minimalized as much as possible. That is the policies of Hayek ,and Friedman ,and Laffer among others.
Your policies by contrast guarantee statist capitalism with all the cronyism you decry . In fact ,I would say that it is Keynesian economics that is really a so called 'trickle down ' theory . The Leviathan takes wealth from producers and trickles a small portion of it through their patronage machine to give a small percentage back to 'the Public' in the form of payoffs .

I said nothing of tax cuts. But the redeeming quality of Reagan was being flexible with raising revenues in times of needs. We are no longer flexible and the time in need is NOW.

A vigorous society has to be flexible and not stuck in the ideology divide. We are all capitalist, but to keep it strictly in the hands of a few capitalist does us no good. LOL, even Reagan raised taxes, and grew government, and had deficit spending during economic downturns.

He didn't try to shrink government so small the country wouldn't grow and expand to meet the needs of a few. I can't believe I am defending a conservative president's fiscal policy to a conservative!!!!!!

Hello again, tom:

Conservatives believe that money in the private sector is more productive than money in the government's hands.If what you believe is true, we ought to be at FULL EMPLOYMENT. The private sector has TONS and TONS of money. But, it ain't trickling down.

What are they DOING with their cash??? They're buying (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57580983-37/apple-boosts-stock-buyback-ups-dividend-15-percent/) their own stock back. That doesn't create jobs. It keeps the CEO's salary high, because he's paid in stock.

excon

yeah the buy back puts cash in the hands of the investors . Thanks for proving my point. What will the investors do ? They will use the money in the economy .

What will the investors do ? They will use the money in the economy .The chinese economy.

The option would be more expensive consumer products . Do you really think there would be a thriving textile industry in the US if foreign imports were banned ? No way. The fact is that the US has had a history of textile protectionism and it did nothing to save American textile jobs. For years we've had import quotas ,antidumping restrictions,safeguard mechanisms, carve outs, and rules of origin in trade agreements and “Buy American” provisions written into legislation . The same is true in most industries where we compete in the globe . At least Clete's argument to protect strategic industries makes a degree of sense. Protectionism beyond safety measures punishes the consumer .

Well you pretty much just proved that big corp sucks in wealth and holds on to it by spending as little as possible, usually outside the US.

At least Clete's argument to protect strategic industries makes a degree of sense. Protectionism beyond safety measures punishes the consumer


Well thank you for that backhanded accolade Tom I didn't think anyone reads what I write. I have never denied we want a strong private sector but when the private sectors idea of investment is to do it some place else it is time to take stock and say this open borders policy for goods isn't working. Those who are making money in our economies are importing goods at rediculously low prices and gouging profits under the disguise of enterprise. You say money in thier hands provides a general benefit from which the majority will benefit through investment and employment. Look around, it isn't happening because that economic model is outdated. the consequence of freeing the slaves is the slave owners looked elsewhere for those they could exploit, it took a long time but it happened

IN 50 years of asking this question, a Gallup poll shows more Americans than ever - 72% - see “big government” as our biggest threat:

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jlaajnj50uiqlfbphys0qq.png

I'm in that group, along with 56% of Democrats.

Since you've lost control of your government to big corp that ship has sailed and cannot be fixed.

Yes, big government and big business are an inseparable partnership.

Then why do lib/progressive statists think they can keep big government without the influence of big business ?

It has nothing to do with "lib/progressives". Both parties are at fault - this you need to realize. It's non-partisan.

Why can't they work together and be effective and FAIR instead of just self serving selectively?

It has nothing to do with "lib/progressives". Both parties are at fault - this you need to realize. It's non-partisan.

Assuming again.

Why can't they work together and be effective and FAIR instead of just self serving selectively?

Why can't government be fair? The IRS targeting conservatives, DOJ carving out millions for community organizers when it should go to the taxpayers, giving people with more a handout while taking everything back from poor people?

Assuming again.Assuming what? It's what he posted. Did I stutter?

No, I understood this quite clearly.


Both parties are at fault - this you need to realize. It's non-partisan.

unfortunately there are big statist Repubics too .Schmucks like Speaker Bonehead and Paul Ryan ,and John McCain ,who , in the spirit of "compromise "(aka sellout ),would stab disabled Vets in the back

99% of them are like that.

and the rest are the conservatives /TP

Then why do lib/progressive statists think they can keep big government without the influence of big business ?

They might think that, but they are wrong.

I don't think doing what's good for business at the expense of working class Americans with policies that make them poorer is a good position for republicans to take.

I mean if you want to cut social welfare programs and not cut corporate welfare programs then most would agree that's an unfair stance to take. Especially when you protect job creators and label working poor people as lazy takers and argue they deserve no help or relief after a recession, and big business has done great recovering and hoarding.

You take pensions for people who have worked, subsidies big business labor costs and then argue for no minimum wage increase, and swear extending unemployment for workers who are seeking jobs that aren't there don't deserve a dime. How can you even say redistribution of the wealth is bad and at the same time most of the wealth goes to fewer people?

Go ahead give big business more, and take from the ones who have nothing, and gotten nothing, and can expect nothing. Who are the real takers here Tom?

How you can keep griping about policies that make us poorer while Obama is making me and many others poorer is beyond me.

Well said by the guy who takes prevailing wage benefits while doing nothing to get them. Go ask your boss why he hasn't given you a raise and go ask the insurance company why they can't cut your premiums.

All big business has to do is blame government/Obama for jacking up the prices, and you haters go yeah, yeah, and they run to the bank with more of your money like they have always done. Go tell Ted to quite costing you money, and send some to you. Why you haven't is beyond me.

Excuse me, I do Ok for myself when the government isn't busy making my insurance cost more, keeping the economy stagnant, doing all it can to make energy prices skyrocket, raising taxes and fees, etc.

Who are the real takers here Tom?
The government of course . You still try to disconnect the Dems from the government polices ,and place total blame on the Repubics (who I've already admitted share some of the blame ...especially the inside the beltway statist Repubics). You think the Dems are the champions of the down-trodden when at best ;all they do is sing the right chorus while in fact either doing nothing to fix it ,or enacting laws which have unintended consequences of doing the opposite.Good intentions don't get it done..

The song you guys sing is against all the things we want, higher minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and a jobs bill that partners government with or without big business.

Cruz, Rubio, Paul, lead the chorus of just say NO!! What's there intentions?

The song you guys sing is against all the things we want, higher minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and a jobs bill that partners government with or without big business.

Cruz, Rubio, Paul, lead the chorus of just say NO!! What's there intentions?

Of course its against things you want, which is total government dependence. But here's a scoop for you and your constant union apologies, Scott Walker's Public Employee Union reform has led to decertification of more than 70 teacher's unions (http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2013/12/workers-shoot-down-unions-in-wisconsin/).

Seems more and more workers are rejecting unions that gouge them and the taxpayers to fatten their own wallets and engage in liberal political activism instead of looking after their interests.

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, well paid teachers and well paid factory workers aren't fertile ground for union's any more.. It's kinda hard, as you know, to support the WELL PAID.

So, that's why they're organizing the fast food workers. They're the garment workers of today. To ME, they're NOT hard to support. You??? Nahhhh... You LIKE that they make $7.25/hr.

excon

Bless your heart, you really think the unions are actually trying to help these people.

Hello again, Steve:

Bless your heart, you really think the unions are actually trying to help these people.Do you think I wanna HELP my employees when I hire them??? Altruistic, I AIN'T.

Bless your heart too, Steve.

excon

Unions helped you get the wages and benefits you have now without YOU lifting a finger, or spending a dime.

Unions helped you get the wages and benefits you have now without YOU lifting a finger, or spending a dime.

And that means I should bow to their political agenda? I don't think so, and apparently a lot more union think the same way hence the WI votes. The unions just see a way to try and build up their dwindling membership by hooking in fast food workers so they can pad their wallets again and fund their radical politics.

So it's was okay for YOU to benefit from unions helping workers, but fast food workers should not have that benefit?

What do you call a guy that bad mouth's somebody that helped them for NO CHARGE?

So it's was okay for YOU to benefit from unions helping workers, but fast food workers should not have that benefit?

Who's stopping them from unionizing? Not me. Good luck with that.


What do you call a guy that bad mouth's somebody that helped them for NO CHARGE?

A liberal.

Welcome aboard :D