To PAYGO or to NO-PAYGO?
ChrisB on Jun 12 2009 | Filed under: Around the Web
Bryan Pick makes a great point on why the GOP should accept Obama’s limited Paygo
Sphere: Related ContentArchive for June, 2009
Big Banks Got Played
ChrisB on Jun 12 2009 | Filed under: Chris' Page, Investing
A Daring Trade Has Wall Street Seething from the Wall Street Journal. Amherst, a small Austin firm found a small loophole in the system. To use a crude metaphor, they sold the big banks hurrican insurance and then made sure the hurrican never came.
The burned banks include J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and Bank of America Corp. Some banks have reached out to two industry trade groups about Amherst’s actions, and the groups are reviewing the transaction, according to people familiar with their thinking. “It’s all-out warfare” between the banks and Amherst, said a senior banker at one firm that lost money.
Really though, I imagine the big banks are mad that they didn’t think of it first.
Economics of Contempt has much more (and better) analysis here.
Sphere: Related ContentWhitehouse.gov Blog is Ballsy
ChrisB on Jun 09 2009 | Filed under: Around the Web
Whitehouse.gov touts to us President Obama’s committment to the PAYGO principle.
Sphere: Related ContentSpending Cuts: Better Ideas Needed from the GOP
ChrisB on Jun 05 2009 | Filed under: Chris' Page, Gov't Spending
At the Next Right, Tad DeHaven looks at why The GOP Is Clearly Not Serious about Cutting Down Spending.
The spending cuts the country needs must be substantial, serious, and
put forward in the spirit of recognizing that the federal government’s
role in our lives must be downsized. Half-measures are not enough, and
from the Republican House leadership, wholly insufficient for winning
back the support of limited-government voters who have come to
associate the GOP with runaway spending and debt.
I have to agree, we need a more thorogh overhaul of the federal budget. Defense spending should not be off limits. You can go over it with a slightly more lax standard but it’s ripe for wasteful spending cuts. Is there any specific reason why every part of the federal budget needs to grow by so much every year? Matthew Yglesias also makes a good point about needing more targeting in the cuts.
If we’re just going to reduce outlays in an arbitrary, across-the-board
way, why should defense and Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid
be left off the table? Well, presumably they don’t want to cut the
defense budget because they think it’s important. But isn’t the FBI
important? Prisons? If Medicare’s important, isn’t the CDC important?
What would be helped by slashing Pell Grants?
This is right, we do need to look at each program and decide what to cut (there’s plenty), but I also think the debt is a sufficient worry that we do need an across the board stop on the spending increases. And yes, even to the bike path funds Matt is so committed to while the nation watches its bond rating drop. There’s plenty of projects that aren’t needed, and plenty that aren’t performing well enough to justify their funds. And that’s just being conservative. If we want to get aggressive here, there’s entire departments that can be eliminated (housing? education?).
Sphere: Related ContentMedical Advice
ChrisB on Jun 02 2009 | Filed under: Around the Web
While you’re still not taking medical advice from the Huffington Post, also avoid it from Oprah.
Sphere: Related Content
The View From the Bluff: Lance’s Economic and Finance Blog
