LA Times: The next president and the economy

‘It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing.” Those lines from a Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign commercial invoked images of a president responding in the dead of night to “evil” forces threatening Americans’ safety. These days, however, the 3 a.m. phone call to the White House is just as likely to come from the secretary of the Treasury, warning of an Asian stock market plummeting or a European government taking over another major bank. That’s not a political scare tactic; it’s an all-too-real consequence of the subprime mortgage fiasco.

The deepening problems in the financial markets have shifted the public’s — and the candidates’ — focus from homeland security to economic security. Rising unemployment, slowing production and stubbornly tight credit are all signs of a recession that’s not likely to be cured by the time either John McCain or Barack Obama takes the oath of office in January. As we’ve seen in recent months, even dramatic action by the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve hasn’t been able to stop the stock market from falling and credit from evaporating. We need a president with the grit and credibility to force harsh medicine into the financial system, identifying which banks are too troubled to save and making temporary, taxpayer-friendly investments in healthier institutions to jump-start lending. These efforts are fraught with risk, and they’ll inflict more pain in the short term. But it’s better to endure that pain now than to pretend the banks’ illiquid assets are worth more than the market will pay for them, as some have advocated.

Read it all.

Posted in * Economics, Politics, Economy, Politics in General, The Credit Freeze Crisis of Fall 2008/The Recession of 2007--, The September 2008 Proposed Henry Paulson 700 Billion Bailout Package, US Presidential Election 2008

One comment on “LA Times: The next president and the economy

  1. libraryjim says:

    And now that Obama has made his [url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html]policy principles[/url] clear, we finally know where he stands on the economy, and what he thinks of small business owners and taxation:

    [blockquote]Outside Toledo, Ohio, on Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was approached by plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, a big, bald man with a goatee who asked Obama if he believes in the American dream.

    “I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year,” Wurzelbacher said. “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?”

    Obama said, “First off, you would get a 50% tax credit so you’d get a tax cut for your healthcare costs….. if your revenue is above 250 – then from 250 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that from 250 up – from 250 – 300 or so, so for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39%, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason why we’re doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250. So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut. And so what we’re doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250 that that marginal amount above 250 – they’re gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36% rate.”

    Responded Wurzelbacher, “the reason I ask you about the American dream, I mean I’ve worked hard. I’m a plumber. I work 10-12 hours a day and I’m buying this company and I’m going to continue working that way. I’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American dream.”

    “Well,” said Obama, “here’s a way of thinking about it. How long have been a plumber?”

    Wurzelbacher said 15 years.

    Obama says, “Over the last 15 years, when you weren’t making 250, you would have been given a tax cut from me, so you’d actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways of looking at it – I mean one way of looking at it is, now that you’ve become more successful through hard work – you don’t want to be taxed as much.”

    “Exactly,” Wurzelbacher said.

    Obama continued, “But another way of looking at it is 95% of folks who are making less than 250, they may be working hard too, but they’re being taxed at a higher rate than they would be under mine. So what I’m doing is, put yourself back 10 years ago when you were only making whatever, 60 or 70. Under my tax plan you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you’d be paying lower taxes, which means you would have saved…Now look, nobody likes high taxes.”

    “No,” said Wurzelbacher.

    “Of course not,” said Obama. “But what’s happened is that we end up – we’ve cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than 250. We haven’t given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence, the average wage and income for ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last eight years. So all I want to do is – I’ve got a tax cut. The only thing that changes, is I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well – even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect the disagreement. I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

    Wurzelbacher said it seemed as though Obama might support a flat tax.

    Obama says, “you know, I would be open to it except here’s the problem with a flat tax is that if you actually put a flat tax together, in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we’ve got, you’d probably end up having to make it like about a 40% sales tax. I mean that’s the value added, making it up. Now some people say 23 or 25, but in truth when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you’d have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on. And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent.”

    Obama said, “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and [b]I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody[/b].”[/blockquote]

    Socialism, plain and clear. And he doesn’t care about small business owners getting soaked by higher taxes, he simply considers it ‘redistribution of wealth’. 🙄