Some Things Are Worse Than Uncertainty (Like the certainty of more government spending)

Weekly Standard ^ | 02/01/2010 | Irwin Stelzer

[SeekAndFind]

Markets hate uncertainty, so the conventional wisdom goes. And it is true. But the reduction of uncertainty can be a mixed blessing, especially if what becomes more certain is likely to interfere with recovery from the recently ended recession.

Ben Bernanke has been confirmed for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. But confirmation came at a price -- the further dilution of the Fed’s independence. The leader of the Senate Democrats, Harry Reid, says that in return for his support Bernanke has promised to ease credit further. How that is possible with interest rates already effectively at zero, and printing presses working overtime to turn out dollars, is unclear. And it is unclear how the Fed chairman could have made such a promise while at the same time repeating his commitment to begin withdrawing central bank support from the mortgage market.

My own guess is that Bernanke will move gingerly to tighten, a little bit and not right away, even though inflationary expectations have risen from 2.25 percent in March to somewhat above 3 percent. He will keep a wary eye on the politicians upon whose favor and support he is increasingly dependent. Ignore them, and encourage the drive for legislation that will limit the Fed’s freedom of action in money markets.

Another uncertainty that has been dispelled concerns the president’s reaction to his party’s loss of the Massachusetts senate seat long occupied by Ted Kennedy. A similar setback prompted Bill Clinton to move from left to center -- the place on the political spectrum that is home to most voters. Not Barack Obama. In this week's State of the Union message he repeated the themes of his campaign and inaugural -- transformation of the health care and energy sectors, regulation of big banks, support for education, and economic stimulus, the latter relabeled as a jobs package. And he challenged his congressional colleagues to use their huge majorities in both Houses to pass his proposed legislation. A display of political courage, or of deafness to the expressed wishes of the electorate, depending on which side of the aisle you sit.

So we know that the era of big government is not over, as Bill Clinton claimed when he swung right after disastrous mid-term elections. Any doubts on that score were dispelled when the president announced his risible deficit reduction program. The annual deficit was reported last week to be $1.3 trillion. And it's rising. The president proposes to attack this elephant with a pop-gun -- a freeze on a tiny portion (17 percent) of the budget. In the unlikely event that unhappy liberals in Congress accept such a plan, it will cut spending by only $25 billion per year.

Meanwhile, legislation requested by the president and already approved by the House calls for new spending in excess of the projected savings. More spending on education subsidies, childcare benefits, infrastructure, subsidies for low-income mortgage holders and energy efficiency, funding of basic research in energy production, “a comprehensive energy and climate bill” certain to drive up energy costs -- a list that warmed the hearts of his congressional colleagues, or most of them. Throw in a second stimulus and $30 billion for small, regional banks, and it easy to see why Democrats who do not represent far-left constituencies such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco, fear they will have difficulty selling themselves as the guardians of the taxpayers’ purse when the mid-term elections roll around in November. And little wonder that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the U.S. budget outlook is “bleak.”

So we now know that taxes will go up. Call it “fees” in the case of banks, or taxes on “the rich” in the case of income taxes, but up they will go. And swamp the tiny tax benefits the president plans to bestow on small businesses that “hire new workers or raise wages,” the latter not considered by most economists a sensible way to create jobs.

[SeekAndFind]

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST

[Sherman Logan]

Reid, says that in return for his support Bernanke has promised to ease credit further. How that is possible with interest rates already effectively at zero, and printing presses working overtime to turn out dollars, is unclear.

Rates may be at zero, but nobody is lending money at that rate. Not surprisingly.

[goldstategop]

In other words, "double down." The Reddening of America continues apace.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[Pearls Before Swine]

Call it “fees” in the case of banks..

A bank "fee" on assets is a disguised tax on wealth. That is where O would ultimately like to go. Once you've squeezed everything you can out of income, you have to go after principal.