Wire Report

Dominick T. Armentano -Research Fellow, The Independent Institute/Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Hartford

Dominick T. Armentano is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Hartford. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Connecticut, and he is the author of the books, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Antitrust: The Case for Repeal, Intervention in the Petroleum Industry, and The Political Economy of William Graham Sumner. His articles have appeared in such scholarly journals as the Antitrust Bulletin, Business and Society Review, Antitrust Law and Economic Review, and Business History Review, as well as in the Financial Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reason, National Review, and Hartford Times. Professor Armentano is frequently interviewed on numerous TV and radio programs including “Economically Speaking” (PBS).

(Wire/Ind.Inst.) The economic landscape still looks pretty gloomy despite (because of?) massive increases in federal government spending by Congress. Want something else to worry about? What if your government suddenly went “belly up” on some or all of its public debt IOU’s?

Impossible you say? Not really.

When individuals or businesses have long-run expenses that exceed anticipated income—and have neither capital nor savings to fill in the gap—they often declare bankruptcy. And though it is rare, even some city governments (i.e., Vallejo, Calif.) have been plunged recently into insolvency and bankruptcy, and some state governments (with heavy pension costs) might consider it. But could it happen to our own federal government?

Most economists have always regarded this possibility as nearly unthinkable. After all, the U.S. government has never defaulted on a penny of its debt obligations in over 220 years. What this means is that when the Treasury sold government bonds, the bondholders have always received their interest payment and have always had their original principal returned at maturity. In that sense, U.S. government bonds have been 100 percent safe.

There are several ways that U.S. debt could become risky and unsafe and increase the likelihood of a general or partial default. The most obvious problem would be that Congress becomes unwilling or unable to raise taxes sufficient to pay, by law, the interest on the national debt.

So far this has not been an insurmountable problem despite the fact that in FY 2009, the interest cost to “carry” the U.S. public debt was $383 billion. (For a frame of reference, the budget for NASA last year was $19 billion.) The carrying costs by year 2019 are estimated to be more than $700 billion.

But these historical costs and projections are based on conservative guesses about deficits and interest rates. What if annual deficits now become trillion dollar holes (as they have) and rising interest rates (as are likely) force governments to pay far more to fund their increasing debt?

The analogy here would be to a credit card holder who already has debt, spends more this month than last, accumulating even more debt and, in addition, faces increasing payments every month because of higher interest rates. It becomes an impossible situation.

In the case of ever-increasing public debt, where does the new money come from to “carry” this increasing burden? Federal taxes would have to be increased to extraordinary levels; but this effort would prove self-defeating since it would likely destroy incentives and the economy to boot.

Another possible debt/default scenario, and just as depressing, is that the Federal Reserve continues to purchase more and more U.S. government debt. When the Fed purchases government securities in the “open market” it tends to push bond prices up and interest rates down, making it easier for the Treasury to market new debt and keep its funding costs low.

Unfortunately, the purchase of government securities (public debt) by the Fed leads to what economists call a “monetization” of that debt. Sellers of the securities get “new money” from the Fed and that new money normally works its way into the economy and raises prices for almost everything including interest rates.

The resulting inflation (or even the anticipation of it) also starts a vicious cycle of dollar depreciation that makes it even harder (at existing interest rates) to sell U.S. debt abroad. Again, as rates increase on more and more debt, the interest and refunding burden grows exponentially, and the once unthinkable becomes at least debatable.

Depressing as it is, however, the U.S. currency and debt/funding situation is actually in reasonable shape (as measured, say, by recent credit-default swap spreads) at least when compared to near basket-case countries such as Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and especially Greece.

A particularly dangerous example is Japan, where government debt is currently an astounding 200% of its GDP and is expected to rise to 230% by 2012. But none of this should make U.S. government bondholders at all smug since defaults on “sovereign debt” abroad could start a contagion that could swamp all boats. Stay tuned.

Copyright 2010 The Independent Institute

The Smoking Argus

WASHINGTON – In his weekly address, President Barack Obama promised to rein the deficit, citing three specific steps to this end. He praised the Senate for restoring the pay-as-you-go law, which in the 1990’s contributed to the $236 billion surplus at the end of the decade. It is no coincidence that after ending PAYGO, that surplus became a $1.3 trillion deficit. He has also proposed a freeze in discretionary spending, which will increase investments in jobs creation and middle class tax cuts while cutting spending for redundant or ineffective programs. And finally, the President called for a bi-partisan Fiscal Commission to hammer out concrete deficit reduction proposals.
(Full Transcript)

Related Material(s)
	President Obama Weekly Address: Reigning in Budget Deficits TRANSCRIPT 01/30/2010 (PDF 18.3Kb)

Source(s): The White House • White House YouTube Channel

The Smoking Argus

(OFFICIAL STATEMENT) WASHINGTON D.C. – In this week’s address, President Barack Obama highlighted a new report from the Treasury Department that found that about half of all Americans under 65 will lose their health coverage at some point over the next ten years. The report also found that Americans under 21 have more than a 50-percent chance of going uninsured at some point in that time. And more than one-third of Americans will go without coverage for longer than one year. The full Treasury report can be viewed here.

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address
The White House
September 12, 2009

On Wednesday, I addressed a joint session of Congress and the American people about why we need health insurance reform and what it will take to do it.

Since then, I’ve continued to hear from many Americans across the country about why this is so urgent and important.

I’ve heard from Americans who can’t get health coverage; men and women who worry that one accident or illness could drive them into bankruptcy.

And I’ve heard from Americans with insurance who thought that “the uninsured” always referred to someone else – but between skyrocketing costs and insurance company practices; they’re beginning to worry that they could find themselves uninsured too.

It’s an anxiety that’s keeping more and more Americans awake at night. Over the last twelve months, nearly six million more Americans lost their health coverage – that’s 17,000 men and women every single day. We’re not just talking about Americans in poverty, either – we’re talking about middle-class Americans. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

And based on a brand-new report from the Treasury Department, we can expect that about half of all Americans under 65 will lose their health coverage at some point over the next ten years. If you’re under the age of 21 today, chances are more than half that you’ll find yourself uninsured at some point in that time. And more than one-third of Americans will go without coverage for longer than one year.

I refuse to allow that future to happen. In the United States of America, no one should have to worry that they’ll go without health insurance – not for one year, not for one month, not for one day. And once I sign my health reform plan into law – they won’t.

My plan will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance; offer quality, affordable choices to those who currently don’t; and bring health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government under control.

First of all, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in my plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.

What my plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. We’ll make it illegal for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition, drop your coverage when you get sick, or water it down when you need it most. They’ll no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or over a lifetime, and we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses – because no one should go broke just because they get sick.

Second, if you’re one of the more than thirty million American citizens who can’t get coverage, you’ll finally have quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job, change your job, or start your own business, you will be able to get coverage.

And as I have said over and over again, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – period. This plan will be paid for. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we can successfully slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

Affordable, quality care within reach for the tens of millions of Americans who don’t have it today. Stability and security for the hundreds of millions who do. That’s the reform we seek.

We have had a long and important debate. But now is the time for action. Because every day we wait, more Americans will lose their health care, their businesses, and their homes – but also the dreams they’ve worked for and the peace of mind they deserve. They are why we have to succeed.

So if you’re willing to put country before party and the interests of our children above our own; if you refuse to settle for a politics where scoring points is more important than solving problems; and if you believe, as I do, that America can still come together to do great things – then join us. Give us your help. And we will finally get health insurance reform done this year.

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s):
	WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Highlights New Treasury Report on Instability of Health Insurance in America TRANSCRIPT (PDF 14.9kb)

The Smoking Argus

OFFICIAL STATEMENT – Rep. John Kline (R-MN) delivers the Weekly Republican Address on health care reform that makes coverage more affordable and accessible for families and small businesses without costing millions of Americans their jobs or adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit.

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s)
	Minnesota Congressional Rep. John Kline Confronted for Refusing to Hold a Town Hall Meeting
	GOP Weekly Address Representative John Kline Transcript (PDF –kb)

Source(s): U.S. House of Representative, Republican Conference • YouTube User DustyRice “Kline Confronted For Refusing To Hold Town Hall!!!”, uploaded 08/28/2009

Allison Bricker

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – During a town hall held at the Ward African Methodist Episcopal Church this past Thursday, California Congressional Representative Diane Watson (CA) continued the standard rebuttal to critics of President Obama’s health care overhaul, charging them as “racist”. At the onset of the Congressional recess and the now infamous town hall meetings, Supporters of government intervention into health care originally attempted to dismiss opposition as a staged grassroots effort funded by lobbyists and Political Action Committees (PAC’s) from the insurance industry.

Consequently, after support for President Obama’s plan continued to erode with news of a secret $80 Billion deal brokered by President Obama and top pharmaceutical lobbyist, Bill Tauzin, Congressional supporters of the President’s plan such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (CA) changed strategies and began an attempt to label opponents to government health care as Nazis and “brownshirts”.

Representative Diane Watson however, opted to avoid any references to the Third Reich and instead sought to sum up opposition wholly based on skin color stating:

“So remember they [opponents] are spreading fear and trying to see that the first president who looks like me, fails; don’t misunderstand what is at the bottom line [racism].”

Representative Diane E. Watson
33rd Congressional District, California

Continuing, she then offered her praise for both the communist Cuban socialized medical system and Dictator, Fidel Castro; calling on her constituents to disregard what they may had heard in the past about the Communist dictator, and referred to him as one of the brightest leaders she has ever met.

Whether painting opponents to the President’s plan as racist will stem the dwindling support for a public government run option remains yet to be determined. Perhaps the biggest liability to a government run option may prove to be the cost and projected National Deficit of $17.27 Trillion by 2019 as opposed to the inferences made on opponents’ racial sentiments.

The Smoking Argus

Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming the Ranking Member of the Senate Health Committee takes a moment to give pause over the loss of Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts earlier in the week . Senator Enzi believes there exists legitimate concern in the minds of the American people as it relates to the Democrat health care reform resolutions released just prior to Congress adjourning for their Fall recess.

People in Wyoming and across the nation are anxious about what Washington [D.C.] has in mind concerning their health care. To Senator Enzi he feels these are big, personal, and one of the most important debates of our lifetime. Senator Enzi opines that if Washington D.C. fail on reforming the system appropriately, dire consequencs will spread from coast to coast and effect both the living and future generations.

He continues that by his estimations Democrat plans fail to address the key cornerstone of rising costs when it comes to health care. Senator Enzi points to the non-partisan and independent Congressional budget Office (CBO) indicates that both Democrat plans in the House and Senate will actually drive up costs and significantly increase the national deficit. Thus he chides Democrats for attempting to rush the bill through the process which will result in “making the nation’s finances sicker, without saving you money”.

—END REPORT—

Source(s): House Republican Conference • GOP Weekly Address YouTube Channel

Joseph Marohl

Barack Obama’s proposed stimulus package promises me, a single man earning less than $200,000 a year, a tax break of Five Hundred Dollars. That’s $41.66 cents per paycheck.

The phrase “stimulus package” makes me think of sex toys, and $41.66 falls $3.33 short of what a jelly vibe strap-on dildo costs.

Now, if I were a business I could get $3000 tax credit for every new employee I hired—at whatever wages a new employee could expect in 2009. Imagine my joy if, in addition to my $500, I would get a minimum-wage job with a company that pays fewer taxes than I do.

Nancy Pelosi reports that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the current Bush tax cuts, which mainly benefit the rich, is largely responsible for the great big deficit that appeared out of nowhere in the past eight years. That depends on whether you think having a $450,000 minimum annual income makes a person rich (from where I stand, I’d say I do) … and whether $10.6 trillion strikes you as great big.

Obama’s people are considering not pulling the plug on the Bush tax cuts, but rather let them expire naturally, in 2011. Pelosi wants them repealed “as early as possible”—whatever “as possible” means.

Every indication is that Barack “So Help Me God” Obama puts a lot of faith in both God and Reagan-era “trickle-down” economics. The truth is the money never did manage to trickle down … not under Reagan, not under Clinton or the Bushes, and probably not under Obama.

Somewhere high up there’s a clog. Perhaps Obama can unclog it, perhaps all we need is to dribble some Drano at Dick Cheney’s armpits—might work, might be good for laughs anyway.

Pumping government money into American corporations is not the answer—especially in the absence of adequate oversight to where the money’s going and how it’s being used. Every attempt so far to resolve the world financial crisis has been motivated more by panic than by thoughtful analysis leading to sound judgment.

The state where I live and work is currently experiencing its own financial crisis, and states, unlike corporations, are promised nothing in the package, so, forgive my lack of optimism here, I don’t think the $500 the federal government is willing to let me keep this year will go unclaimed for long.

Allison Bricker

NOTE: This is the third part in a 4 part series. Your questions and commentary are both welcomed and appreciated.

• Part 1 – How to Save the Republic
• Part 2 – Abolish the Income Tax
• Part 3 – Repeal the Direct Election of Senators
• Part 4 – Similarities Between the Great Depression and Our Current Crisis

We must understand that the Central Bankers who sought to regain control over our money supply and monetary policy at the beginning of the 20th century did indeed learn a precious lesson from the demise of the 2nd Central Bank of the United States…

From 1832 to 1834 the battle known as “The Bank War”¹ raged in Congress regarding whether or not to extend the charter of the 2nd Central Bank. By this time, President Andrew Jackson finally had found a Secretary of the Treasury who agreed to remove the Federal government’s deposits from the central bank and instead deposit them into various state banks.

Furious over President Jackson’s attempt at reducing the influence of the central bank, Nicolas Biddle, Bank President penned a letter to William Appleton² threatening to send the country into an economic depression by contracting the money supply. In his letter he stated:

Biddle’s plan worked, inflation soared, unemployment became rampant, an unprecedented number of businesses unable to repay loans went into bankruptcy, and President Jackson became the first President in our history to be censured by the Senate³. Unfortunately for Mr. Biddle, his arrogance regarding his ability to cause an economic collapse allowed his ego to get the best of him. He continued boasting, now publicly that relief would only come if Congress renewed the bank’s charter. When Pennsylvania Governor George Wolf, a previous supporter of the central bank was made aware of the bank President’s sentiments, he immediately came out against extension or renewal of the bank’s charter.⁴

Further, the Pennsylvania state Senate legislatively denounced the Central Bank directing both of Pennsylvania’s, Federal Senators, Samuel McKean and William Wilkins, also previous supporters of the central bank, to vote against rechartering or extension of the 2nd National Bank.

Thus since Pennsylvania demanded its Senators vote against re-authorization of the 2nd Central Bank, both Senators McKean and Wilkins had no choice but to follow their state’s mandate or risk being recalled and replaced by the Pennsylvania legislature. With Pennsylvania, the home state of the 2nd Central Bank, coming out against renewal, Biddle and his bank were lost. The bank’s charter was not renewed and it reverted to a private state bank, ultimately collapsing under its own insolvency.

While Nicholas Biddle was able to bribe many individual members of Congress into supporting the 2nd Central Bank, neither the time nor resources could be made available to bribe all of the state Governors and legislatures, which held the leash over Senators to the upper house of Congress.

Seeing this as a possible stumbling block, those involved with crafting the 3rd Central Bank or FEDERAL RESERVE, sought to wholly prevent this check and balance on Federal Authority. The opportunity finally presented itself to sever this connection of Senators to their states during what came to be known as the “Progressive Movement”⁵, 1901 to 1917. It was an era where “Direct Democracy” was touted as a way to put the average person in charge of their government. Progressive shills railed against vacancies in the Senate as proof that the system of state legislative appointments was untenable. They also decried that political party “bosses” had too much sway over the ruling faction within a state legislature.

However, a 2006 analysis of “progressive era reforms” by Raffaela Wakeman from M.I.T. contradicts this “progressive” hyperbole stating:

…supposed [progressive era] anti-party reform actually made it easier for the two major parties to control the election of U.S. Senators.⁶

Morever, prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment and unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate was not a body of career politicians, with most Senators serving anywhere from 4 to 10 years. However, after direct election, Senators began to serve almost in perpetuity; with many serving 30+ years before retiring.

Additionally, the claim that massive deadlocks permeated state legislatures, thereby preventing effective representation is factually incorrect. The historical record indicates that between 1871 to 1913 only 13 deadlocks existed, with 12 of the 13 coming in the 1890′s. Yet another accusation made by “progressives” was that the Senate was a corrupt body purchased by business tycoons, robber barons, and industrialists. This “progressive era” claim also falls flat again as data available in the historical record, shows that prior to 1913 candidates for Senate had the rare hundred thousand Dollar expenditure. However, once popular elections commenced, the cost of a Senate seat exploded to well over $5 Million Dollars by the 1990′s.⁷

Nevertheless, the greatest damage from the direct election of Senators is that in destroying the last vestige of Federalism, it allows for unchecked Federal expansion of power while simultaneously chaining Senators to popular sentiment and thus making them easily corrupted by their reliance on necessary campaign contributions. Moreover, with no threat of recall by the states, it centralizes political authority wholly in Washington, making it even easier to exact a corrupting influence over all of Congress without having to corrupt numerous state legislators and Governors.

Looking even further into the historical record we see that even with the passage of the 17th Amendment, every single legislatively appointed Senator won re-election by popular vote, seriously calling into question the necessity of this so called “progressive reform”.⁷

Thus, with the limitless spigot of revenue to Washington secured by the
16th Amendment ( February 3rd, 1913) and the subservience of Senators via the 17th Amendment (April 8th, 1913), the central bankers now had within their grasp all that was necessary to finally resurrect the Bank of the United States.

Representative Lindbergh’s mentioning of the “Money Trust” was a reference to the “Pujo Committee”, conducted from May 16, 1912 to February 26, 1913. The committee concluded that a conspiracy to control the money supply and amass wealth did in fact exist, stating:

“An established and well-defined identity and community of interest between a few leaders of finance which has been created and is held together through stock holdings, interlocking directorates, and other forms of domination over banks, trust companies, railroads, public service and industrial corporations, and which resulted in a vast and growing concentration of control of money and credit in the hands of a comparatively few men….”⁸

The entire report from the “Pujo Committee” which substantiates the existence of a conspiracy of bankers is available for download from the “FEDERAL RESERVE Archival System for Economic Research, -FRASER” in 32 separate PDF files.

Regardless of the committee’s findings, on December 23rd, 1913 “The FEDERAL RESERVE ACT” passed both the House and Senate and was thus signed into law by then President Wilson⁹. Within six years and with the Senate now subservient to contributions from lobbyists, financiers, and special interests, Congress became intoxicated with their new endless stream of “money”. The budget ballooned from $714 Million in 1913, to $5.13 Billion by 1919. Whereby the national debt during the first 124 years of the Republic, totaled $910 Million, it skyrocketed up to $24.1 Billion by 1919. An increase of $23.2 Billion in just 6 years.¹⁰

If the Republic is to be saved, the Senate must be restored to its Constitutional position and foundation upon Federalism. While it is my estimation that many “progressives” were of good and genuine intent to see government reformed and corruption eradicated, their movement was merely co-opted by those who sought a total centralization of power unto themselves for purely selfish desires, not to the benefit of “We the People”.

Source(s): ¹Jacksonian America by Edward Pessen 1920 • ²The Second Bank of the United States By Ralph Charles Henry Catterall -1902, pg 330 • ³ United States Senate, “Senate Censures President” • ⁴ The Second Bank of the United States By Ralph Charles Henry Catterall -1902, pg 339 • ⁵Progressive Era Reforms – Regents U.S. Histiory • ⁶ United States Senate Elections before 1914 by Raffaela Wakeman, M.I.T. • ⁷ “Democratizing the Constitution:The Failure of the Seventeenth Amendment” by C. H. Hoebeke* From HUMANITAS, Volume IX, No. 2, 1996 • ⁸ Report of the Committee Appointed Pursuant to House Resolutions 429 and 504 to Investigate the Concentration of Control of Money and Credit. February 28, 1913. Pages 1-258. • ⁹ New York Times “Affixes His Signature at 6:02P.M., Using Four Gold Pens” – December 24th, 1913 • ¹⁰ HISTORICAL TABLES – BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT – Office of Management and Budget 2005

Kelly

The Mayors of Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Atlanta are now asking the Federal Government Henry Paulson to reach into his 700 billion dollar money bag and give their cities a slice of the pie.

The three mayors proposed providing loans to help cities pay pension costs. They also want $50 billion in loans for investment in infrastructure, and additional one-year loans to cities unable to borrow cash because of the tight credit markets.¹

Not really so unbelievable when one considers the feeding frenzy that has occurred since plans of the ‘Bailout’ were announced back in September. The banks, the credit card companies, the auto industry, and so forth have all come forward, lobbyists in tow expecting billions in loans in order to buy some time and save themselves their CEO’s before the anticipated collapse of the economy. Sure, if in fact these companies are able to get their hands on some worthless printed paper that has become our currency, a portion of it would go towards an attempt to maintain business as usual, but a much larger portion will be paid out in more bonuses. Not so much because the executives are greed filled corporate monsters, they are, but more to the point is that they all know how useless this entire plan was from the very beginning. That even if there was a huge influx of funds going directly to the ‘troubled assets’ and ‘defaulted loans’, eventually the funds will dry up as more defaults pile up and it’s back to square one bankruptcy. In short, the crumbs that Paulson and our laziest-Congress-ever allocate for the these corporate welfare leeches will do nothing more than stave off the inevitable for a short time.

One would easily imagine that as unemployment and home foreclosures continue to climb, and tax revenues fall, hundreds of cities will be looking to Washington, each with a ‘Bailout’ plan of their own. But, in the meantime, are these cities doing all they can to curtail their bloated budgets?

The Philadelphia pension system lost more than $650 million in the first nine months of the year. Last week, Nutter announced Philadelphia would be laying off city employees, cutting salaries, closing most of its swimming pools and shutting nearly a dozen library branches to cope with a $108 million shortfall this year caused by lower business and real estate tax revenue. The deficit could grow to a total of $1 billion over five years.²

I suppose it is only a matter of time before the garbage man is picking up the trash once per month instead of every week. Perhaps those of us in the upper Midwest are in for icier than normal driving conditions this winter. Because, it is a near guarantee that cities across America will be facing some very difficult decisions as we all start to incur the damages and feel the pain of the current economic crisis. Main Street is merely catching up to the reality of the situation.

Source(s):^1,2 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/14/phoenix-philadelphia-atla_n_143885.html

Mandy Hyndman

Consider, for a moment, that the financial deficit we are suffering currently has a reasonable and logical cause. Let’s just say that it is something we have been amply aware of, yet at the same time, unwilling to recognize. It reminds me of a woman who will ignore the ever-growing lump in her breast for fear that it may be cancer. That lump, though it may be completely benign, may very well be the devastating end of her existence if she continues to believe that it will go away if her denial is strong enough. The logistics of history dictate that the purposeful ignorance of a blatant fact does nothing but exacerbate its negative effects.

We, as a nation, have allowed the rampant abuse of our economy. We stand aside as our social security benefits are raped, our tax dollars are increased, and our interest rates skyrocket to the point that they outweigh even the original sum we’ve borrowed–but why? The answer is as simple as a weekly breast exam in the shower and as rare:

We ignore these things because as long as McDonald’s has a dollar menu, and as long as NBC carries “Must see TV”, and as long as our politicians nod their heads and contradict themselves at every turn with whatever is more comforting than the last lie they coughed up on the dinner table of the American dream, we will swallow it. If we devote ourselves to superstition and refuse to acknowledge the things that make us afraid, they will not exist. The problem is–they do exist.

We have been ignoring our problems for so long that they are starting to become ‘right now’ instead of ‘some day’. Perhaps, if nothing else, the fact that our economy is being seen worldwide for the gilded, cheap, and disintegrating piece of trash that it is will force some sense into the populace. That is, at least until the next episode of “Dancing with the Stars.”