Archive - Mar 15, 2008 - topic

Date
Type
Bush at the Economic Club of New York
The Associated Press

President Bush acknowledged an economic slowdown Friday, but ruled out government fixes.

Featured Topic | Posted 24 weeks 6 days ago

Bush acknowledges "tough times ahead"; how tough?

President Bush on Friday acknowledged that the U.S. economy is looking at a "tough time" and even a "rough patch." But he remains guarded with his language. The S-word is okay ("slowdown"). Even the grimmer D-word is acceptable ("downturn"). But don't expect the R-word to slip out of the president's lips.

As President Bush tried to calm the nation's economic anxiety Friday, he resisted again any suggestion that the country has fallen into recession. But more and more economists worry that the credit and housing crisis is leading the United States in that very direction.

Read More

Ben likes: Whip inflation now? Good luck!

Donald Luskin/Smart Money

In March 1980, inflation was running at 14.8%. Fed chief Volcker finally killed it by cranking interest rates so high that three-month Treasury bills were yielding 15.7%. Does anyone remember that?

Apparently not. Just before Volcker finally did what it took to slay the inflation monster, gold prices had soared from $35 a few years earlier to $850. Until just recently, that was the all-time high for gold. Now gold is way beyond that, having traded over $1,000 on Thursday. But is today's Fed Chief Ben Bernanke talking about raising interest rates to slay today's inflation monster? Au contraire.

Read More

Joel likes: Regulation to the rescue

Washington Post

A creative, flexible financial system is indeed an engine of economic growth. Bush administration officials express an understandable desire not to burden the capital markets with excessive regulation. But where the subprime experience is concerned, too much government supervision does not appear to have been the problem.

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote
Nancy Pelosi
The Associated Press

Won't back down?

Featured Topic | Posted 25 weeks 8 hours ago

House rejects wiretap lawsuit immunity for telecom companies

The House, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on Friday rejected retroactive immunity for the phone companies that took part in the National Security Agency’s program of eavesdropping without warrants, and it voted to place tighter restrictions on the government’s wiretapping powers.

Read More

Ben likes: FISA bait and switch

Andy McCarthy/National Review

Rather than permit a vote on the Senate bill that would restore crucial overseas surveillance authority, House Democrats, along party lines, have rammed through an alternative proposal that grants new privacy rights to to terrorists overseas and preserves the multi-billion dollar lawsuits their trial lawyer pals are pursuing against the telecoms.

But the bottom line is: when the Protect America Act lapsed on February 16 due to House inaction, we lost the ability to monitor without restrictions emerging terrorist threats overseas. As National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell (a former Clinton Administration director of the NSA) has observed, we have lost intelligence. Thanks to today's action, that unacceptable situation will continue.

Read More

Joel likes: Victory on FISA

Moira Whelan/Democracy Arsenal

The House did a great job of pushing for strong oversight, and yet, the Bush Administration continues to think that their actions should go unchecked…shocker. Many members are facing ads and criticism for their support of strong oversight of the terrorist surveillance systems. Jane Harman’s statement today is the best argument out there that Democrats are working to make America safe in the most responsible way possible, while Bush and Congressional Republicans are simply out to distort the truth:

"FISA has always provided immunity for telecom firms which act pursuant to its provisions. Telecoms seeking relief from Congress now did not comply between 2001 and 2005. Nor did the Administration. That was wrong, and they must be accountable.

Press accounts – especially Monday’s story in the Wall Street Journal – make clear that there are up to five ongoing surveillance programs. Congress is not fully informed, and it would be reckless to grant retroactive immunity without knowing the scope of programs out there."

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote