Where is the US economy headed?

I taught in a suburb of Boston where a totally unqualified man -- it wasn't simply that he did not have a teaching certificate, he did not have a college degree -- was hired to be media director for the school system, a post which involved teaching one class.

The administration discovered his lack of qualifications but did not wish to handle matters publicly. They chose to not renew his contract and that of the person who had hired him, the principal of the middle school. She was very popular with the citizenry, who demanded her contract be renewed. A review process was put in motion.

Then it was discovered that the media director and principal -- both married to others -- were having an affair.

While I support speaking out for teachers and administrators that seem to not be treated fairly by those above them, in this case, the superintendent wanted to avoid airing the linens of the guilty parties in public.

However, I tell you this story to illustrate that the person the employer wants to hire is not necessarily the best person for the job.

One more example: the town in which I now live needed someone to teach American History and economics. One of the applicants -- who worked with me at the liquor store -- has an undergrad degree in business because his parents encouraged him to pursue what they saw as stable, lucrative career.

He minored in history, his love. He hated business. He went back to school and earned two masters: one in American history and the other in education. Sounds like the perfect match, right? No. They hired a woman with a degree in psych and NEVER INTERVIEWED THE PERFECT MATCH.

Employers are not necessarily wise or intelligent.

Why the president's walking a fine line on the Republicans' slash-and-burn budget proposals.
By David Corn | Fri Feb. 18, 2011 3:00 AM PST

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats took an unusual step: They attacked House Republicans. The Dems released a report [1] decrying House GOPers' proposed spending cuts of $61 billion, noting that this measure would lead to the dismissal of 3,000 police officers and 65,000 teachers and the removal of 218,000 children from the Head Start program. Denouncing these "extreme cuts," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared, "If we follow the House Republicans' roadmap, it will lead the country over the cliff."

Compare this response to President Barack Obama's reaction to the GOP's proposed cuts. At a press conference [2] on Tuesday, the president, who was promoting his just-released budget plan for fiscal year 2012, was asked about the Republicans' desire to "start cutting now." The president replied that his "goal is to work with the Republicans" on the current spending measure, but he said that he opposed "steps" that would "prompt thousands of layoffs in state or local government" or impede "core vital functions of government," for that would "have a dampening impact on our recovery." He also noted that "further slashes" in military spending "would impair our ability to meet our mission."

It was a subdued response. Obama did not denounce the Republicans for placing the nation on the road to ruin, as did the Senate Democrats. He did not decry any specific cut. He did not take the occasion to present any larger point, such as how the Republicans are once again handing deficit-expanding tax cuts to the wealthy and looking to balance the budget by shrinking programs for low- and middle-income Americans.

The next day, at White House Press Secretary Jay Carney's debut daily briefing [3], I asked about Obama's low-key opposition to the GOP cuts:

The president’s response to the Republican spending cuts seems to be a little muted...These cuts would be in the SEC, the FBI, climate change, global health, and [Obama] hasn't really seemed to go after [them] as a package and to have a sort of a political and philosophical discussion with Republicans about their view of government versus his. [He's] focusing more on entitlement reform than these spending cuts. Why is that?

Carney replied, "I disagree with that." He repeated the White House's standard line about the budget deliberations: "This is the beginning of a process. He's committed to cutting spending and reducing the deficit, and that's why he put forward a tough budget...He's made very clear that those investments are important and protecting those investments are important, because we do not want to create a situation where we stymie economic growth or limit our ability to create jobs."

Carney was talking about Obama's budget proposal, not the Republican cuts. I followed up: "But does he think that the Republican cuts are dangerous...going after things like the SEC and the climate change programs?"

Carney replied:

Without getting into specifics, I think that the President has made clear that he doesn't—we cannot support arbitrary or irresponsible or deep cuts that undermine our ability to grow the economy or create jobs, win the future, or harm our national security or other essential functions of government.

Clearly, the president opposed the GOP cuts. Yet Carney didn't even mention that on Tuesday the Office of Managemnet and Budget had issued a statement [4] noting that Obama would veto the House Republican spending bill if it contained these deep cuts. Still, the White House was not looking for a high-profile fight over the House Republican effort to slash non-discretionary funding covering scores of government services.

There are several reasons why Obama would pass up the chance to bash cop-firing GOPers. The White House this week is focused on the winning-the-future message it has wrapped around Obama's budget proposal. Note how Carney first turned my question about GOP spending whacks into a mini-ad for Obama's cut-but-invest budget. White House aides would rather not get pinned down in a mud-wrestling match over the GOP proposed cuts in the pending spending bill. They are literally looking to win the future politically by emphasizing a larger story: Obama will cut spending to lower the deficit and boost programs that will lead to economic growth down the road.

The president also is striving to be Washington's adult-in-chief, talking up the need for bipartisan negotiations and the potential for agreement across party lines. He's ceding the politics of defiance to the Republicans. This could well be because his approval ratings have ticked upward since he hammered out the bipartisan tax-cut deal with the Republicans in December. He seems to be content to let the Republicans be the food-fighters, so he can position himself as a rise-above-them leader—which, presumably, will enhance his appeal among independent voters.

But there's something else: recent public opinion polling. At a retreat of Democratic senators last week, Democratic pollster Geoff Garin presented bad news [5]: Republicans had gained the edge in the debate over government spending. Voters, especially independents, he told the Dems, care first and foremost about improving the economy, but they believe the better way to do so is by cutting spending, not investing. That is, many voters have accepted the GOP's fundamental talking point.

If that's true, Obama and other Democrats facing reelection in 2012 have to be careful about coming across as opposing spending cuts. Garin's polling, according to Bloomberg, did show that voters do not fancy spending cuts in law enforcement, education, and medical research—actually the sort of cuts House GOPers are pushing. This might suggest that Obama could score politically by confronting Republicans over these cuts (in similar fashion to the way President Bill Clinton won the showdown with the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans in the 1990s over GOP-desired spending cuts). But this polling also indicates that voters view spending cuts in general as the path to economic recovery and trust the Republicans more than Obama when it comes to dealing with the budget deficit.

So Republicans could be vulnerable politically if voters come to believe they are cutting too much, but Obama and the Democrats could lose out, if voters (especially indies) don't believe they are truly committed to spending cuts. Consequently, Obama has a fine line to tread. He must oppose the Republicans' deep cuts without doing so in a way that would cause voters to question his commitment to more prudent cuts. Such a stance demands political finesse. The GOP, though, has a rather simple message: government spending is bad for the economy, so cut, cut, cut, and cut again. The Obama argument is three-fold: some government spending has to be decreased; much spending is necessary (though it can be spent more efficiently); and in several areas, the government must spend more for a future payoff. In the budget fights ahead—if the tussle does boil down to bumper sticker versus nuanced explanation—the adult in the room may not have the advantage.

Obama lies & the economy dies.

Just wait until we are paying $4.50 & $5.00 per gallon.

True, but that is not the issue involved here with unions. That is a separate issue to be resolved by administrators and school boards overseeing the hiring of teachers. All of this is why I favor much smaller schools with local management being able to make the decisions, based upon community and parental feedback and more.

The issue is that the Governor of Wisconsin wants to eliminate collective bargaining, a type of free speech.

Today's NPR program Marketplace featured an editorial from Robert Reich who pointed out that until a year ago, Social Security was solvent. SS took in more money than it paid out and invested the rest in Treasury Bonds.

The reason why SS is beginning to have problems is that a commission, headed by Alan Greenspan in 1983 failed to predict that wages at the top would double, as they have.

It is the concentration of income in the hands of the top 1% that is causing the problem.

Social Security was meant to be deducted until a citizen's level of eligible wages reached 90%. Deductions stop at 84%. That is because the robber barons at the top have taken the lion's share.

Currently, once earnings eligible for SS deductions reach $106,800, the citizen gets a raise for the remainder of the year. As the average salary for the top 1% is, if I remember correctly, in excess of $350,000, these folks are not paying their share.

In order to bring the level of income back to 90%, the ceiling will have to be raised to $180,000.

If you are interested, listen to the podcast yourself.

okie has bragged how he surpasses the Social Security ceiling annually. What month does he do that? September? That means that okie's earnings his $106,800 in September.

The last time I posted that we can figure okie's earnings due to his bragging, the post was thumbed down.

How can we uncurl the fingers of the robber barons?

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Except of course for the part where you want the state to be able to control whether there is a union or not and what that union can bargain for.

Hey, I posted for okie's consideration a story about a middle school principal giving a job to her back door man that he was totally unqualified for, but what the heck?

I favor local schools for many reasons. I hate this testing mania although I have always done well on standardized tests. My daughter, also a liberal and a teacher, favors a national system. She wants to eliminate pockets of ignorance.

I agree that some people want ignorance and poor schools. Others want fine schools. Let each have his own.

Moving forward in the wrong direction

Hope and Change - $5.00 A GALLON REGULAR GAS BY SUMMER - Hope and Change

Thank you Obama!

okie, Why is it that you continue to contradict yourself with your political meme? You want the feds to let state and local school districts to manage their own schools, but you turn around and set parameters you believe are necessary for the local school districts. How dumb are you?

If you care so much, I did not attain the ceiling last year, so I paid less than the maximum possible, only some more than ten grand.

According to my last Social Security statement and what I will pay this year, I and my employers will have paid close to $250,000 into the system, with over $200,000 of that into Social Security. Since my employer started paying into my account back in the 60's, I do not think it would be unreasonable at all to assume that if all of that money had been invested instead of the government borrowing and spending it, and if the interest or growth had been added to it, the amount of money by now would have easily exceeded a million bucks, perhaps much more. That money could have been used to draw a very low rate of interest that would now afford me just as much or more income than I will receive from Social Security, even without touching the principal.

You make an accusation, but then provide no evidence. Why am I surprised, because this is standard for you, ci. Why should I waste my time, but oh well here goes, where have I advocated the setting of parameters for local school districts?

That's because you are deeply confused as to what you are talking about. Your scenario is inaccurate in the extreme. The truth is that you have no idea what your account would be. There were several market crashes, including the latest one, which could have wiped you out completely - if you had been invested in the wrong places.

This is the peril of assuming simplicity of problems, Okie. It causes you to say dumb things.

Cycloptichorn

They can bargain all they want, but we the taxpayers are under no obligation to hire them anymore. We also have rights.

Freedom of speech all you want, but nobody is obligated to listen to you either.

That was totally predicted by conservatives, in response to liberals insisting upon shutting down drilling in our own country.

okie, Do you know who elects our representatives in Washington? They are the local citizens, school board members, and parents.

Surprise!

You are the one confused and saying dumb things. I am not assuming at all that it would be invested into high risk investments, cyclops. For Social Security, I think the money could have been invested into relatively low interest bearing and secure investments, which would have been far more secure than the government spending it. Do you forget that the Federal Government is one of the worst places to put your money anymore? It is broke and has no money.

Once again, this is simplistic. If you had been invested (a bondholder) in Enron or Bear Stearns or Lehman brothers or GM, your investment would not have been considered 'high-risk.' But you would have been wiped out anyway.



You have no clue how the injection of that money into the market would distort or change the situation. You simply seem to think that it would just sit in an account somewhere and grow interest quietly, with no other effects. This is a laughable position.

Cycloptichorn