Go to PDF Version | Go to Recent Issues
To save time in the future, you may select one of the preferences below. You may update your eIBD preferences at any time by going into My IBD and selecting Update Your eIBD Preferences.
Set Web-Based Version as Default Set PDF Version as Default Set Recent Issues as Default
Get QuoteSearch Site
Daily Graphs Online
Fiscal Policy: Did the White House try to strong-arm Standard & Poor's into not dropping the federal government's credit rating? At the very least, it appears the administration wanted to hide the mess it's making worse.
The Washington Post on Tuesday reported that the White House "privately urged Standard & Poor's in recent weeks not to lower its outlook on the United States — a suggestion the ratings agency ignored Monday, two people familiar with the matter said."
This is interesting, given that this same White House held a conference last month to draw attention to, and crack down on, bullying — which of course was one of the Founding Fathers' prime concerns when they drew up our federal system.
According to the Post, "Treasury officials told S&P analysts that they were underestimating the ability of politicians in Washington to fashion a compromise to curb deficits" and argued that a ratings change wasn't needed "because the debt was manageable and the administration had a viable plan in the works."
In other words, the administration told S&P to trust the very institution that has created the federal debt problem and did nothing to stop the most predictable economic crisis in our history, if we may borrow a few sharp words from Rep. Paul Ryan.
What the White House should have been saying is that no one, from ratings agencies to wheat farmers in Kansas to Fortune 500 CEOs, should ever underestimate politicians' ability to continue to make the wrong policy choices.
It's no surprise that the White House would try to hide its poor stewardship of the public fisc in order to continue its perverse policies that have only made the problem worse.
It would at least be consistent. As we noted last Tuesday, the administration is reportedly engaged in a disinformation campaign to cover up the depth of the burden that's been dumped on American families.
The fiction is found on the White House's Federal Tax Receipt website. It says a family of three earning $50,000 a year pays a mere $19 in interest on the national debt.
Whether it's an honest mistake or a cynical fabrication, the administration's claim is still wrong.
As Neil Munro of the Daily Caller has reported, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that interest payments cost the federal government $414 billion in 2010, "or $4,140 for a family of three, or 218 times more than the White House website shows."
To S&P's credit, it stood up to the pressure from the executive branch.
But as we said before, the country doesn't need a ratings agency to know that an aggressively advancing, Stage 4 government threatens America's future.
The administration wasted time and resources leaning on a private-sector company.
It should have been addressing Washington's spending problem instead. But that's a much tougher job, and one that Democrats don't want to do anyway. They'd rather hide the fiscal wreckage than deal with it.
Green Day: The day set aside to save the planet has become a second Halloween where we fear imaginary planetary ghouls and goblins. Greenies get the treats, but the trick has been on us. It is appropriate that Earth Day comes a week after Tax Day, for our slavish dedication to saving the ...
Tradition: In recent history the phrase "Judeo-Christian values" has been bandied about so much, it's forgivable to suppose it was invented by politicians pushing their wedge issues. This week it is gloriously more than that. Those values held unshakable life-and-death meaning, as the ...
Unified Field Theory of 2012, Axiom One: The more the Republicans can make the 2012 election like 2010, the better their chances of winning. The 2010 Democratic shellacking had the distinction of being the most ideological election in 30 years. It was driven by one central argument in its several ...
When it comes to matters of money and politics, there is a big gulf between Democrats and Republicans — in theory. Democrats tend to favor rules limiting the flow of money into political campaigns. Republicans see campaign cash as a form of protected political speech and oppose restrictions. ...
When Fujio Mitarai became CEO of Canon in 1995, the company had built up debt of $7.5 billion. Its many product divisions were described in the press as a bunch of warring, money-losing fiefdoms that plodded along year after year. Nobody was making the tough decisions. The problems were clear: lack ...
Posted By: Hommeduwa(15) on 4/22/2011 | 2:33 PM ET
The cynic in me believes that the White House came up with the $19 by calculating what a $50K family of three pays in annual income tax, then divided that by all income taxes paid; then they applied that percent to total interest paid. This would leave the brunt of "interest paid" on those "rich who don't pay their fair share" people. Munro probably took total interest and divided by total households, yielding an AVERAGE PER HOUSEHOLD, a much more truthful view.
Flag as Inappropriate
Posted By: Ichabod(285) on 4/22/2011 | 11:34 AM ET
The Right must wake up and get involved. Fight the statists hand to gland.
Flag as Inappropriate
Posted By: Bill NC(305) on 4/22/2011 | 10:49 AM ET
Of course the WH down played the negative rating provided by the S&P. This is the first down grade for the USA since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. These are the same democRATs that have run the DEBT up from 4.6 TRILLION since 2006 to 14.3 TRILLION under a democRATic controlled house and senate. SPEND and TAX is the democRATic course of action. The democRATs want to SPEND more.
Flag as Inappropriate
Posted By: dwdrury(3800) on 4/22/2011 | 1:09 AM ET
Remember how Democrats like Frank 'N' Dodd attempted to blame the rating agencies when the mortgage backed securities defaults started? And weren't those the same Hippo-crats who previously lambasted those same ratings agencies to give that worthless Fannie and Freddie paper AAA ratings as it was backed by the full faith and credit of the US? S&P effectively just said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." And they weren't playing that game a
Flag as Inappropriate
Posted By: Ellman(830) on 4/22/2011 | 12:29 AM ET
The Democrats know that their fiscal profligacy and criminal spending will ruin this country. This is precisely what they want. What they are working on is a rationale that will convince the American People that the inevitable collapse was produced by the Republicans not by the Marxists disguised as Democrats. Remember, they detest this capitalism and this country and will do whatever it takes to destroy it without accepting the responsibility for doing so.
Flag as Inappropriate
To participate in Community areas, please Sign In or Register
Read Full Article »