At least when discussing President Obama. If you scroll down her Naked Capitalism site today you start off with a post titled Advocates Oppose Senate Immigration Bill Over Escalation of Border Escalation.
The title largely says it all: it gives the impression that most immigration advocates now oppose the Senate bill in its current form. Yves has this to say about the current bill:
"At the 50,000 foot level, the various immigration bills represent a major shift in philosophy, away from immigration rules having keeping families together as a significant focus, to one far more oriented towards giving business “needs” much higher priority. One of these “needs” is the claim that there aren’t enough STEM graduates, ergo, the US must issue more HB-1 visas. The reality is, if you are even a casual reader of Slashdot, is that we haven’t had much in the way ofentry level jobs in IT for ten years. Engineering grads at NC will similarly tell you that engineering salaries are on the whole so low as to not make it viable to be an engineer (the most attractive use of an engineering degree seems to be to next get a law degree and do IP related law)."
The title largely says it all: it gives the impression that most immigration advocates now oppose the Senate bill in its current form. Yves has this to say about the current bill:
"At the 50,000 foot level, the various immigration bills represent a major shift in philosophy, away from immigration rules having keeping families together as a significant focus, to one far more oriented towards giving business “needs” much higher priority. One of these “needs” is the claim that there aren’t enough STEM graduates, ergo, the US must issue more HB-1 visas. The reality is, if you are even a casual reader of Slashdot, is that we haven’t had much in the way ofentry level jobs in IT for ten years. Engineering grads at NC will similarly tell you that engineering salaries are on the whole so low as to not make it viable to be an engineer (the most attractive use of an engineering degree seems to be to next get a law degree and do IP related law)."
"This segment focuses on some elements of the Senate bill that appear to be under the radar as far as media coverage is concerned. First is that the bill does not provide a path to citizenship for a significant portion of the current illegal immigrant population (frankly that’s been a feature of past immigrant “reform” bills too; the Hispanic community may have been promised more than it was ever going to have delivered on this front). Second is that is includes a large budget to militarize the border with Mexico."
She left the video of an interview on the Real News Network (RNN) where Arturo Carmona, the director of presente.org says his group can no longer support the bill the Senate passed. He has some decent criticisms. He doesn't like the fact that border security almost doubles to 40,000. There's no question that this is excessive-as he notes even GOP leaders like McCain have pointed out. In addition, there's the totally unnecessary wasteful requirement to build a fence along the border.
Arturo says this is the last straw, his group no longer support a bill that he said was already quite conservative-he points out that even before this poison pill demand for more security about one third of the 11 million undocumented immigrants would be denied a path to citizenship. At this point, he complains this is not what Latinos voted for in 2012.
He is demanding that the bill get 'back on track' but it's not clear where he thinks the votes for that are going to come. He's demanding that the bill be more liberal as it goes to the considerably more conservative House; like many activists it's easy for him, perhaps, to dismiss politics as he doesn't operate under its pressures As we're debating whether the Senate bill is allowed to even get a vote in the House, does he think Boehner is going to put up the Senate bill without the extra border security?
I don't like the Corker-Hoeven amendment either but how else is it going to get passed? As for a third of the undocumented not getting citizenship, that is not ideal. If it were up to me-or Obama for that matter-all would qualify right away. Still does it make sense to deny the path to citizenship for 2/3 for the sake of the 1/3 that don't?
This is like during the passing of Obamacare and some like Yves-and Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake-were complaining that only 30 out of the 53 billion uninsured got coverage. Of course we would rather have gotten the full 53 million but failing that would it have been preferable to get it for zero of the uninsured rather than $30 billion?
Yves title might make you think that en masse no immigration or Hispanic groups support the bill, but that's far from the case-a large number do.
She has another post about Obama's climate change speech:
Gaius Publius: Obama's New Climate Plan: Less Coal More Fracking
You see the principle-say nothing nice or certainly don't focus on it. I mean there was a lot for green activists to like-Al Gore referred to it as by far the best speech any President has ever made on climate change.
Instead he's just knocked for supporting fracking, as Publius assumes he will allow the Keystone pipeline. Yet if you read the piece, Publius like Gore agrees that there's much in the speech to like:
"There’s much to like in Obama’s energy plan (pdf), but one piece stuck out very much — if you listened to the speech, you have to know the fracking industry must be delighted. If “natural gas” = “fracking” (and it does), the poison-your-ground-water-for-profit industry will see a big boost in income. Will there be a finder’s fee?"
Still with this title of Yves you'd never get there is anything in the speech to like. As far as fracking goes, there is a legitimate debate. Natural gas is much cheaper than oil-and as someone who knows all too well, with my time trying to set up appointments for people to consider buying oil-more and more people are going to natural gas for their home heating needs. It's inexpensive and there is at least some debate that it is in some ways at least an improvement over oil.
Natural gas has these two very attractive features:
1. It's much cheaper than oil
2. It creates lots of jobs
Now the question is its environmental effect. Some like Publius think that it can't be done in an environmentally safe way. There is disagreement. Indeed, Publius sees the question over Keystone as the 'key' as it were to Obama's legacy. He's willing to declare Obama a good guy if he denies Keystone. If not, he's the 'number one climate criminal.'
"If Obama approves the Keystone Pipeline, he’s Climate Criminal #1 — the first face of the Climate Crisis. More on that if he doesn’t step away from the pipe. And if he denies Keystone, he’s on his way to being the hero he clearly wants to be."
I doubt it's that simple. I can't imagine judging him a terrible human being or a pretty good president on just this one decision-even assuming he gets it wrong. Interestingly, Al Gore got a lot of flack earlier this year for investing in a natural gas company:
"You've asked people to cut their own carbon footprint by driving less, buying new light bulbs, insulating their houses, carpooling, et cetera. All of these things require sacrifice. Isn't it hypocritical to ask others to sacrifice financially, if you can't seem to make similar sacrifices yourself?"
"Well, no, I don't think it's hypocritical at all," Gore said. "You see what I am doing, I'm recycling this money. I'm taking this dirty, polluting cash made from fossil fuels and putting it into my company.
"From there I plan to reuse it to fund new documentaries about the threat of global climate change. This isn't some Gordon Gekko thing. I consider myself to be a sort of Robin Hood."
"A Robin Hood?" McAvoy replied. "Does that mean you're committing to give all the money made from of this investment to environmental causes?
"Well, not quite all of the money," Gore responded. "We do have expenses, after all. But I can promise to give away a decent amount, once my costs have been covered.
"And besides isn't natural gas a whole heck of a lot better than coal? I mean what are we really complaining about here? If we want to reduce carbon emissions, we need lower carbon forms of energy. Here it is!
"Solar? Wind? You can't get baseline power with that. And nuclear is expensive and decades away! Natural gas is the best hope we have of reducing carbon emissions now."
So one defense natural gas, despite having carbon content, is that this content is nevertheless considerably lower than in coal.
In U.S. history most of our great Presidents-Lincoln, FDR-were at bottom when you look at them closely, pragmatists. Left wing critics usually blow up one issue that they say is more important than any other one. We get the logic here: if climate change is coming then nothing matters more than stopping or slowing it and every other concern must take a backseat: if natural gas gives consumers lower prices and gets us more jobs, none of this can even factor in
It was the same thing regarding slavery in 1860: it would have been impossible to argue that there was any greater moral imperative than ending slavery then. Yet Lincoln's chief focus was the Union-and he would be the guy to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. It's what Garry Wills wrote about: the difference between activists and politicians. The two are a different skill set
BTW. Publius may well be right about Obama ultimately supporting Keystone.
My point though is that even if he does that's not going to in my eyes make him any kind of 'criminal' or anything but a good guy that does his best for what he thinks is good for the country. That doesn't preclude him being wrong on this issue or that one. It's like those who say if he does chained CPI, he's a goat. Such categorical judgments make no sense to me.
Finally, Yves has as piece where she talks about how Bernanke has destroyed the mortgage market-rates are coming up and he's the proximate cause:
"Yves here. So what is the Fed going to do, now that it has delivered a big blow to the nascent housing recovery? Risk its credibility by beating a serious retreat on taper talk, or keep whistling in the dark and wait and see what happens to July and August home sales (and remember, most housing market data is reported with a nearly two month lag…)?"
Again, this just feeds my perception of her as a naysayer. Basically Bernanke is a loser whether he 'retreats or doesn't retreat.' Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see him retreat. I don't get this need to start discussing tightening already. Why is the Fed so afraid of an increase in nominal spending as Sumner puts it?
" the problem is not fiscal austerity, it’s austerity more broadly defined, an irrational fear of rising nominal spending."
He also argues that the Fed's inflation target is 1% it just doesn't know it yet which is hard to argue with based on performance.
Still, Yves is being just a little hyperbolic in saying that mortgage rates have 'skyrocketed.' They have risen considerably very quickly: The following quotes by the way are not Yves herself, she's quoting from a Bloomberg article:
"Mortgage rates for 30-year U.S. loans surged to the highest level in almost two years, increasing borrowing costs at a time when the housing market is strengthening and prices are jumping."
"The average rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage rose to 4.46 percent from 3.93 percent, the biggest one-week increase since 1987, McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac said in a statement. The rate was the highest since July 2011 and above 4 percent for the first time since March 2012. The average 15-year rate climbed to 3.5 percent from 3.04 percent."
"In short, the Fed has just tightened by five rate rises in two months. Why so fast? Well, as we know, central banks did blow a little bond bubble and deflating it is hard to control. For instance, foreign investors are fleeing the 30 year Treasuries that determine mortgage rates:"
A bond bubble?! What is this-shades of Bill Gross? I don't know that the Fed created a bond bubble-or that there was one. It's natural in a depressed economy to have a flight to quality and safety.
The mortgage rates may be the highest since March 2012, but they're still not very high. There rise could even be a good thing. It depends on their fundamental cause.
I don;t like the 'taper talk' from the Fed either but it's certainly not established beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the cause of the rise in mortgage rates.
That's Yves Smith and Naked Capitalism for you: always assume the worst assumption is the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment