Will the Real Bob McDonnell Please Stand Up?

As the Virginia General Assembly opens, Gov. Robert F. McDonnell is once again fiddling with any number of things.

These include yet another proposal to privatize ABC stores, a new budget based on a phony surplus and an ambitious plan to borrow heavily to build roads despite his posturing as a fiscal conservative.

It’s a strange brew of initiatives, considering how he’s also pushing, with key Republican legislators, a so-called “Smaller Budget, Stronger Economy” strategy that bashes unions (as if they were responsible for the recent recession) and supposedly would create jobs.

Where to start?

McDonnell’s latest twist on his plan to sell off state-owned ABC stores would borrow ideas from other states, such as Ohio, that have privately-run retail stores but keep liquor wholesaling in the hands of the state. McDonnell spent $76,900 for the consulting firm PFM Group to come up with this new strategy after previous ones failed, notably since ABC stores would have generated $47 million a year less than they do now.

McDonnell claims that this latest plan would generate $200 million to $400 million for transportation. But it faces intense Democratic opposition, and one wonders why McDonnell didn’t try this latest wrinkle — keeping control of liquor wholesaling — first. One also wonders why he keeps after a scheme that would be marginally beneficial at best when there are far bigger problems out there.

Among those bigger problems is his budget, which he claims shows a $403 million budget surplus. Among pet projects are road building and more spending on other transportation, education and jobs creation.

But does he really have the money? He got his surplus by withholding payments to the state’s retirement system. That’s not really budget cutting, and the state is going to have to make those payments sooner or later.

McDonnell did achieve some cuts that supposedly contributed to the surplus by axing state payments for K-12 education and Medicaid — in other words — doing so on the backs of children and the poor. And as for boosting higher education, he’s proposing to cut 6 percent from the budget for the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), which says it will fight McDonnell’s plan.

Lastly, McDonnell plans to borrow $3 billion over the next three years to fund transportation projects. I, for one, support such investments, believing they pay the state back over time in better economic growth. This ambitious plan, however, flies directly in the face of McDonnell’s political philosophy as a so-called fiscal conservative who is loath to spend.

And there are some other very simple ways to boost transportation funding. The obvious is raising the gasoline tax, since Virginia charges among the lowest tax rates in the country. Another idea floated by the Old Dominion Highway Contractors Association is to charge a “pump toll,” which would be a $1 tax every time someone fills up with gas. The money would go back to the localities and regions where it was generated and comes with the political advantage of seeming more like a “toll” than a “tax,” which conservatives tend to go for.

As McDonnell enters his second year in office, one can’t shake the sense that he’s making things up as he goes along. He didn’t think through his original ABC plans and didn’t even bother consulting with lobbyists, which may seem to be a strange complaint but not when you consider how things really work in politics.

It appears to me he’ll do whatever he needs to get things like a mention in Time magazine that’s he’s a new-style GOP governor who can produce a budget surplus in awful financial times. But he did so through smoke and mirrors and now is proposing to spend money he really doesn’t have.

Lastly, he wants a big borrowing campaign for transportation. Fine with me, but it does make him seem like the very politicians he campaigned against.

Will the real Bob McDonnell please stand up?

Peter Galuszka


ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)




Comments


Comments

36 responses to “Will the Real Bob McDonnell Please Stand Up?”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    We should put a moratorium on all new road construction which includes expansion. We cannot maintain the current infrastructure now. How does piling on top of that help? I'm all for spending on infrastructure improvements but road building is just throwing good money after bad. Let's build bicycle and rail facilities.

  2. Apparently under the radar is this McDonnell "reform" to transparency and accountability:

    " Governor's Commission considering elimination of FOIA Council; public comment sought
    The Governor's Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring is considering the consolidation or elimination of a number of state government boards and commissions. Among those marked for elimination is the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council."

    http://www.villagenewsonline.com/node/3365

    Of course many local governments and State agencies fully support this "reform" as the FOIA folks have often been a burr in their butts.

    There's something about McDonnell that I cannot quite put my finger on – but I feel discomfort with the way he governs.

    Deferring payments to the State Pension plan and then claiming a surplus is part of it.

    Slaughtering Creigh Deeds on the taxes for transportation issue – the man is now wanting to risk and possibly damage our pay-as-you-go approach that underpins our AAA rating and put the state in debt but saying it's is okay because we are going to change the way we "measure" it and the staged trip to New York bond raters ..proved it.

    These would be the same credit agencies that very cooperatively gave their highest ratings to those credit default swaps, eh?

    So far. the man has excellent teflon but I still don't have a good feeling about the wheeling and dealing, smoke and mirrors approach to governance and if things go to hades in a hand-basket, I'm going to claim that I told you so.

    Here's a quick quiz – if Warner and Kaine and McDonnell sold cars.. which one would unnerve you the most?

    I rest my case.

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    Warner and Kaine would unnerve me the most. Warner ran on a "no-new-taxes–government needs to live within its means" platform and quickly jumped to promoting the largest tax increase in Virginia history. Kaine campaigned on a "It's crazy to build roads when new development consistently makes road improvements obsolete" and even more quickly tried to get a tax increase for road-building.

    Bicycle and rail. What a big joke. The number of bikers is extremely small. We devote way more resources to bike paths than the share of bikers for commuting. And it's not going to change where we see lots of bikers. Indeed, despite a very strong effort, Fairfax County cannot even come up with any safe paths for McLean residents to bike to Tysons.

    Heavy rail is extremely expensive and not cost effective. We're spending $5 billion plus for Dulles Rail and only about 6 or 7% of the Dulles passengers will take rail. And the optimistic hopes for Tysons is that, by 2030, about 17% of the trips to and from Tysons will be by rail. The Silver Line is likely to be the last heavy rail project in the D.C. area for many years to come.

    TMT

  4. Groveton Avatar

    It seems that all politicians campaign one way and govern another.

    Wasn't it Obama who led the compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts? Think back to the 2008 presidential campaign. Let's say June, 2008. If I told you that Obama would personally lead an effort to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years in his first term as president you would have laughed me out of the room.

    However, that's just what happened.

    Personally, I am much happier with the left-center Obama of today than I was with the far left radical of 2008.

    I believe that McDonnell is in the same boat. Reality has intruded on his far right philosophy. I am told by reliable sources that traffic congestion was a major negative consideration in the Northrup Grumman location decision. Even Maryland's heinous traffic congestion was held forth as a relative benefit vs. Virginia by the Free State delegation.

    McDonnell knows he must improve transportation in order to maintain economic momentum – especially if (when?) government spending in Virginia declines.

    Selling the ABC stores was/is a good idea. It's very hard to imagine why the state needs to be in the "for profit" retail sales business. But there are two questions … is now the best time to sell the ABC stores (would waiting fetch a higher price)? and … the sale of the liquor stores is a relatively small one-time shot. Relatively small when compared to transportation for example.

    As for borrowing, now is the time. Interest rates are at historically low levels so entities can borrow on the cheap. Especially big entities. I understand that Microsoft (who has more money than God) recently floated a large debt issue. Why? I guess because money is so cheap right now.

    McDonnell's problem is that he has to bet that economic conditions will improve and, therefore, state tax revenues will increase. Therefore, the state can repay what it borrows and it can borrow cheaply now. However, this is a "leap of faith" strategy. There is nothing wrong with a "leap of faith" strategy as long as your see it for what it is.

    The risk is that the economy does not improve sufficiently to service and repay the debt at current tax rates. I think that's something of a long shot risk but it's a risk.

    The only real answers would be unbalanced budgets (a la the feds) or higher taxes.

    Given that choice, I'd vote for higher taxes.

    Of course, that scenario won't materialize until Bob McDonnell is long done with his single term as governor.

    Cuccinelli will have to pick up those pieces toward the tail end of his term as governor!!

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    Borrowing is OK so long as other cuts are made in sufficient amounts so that the increased debt service and redemption reserves can be addressed.

    State liquor stores are a throw-back to Prohibition. The state will decide drinking issues. If we think the state intrudes too much in individual's private lives (and many people do), should not we get the state out from selling liquor. Or we should require each citizen to have a book of his/liquor purchases that must be filled out by the state liquor store to keep track of who is drinking what, as was done years ago in Iowa.

    TMT

  6. McDonnell's campaign premise was that we did not need more taxes for transportation – that the problem was one of not making the best use of the 3 billion a year they already have.

    Now he's admitted – even after his "audit" to "find money" that in the longer run – it's not a sustainable funding approach.

    That's remarkable similar to what Creigh Deeds said and was labeled for being a tax&spender for transportation..

    4 billion dollars is not chump change by any stretch of the imagination but it's also not sustained funding and it does require money to pay back the loans.

    So McDonnell becomes yet another Republican in a long line of Republicans like George Allen and Gilmore who said one thing about transportation and did something else.

    I STILL agree in part with TMT in that the current transportation funding process in Va is a corrupt one that encourages developers to use political means to use that money to enhance their private development projects that depend on highway infrastructure.

    I do give McDonnell credit for the creation of a Transportation Infrastructure Bank that allows localities to borrow for their urgent projects – but pay it back.

    I think any new funding for transportation should only go for projects of a state significance and that the regions of NoVa and Hampton Roads (and others) need a way to fund regional roads – but with the concurrence and approval of those who will have to pay for them – via direct election of the politicians who decide what the funding will be spent for – even better – a process where the regional roads and their local cost are decided with regional referenda.

    In order for any project to pass – it would require a majority of each member jurisdiction voters and it would include the choice of tolls or taxes.

    I'd also have a bill in the GA to align VDOT district offices with the MPOs.

    VDOT district boundaries were decided on the basis of the 1922 Congressional boundaries.

    Don't ask me why it was Congressional Boundaries instead of some Virginia-based criteria but it's time to align those offices with the MPOs and/or the Planning Districts.

    It was these kinds of tax-neutral reforms that I was hoping would come from conservative governance which often promotes the idea that money alone is not necessarily the solution to problems.

    I NOW support the Gov's ABC approach of having a state-sanctioned concessionaire manage the process of going to privately-operated stores.

    It's a good first step and I'm much more comfortable that he broke the nexus with transportation which was unnatural and I think problematical.

  7. "….an ambitious plan to borrow heavily to build roads despite his posturing as a fiscal conservative."

    ==================================

    I wondered how long that would take.

  8. "….an ambitious plan to borrow heavily to build roads despite his posturing as a fiscal conservative."

    ==================================

    I wondered how long that would take.

  9. Anonymous:

    I'm all in favor of bike trails, I love bike trails, but lets be reasonable here.

    The average Auto commute is 25 minutes which means around 20 miles. But twenty miles is an hour and a half by bike, maybe an hour and 15 minutes. An average bike rider might be willing to go five miles, which would be 20 minutes or so.

    Now look at all the major work zones and extend the bike trails five miles in every direction from there. Suppose you hit a marketing home run, and you capture 30% of all the residents within those zones as bicycle commuters. Now flash forward 20 years and assume that you could double that figure by building new homes closer to the work sites.

    Who is going to pay for all that? Bicycles don't pay a gas tax, should auto drivers pick up the expense. What do you do about trucks? And remember, all those new homes you build closer to work sites will still mostly have cars.

    Actually, we can easily maintain and improve the present infrastruture: we have just decided not to. We have decided it is cheaper to let bridges fall in the river, and that it is cheaper to let people become disoriented when suddenly the road stipes disappear for lack of paint.

    Bicycle trails need maintenance too, and they especially need public safety monitoring, since they seem to be a favorit spot for muggers and rapists.

    Yes, I love bike trails and I have approached my supervisor about planning for them. He laughed at me. but bike transport is what it is, and we shouldn;t pretend it is an alternative to building and maintaining paths for motor vehicles.

    ================================

    As for trains, I may be going back to Arizona. My wife thought she would visit, but she does not fly.

    The train trip to Arizona takes four days and costs $215, one way, plus the cost of a sleeper.

    The Maricopa train station is in Maricopa because they had to close the Phoenix station on account of deteriorating tracks. I think the Maricopa station is a double wide trailer.

    A total of 24 passengers use that station every day. That is boarding or unboarding, so a total of 12 raound trips every day.

    Now, if you think we can't afford the infrastructure we have now, just wait till you try to maintain rail.

    We need to make places for millions of new people, and it is time to stop pretending we can do it with an endless succession of band aids.

  10. Anonymous:

    I'm all in favor of bike trails, I love bike trails, but lets be reasonable here.

    The average Auto commute is 25 minutes which means around 20 miles. But twenty miles is an hour and a half by bike, maybe an hour and 15 minutes. An average bike rider might be willing to go five miles, which would be 20 minutes or so.

    Now look at all the major work zones and extend the bike trails five miles in every direction from there. Suppose you hit a marketing home run, and you capture 30% of all the residents within those zones as bicycle commuters. Now flash forward 20 years and assume that you could double that figure by building new homes closer to the work sites.

    Who is going to pay for all that? Bicycles don't pay a gas tax, should auto drivers pick up the expense. What do you do about trucks? And remember, all those new homes you build closer to work sites will still mostly have cars.

    Actually, we can easily maintain and improve the present infrastruture: we have just decided not to. We have decided it is cheaper to let bridges fall in the river, and that it is cheaper to let people become disoriented when suddenly the road stipes disappear for lack of paint.

    Bicycle trails need maintenance too, and they especially need public safety monitoring, since they seem to be a favorit spot for muggers and rapists.

    Yes, I love bike trails and I have approached my supervisor about planning for them. He laughed at me. but bike transport is what it is, and we shouldn;t pretend it is an alternative to building and maintaining paths for motor vehicles.

    ================================

    As for trains, I may be going back to Arizona. My wife thought she would visit, but she does not fly.

    The train trip to Arizona takes four days and costs $215, one way, plus the cost of a sleeper.

    The Maricopa train station is in Maricopa because they had to close the Phoenix station on account of deteriorating tracks. I think the Maricopa station is a double wide trailer.

    A total of 24 passengers use that station every day. That is boarding or unboarding, so a total of 12 raound trips every day.

    Now, if you think we can't afford the infrastructure we have now, just wait till you try to maintain rail.

    We need to make places for millions of new people, and it is time to stop pretending we can do it with an endless succession of band aids.

  11. If you believe in a "free market" and want to have private ABC stores let's have them and quit with the B.S.

    It seems that once again, R's talking points meet reality only to come to the conclusion that a free market may not be what is best after all.

    The unfortunate reality of a free market is that you may very well end up with a liquor store on every corner – if the market will support it.

    The current plan doesn't do anything in regards to creating a free market. All it does is create a liquor cartel…..at the expense of store owners who aren't fortunate enough to end up with a license to sell booze.

    Oh, it gets the state out of the retail liquor business only to turn it over to a few "select" retailers of varying sizes, locations, blah, blah, blah.

    That's not a free market.

    A free market would create (gulp) competition, choice, convenience, and put the consumer in the driver's seat.

  12. Wasn't it Obama who led the compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts?

    ===================================

    Well, yeah, he led the way when it was obvious he had either no choice or the choice of ending paymenst to the unemployed.

    Suggesting that he voluntarily led the way on this strikes me as a stretch.

    And it wasn;t like he was giving up all that much. EVERYBODY would have gottent the tax cuts anyway, even the wealthy would have gotten them on the first $250k of income.

    All we are talking about is the marginal tax rate for amounts higher than that. that was the republican argument all along: its not enough to worry about, why persecute the rich?

    Knuckled under would be a better description than led the way.

  13. Groveton Avatar

    You can borrow against reduced spending with and eye to using the savings to service and pay off the loan. Or, you can borrow against anticipated growth with an eye to using the additional revenues / profits to service and pay off the loan.

    Coming through a recession, it is natural to believe that growth will occur in the recovery.

    You have to separate the questions of sustainable revenue and financing.

    Is this a good time to borrow? Yes.

    Do we have a reasonable prospect of achieving sustainable revenue for transportation? I don't think so.

    Deeds said he would raise taxes. McDonnell said he wouldn't.

    The question of whether additional borrowing makes sense (at the current tax rates) is a question of what you think about future growth.

    I have yet to see a decent pro forma analysis of Virginia's state finances under the additional borrowing scenario which Gov McDonnell contemplates. There may be such an analysis, I just haven't seen it.

    As far as pay-as-you-go, I don't even know what that means. If you pay-as-you-go then you wouldn't ever borrow money. Isn't that what pay-as-you-go means?

  14. RBV is right on the money on this.

    If the argument is for a free market,then it shouldn't be any harder to get a liquor store license than it is a gas station license.

    Then again, licenses won;t be the issue.

    Zoning will be the issue. You don't see too many people campaigning aganst haveng a state run liquor store in their neighborhood, because they are clean and well run.

    But watch what happens when it is a free market liquor store.

    Virginia would do better to auction off the right to operate the existing stores. That would be closer to a free market, and it would raise a lot more money for the state. And you can re-auction every time the lease is up.

  15. In terms of bike trails in urban areas – you geezers are missing the point.

    Young people flock to the jobs and many ride bike and not just 5 miles.. they can go 10-15 miles in an hour and will.

    And if you had a referenda to raise taxes for bike trails – it would be a battle between the geezers an the young folks.

  16. Borrow money now. it will never be any cheaper than today, I don't think.

    Hell, if the state was allowed to invest, they could make a bundle on forclosed homes.

  17. pay as you go – yes… in other contexts – it's called a balanced budget where your debt is covered by existing taxes.

    I'm not sure how much I buy the "growth" argument any more because since 2001 and now within this current recession – "growth" is not happening in the traditional historic ways.

    What we don't want nor need is more "growth will cover the expenses" mindset that has no Plan B if the Plan A fails and we end up with a structural deficit.

    The interesting thing about the basic Republican philosophy is that if you have population growth then you have more taxpayers generating more revenue and, in theory, you don't need to increase taxes because you are already getting increased tax revenues.

    That's all well and good for most revenue streams until you come to transportation where it no longer works that way.

    The challenge or any politician but especially Republicans is – if the revenue stream does not follow the conventional historical pattern – what do you do about it?

    Do you just say "oh well" and walk away?

    The Dems say you have to compensate by increasing taxes.

    The Republicans like McDonnell say ..no.. you don't have to but look at what McDonnells solution is – to borrow money on the PREMISE that there WILL BE increased revenues streams from SOMEWHERE to pay the debt.

    That's not Fiscally Responsible conservatism folks.

    You can call it any number of things but it's not Conservative fiscal policy.

  18. well.. it's NOT free market guys.

    It's a COMPROMISE between a LESS free market and a more free market.

    perhaps as an evolution towards an even more free ..free market.

    but ya'll have treaded close to yet another Republican talking point that does not translate into a Republican policy and that is that Mr. McDonnell, the free market Republican is going for a solution that counts on taxing people rather than not taxing people and letting the market not be burdened by taxes.

    You might say this is an unreasonable standard but I'm only listening to the Republican boiler-plate now spiced up even more from the "we are taxed too much already" tea pots.

    These folks are like a viral disease at elections between Republicans and Democrats but they seem to go into hiding once the Republicans assume office an perform like Democrats, eh?

  19. Conservative fiscal policy means if you have a dedicated revenue stream for a particular purpose and it has become insufficient for that purpose that you either downsize and live within your means or you increase THAT revenues stream ..INSTEAD of poaching other non-dedicated revenues streams or trying to convert other revenue streams into a nexus-less dedicated revenue stream.

    McDonnell is basically evading the fundamental issue and his approach is not fiscal conservatism at all but rather very much like the tax&spend approach that he eschews but he's pursuing what is in essence an increase in taxes in a stealthy way rather that confront the reality of balancing the funding stream with the uses.

    McDonnell is like the car dealer or loan originator who suggests that an ARM or a balloon payment schedule is a good way to have your cake and eat it too as opposed to saying " this is the max you can afford" unless you want to increase your monthly payments.

    Again running on a platform of fiscal conservatism seems to "work" for most Virginians but they apparently don't care once their fiscal conservative guy gets into office.

    In that regard Creigh Deeds was an idiot.

  20. What we don't want or need is more growth…..==

    ==================

    At last Larry shows his true colors.

    We are going to get more growth to the tune of millions of people, and hundred of millions of tons of all the stuff they need and want.

    Might as well plan for it and allow for it now.

  21. I can still go fifteen miles an hour on a bike. But not for an hour. Most people wont drive for an hour, the average is 25 minutes. Most people wont walk for fifteen minutes.

    It is patently ridiculous to say people can bike for an hour, and will.

    I used to bike seven miles to work, but I did not have to be clean when I got there. My company now has a substantial number of bike riders and a bike club. One Guy rides about 20 miles. He bikes one way and drives the other. Or he did up until his heart attack. He's pretty sanguine though. At least it wasn't my brain, he says. Then there was the Guy hit by a car, hospitalized for twelve weeks.

    We have two shower rooms for cyclists. And hundreds of parking spots for drivers.

    Bikes are what they are. We could give them unlimited resources, and their use would increase some. I could bike around the farm, but a truck works better for hauling firewood.

  22. re: " What we don't want or need is more growth…..=="

    did I say that? Can you show me where and in what context?

    otherwise, please explain where it came from.

  23. I'm sure you were young once Ray.

    Many, many young professionals bike for business and pleasure and bike trails are an important amenity to attract young professionals.

    Bikers across the country many weekends engage in an event called a Century Bike… 100 miles for the ride.

    Young professionals also like to work out before or after work or during lunch and showers are amenities that they look for.

    If a company is high tech and needs young highly educated workers, like GOGGLE, they use things like this to recruit and retain their talented workers.

    This is why places like Portland and Austin and Mountain View are destination employment areas.

  24. I said, I likea dn support bike trails. but lets not make them something they are not.

    It is a niche market that fills a small percentage of our transportation needs. Sure, I used to ride thirty miles or more for grins, but I was young and poor and had nothing more productive to do.

    If you quadrupled the amount spent on trails, you probably would not quadruple the miles ridden.

    All I'm saying is that there is a time quotient for travel, by any mode. Some people travel two hours each way to work, but they don't do it for decades on end. some people may pedal 30 miles, but they dont do it for decades on end.

    I know a guy that used to ride to to agriculture eery day, and he did it for decades, but it was only twelve miles, and the trip in was mostly down hill, so he got his exercise on the way home. But, he eventually gave it up after he got older and after a couple accidents.

    My brother destroyed his knee on a bicycle, and he has been limping around for years. Bikes don't have airbags.

    Around my house, there are throngs of cyclists who routinely show up and cycle fifty miles or more for fun. They clog the local roads sometimes, but lets face it, if these roads were in fairfax, they would BE bike trails.

    But these people are not going to work, and they arrive here with their bikes on top of their cars. I can easily imagine that the fuel used by bikes on top of cars exceeds the fuel saved by riding bikes.

    Check out the entrances to the B&O bike trail and the lots are often crammed with cars.

    So, Bikes are what they are, lets not make them something they are not, is all I'm saying. they are a complement to cars and trains, not an alternative. we need to end the competition between modes and fund them according to the job they can reasonably do.

    We travel around 250 billion vehicle miles per year. If we converted 20% of that to bike travel it would cost us 1.5 billion hours, and it would save us a billion gallons of gas.

    At present, a gallon of gas costs about ten minutes in time, so as needs to go up by a factor of more than ten before bikes become cost competitive on an environmental basis. Gas would have to go up by a factor of more than fifty before bikes would be generally competitive.

  25. I dunno what you are talking about. Unemployment in Portland is still over 10%, medium income is only $37,000, and the home affordability index is very low, due to long term growth restrictions. It is the panhandler capital of the world, or seemed that way when I was there.

    It is going to take more than bicycles to fix Portlands problems.

  26. Amenity is the correct word.

  27. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/01/comparing_us_states_countries

    So, the economy of Masschusetts is equal to Saudi Arabia and Virginia is equal to Poland.

    Good Job, Bob.

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    If you knew (for certain) that no matter what you did you would still go bust down the road or that inflation would make money relatively worth less than it is today, wouldn't you spend all that you could and borrow and spend for concrete purchases today ? The same logic that a person who knows that their job will be gone in 2 months will attend dentist/doctor/etc, or that ss/medicare folks are pulling asap on the fed teat b/c indeed sooner than later it will dry up. Perhaps the gov is pursuing a similar approach.

  29. Anonymous:

    Exactly. Money will never be cheaper.

    I actually refinanced a car I bought last year. The new interest rate on a (now) used car was LOWER then the interest rate on a NEW car last year.

    You could put csh in your pocket on this deal and STILL have a lower payment.

    Or, like you say, go buy something substantial, anything, bulldozer, yacht, airplane, shack in the woods. anything that is not likely to lose its intrinsic value. some people like gold, although I think it is foolish.

    But don't stand there with your mouth full of republican / conservative dogma saying one thing while doing something else entirely.

    Like the liquor store rip off.

  30. money is not cheap if you don't have a way to pay it back.

    It's like the person who says the best sales they've ever seen are going on and their credit card is maxed.

    this is exactly how people go broke.. they keep finding these fantastic deals until there is no more money and no way to pay it all off….

  31. If you can't pay it back, it is the cheapest money ever. Your lender took the risk, and you took a risk. Your lender has no prospect of making money without both of you taking a risk.

    If you borrow 80% to do something and fail, you are Burke and out 20%. Your banker is out 40%, but that is a small part of his business.

  32. Isn't that just what caused the housing meltdown that came close to causing a depression?

  33. Isn't that just what caused the housing meltdown that came close to causing a depression?

    ==============================

    Maybe part of it.

    But it is surely what made this the greatest economy ever.

  34. ….. a sustainable "greatest economy ever"?

    What if the Republicans had been successful in shutting down the TARP and STIMULUS… ?

    Would we be better off now or worse off?

  35. "…the greatest economy ever."

    ===============================

    Not sure it makes any difference. If you beleive what the doomsayers say about de-growth, etc. then the greatest sustainable economy ever, will be whole lot less than the greatest economy ever.

    Besides,there is nothing unsustainable about borrowing. Your ability to pay it back may be unsustainable, but that is different entirely.

  36. re: " … nothing unsustainable about borrowing. Your ability to pay it back may be unsustainable, but that is different entirely."

    well… tell that to the companies that were going to go away and in the process send the economy into a depression….

    saying that excessive/irresponsible borrowing is "sustainable" in the context of what we have been through and are still working through is ..let us say.. slightly disconnected from the realities….

    The state pension funds also might have an opinion about markets that so embrace risk that subsequents meltdowns are "sustainable".

    Millions of people have had their 401Ks savaged to the point where retirement has been pushed 5, 10, 15 years into the future.

    if we encounter another "rough patch" like this one – the gloom and doom people will be saying "I told you so" and we'll have folks working full time jobs while they collect Medicare.

    All in all – the gloom & doom people might be right in that "retirement" is a concept that needs to be re-thought in terms of economic expectations.

    So one simple idea – instead of a retirement age of 65 – we change it to 70 or 75.

    The result of this would almost instantly "repair" the State pension funds AND Social Security and Medicare – right?

    Of course, then we' have to pass the "geezer law" that severely penalizes any company found to be "retiring" people before age 70-75.

Leave a Reply


ADVERTISEMENT