Ohio Bill Sparks Debate About Religious Freedom

A piece of legislation in Ohio
is causing some controversy as it aims to affect the practice of
religion. The bill’s proponents say it will reinforce the First
Amendment’s protection of religious freedom, whereas its detractors
are concerned that it will blur the line between church and
state.

State Representatives Tim Derickson (R-Oxford) and Bill Patmon
(D-Cleveland) introduced the
Ohio Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
last Wednesday.
The bill would require that the state demonstrate “compelling
government interest” to create any laws, policies, or regulations
that place burdens on the exercise of religion.

Patmon
announced
at a press conference that “this legislation will
help reassert the foundation upon which this country was founded
and has grown and prospered on—freedom of religion and the practice
of it.”

However, various groups are arguing about the legality of the
bill, and whether it would protect religion or push it on others.
At odds on the issues are the American Civil Liberties Union’s
communications coordinator, Nick Worner, and the Alliance Defending
Freedom’s legal counsel, Joseph LaRue. The Columbus
Dispatch

reports
:

“The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Whatever a
piece of state legislation does, it’s not going to trump the U.S.
Constitution,” Worner said. “Individual religious freedom is
extremely important, but it’s never been a free pass to impose your
religious beliefs on other people.”

LaRue, who helped draft the Ohio bill, agrees with the ACLU that
the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land, but adds, “That’s
only part of the story.”

“The U.S. Constitution is a baseline,” he said. “States can go
above and beyond what the U.S. Constitution provides.”

[…]

“What we’ve seen in states without RFRA is an increasing and
creeping reduction in religious freedom,” LaRue said. “They are
taking away rights of individuals to live their lives in public
consistent with their faith.”

Another Dispatch article
quotes
Patrick Elliott of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
He warns that “the wording is so broad that all aspects of state
enforcement, state statutes, and local ordinances would be
impacted.”

On the other hand, Patmon’s and Derickson’s bill finds
precedence in the federal
RFRA
, which passed twenty years ago, and 17 similar state-based
pieces of legislation, none of which have resulted in the cataclysm
against which Elliot warns.

How exactly the bill will play out if passed is unknown.
Responding to a recent incident in which the ACLU persuaded an Ohio
public school to remove religious artwork, LaRue and Patmon – who
are on the same side of the debate over the Ohio Religious Freedom
Restoration Act – expressed contradictory opinions in the
Dispatch about how the legislation would affect such
situations.

With 45
cosponsors
, nearly half of the state’s representatives have
expressed support for the bill. The vast majority of cosponsors are
Republicans.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/09/ohio-bill-sparks-debate-about-religious
via IFTTT

New Mexico Cop Who Shot at Minivan Full of Children Appeals His Firing

respect his authoritahLast month, a cop in New Mexico
shot at a minivan full of children
when the driver, Oriana
Farrell, tried to pull away a second time after being stopped for
going 71 in a 55. Dascham video shows an officer trying to smash
the passenger side window before Farrell drove away the second
time. Police said they were trying to shoot out the minivan’s
tires, but as Jess Remington noted then, police experts don’t
consider that a safe practice. Police eventually arrested Farrell,
charging her with fleeing an officer, child abuse, and possession
of drug paraphernalia (two marijuana pipes were allegedly found in
the minivan). Her attorney has claimed Farrell drove away fearing
for the safety of her children in the presence of police, and that
if anyone ought to be charged with child abuse it should be the
officer who shot.

Now, after a disciplinary hearing, that officer, Elias Montoya,
has been
fired
, a decision made by the state’s police chief, who said
the “buck stops” with him. But, because he’s a public sector
employee with public union privileges, Montoya is
appealing
that decision. His attorneys provided no comment to
the AP on the merits of the case, only that they intended to appeal
on their client’s behalf. And being afforded that privilege, why
wouldn’t he?

h/t to sarcasmic, who pointed this out in my
earlier post
about a sexually inappropriate middle school
teacher it’s taken too long to fire thanks to generous privileges
afforded public sector employees.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/09/new-mexico-cop-who-shot-at-minivan-full
via IFTTT

Fed's Fisher Blasts "Flaccid" Monetary Policy, Says More CapEx Needed

We warned here (and here most recently), the most insidious way in which the Fed's ZIRP policy is now bleeding not only the middle class dry, but is forcing companies to reallocate cash in ways that benefit corporate shareholders at the present, at the expense of investing prudently for growth 2 or 3 years down the road. It seems the message is being heard loud and very clear among 'some' of the FOMC members; most notably Richard Fisher:

"Without fiscal policy that incentivizes rather than discourages U.S. capex (capital expenditure), this accommodative monetary policy aimed at reducing unemployment (especially structural unemployment) or improving the quality of jobs is rendered flaccid and less than optimally effective… I would feel more comfortable were we to remove ourselves as soon as possible from interfering with the normal price-setting functioning of financial markets."

Perhaps Yellen (and others) will listen this time?

 

Excerpted from Richard Fisher's speech on Monetary Policy:

In my view, the Federal Reserve has supplied more than sufficient liquidity to fuel economic recovery above and beyond a reduction of unemployment from its current level of 7 percent. As I just said, money is cheap and liquidity is abundant. Indeed, it is coursing over the gunwales of the ship of our economy, placing us at risk of becoming submerged in financial shenanigans rather than in conducting business based on fundamentals.

Monetary Policy Rendered Flaccid

To be sure, the job creators in our economy—private companies—have used this period of accommodative monetary policy to clean up the liability side of their balance sheets and fine-tune their bottom lines by buying shares and increasing dividends. They have also continued achieving productivity enhancement and relentless reduction in SG&A (selling, general and administrative expenses). Running tight ships, they are now poised to hire as they become more confident about nonmonetary matters that remain unresolved.

I used to say that the United States was the best-looking horse in the global glue factory. Now, I firmly believe we are the most fit stallion or filly on the global racetrack: Our companies are the most financially prepared and most productively operated they have been at any time during the nearly four decades since I graduated from business school. What is holding them back is not the cost or the availability of credit and finance. What is holding them back is fiscal and regulatory policy that is, at best, uncertain, and at worst, counterproductive.

Against that background, I believe that the current program of purchasing $85 billion per month in U.S. Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities comes at a cost that far exceeds its purported benefits. Presently, there is no private or public company that I know of, including many CCC-rated credits, that does not now have access to sufficient, cheap capital. There is no private or public company I know of that considers monetary policy to be deficient. Instead, to a company, every CEO I talk to feels that uncertainty derived from fiscal policy and regulatory interference is the key government-induced deterrent to more robust economic growth and profitability.

The FOMC has helped enable a sharp turn in the housing market and roaring stock and bond markets. I would argue that the former benefited the middle-income quartiles, while the latter has primarily benefited the rich and the quick. Though the recent numbers are encouraging, easy money has failed to encourage the robust payroll expansion that is the basis for the sustained consumer demand on which our economy depends. It cannot do so in and of itself. Without fiscal policy that incentivizes rather than discourages U.S. capex (capital expenditure), this accommodative monetary policy aimed at reducing unemployment (especially structural unemployment) or improving the quality of jobs is rendered flaccid and less than optimally effective. And as to the housing markets, prices are now appreciating to levels that may be hampering affordability in many markets.

What About Inflation?

As to the issue of inflation, the run rate for personal consumption expenditure (PCE) prices in the third quarter was 2 percent, according to recently revised data. The Dallas Fed computes a Trimmed Mean analysis of the PCE, which we feel provides a more accurate view of inflationary developments. The 12-month run rate for the Trimmed Mean PCE has been steady at 1.3 percent for the past seven months.

As measured by surveys and financial market indicators, expected inflation five or more years out is anchored firmly at levels consistent with the 2 percent rate that modern central bankers now cotton to as appropriate. These surveys and indicators also show expected price increases over 2014 only modestly below 2 percent.

Against this background, I am not of the school of thought that monetary policy need continue to be hyperaccommodative or be made even more so in order to bring medium-term inflation expectations closer to target. I certainly don’t see any justification for seeking to raise medium-term expectations above 2 percent as an inducement for businesses to pour on capex and expand payrolls or for policy to act as an incentive for consumers to go out and spend more money now rather than later. To me, this would just undermine the slowly improving confidence we have begun to see.

Especially given that we have a surfeit of excess liquidity sloshing about in the system, the idea of ramping up inflation expectations from their current tame levels strikes me as short-sighted and even reckless. We already have enough kindling for potential long-term inflation, which will sorely test our capacity to manage policy going forward. I do not wish to add further wood to that pile.

It Is Time to Taper

In my view, we at the Fed should begin tapering back our bond purchases at the earliest opportunity. To enable the markets to digest this change of course with minimal disruption, we should do so within the context of a clearly articulated, well-defined calendar for reducing purchases on a steady path to zero. We should make clear that, barring some serious economic crisis, we will stay the course of reduction rather than give an imprecise nod as we did after the May and June meetings that led markets to believe the program might end as unemployment reached 7 percent.

Only then can we at the Fed return to focusing on management of the overnight rate that anchors the yield curve. To be sure, we may wish to keep overnight rates low for a prolonged period, depending on economic developments. But we need to return to conducting monetary policy that is more in keeping with the normal role of a central bank. We need to break away from trying to manipulate term premia and stop prolonging the distortions that accrue from our massive long-term bond purchases and the risks we incur in building an ever-expanding balance sheet that is now approaching $4 trillion.

Becoming Dentists Once Again

I consider this strategy desirable on its own merit: I would feel more comfortable were we to remove ourselves as soon as possible from interfering with the normal price-setting functioning of financial markets. And I consider it desirable from the standpoint of protecting our limited
franchise. As Chairman (Ben) Bernanke has pointed out politely, and I have argued less diplomatically, good monetary policy is necessary—but certainly not sufficient—to return the nation to full employment. Acting as though we can go it alone only builds expectations that far exceed our capacity. And it could lead us to believe that we have a greater capacity to control economic outcomes than we actually have.

If I may paraphrase a sainted figure for many of my colleagues, John Maynard Keynes: If the members of the FOMC could manage to get themselves to once again be thought of as humble, competent people on the level of dentists, that would be splendid. I would argue that the time to reassume a more humble central banker persona is upon us.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/nzz7ybyq7J8/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Fed’s Fisher Blasts “Flaccid” Monetary Policy, Says More CapEx Needed

We warned here (and here most recently), the most insidious way in which the Fed's ZIRP policy is now bleeding not only the middle class dry, but is forcing companies to reallocate cash in ways that benefit corporate shareholders at the present, at the expense of investing prudently for growth 2 or 3 years down the road. It seems the message is being heard loud and very clear among 'some' of the FOMC members; most notably Richard Fisher:

"Without fiscal policy that incentivizes rather than discourages U.S. capex (capital expenditure), this accommodative monetary policy aimed at reducing unemployment (especially structural unemployment) or improving the quality of jobs is rendered flaccid and less than optimally effective… I would feel more comfortable were we to remove ourselves as soon as possible from interfering with the normal price-setting functioning of financial markets."

Perhaps Yellen (and others) will listen this time?

 

Excerpted from Richard Fisher's speech on Monetary Policy:

In my view, the Federal Reserve has supplied more than sufficient liquidity to fuel economic recovery above and beyond a reduction of unemployment from its current level of 7 percent. As I just said, money is cheap and liquidity is abundant. Indeed, it is coursing over the gunwales of the ship of our economy, placing us at risk of becoming submerged in financial shenanigans rather than in conducting business based on fundamentals.

Monetary Policy Rendered Flaccid

To be sure, the job creators in our economy—private companies—have used this period of accommodative monetary policy to clean up the liability side of their balance sheets and fine-tune their bottom lines by buying shares and increasing dividends. They have also continued achieving productivity enhancement and relentless reduction in SG&A (selling, general and administrative expenses). Running tight ships, they are now poised to hire as they become more confident about nonmonetary matters that remain unresolved.

I used to say that the United States was the best-looking horse in the global glue factory. Now, I firmly believe we are the most fit stallion or filly on the global racetrack: Our companies are the most financially prepared and most productively operated they have been at any time during the nearly four decades since I graduated from business school. What is holding them back is not the cost or the availability of credit and finance. What is holding them back is fiscal and regulatory policy that is, at best, uncertain, and at worst, counterproductive.

Against that background, I believe that the current program of purchasing $85 billion per month in U.S. Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities comes at a cost that far exceeds its purported benefits. Presently, there is no private or public company that I know of, including many CCC-rated credits, that does not now have access to sufficient, cheap capital. There is no private or public company I know of that considers monetary policy to be deficient. Instead, to a company, every CEO I talk to feels that uncertainty derived from fiscal policy and regulatory interference is the key government-induced deterrent to more robust economic growth and profitability.

The FOMC has helped enable a sharp turn in the housing market and roaring stock and bond markets. I would argue that the former benefited the middle-income quartiles, while the latter has primarily benefited the rich and the quick. Though the recent numbers are encouraging, easy money has failed to encourage the robust payroll expansion that is the basis for the sustained consumer demand on which our economy depends. It cannot do so in and of itself. Without fiscal policy that incentivizes rather than discourages U.S. capex (capital expenditure), this accommodative monetary policy aimed at reducing unemployment (especially structural unemployment) or improving the quality of jobs is rendered flaccid and less than optimally effective. And as to the housing markets, prices are now appreciating to levels that may be hampering affordability in many markets.

What About Inflation?

As to the issue of inflation, the run rate for personal consumption expenditure (PCE) prices in the third quarter was 2 percent, according to recently revised data. The Dallas Fed computes a Trimmed Mean analysis of the PCE, which we feel provides a more accurate view of inflationary developments. The 12-month run rate for the Trimmed Mean PCE has been steady at 1.3 percent for the past seven months.

As measured by surveys and financial market indicators, expected inflation five or more years out is anchored firmly at levels consistent with the 2 percent rate that modern central bankers now cotton to as appropriate. These surveys and indicators also show expected price increases over 2014 only modestly below 2 percent.

Against this background, I am not of the school of thought that monetary policy need continue to be hyperaccommodative or be made even more so in order to bring medium-term inflation expectations closer to target. I certainly don’t see any justification for seeking to raise medium-term expectations above 2 percent as an inducement for businesses to pour on capex and expand payrolls or for policy to act as an incentive for consumers to go out and spend more money now rather than later. To me, this would just undermine the slowly improving confidence we have begun to see.

Especially given that we have a surfeit of excess liquidity sloshing about in the system, the idea of ramping up inflation expectations from their current tame levels strikes me as short-sighted and even reckless. We already have enough kindling for potential long-term inflation, which will sorely test our capacity to manage policy going forward. I do not wish to add further wood to that pile.

It Is Time to Taper

In my view, we at the Fed should begin tapering back our bond purchases at the earliest opportunity. To enable the markets to digest this change of course with minimal disruption, we should do so within the context of a clearly articulated, well-defined calendar for reducing purchases on a steady path to zero. We should make clear that, barring some serious economic crisis, we will stay the course of reduction rather than give an imprecise nod as we did after the May and June meetings that led markets to believe the program might end as unemployment reached 7 percent.

Only then can we at the Fed return to focusing on management of the overnight rate that anchors the yield curve. To be sure, we may wish to keep overnight rates low for a prolonged period, depending on economic developments. But we need to return to conducting monetary policy that is more in keeping with the normal role of a central bank. We need to break away from trying to manipulate term premia and stop prolonging the distortions that accrue from our massive long-term bond purchases and the risks we incur in building an ever-expanding balance sheet that is now approaching $4 trillion.

Becoming Dentists Once Again

I consider this strategy desirable on its own merit: I would feel more comfortable were we to remove ourselves as soon as possible from interfering with the normal price-setting functioning of financial markets. And I consider it desirable from the standpoint of protecting our limited franchise. As Chairman (Ben) Bernanke has pointed out politely, and I have argued less diplomatically, good monetary policy is necessary—but certainly not sufficient—to return the nation to full employment. Acting as though we can go it alone only builds expectations that far exceed our capacity. And it could lead us to believe that we have a greater capacity to control economic outcomes than we actually have.

If I may paraphrase a sainted figure for many of my colleagues, John Maynard Keynes: If the members of the FOMC could manage to get themselves to once again be thought of as humble, competent people on the level of dentists, that would be splendid. I would argue that the time to reassume a more humble central banker persona is upon us.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/nzz7ybyq7J8/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Caption Contest: If Gold Is Broken, They "Fix" It

Much has been written recently about the rigged London “gold fixing” process, during which, as even Bloomberg recently covered, the price of gold is blatantly manipulated. One thing was, however, missing: a photo of the fixers in practice. Today, courtesy of German WiWo, we show just what said “fixing” looks like in real life every single day.

h/t @DrGideonGono


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/VUU-O6exOUU/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Caption Contest: If Gold Is Broken, They “Fix” It

Much has been written recently about the rigged London “gold fixing” process, during which, as even Bloomberg recently covered, the price of gold is blatantly manipulated. One thing was, however, missing: a photo of the fixers in practice. Today, courtesy of German WiWo, we show just what said “fixing” looks like in real life every single day.

h/t @DrGideonGono


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/VUU-O6exOUU/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Journalist Seymour Hersh Thinks The Evidence for Assad Regime Gas Attacks Thin

In
the London Review of Books
–in a story that both the
Washington Post and the New Yorker could have
printed
but chose not to
, the Post having told Hersh they
didn’t find the sourcing solid enough–journalist Seymour Hersh
lays out at great length his reasons for thinking the case against
the Assad regime for poison gas attacks is unproven.

Excerpts and summation: Hersh’s first point is the
administration knew that the al-Nusra front, a rebel group with Al
Qaeda ties, also had access to sarin.

Then he found various (anonymous) sources he says should be in a
position to know who doubt the administration’s assurance of
blame:

One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague,
called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a
‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he
wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama
administration had altered the available information – in terms of
its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers
to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it
had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was
happening. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the 1964 Gulf
of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the
sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of
the early bombings of North Vietnam. The same official said there
was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence
bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and
saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his
cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go
along?”’

The complaints focus on what Washington did not have: any
advance warning from the assumed source of the attack. The military
intelligence community has for years produced a highly classified
early morning intelligence summary, known as the Morning Report,
for the secretary of defence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff; a copy also goes to the national security adviser and the
director of national intelligence. The Morning Report includes no
political or economic information, but provides a summary of
important military events around the world, with all available
intelligence about them. A senior intelligence consultant told me
that some time after the attack he reviewed the reports for 20
August through 23 August. For two days – 20 and 21 August – there
was no mention of Syria. On 22 August the lead item in the Morning
Report dealt with Egypt; a subsequent item discussed an internal
change in the command structure of one of the rebel groups in
Syria. Nothing was noted about the use of nerve gas in Damascus
that day. It was not until 23 August that the use of sarin became a
dominant issue, although hundreds of photographs and videos of the
massacre had gone viral within hours on YouTube, Facebook and other
social media sites. At this point, the administration knew no more
than the public.

And Hersh argues that they probably should have known more than
the public if it was Assad, because of a supposedly very effective
“secret sensor system inside Syria, designed to provide early
warning of any change in status of the regime’s chemical weapons
arsenal” which allegedly worked last December to see a possible
sarin attack planned (or maybe just an exercise for one), which
triggered Obama’s first “red line” warning to Assad about using gas
weapons.

Hersh goes on to make much of the fact that the intelligence
later presented indicating possible Syrian official preparation for
a gas attack was not obtained and understood in real
time
before the attack occured but merely
reconstructed later. (Given that he admits the U.S. lacks fully
efficient real time surveillance of all Assad regime communication,
this doesn’t seem such a slam dunk argument.)

The artillery rocket that supposedly delivered the sarin in the
August 21 attack near Damascus was said to be something only the
regime was known to use. But Hersh reports:

Theodore Postol, a professor of technology and national security
at MIT, reviewed the UN photos with a group of his colleagues and
concluded that the large calibre rocket was an improvised munition
that was very likely manufactured locally. He told me that it was
‘something you could produce in a modestly capable machine shop’.
The rocket in the photos, he added, fails to match the
specifications of a similar but smaller rocket known to be in the
Syrian arsenal. The New York Times, again relying on
data in the UN report, also analysed the flight path of two of the
spent rockets that were believed to have carried sarin, and
concluded that the angle of descent ‘pointed directly’ to their
being fired from a Syrian army base more than nine kilometres from
the landing zone.

Postol, who has served as the scientific adviser to the chief of
naval operations in the Pentagon, said that the assertions in
the Times and elsewhere ‘were not based on
actual observations’. He concluded that the flight path analyses in
particular were, as he put it in an email, ‘totally nuts’ because a
thorough study demonstrated that the range of the improvised
rockets was ‘unlikely’ to be more than two kilometres. Postol and a
colleague, Richard M. Lloyd, published an analysis two weeks after
21 August in which they correctly assessed that the rockets
involved carried a far greater payload of sarin than previously
estimated. The Times reported on that analysis
at length, describing Postol and Lloyd as ‘leading weapons
experts’. The pair’s later study about the rockets’ flight paths
and range, which contradicted
previous Times reporting, was emailed to the
newspaper last week; it has so far gone unreported.

What Hersh paints as the administration’s reluctance to publicly
admit rebels also had access to poison gas could be troublesome
down the line, he thinks:

While the Syrian regime continues the process of eliminating its
chemical arsenal, the irony is that, after Assad’s stockpile of
precursor agents is destroyed, al-Nusra and its Islamist allies
could end up as the only faction inside Syria with access to the
ingredients that can create sarin, a strategic weapon that would be
unlike any other in the war zone. There may be more to
negotiate.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/09/journalist-seymour-hersh-thinks-the-evid
via IFTTT

Set Your DVRs to OMG! The Independents Debuts Tonight on at 9 PM ET on Fox Business Network!

Drumroll please….

As
advertised
, there’s a brand new TV show in the universe,
anchored by Reason.tv contributor Kennedy, co-hosted by
Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch and
occasional Reason contributor Kmele Foster. It’s
called The Independents, will approach politics and
culture from an unorthodox spirit and point of view familiar to
readers of this website, and you can find it on a Fox Business
Network
channel near you.

The show will air Mondays, Tuesday, Wednesdays, and Fridays for
1 hour between 9 and 10 pm. (Thursdays in that time slot is
reserved for the one and only Stossel,
who a little birdie tells me may be a participant in this evening’s
live broadcast.)

We will have an open thread later for heckling and/or fashion
critiques, but for now please sign up early and often for The
Independents
on various social media platforms:

* Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndependentsFBN

* Twitter: @IndependentsFBN (we’ll
be reading out Tweets during the broadcast)

* Instagram: independentsFBN

This show couldn’t have happened without John Stossel, and
it also couldn’t have happened without you, the readers and
supporters of Reason. So thank you for that, and won’t you please
donate to
Reason
to make more good stuff possible?

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/09/set-your-dvrs-to-omg-the-independents-de
via IFTTT

Chart Of The Day: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

The number of employees across the firms of the broad-based Russell 2000 equity index has collapsed by more than half from its peak. The price of that index, in the same period, has risen 137%. Can you spot when the index ‘price’ disconnected from economic reality?

No seasonal adjustments; no surveys; no bullshit… Just Jobs -50% from peak… great for stocks

 

 

Be careful what you wish for Mrs Yellen…

Of course, we are sure the chart will be dismissed as meaningless for some “demographic” or “cyclical” reason and we should not worry, just BTFATH, of course.

 

Chart: Bloomberg

h/t Guenter Leitold


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/7_6kgzeztmY/story01.htm Tyler Durden

El-Erian Blasts America's Partisan Peril

Authored by Mohamed El-Erian, originally posted at Project Syndicate,

The United States’ reputation for sound economic policymaking took a beating in 2013. Some of this was warranted; some of it was not. And now a related distorted narrative – one that in 2014 could needlessly undermine policies that are key to improving America’s economic recovery – is gaining traction.

The 2008 global financial crisis left the US economy mired in a low-level equilibrium, characterized by sluggish job creation, persistently high long-term and youth unemployment, and growing inequalities of income, wealth, and opportunity. Many Americans started 2013 with high hopes that congressional leaders would overcome, even if only partly, the polarization and political dysfunction that had slowed recovery.

Expectations of less political turbulence were enhanced at the start of 2013 by a bipartisan agreement that avoided the so-called fiscal cliff (though at the last minute and with much rancor) and a deal reached later in January to raise the debt ceiling (albeit temporarily). With expectations of less political brinkmanship and lower policy uncertainty ahead, consensus projections foresaw faster, more inclusive economic growth.

In turn, faster growth was expected to revitalize the labor market, counteract worsening income inequality, mollify concerns about debt and deficit levels, and enable the Federal Reserve to start normalizing monetary policy in an orderly fashion. It would also facilitate a return by Congress to more normal economic governance – whether passing an annual budget, something not accomplished in four years, or finally taking steps to enhance rather than impede growth and job creation.

But optimism foundered over the course of 2013, and frustration soared.

Growth has again fallen short of expectations. With another year of uneven job creation, the problems associated with long-term and youth unemployment have become more deeply embedded in the economy’s structure. Inequalities remain too high, and continue to grow. Congressional paralysis has reached levels unparalleled in recent history. And, again, lawmakers have not enacted an annual budget.

This is not to say that there has been no economic or financial progress in 2013. After all, economic growth, while unnecessarily held below potential by Congress (and vulnerable to decline if Congress is not careful), has again outpaced that of Europe. The budget deficit has fallen markedly, while companies and households, too, have continued to strengthen their balance sheets. Many segments of the equities market have bounced back strongly, with price indexes hitting record highs. And Americans are on the verge of obtaining much better access to health care.

What is frustrating is that the country could have – and should have – done a lot better. Recognizing this, Americans are not hesitant to blame a Congress that seems more eager to manufacture problems than to enable the economy to reach its considerable potential.

Rather than building on some of the fledgling bipartisanship from earlier in the year, Congress decided to produce a mid-year government-financing drama. Even immigration reform – a bipartisan pro-growth issue with considerable support from much of American society – has languished unnecessarily. More broadly, Congress took no significant action to avoid headwinds that impose a drag on growth and discourage companies and individuals from investing in their future.

According to a survey based on data from the Office of the Clerk of the US House of Representatives, the current 113th Congress has delivered the lowest legislative activity “since at least 1947, when the data collection began.” And Americans know it. According to Gallop, the 9% approval rating for Congress is the lowest level in the survey’s 39-year history.

Partisan polarization in Congress has also undermined the executive branch, unduly blocking government appointments – including routine and essentially uncontroversial ones – and placing unwarranted obstacles in the way of implementing even the most sensible and seemingly bipartisan legislative proposals. The resulting sense of political drift and dysfunction has been exacerbated by the poor rollout of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) – a massive, avoidable distraction that has been allowed to cast doubt on this landmark initiative.

Yes, 2013 was not a good year for public-sector decision-making, especially given that most of the slippages were “own goals.” In the process, the US damaged the reputation for effective economic management that it had earned during the global financial crisis, when bold and timely measures prevented a period of reckless private risk-taking and financial leverage from ending in Great Depression II. The Congress-imposed government shutdown and near-default in October were particularly harmful to the country’s global standing.

As a result, the popular narrative is shifting to the danger of “government failure.” More and more Americans are being led to forget how, just a few years ago, a united US government reacted decisively to “market failures” and thus helped to avoid a global economic meltdown that would have devastated millions of lives and undermined future generations’ prospects. Now, as the pendulum swings back, it risks overshooting the optimal combination of private and public activity and ending up at a simplistic view of government as the problem and the private sector as the solution. If this occurs, the outlook for faster, more inclusive growth would be weakened further.

Government has a long pro-growth to-do list heading into 2014. The top priorities include modernizing the country’s transport and energy infrastructure, reforming an underperforming education system, improving the labor market, bringing order to an overly-fragmented fiscal structure, enhancing the provision of public goods, and safeguarding America’s interests abroad.

It is tempting for politicians and analysts to overplay simple narratives that place the blame entirely on one side or the other. The truth is more nuanced and complex. America is in desperate need of a Congress that encourages, rather than impedes, better partnerships between the public and private sectors. Constantly pitting one side against the other may make for entertaining roundtables on cable television and energizing political rallies. But it comes at the cost of undermining an economy that could – and therefore should – be performing much better.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/VikFfaIa1Sc/story01.htm Tyler Durden