Donald Trump Is Totally Incoherent On Health Care Policy Because Policy Is Irrelevant to His Campaign

Donald Trump made it very clear last night that he does not support Obamacare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance. Asked whether he supports mandates on the American people, Trump jumped in, cutting off Fox New host Sean Hannity to say, “No, I don’t support them.”

Less than a week ago, however, Trump felt very differently. Asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about what would happen to the insurance market without the law’s health insurance requirement, Trump said, “Well I like the mandate.”

Last night’s response was a follow-up on an early flip-flop, tweeting last week that he would “repeal all of #Obamacare, including the mandate, period.”

The best way to understand this rapid change is not as a meaningful shift from one position to another. It’s better viewed as an admission that he has no coherent position at all, and that the underlying policy details are utterly irrelevant to him.

This is always the case when Trump talks about health care. Figuring out what his actual policy preferences are is essentially impossible, and if you try to take all of his statements together, in some sort of context, you end up with what Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner recently described as a mix of “incoherence and socialism.”

Trump has variously supported replacing Obamacare with a free-market system, covering everyone through a system paid for by the government, providing care to people using “the concepts of Medicare,” allowing the government to use its buying power to negotiate with drug companies, instituting an ill-defined competitive bidding process even though one already exists in Medicare, and—if you are inclined to be generous—vague support for allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines. (“We’re going to take the lines out of play.”) 

Even when he gestures towards a real policy idea, he does so in ways that suggest that not only does he not really understand the idea, he does not care to understand it. The details are irrelevant. If anything, displaying an understanding of the details might suggest that Trump had become too caught up in the compromises of governance that he claims he will be able to overcome as president. 

The most consistent refrain in Trump’s answers to health care is his declaration that “we’re not going to have people dying in the streets,” a line he sometimes repeats multiple times in a single response, as if America’s streets were strewn with dead corpses. The line, of course, is not responsive to questions about how, exactly, he would replace Obamacare, or to any meaningful aspect of national health care policy. At best, it is reference to ensuring that people who cannot pay still have access to emergency care. But Trump’s plan for what to do with people in such situations—”we’re going to get them into a hospital and take care of them”—ignores that since 1986 the United States has required hospitals to take people regardless of whether or not they can pay, via the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act. If he is proposing a policy, it is one that already exists.

But Trump is not really proposing policy, because for both him and his supporters, policy is utterly beside the point. Nothing that Trump says about health care or any other policy, from taxes to abortion to deportation, even when he seems to venture near to something resembling a policy idea, should be taken seriously as a policy proposal. Instead his words should be understood as expressive statements meant to reflect some broad sentiment that plays well with his supporters rather than descriptions of actual plans he intends to put in place.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Tx266H
via IFTTT

“Mind The Gap” BofAML Warns The S&P Is At Crucial Support

"To double bottom or not to double bottom" asks BofAML's Stephen Suttmeier…

S&P 500 closes in on the big 1950 level

The S&P 500 gapped up once again and is knocking on the door of key resistance at 1947-1950 with the falling 50-day moving average near 1951. There are plenty of similarities between now and early-to-mid October, which was when the S&P 500 rallied sharply and broke out from a double bottom off the late-August and late-September 2015 lows on the move above 2020. The key level now is 1950 and a decisive push above 1950 is required for another double bottom in the S&P 500.

Mind the S&P 500 gap; below would suggest exhaustion

The S&P 500 has gapped up three times in the last five sessions. Continue to mind the upside price gaps, as they are nearby supports. Yesterday’s gap offers initial support at 1924-1918 and it would take a break below this gap to suggest upside exhaustion. The next gap supports come in at 1899-1895, which held on Friday, and 1871-1864. 

And we are testing that gap now…

 

But this double bottom does not project the SPX to new highs

Unlike the double bottom off the late-August and late-September 2015 lows, a double bottom off the January and February 2016 lows would not project the S&P 500 to new highs.

 

As highlighted above, a decisive move above 1950 would put in a double bottom off the 1812-1810 lows and favor a continued rally. The first resistance is 1990-2025 with the falling 100 and 200-day MAs near 2000 and 2029, respectively. The double bottom would count up to 2085, which falls well shy of the 2135 high from last May. The double bottom from October projected to 2175, but the S&P 500 stalled well below that upside count, which was a bearish sign. The risk is that a double bottom breakout above 1950 could set up another lower high within the downtrend from last May and suggest another rally to sell.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1QYsfXh Tyler Durden

London Whale Blasts JPMorgan Management: “For No Good Reason I Was Singled Out”

Usually, when TBTFs get caught doing something either illegal or just plain stupid, no actual humans are penalized.

What typically happens is there’s a yearslong investigation during which the handful of regulators and politicians whose palms weren’t thoroughly greased demand that the regulators and politicians whose pockets were properly lined do something to show the public that the government isn’t entirely beholden to the cabal of bankers that effectively run the world.

Later, the banks and the government negotiate a fine that is effectively just a tax Wall Street has to pay in order for government to acquiesce to a business model that far too often amounts to outright fraud and rampant financial chicanery.

But every so often, a head has to roll, and with the exception of Erin Callan at Lehman ca. 2008 and a few other examples it’s almost never a high profile executive.

Instead, it’s people like Tom Hayes, who is now sitting in HM Prison Wandsworth, which Bloomberg described last year as “a Victorian fortress south of the Thames known for its poor conditions and violent residents” for his alleged role as the “ringleader” of a LIBOR manipulation cartel.

Or people like Bruno Iksil, who will forever live in infamy as the trader who leaned so heavily on IG9 that he created market distortions large enough for hedge funds to identify and pick off and whose trades ultimately cost JPMorgan some $6 billion.

Iksil “earned” a number of amusing nicknames, the most famous of which was of course “The London Whale” (there was also “Voldemort”).

We have always said Iksil was merely a scapegoat for JPMorgan which was hardly willing to admit that what amounts to its UK-based hedge fund (CIO) somehow managed to turn a tail hedge into a multi-billion dollar debacle. Instead, the bank would claim that a “rogue” trader was responsible and that rogue trader would be Iksil.

Now, after the FCA dropped its case against him, Iksil has penned a three page letter explaining that he was in fact the fall guy for a flawed strategy that was “initiated, approved, mandated and monitored by senior management,” he writes.

“Publicity surrounding the losses sustained by the CIO of JPMorgan typically refers to ‘the London Whale’ in terms that imply that one person was responsible for the trades at issue,” he says. “In fact the losses suffered by the CIO were not the actions of one person acting in an unauthorized manner. My role was to execute a trading strategy that had been initiated, approved, mandated and monitored by the CIO’s senior management.”

I kept raising alarms in the first half of March 2012 but was ordered to keep executing the strategy despite my repeated warnings,” he continues, noting that in 2011, he traveled to New York and “described the very difficult market conditions, the elevated execution costs and lack of proper relevant information on the RWA figures.”

“Iksil’s 3 1/2-page letter breaks his longstanding public silence following the episode, which culminated in government probes, more than $900 million in regulatory sanctions against the bank and a 50 percent pay cut for Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon for one year,” Bloomberg notes. “In his letter, Iksil said the [US] government’s decision not to prosecute him helps show he’s not to blame.”

And so, the Whale has “surfaced” so to speak, and confirmed what everyone already knew: at the very least, Ina Drew knowingly presided over a trading strategy she and others knew was likely to get the bank into trouble and it would certainly appear that Iksil might have told the top brass in New York as well. Of course we’re a bit incredulous about Iksil’s contention that he resented his nickname. After all, this is a guy whose Bloomberg profile once said he enjoyed “walking over water.”

Amusingly, Iksil also says he sent a letter to the bank last month “to complain about the way it terminated me, the way the media conveyed so many erroneous descriptions about my role, about my conduct and the real context of this scandal.”

We’re sure an apology from Jamie Dimon is forthcoming.

*  *  *


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1L9agRl Tyler Durden

Stocks, Bond Yields Plunge As Oil Gives Up Gains

Bond yields have plunged, stock gains have been erased, and VIX is on the rise again as Al-Naimi dashes the hopes once again that Oil has found a bottom…

Oil is tumbling…

 

And that means US equities are falling…

 

And the earlier Treasury panic-selling has been entirely erased…


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/24nonZA Tyler Durden

Financial Time Bombs Hiding In Plain Sight

Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

The bear will soon be arriving in earnest, marauding through the canyons of Wall Street while red in tooth and claw. Our monetary central planners, of course, will once again – for the third time this century – be utterly shocked and unprepared. That’s because they have spent the better part of two decades deforming, distorting, denuding and destroying what were once serviceably free financial markets. Yet they remain as clueless as ever about the financial time bombs this inexorably fosters.

The sum and substance of Keynesian central banking is the falsification of financial prices. In essence, this means pegging interest rates below market clearing levels on the theory that more borrowing and spending will thereby ensue.

To this traditional credit channel of monetary policy transmission has been added in recent years the notion of an FX channel, which works through currency depreciation and export stimulus; and the wealth effects channel, which seeks to levitate the paper wealth of the top 10% of households so that they will feel emboldened to spend more at luxury retail emporiums, BMW showrooms and upscale vacation spots.

Needless to say, currency trashing might work for a tiny export economy like New Zealand. But on a global scale among the big national economies, it’s just a recipe for a race to the bottom. Ultimately it leads to nothing more than the inflation of imported commodities and goods and the reallocation of income and wealth from domestic industries and households to exporters and their shareholders.  Japan proves that in spades.

With respect to the false FX channel, even Black Rock’s chief big thinker, Peter Fisher, hit the nail on the head last week on Bloomberg:

“But let’s be clear, negative rates for the FX rate is about a race to the bottom of competitive devaluation,” he asserted. “The International Monetary Fund was established to try to prevent us from doing that again, what we did in the 1920s and ’30s that were such a disaster.”

It is a measure of the political euthanasia induced into American politics by 20 years of central bank dominance that the so-called wealth effects channel is even taken seriously. It amounts to a massive fiscal transfer and trickle-up to the most affluent 10% of US households who own 85% of financial assets.

Moreover, this odious reverse robin hood feat is effected by 12 unelected apparatchiks who sit on the FOMC. From their august perches, they perform live monetary experiments on the American public with no accountability whatsoever.

That these depredations are fostering a hideously unjust redistribution of wealth from main street to a tiny elite of money shufflers, gamblers and silicon valley bubble-riders is attested to by the rise of Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump, too. Besides stoking xenophobia and racial prejudice, The Donald is heading toward the GOP nomination because, ironically, he is self-funded and can loudly and honestly boast that he is not beholden to the Fat Cats who rule the country.

Besides the rank injustice, there is also the sheer stupidity of it. Implicit in the whole misbegotten wealth effects doctrine is the spurious presumption that the Wall Street gambling apparatus can be rented for a spell by the central bank. So doing, our monetary central planners believe themselves to be unleashing a virtuous circle of increased spending, income and output, and then more rounds of the same.

At length, according to these pettifoggers, production, income and profits catch-up with the levitated prices of financial assets. Accordingly, there are no bubbles; and, instead, societal wealth continues to rise happily ever after.

Not exactly. Central bank stimulated financial asset bubbles crash. Every time.

The Fed and other practitioners of wealth effects policy do not rent the gambling apparatus of the financial markets. They become hostage to it, and eventually become loathe to curtail it for fear of an open-ended hissy fit in the casino. Bernanke found that out in the spring of 2013, and Yellen three times now——in October 2014, August 2015 and January-February 2016.

But unlike the last two bubble cycles, where our monetary central planners did manage to ratchet the money market rate back up to the 6% and 5% range, by 2000 and 2007, respectively, this time an even more obtuse posse of Keynesian true believers rode the zero bound right to the end of capitalism’s natural recovery cycle.

Accordingly, the casinos are populated with financial time bombs like never before. Worse still, the central bankers are now so utterly lost and confused that they are all thronging toward the one thing that will ignite these time bombs in a fiery denouement.

That is, negative interest rates. This travesty reflects sheer irrational desperation among central bankers and their fellow travelers, and will soon illicit a fire storm of political revolt, currency hoarding and revulsion among even the gamblers inside the casino.

Besides that, they are crushing bank net interest margins, thereby imperiling the solvency of the very banking system that the central banks claim to have rescued and fixed.

We will treat with some of the time bombs set to explode in the sections below, but first it needs to be emphasized that the third bubble collapse of this century is imminent. That’s because both the global and domestic economy is cooling rapidly, meaning that recession is just around the corner.

Based on the common sense proposition that the nation’s 16 million employers send payroll tax withholding monies to the IRS based on actual labor hours utilized—-and without any regard for phantom jobs embedded in such BLS fantasies as birth/death adjustments and seasonal adjustments——my colleague Lee Adler reports that inflation-adjusted collections have dropped by 7-8% from prior year in the most recent four-week rolling average.

Federal Withholding Tax Trend - Click to enlarge

As Lee noted in his Wall Street Examiner:

The annual rate of change in withholding taxes for collections through Thursday, February 18, approached a level which signals not just recession but is within a couple of percent of indicating a full fledged economic depression. As of February 18, 2016, the annual rate of change was -5.6% in nominal terms versus the corresponding period a year ago. That’s down from -3.7% a week before, +0.6% a month before, +5.8% three months ago, and down from a peak of +8.7% in early February 2015…….Adjusted for the nominal growth rate of employee compensation, the implied annual real rate of change is now roughly –7.5 to -8% year over year.

So there will be carnage in the casino when it becomes evident that recession has again visited this fair land, but that the Fed is utterly out of dry powder. There is not a chance in the world that NIRP will work or even be permitted by what will be the suddenly awaked politicians of Washington.

Even Peter Fisher admitted that NIRP signals the end of the road for Keynesian central bankers:

Fisher believes that central bankers’ growing penchant for negative policy rates stems from a desire to avoid admitting that they’ve expended all of their monetary ammunition.

Yet what immense societal damage these fanatics have done charging mindlessly toward this dead end. In fact, our monetary central planners have become so self-deluded and drunk with power that they now dispense sheer nonsense with complete alacrity. Thus, the Fed’s actual printing press operator, Simon Potter of the New York Fed, relieved himself of the following tommyrot in a speech today at Columbia University:

The Fed used to use a scarcity of bank reserves to set monetary policy but has had to adopt new tools for raising rates with a balance sheet of $4.5 trillion.

 

“We have achieved excellent control over the effective federal funds rate, and we have done so while avoiding unintended effects on the financial system or financial stability,” Potter said.

Is this man kidding? There is no Federal funds market worthy of the name. The Fed’s massive bond purchasing program and the monumental excess reserves it generated obviated and destroyed the fed funds market long ago; and at a miniscule $45 billion, the residue of a market which trades virtually by appointment now amounts to just 0.3% of the footings of the US banking system.

Well, here are the Fed’s “new tools”. What they achieve is not a financial price or interest rate; what they produce is a purely counterfeit rate issuing from what amounts to a monetary circle jerk.

To wit, the Fed raised the cap on its domestic reverse repo bid from $300 billion to $2 trillion and set the yield at 25 basis points. On top of that, it has raised the foreign bank repo pool to $250 billion, where its now paying approximately 33 basis points. Finally, the interest rate it pays member banks with excess reserves (IOER) of approximately $2.5 trillion has been raised to 50 basis points.

Just call the combination of these three facilities the mother of all Big Fat Bids. And throw in the fact that the US treasury is now also flooding the market with T-bills. Under those conditions, how could it be otherwise than that money market rates, including federal funds, would settle in the FOMC’s 25-50 basis point target range?

So what? The Fed is operating a giant monetary sump pump for no rational purpose whatsoever, and it’s based on a pure financial fraud to boot.

On the former point, there is not a single rational business in America that would actually wish to fund its working capital or any other assets on an overnight tender. That’s why even floating rate revolvers have terms of a year or longer and contractual guarantees of availability if covenants are complied with.

The only beneficiaries of overnight money at 38 bps are Wall Street carry trade gamblers, and they would be just as grateful for an announced peg at 12 bps or 100 bps or even 250 bps. The only thing they really care about is short-run certainty about the cost of carrying their gambling chips—-something the Fed’s peg unfailingly provides. From the perspective of the main street economy, however, the whole federal funds targeting gambit is a thoroughly pointless farce.

So, yes, the Keynesian fools in the Eccles Building are mounting what amounts to a $6 trillion bid in order to peg with great precision a money market rate that is of absolutely no moment to the main street economy. That’s because the US household and business sectors are already at Peak Debt. Consequently, the old Keynesian credit channel of monetary policy transmission is over and done. The monetary central planners, therefore, are pushing on a credit string to no effect except to further drastically deform and destabilize a financial system that is already on the verge of implosion.

But what makes the world so dangerous is that they are doing it with a fraudulent Rube Goldberg Contraption that establishes beyond a shadow of doubt that the FOMC is lost in a monetary puzzle palace, and is capable of virtually any kind of desperate gambit. After all, just recall where this Big Fat Bid of $6 trillion equivalent comes from.

The $2 trillion overnight reverse repo facility essentially means that the Fed is hocking a part of its massive $4.5 trillion trove of treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities to borrow cash that it doesn’t need. And, yes, this repo collateral was previously purchased with fiat credits that it had conjured from thin air and deposited into the bank accounts of Wall Street dealers who sold these securities to the Fed’s Open Markets desk via QE.

Then again, the banking system in aggregate didn’t have an immediate need for the new reserves injected via QE so they accumulated at the New York Fed, rising from a level just $40 billion in August 2008 to $2.5 trillion at present. Now, stacked as they are in towering digital piles at 33 Liberty Street, the second component of the Feds “new tools” keeps these previously inconceivable quantities of excess reserves happily sequestered. That is, they are bribed to stay put by 50 bps of IOER payments.

There shouldn’t be any confusion here. The Fed is gratuitously subsidizing its member banks to the tune of $13 billion annually for no rational purpose whatsoever except to keep these funds from leaking into the money market and quashing its pointless fed funds target.

And the same goes for the 33 bps being earned by offshore banks which have deposited $250 billion of excess cash in the NY Fed’s foreign repo pool. Surely Deutsche Bank, Barclays, BNP Paribas and the assorted other dinosaurs of European socialism are grateful for a better return on their idle cash than the negative yield on offer from their own NIRPing central bank in Frankfurt.

Yet does this goofball Simon Potter really think that this rank outrage is a measure of the Fed’s “excellent control” over its money market targets?

And that ain’t the half of it. All the bribes being paid through these three different channels in order to peg a completely pointless target for the non-existent fed funds market reduces the Feds annual “profit”.  And if the notion of profit, which lies at the very heartbeat of capitalism, ever needed to be qualified in quotation marks, this is the case.

The Fed earns revenue of approximately $120 billion per year from the $4.5 trillion trove of assets that it paid for with fictional credit rather than the proceeds of work, production and real economic value added. From that intake, it consumes $5-6 billion on its 22,000 staffers and army of contractors and consultants, many of whom otherwise pretend to teach “economics” in the nation’s colleges and universities. It now also spends upwards of $15 billion or so to pay the IOER and interest on its reverse repo borrowings and foreign bank depositors, resulting in net “profits” of about $100 billion.

This abortion of the very concept of profit is then recycled back to the US treasury as a giant bribe to keep the politicians at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue pacified and out of its hair. Worse still, the Fed’s remanded profits are booked as an offset to the interest cost on the nation’s staggering $19 trillion of public debt, thereby enabling the politicians to believe there is a fiscal free lunch after all.

Unfortunately, all of this fraudulent monetary shuffling has a terrible consequence in the financial casinos here and aboard. It drives interest rates to sub-economic levels and triggers a massive hunt for yield among the world’s money managers and home gamers alike.

Today Bloomberg published a telling study of the baleful consequence this central bank fostered hunt for yield has had on the world’s energy and mining industries. To wit, it has enabled companies in what are highly cyclical, risky and volatile commodity industries to borrow heretofore inconceivable amounts of money, and plow it into massive malinvestments and excess capacity. As Bloomberg explained it…

The 5,000 biggest publicly traded companies tracked by Bloomberg in the iron and steel, metals and mining, and energy sectors have a combined $3.6 trillion in debt, according to their most recent financial reports, or double what they had at the end of 2008.

 

Five years ago, those companies tracked by Bloomberg had more operating income than debt, on average. Now, it would take them more than eight years’ worth of current earnings, without provisioning for interest, taxes, depreciation or amortization, to clear their combined net obligations.

The bottom line is simple. The great wave of commodity and industrial deflation now sweeping through the world economy is the bastard offspring of the debt binge that was enabled by the central banks over the last two decades. Yet they now pretend that this massive headwind to growth originated in some exogenous force that must be counted with even more of the same monetary intrusion.

That’s how we get to the crime of NIRP. Keynesian central banks cannot imagine a problem for which more debt is not the solution. But is it not lack of “aggregate demand” which is idling an increasing share of the world’s oilfield drilling equipment; nor did it cause Caterpillar’s heavy mining machinery sales to plunge or the Baltic Dry index to plummet to 30-year lows.

What is driving output, wages and profits drastically southward throughout the materials and energy complex is drastically sinking profits and a desperate need to conserve cash flow in order to survive. The CapEx budget of global mining giant BHP is a proxy for what is becoming a global CapEx depression in the world’s industrial economy.

To wit, at the peak of the global credit boom and China/EM growth frenzy a few years ago, BHP’s capital budget was about $23 billion. This year, by contrast, it is expected to come in at just $7 billion and plunge further to only $5 billion in 2017.

Needless to say, it does not take much imagination to envision how a 78% cut in capital spending by a giant user of heavy machinery and engineered infrastructure like rail lines and port facilities will cascade down the supply chain. And since the top executives who ran these operations right over the credit bubble cliff are being fired right and left, another thing is quite certain.

That is, there are no takers for incremental debt at any price, NIRP or otherwise, in the global mining and energy industries. Epic damage has already been down, and the overhang of excess capacity and malinvestment will linger for years to come. Even then, hundreds of billions of the debt which funded this massive and mindless investment spree will be restructured or written off entirely, as is already emerging in the US shale patch.

These kinds of financial time bombs are lurking everywhere in the global economy – even if the central bankers don’t see them coming. In Part 2, we will consider the Unicorn Bubble in Silicon Valley and the tech sector, and then the ultimate detonator of the next crash – the $3 trillion ETF bubble.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Q98gp5 Tyler Durden

Oil Erases Yesterday’s Gains As Al-Naimi Warns Producers “Cut Costs Or Liquidate” – Live Feed

It appears oil traders are disappointed with Al-Naimi’s comments. Suggesting hopefully (for some) that the ‘freeze’ is the start of a process, al-Naimi then dropped the tape-bomb:

  • *SAUDI ARABIA WON’T CUT OIL PRODUCTION: NAIMI
  • *HIGH-COST PRODUCERS MUST LOWER COSTS OR LIQUIDATE: NAIMI

He then added that “not all the countries will freeze; The ones that count will freeze.” WTI Crude (April) front-month futures have erasd yesterday’s gains.

 

Live Fed here (click image for link)

 

Additional headlines:

  • *OIL FREEZE IS BEGINNING OF PROCESS: SAUDI MINISTER NAIMI
  • *MOST COUNTRIES THAT COUNT WILL FREEZE OIL OUTPUT: NAIMI
  • *HIGH-COST OIL PRODUCERS FACE `INEVITABLE’ RECKONING: NAIMI
  • *OIL PRICE ROSE TOO HIGH LEADING TO SUPPLY INCREASE: NAIMI
  • *OIL MARKET WON’T SEE REPEAT OF EVENTS OF 1986: NAIMI
  • *OIL MKT WILL REBALANCE, DEMAND WILL PICK UP: SAUDI MINISTER
  • *SAUDI ARAMCO HASN’T CUT A SINGLE PROGRAM AMID SLUMP: NAIMI

And then added this…

  • *SAUDI ARABIA HASN’T DECLARED WAR ON SHALE OIL: NAIMI
  • *SAUDI ARABIA STILL HAS MORE ECONOMIC OIL RESOURCES THAN SHALE

Sure sounds like war?


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Q98goR Tyler Durden

Rep. Justin Amash Attempts to Rally Libertarian Conservatives to Sen. Ted Cruz

Justin AmashRep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) has consistently been in Sen. Rand Paul’s corner both in Congress and during the senator’s run for president. Now that Paul’s out of the running, who does Amash think libertarian conservatives should look to in the race?

Amash answered that question today in an opinion piece at the Independent Journal. He is throwing his support to Sen. Ted Cruz, noting that while he doesn’t agree with Cruz (especially in civil liberties and foreign policy), the senator treats limits in government authority more seriously than some other candidates. Here’s some of his reasoning:

Take, for instance, Ted’s opposition to cronyism and corporate welfare. Unlike his competitors, Ted understands that when we allow the government to pick winners and losers, the American people lose. He isn’t afraid to challenge the rampant corruption in Washington, and he isn’t afraid to champion economic freedom. Ted won the Iowa caucuses with a principled stand against subsidies, even though pundits warned that no one could win the state without pandering to the ethanol lobby.

On civil liberties and foreign policy, Ted and I don’t always agree. But he was one of only ten Republican senators to stand up for our rights by supporting Rand Paul’s amendment to kill the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015—also known as CISA—a cyberspying bill that violates the privacy of all Americans. And Ted has been a stalwart defender of our Fifth Amendment right to due process, strongly opposing the government’s asserted power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or trial.

Like me, Ted believes that the United States must be well defended and respected around the globe. He stands with our troops and will not put them in harm’s way unless necessary to protect our country. Unlike some other Republican candidates, Ted opposed intervening in Libya and voted against arming Syrian rebels, and he will not use our Armed Forces to engage in nation building.

But will other libertarians come along? The problem may be that Cruz appears to be compromising some of the more libertarian-leaning elements of his platform in order to try to dig into Donald Trump’s populist authoritarian appeal. Just in the past 30 days Cruz appears to have backtracked and turned against much-needed federal sentencing reform to reduce mandatory minimums, said Apple needed to comply with the FBI’s demand that they provide access to San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook’s iPhone, despite the potential privacy repercussions for the rest of us, and just last night declared that he, like Trump, would attempt to deport 12 million illegal aliens, an utterly impossible (and unpopular) goal. And let’s not forget he recently called Edward Snowden a “traitor.”

Cruz has been clearly making a play for libertarian conservatives like Amash, and Amash does make some good points about where Cruz has historically been good on issues of liberty. But even though Cruz has occasionally been an ally of Paul’s in the Senate, Paul himself has declined to endorse him (or anybody else) after dropping out of the race.

Read Amash’s full endorsement here. And check out Reason magazine’s April issue, hitting the stands now, for Matt Welch’s lengthy interview with the congressman. If you’re a digital subscriber, you can read it right now, in fact. If you’re not, it’s only $15 a year ($10 if you’re a magazine subscriber) and you can get such insights as this from Amash:

reason: You’ve been standing athwart attempts to extend the surveillance state and yelling stop. Tell us a little bit what the hell happened at the end of December.

Amash: What happened was they put together a gigantic bill and decided at the last moment to sneak in a surveillance bill. It’s a surveillance bill that they’ve always presented under the guise of being a cybersecurity bill, but if you talk to experts in this field, they say this isn’t going to help cybersecurity. It’s primarily going to advance government surveillance of Americans. Under the new cyber bill, basically anything you share with a private company can be shared with the government without any liability to the company. So the company could put out a user agreement saying they’re not going to share your information and then go share it with the government, and they’re totally immune from liability.

There are people who will tell you false things about how it’s not anything other than zeros and ones and that kind of data. That’s not true. Under the bill, you can share whole email messages with the government. You can share metadata. You can share text messages. The good-faith standard is so low that they can share it as long as they don’t know that it contains personally identifiable information—and the only way you’d know is if you actually looked at everything. So as long as they dump things they don’t know, they’re good to go.

Sneaking it in at the last minute represents everything that’s wrong with Washington. It was over 100 pages long in a 2,000-page bill, and most of my colleagues didn’t even know it was in there. I worked hard to spread the message. Maybe some significant portion figured it out before they voted, but certainly at the beginning most of them had no clue.

To give you an example of how people are left out of the loop, I asked the chairman of Homeland Security whether the cyber bill was going to be included in the omnibus. And he didn’t know.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/21o38UZ
via IFTTT

Joe Biden in 1992: No SCOTUS Nominations ‘Until After the November Election Is Completed’

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has ignited a political firestorm over the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. Within hours of Scalia’s demise, President Barack Obama took to the airwaves, vowing “to nominate a successor in due time.” The GOP-controlled Senate, Obama insisted, must then “fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”

Does the Senate actually have any such responsibility? Not according to a 1992 speech by then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.), who maintained that the president should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.” In Biden’s view, if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs “once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.” According to Biden, if a president “presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever—until after the political season is over.” Take a wild guess about what political party happened to control the White House when Sen. Biden made those remarks.

Not surprisingly, Biden is now scrambling to disown his previous statements and undo the damage he has done to the Obama administration’s case in the current SCOTUS showdown. To make matters worse for the Obama White House, Biden is not the only prominent Democrat whose tune has changed. In 2006 a virtual who’s who of leading Senate Democrats, including Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and even Barack Obama himself, all voted to filibuster Republican Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito in a failed attempt to delay and derail Alito’s confirmation. Not exactly a shining example of what Obama now refers to as a “fair hearing and a timely vote.”

To be sure, the Republican Party also has some consistency problems of its own in this area. “The Senate has a Constitutional obligation to vote up or down on a President’s judicial nominees,” declared President George W. Bush in 2004 (a position now mirrored by President Obama). Bush’s statement came in response to the successful Democratic filibuster of some 20 of his judicial nominees, including individuals whose names were first submitted by Bush to the Senate back in 2001.

Constitutionally speaking, President Bush and President Obama are both wrong. Yes, the Constitution says the president “shall nominate…judges of the Supreme Court.” And yes, Obama has every right—and every reason—to try and replace Scalia with a justice of his own choosing. But any such nomination is contingent on the “advice and consent” of the Senate. And whether the president likes it or not, the Senate is no mere rubber stamp. If a majority of Senators possess the political will to block, delay, or reject the president’s Supreme Court nominee, then those Senators have the constitutional right to do so.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1oF8fCz
via IFTTT

NAR Warns Of Overheating Home Prices As Existing Home Sales See Biggest Annual Jump Since 2013

While it may not be quite the Vancouver-type feeding frenzy for Chinese money launderers, the US existing home sales market (at least until its inevitable downward revision courtesy of the permabullish NAR) continued to chug higher in January, when the number of existing homes sold rose to a 5.47MM annual rate, up 0.4% from the 5.45MM in December, and the strongest pace since the 5.48MM sold last July, beating expectations of a -2.5% drop; in fact the print was higher than the top estimate in the range. This follows the torrid December surge when existing homes sales soared 12.1%.

On a year over year basis, sales rose 11.0% – the largest year-over-year gain since July 2013 (16.3 percent).

Suggesting that the majority of buyers are anyone but ordinary middle class Americans was the the jump in the median existing-home price which in January was $213,800, up 8.2% from January 2015 when it was $197,600. Last month’s price increase was the largest since April 2015 (8.5%) and marks the 47th consecutive month of year-over-year gains. With the pace of appreciation rising at more than 4 times the average US wage growth, one wonders at what point will ordinary Americans be able to afford housing in their native country.

NAR’s Larry Yun was as always on hand to provide his cheerful spin:

“Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, says existing sales kicked off 2016 on solid footing, rising slightly to the strongest pace since July 2015 (5.48 million). “The housing market has shown promising resilience in recent months, but home prices are still rising too fast because of ongoing supply constraints,” he said. “Despite the global economic slowdown, the housing sector continues to recover and will likely help the U.S. economy avoid a recession.”

That remains to be seen, however, especially since it is a function of how porous Chinese capital controls remain considering that a large number of existing home sales, especially on the high end is driven by Chinese buyers seeking to park hot money in US real estate.

Total housing inventory at the end of January increased 3.4% to 1.82 million existing homes available for sale, but is still 2.2% lower than a year ago (1.86 million). Unsold inventory is at a 4.0-month supply at the current sales pace, up slightly from 3.9 months in December 2015.

Curiously, even Yun is starting to get worried about the bubbly nature of the existing housing market:

“The spring buying season is right around the corner and current supply levels aren’t even close to what’s needed to accommodate the subsequent growth in housing demand,” says Yun. “Home prices ascending near or above double-digit appreciation aren’t healthy – especially considering the fact that household income and wages are barely rising.” 

Some more statistics:

  • The share of first-time buyers remained at 32 percent in January for the second consecutive month and is up from 28 percent a year ago.
  • First-time buyers in all of 2015 represented an average of 30 percent, up from 29 percent in both 2014 and 2013.
  • All-cash sales were 26 percent of transactions in January (24 percent in December 2015) and are down from 27 percent a year ago.
  • Individual investors, who account for many cash sales, purchased 17 percent of homes in January (15 percent in December 2015), matching the highest share since last January. Sixty-seven percent of investors paid cash in January.
  • Properties typically stayed on the market for 64 days in January, an increase from 58 days in December but below the 69 days in January 2015.
  • Short sales were on the market the longest at a median of 77 days in January, while foreclosures sold in 57 days and non-distressed homes took 61 days.
  • Thirty-two percent of homes sold in January were on the market for less than a month.
  • Distressed sales – foreclosures and short sales – rose slightly to 9 percent in January, up from 8 percent in December but down from 11 percent a year ago.
  • Seven percent of January sales were foreclosures and 2 percent were short sales. Foreclosures sold for an average discount of 13 percent below market value in January (16 percent in December), while short sales were discounted 12 percent (15 percent in December).
  • Single-family home sales increased 1.0 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.86 million in January from 4.81 million in December, and are now 11.2 percent higher than the 4.37 million pace a year ago. The median existing single-family home price was $215,000 in January, up 8.3 percent from January 2015.

The regional breakdown:

  • January existing-home sales in the Northeast increased 2.7 percent to an annual rate of 760,000, and are now 20.6 percent above a year ago. The median price in the Northeast was $247,500, which is 0.9 percent above January 2015.
  • In the Midwest, existing-home sales rose 4.0 percent to an annual rate of 1.30 million in January, and are now 18.2 percent above January 2015. The median price in the Midwest was $164,300, up 8.7 percent from a year ago.
  • Existing-home sales in the South were at an annual rate of 2.24 million in January (unchanged from December) and are 5.7 percent above January 2015. The median price in the South was $184,800, up 8.5 percent from a year ago.
  • Existing-home sales in the West decreased 4.1 percent to an annual rate of 1.17 million in January, but are still 8.3 percent higher than a year ago. The median price in the West was $309,400, which is 7.4 percent above January 2015.

 


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1TD9PkL Tyler Durden

Richmond Fed Slides Back Into Contraction As New Orders Collapse

With the biggest drop in New Orders since September, Richmond Fed Manufacturing survey dropped to -4 (missing expectations of +2), hovering at its weakest in over 3 years. Across the board the components were weaker with order backlogs and shipments plunging, average workweek and wages dropping, and capacity utilization worst since October. Prices (paid and received) dropped notably as future expectations for wages, workweek, and employees all fell.

Richmond Fed hovers near 3-year lows

 

As Shipments (and New Orders) collapse…

 

An ugly picture across the board…

 

and future expectations were just as bad – especially for employment.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1TD9M8H Tyler Durden