Buffers and Filibusters
by Sinclair Noe
DOW – 21 = 16,846
SPX – 2 = 1957
NAS – 0.71 = 4379
10 YR YLD - .03 = 2.52%
OIL - .80 = 105.70
GOLD - .70 = 1317.90
SILV + .10 = 21.22
SPX – 2 = 1957
NAS – 0.71 = 4379
10 YR YLD - .03 = 2.52%
OIL - .80 = 105.70
GOLD - .70 = 1317.90
SILV + .10 = 21.22
Yesterday, the Commerce Department downgraded the first
quarter gross domestic product to a negative 2.9%, meaning the economy shrank
by 2.9%. Today, St. Louis Federal Reserve president James Bullard says it’s
likely an aberration; the weak report for the first quarter was likely
distorted by inventories, weather, and by the challenges of accounting for
health-care spending under the new law. Bullard says he isn’t worried, “the
market’s right to shake this off. Looking forward over the next four quarter,
most forecasters have 3% growth.”
Well, that’s good. No worries. Nothing to see hear, move
along, move along.
It’s just that the fall was so nasty, it’s hard not to
look and linger over the carnage. It really was ugly. And while we can blame it
on the weather, that doesn’t seem right. We always have weather. Minneapolis is
underwater today. Bad weather is a fairly constant aberration. We should be
past the point of excuses; we are 5 years into a recovery; granted it has been a
stealth recovery.
I wonder if Mr. Bullard is confusing the stock market
with the economy. A down day in the bull market would just be a blip on the
tape, but the stock market is not the economy. And the economy is not bouncing
back, which would be the expected move after a seasonal aberration. Most
importantly, we haven’t seen a surge in hiring. It looks more like we’ve gone
through a very long period where everybody who was going to be fired was fired,
and companies are running as lean as they can. So, the jobless claims have
leveled off, but there’s a big difference between no more fat to cut and an
economy that produces lots of well-paying jobs.
If you want new jobs, and the consumer spending that
flows from new jobs, you look for new businesses, and you can just keep
looking. The creation rate of new businesses, as well as new plants built by
existing firms, was about 30% lower in 2011 (the most recent year of data)
compared with the annual average rate for the 1980s. The decline affected
nearly all business sectors. The fact that the economy has been weak since 2007
suggests that new business activity has also declined in existing companies.
New businesses are critical for economic growth because a
small fraction of today's startups will become tomorrow's economic
heavyweights. Most of today's workers are employed at older, established
businesses, but the country cannot rely on existing companies to boost the
economy.
Businesses have a life cycle, in which even the largest
and most successful reach a stage at which they stop expanding. Also, most of
today’s workers are working at smaller businesses, companies with less than 100
employees, and we just aren’t making enough of these smaller businesses.
The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy has been a boon for
Wall Street, so we’ve seen record highs even as the economy contracts. The Fed
policy was to elevate asset prices in the hope it would trickle down to the
rest of the economy; the trickle down part has been a terrible failure but the
higher prices have been nifty for a small group of financial companies and some
of the largest corporations. The problem is that it is hard to maintain
corporate profits in a recession. Also, it’s hard to have sustainable growth
from big corporations; they’re like trees; once they reach a certain height,
they stop growing. Look back to the Fortune 500 list from 1995; less than half
the firms on that list are still on the list today.
And businesses aren’t investing for the future. A major
factor in the first quarter contraction was lower gross private domestic
investment; a smaller increase in inventories accounted for most of that, but we
also saw a drop in investment in non-residential structures, investment in
equipment, investment in information processing equipment; countered by a
slight increase in investment in intellectual property; that’s tricky to
measure because it could be money spent on research and development or it might
be money spent on movies. Lower investment accounted for about 2% of the 2.9%
drop.
For the last few decades, every boom has depended on
housing; same strategy today. The problem is that boomers will not start
upgrading now in their 60s. And the young ones expected to pick up the baton
are full of debt. And the housing numbers seem to back it up. We did see a big
jump in new home sales for May, but that was mainly confined to the South,
meanwhile existing home sales barely inched forward, and it appears the big run
in home sales has happened and now we’re leveling out. Any boost from housing
has already hit.
And this is the recurring theme of the recovery, it’s
just around the corner.
No, not that corner, the next corner.
The Supreme Court is still dishing out decisions; two
more today, but not the big one on Hobby Lobby; that will probably come on
Monday. Today we heard about buffer zones and recess appointments.
The Supreme Court ruled on McCullen v.
Coakley, striking down a Massachusetts law requiring protesters to stay at
least 35 feet from an abortion clinic's entrance and walkways. In a unanimous
opinion, the court held that such buffer zones violate First Amendment free
speech rights.
Only three other states, Colorado, Montana and New
Hampshire, have buffer zone laws on the books, but the Massachusetts zone was
the largest. The Massachusetts law was passed after 2 clinic workers were shot
and killed by a gunman outside a clinic in 1994. In 2000, the Supreme Court
upheld Colorado's 8-foot "floating" buffer zones around individuals
as they walk into and exit an abortion clinic.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.
"It is no accident that public streets and sidewalks have developed as
venues for the exchange of ideas." Roberts said: “Even today, they remain
one of the few places where a speaker can be confident that he is not simply
preaching to the choir. With respect to other means of communication, an individual
confronted with an uncomfortable message can always turn the page, change the
channel, or leave the Web site."
The court was silent on the free speech rights of
protesters confined to “free speech pens” around political conventions, and
buffer zones around churches, and funeral services, and for that matter, the
buffer around the Supreme Court building in Washington DC.
Also today, the Supremes ruled unanimously in NLRB v Noel
Canning that President Obama had violated the Constitution in 2012 by
appointing officials to the National Labor Relations Board during a short break
in the Senate’s work when the chamber was convening every three days in short
pro forma sessions when no business was conducted. Those breaks were too short,
Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in a majority opinion joined by the court’s
four more liberal members.
A ruling could cast a cloud over the appointment of
Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Justice
Breyer added that recess appointments remain permissible so long as they are
made during a break of 10 or more days. But many experts say that if either
house of Congress is controlled by the party opposed to the president,
lawmakers can effectively block such appointments by requiring pro forma
sessions every three days. Each house must get the approval of the other
chamber for recesses of more than three days. Somebody shows up, claims the
Senate is in session, and they hold a fake session and that’s that.
The decision affirmed a broad ruling last year from a
federal appeals court in Washington that had called into question the
constitutionality of many recess appointments by presidents of both parties. The
appeals court last year said that presidents may bypass the Senate only during
the recesses between formal sessions of Congress. Two of the three appellate judges
went further, saying that presidents may fill only vacancies that arose during
that same recess. The Constitution’s recess-appointments clause says, “The
president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the
recess of the Senate.”
And while today’s ruling is being hailed as a major blow
to executive power, in practical terms, today’s ruling no longer really
matters. That’s because the Senate majority has since eliminated the filibuster
on executive and judicial appointments that was the cause of this whole mess to
begin with.
After the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year
that the NLRB appointments were illegal, President Obama renominated appointees
to fill those slots and submitted them to the Senate. What happened? Senate
Republicans filibustered them forever, of course. Eventually, Senate majority
leader Harry Reid got fed up and triggered the “nuclear option”: a Senate rules
change that would require only 50 votes, instead of 60, to invoke cloture on
executive and judicial nominations. The NLRB nominees, and several others that
had been held up, made their way through.
Yesterday, the Supremes ruled that law enforcement can’t
search your smartphone without a warrant or a really, really good reason why
they don’t need a warrant. Of course,
police can search all sorts of things without a warrant, and the solicitor general
had argued that cell phones were not that different than briefcases or purses
that are regularly searched when you enter a federal building or an airport.
Chief Justice Roberts said: “Cellphones differ in both a
quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on
an arrestee’s person.” He went on at length to describe the differences, noting
that a cellphone can reveal more private information than the search of an
entire house. The phone contains “the sum of an individual’s private life” he
said; searching it without a warrant is constitutionally unreasonable. The
chief justice’s response to the government’s warning that a warrant requirement
would impede law enforcement was basically a shrug: “Privacy comes at a cost.”
What we learned is that Supreme Court justices now have
and use smart phones.
The best line yesterday came on the NBC Nightly News when
Brian Williams, followed the report by asking the reporter if this will have
any effect on the NSA’s ability to electronically dig into our cell phone
records without warrants.
That Brian Williams is a real comedian.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.