Looting Social Security with the Old Bait & Switch Fraud

William Greider is a saint:

These players are promoting a tricky way to whack Social Security benefits, but to do it behind closed doors so the public cannot see what's happening or figure out which politicians to blame. The essential transaction would amount to misappropriating the trillions in Social Security taxes that workers have paid to finance their retirement benefits. This swindle is portrayed as "fiscal reform." In fact, it's the political equivalent of bait-and-switch fraud ... Will Obama take the bait? Surely not. The new president has been clear and consistent about Social Security, as a candidate and since his election. The program's financing is basically sound, he has explained, and can be assured far into the future by making only modest adjustments. But Obama is also playing footsie with the conservative advocates of "entitlement reform" (their euphemism for cutting benefits). The president wants the corporate establishment's support on many other important matters, and he recently promised to hold a "fiscal responsibility summit" to examine the long-term costs of entitlements. That forum could set the trap for a "bipartisan compromise" that may become difficult for Obama to resist, given the burgeoning deficit ... The Social Security fight could become a defining test for "new politics" in the Obama era. Will Americans at large step up and make themselves heard, not to attack Obama but to protect his presidency from the political forces aligned with Wall Street interests? This fight can be won if people everywhere raise a mighty din--hands off our Social Security money!--and do it now, before the deal gains momentum.

Yes, let’s insist that the President echo the call to keep those grubby hands off of our Social Security Trust Fund reserves. Greider reminds us of the 1983 payroll tax increases and the double role they have played in American politics ever since:

To understand the mechanics of this attempted swindle, you have to roll back twenty-five years, to the time the game of bait and switch began, under Ronald Reagan. The Gipper's great legislative victory in 1981--enacting massive tax cuts for corporations and upper-income ranks--launched the era of swollen federal budget deficits. But their economic impact was offset by the huge tax increase that Congress imposed on working people in 1983: the payroll tax rate supporting Social Security--the weekly FICA deduction--was raised substantially, supposedly to create a nest egg for when the baby boom generation reached retirement age. A blue-ribbon commission chaired by Alan Greenspan worked out the terms, then both parties signed on. Since there was no partisan fight, the press portrayed the massive tax increase as a noncontroversial "good government" reform. Ever since, working Americans have paid higher taxes on their labor wages--12.4 percent, split between employees and employers. As a result, the Social Security system has accumulated a vast surplus--now around $2.5 trillion and growing. This is the money pot the establishment wants to grab, claiming the government can no longer afford to keep the promise it made to workers twenty-five years ago. Actually, the government has already spent their money. Every year the Treasury has borrowed the surplus revenue collected by Social Security and spent the money on other purposes--whatever presidents and Congress decide, including more tax cuts for monied interests. The Social Security surplus thus makes the federal deficits seem smaller than they are--around $200 billion a year smaller. Each time the government dipped into the Social Security trust fund this way, it issued a legal obligation to pay back the money with interest whenever Social Security needed it to pay benefits.

Ah – the old fight about whether to talk about the “unified” deficit versus the “general fund” deficit. Just call me a general fund deficit type who thinks that this run-up in the total Federal debt to GDP ratio should later be reduced on tax increases on very high income groups and not backdoor employment tax increases disguised as reductions in Social Security benefits that exceed any promised reductions in payroll taxes in present value terms. Didn’t we already go through this nonsense four years ago?

Australia’s catastrophic Summer - Update

See previous story describing the background to the massive fire outbreaks in Southern Australia.

World media have focused a lot of attention on the enormity of the tragedy but have failed to mention that all levels of government in Australia have imposed the widescale spread of industrial tree plantations in the very areas most affected by these fires. The fires in Victoria actually began in a pine and eucalyptus monocultures near the township of Churchill.

Tasmania, however, is the state with the highest concentration of these massive fire liabilities. The issue of fire risk has been highlighted in Federal Senate inquiries and many other forums for well over a decade. Without success.

I am personally affected by this neoliberal industry and the related culpability of our so-called regulatory authorities. See 'Twelve years of pain'

There will be no resolution to, nor prevention of these tragedies until Australian governance is fixed at all levels.

Karl Rove Misrepresents CBO Estimate of the Fiscal Stimulus

Can’t the WSJ find someone other than Karl Rove to write op-eds on economics?

They also asked the Congressional Budget Office if the Democratic Senate bill was actually stimulative. The nonpartisan CBO found it would have a "negligible" impact on jobs by 2011 and hurt economic growth and prosperity over the next decade.

My most estimates, the bill that will finally be hammered out will be less stimulative than the original Senate bill. Brad DeLong has a nice summary of the short-term impacts as estimated by the CBO. Without the stimulus, CBO estimates that the GDP gap in 2011 will be 4.1% and the unemployment rate will be 7.5%. With this somewhat less stimulative bill, the estimated gap will be between 2.9% and 3.7% and the unemployment rate will be between 6.5% and 7.2% - all depending on whether one uses the low estimate of the effect of the plan versus the high estimate. That is not a negligible short-term impact.

Steve Benen has more on the political nonsense being peddled by Mr. Rove. As far as the long-run impact of the current fiscal stimulus - Tim Fernholz is on the right track especially as he notes that the rightwing pundits have been misrepresenting what the CBO is saying but didn’t we cover this one already?

Even the most ardent Keynesian would concede that long-term fiscal stimulus leads to long-term crowding-out. Only those pseudo-economists who were apologists for the Bush43 fiscal stimulus would try to deny this. In my view, the ideal fiscal stance would be short-term stimulus followed by long-term fiscal restraint once the economy approached full employment. This was the policy of the Clinton Administration as I understand it – it is what is being recommended to President Obama by his economic advisors.

Update: Ed Rollins joins in the criticism of this fiscal stimulus by suggesting that the President has not been exactly truthful. Why? Because Rollins thinks that the Federal government is too much in debt to be going for fiscal stimulus. Somehow – the stupidity of certain rightwingers have given them license to call the President a liar?

What Congress forgot to ask the bankers

Yesterday when the bankers were telling Congress how much they have been lending, I don't know of anyone who asked them how much of these loans in response to pre-existing lines of credit. One of the ways banks try to get fees is to collect interest on lines of credit -- money that they have not yet lent, but stand willing to lend in the future. Banks are contractually obligated to fulfill these loans.

With credit tightening, many borrowers have taken advantage of these lines of credit. Doing so, they give the impression that banks are increasing their loans, but the arrangements for these loans, in effect, may have been made quite some time ago.

CNN Pundits Claim Poor Have a Zero Marginal Propensity to Consume

Full disclosure – every time I have to endure listening to Ali Velshi opine on economic matters – I want to scream. So before we discuss his latest, let’s let Brad DeLong have the microphone:

With the exception of the wingnuts in the neo-Hooverite caucus, both Republican and Democratic economic advisors were telling their legislative principles by late fall that a fiscal boost would be a good thing--Republican economists saying that they would prefer tax cuts targetted toward people with a high propensity to spend out of income, Democratic economists saying that they would prefer direct spending on shovel-ready projects. Barack Obama proposes a bipartisan compromise: do some tax cuts and some spending, with a 35-65 split because, after all, the Democrats won the election.

That is a very nice summary of the political debate so which people have a high propensity to spend. Well – don’t listen to a CNN pundit:

On No Bias, No Bull, Brown asserted: "Food stamps, unemployment benefits not likely to stimulate the economy because these are the people who are in the most dire straits spending the bare minimum." After Velshi replied, "That's right," Brown stated, "So the stimulus part comes from the big spending package that we're going to talk about." Velshi responded: "Right. And, you know, maybe the $500 or $1,000 you get per family. But you're absolutely right. There are some of these things that are more about recovery than stimulus. The administration likes to call it a recovery bill. If you're giving food stamps and you're giving unemployment benefits, that's not stimulus; that's simply helping people out who are in a lot of trouble."

I’ll grant that a household with low income will not be consuming as much as say Bill Gates and his family. But the issue is not the absolute level of consumption per person but rather the marginal propensity to consume, that is, how much of each extra dollar of disposable income will be spent. Ricardian Equivalence types – that is those permanent income types who also impose the long-run government budget constraint in their consumption model – might tell you that tax cuts for those who are not borrowing constrained will not increase consumption. But when Campbell Brown talks about “people who are in the most dire straits”, I would suggest she is talking about people who are borrowing constrained.

If Ali Velshi understood economics, he would have told Ms. Brown that the issue is the marginal propensity to consume, which would imply she had this exactly backwards. Then again – Ali is not an economist getting his degree in religious studies. So why does CNN put this economic know nothing on as some sort of expert in business and economics?

The Role Economists Play in the Obama White House as Compared to the Last 8 Years

The Economist makes an interesting observation:

Mr Obama continues to seek sensible economic advice. It was emblematic of George Bush’s low regard for economists that in 2003 he moved the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), the administration’s in-house think-tank, from the White House complex to a drab office building a block away. Mr Obama has moved it back. Each morning he gets a memo prepared the previous night by the CEA and the Treasury, then spends about 30 minutes with his economic team. In regular attendance are Mr Summers, Mr Geithner, Peter Orszag (the budget director) and Christina Romer, who chairs the CEA.

I wonder how this compares to how things operated when Bill Clinton was President.

Hookah-Smoking Caterpillar Keynesians II

by the Sandwichman

In the previous post, the Sandwichman concluded that Humpty-Dumpty hookah-smoking Caterpillar Keynesianism is not as daft, at least, as the alternatives offered by the likes of Niall Ferguson and Peter Schiff. It remained to wring a bit more daftness out of political Keynesianism.

Keynes, it has been pointed out, was not a Keynesian. What passes for Keynesianism these days is a hodge-podge of public-spending agendas upheld by opportunistic textual exegesis. The New Deal functions as a flexible exemplar for public spending. The New Deal was both Keynesianish and yet not Keynesian enough. Actually, it was ("hey, hey") LBJ and Tricky Dick, not the sainted Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who put full-fledged political Keynesianism to the test.

At the end of A Living Wage, Lawrence Glickman offered an interpretation of the New Deal that challenges traditional assumptions. Instead of viewing the focus on sustaining consumption as originating with the New Deal and Keynes, Glickman traced it back to the "living wage" ideology of labor that had evolved over the final three decades of the 19th century. It wasn't the ideas that were new, it was only their (relative) respectability.

Glickman's account of that evolution in labor ideas centered on the distinction between a traditional "producerist" ideology and the emerging consumerist ideology that characterized Samuel Gompers' American Federation of Labor. When asked the question, "what does labor want?" Gompers famously replied,

"We want more schoolhouses and less jails; more books and less arsenals; more learning and less vice; more leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures, to make manhood more noble, womanhood more beautiful, and childhood more happy and bright."

This is sometimes abbreviated as "More!" or "More, more, more..." The New Deal thus incorporated labor movement ideas about an American 'standard of living'. Organized labor, in turn, appropriated a technocratic, "Keynesian" language regarding 'purchasing power' and 'aggregate demand'. Even big business got into the act with the National Association of Manufacturer's billboard campaign trumpeting the world's highest wages and standard of living and the world's shortest working hours.

All this is saying is that the actual political constituency for fiscal stimulus is quite a different matter than adherence to an intellectual construct. As World War II drew to a close there was near unanimity among economists, politicians and the general public in favor of doing whatever needed to be done to maintain full employment (which is not to say economic growth).

If the goal of Keynesianism was to "save capitalism from the stupidity of its managers", who would spare the saviors from the hubris of their expertise? According to Fred Hirsch:

...Keynes's interpretation of managed capitalism retains a vital importance precisely because of its unquestioning reliance on obligations and instincts deriving from an earlier preindustrial culture. It is in the complete Keynesian system that we can best observe the limits of the guided market, because Keynes took for granted supportive characteristics that his own system could not preserve but that the purer system of his successors in economic liberalism ignored.

The Sandwichman's crucial amendment to Hirsh's view is to point out that the cultural ground for those non-market obligations and instincts need not be "preindustrial" but can as readily be extra- or counter- industrial, as in the 19th century labor movement's notion of a living wage. What is important, though is that these obligations and instincts operate outside any "laws of the market", even as modified by the intervention of the state. This means you, 'aggregate demand' and 'multiplier'.

The Achilles heel of Political Keynesianism resides not in the pseudo-economic objection that "the money has to come from somewhere" but in the fuzzier notion that the motivating obligations and instincts have to come from somewhere other than the market. Keynesianism cannot succeed -- as its modern day adherents delude themselves it can -- as a technocratic exercise in estimating multipliers and shortfalls in capacity utilization. The technocratic, mathematical defense of fiscal stimulus policy consents to a rhetorical deck of cards where the reactionary clowns hold all the jokers.

"To live outside the law, you must be honest." That includes living outside the metaphorical "laws" of classical political economy.

A Postal Savings Bank Solution?

Michael Perelman has suggested that banks may serve a public utility function and should be nationalized. I assume he means the functions of holding people's money as deposits and using it for some sort of basic investing, without getting into fees for packaging mortgages or other more exotic financial activities. I suggested in a comment on his post that a model of this might be the old postal savings banks of much of Europe and Japan, the latter being the largest in the world. I do think something along their lines, however owned, might offer an alternative, simple banks that do simple things.

As it is the current trend is for those old banks to be privatized in some form. This happened finally in Japan in October, 2007, to the Japan Post, which does more than serve as a bank. In today's NY Times is a story that there is a move by Post A.G., Deutsche Bank, and Swiss Reinsurance to take over the still nationally owned Post Bank A.G of Germany, their postal savings bank. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E7D91439F930A35753C1A063958260.

McCain on the Fiscal Stimulus

The GOP 2008 nominee for the Presidency appeared on Face The Nation and made some incredibly stupid remarks:

I think it’s a massive -- it’s much larger than any measure that was taken during the Great Depression ... I know America needs a stimulus. We need tax cuts. We need to spend money on infrastructure and on other programs that will immediately put people to work. But this is not it ... we got 44 votes, on a trigger, on a trigger that said that, once we have GDP growth for two quarters -- in other words, the economy recovers -- that we will stop the spending and we’ll put America on a path to a balanced budget.

Let’s take these in reverse order. Let’s suppose that by the time the recession bottoms out, the GDP gap is 8 percent or more. Even after a couple of quarters of modest growth, the GDP gap will still likely be massive but McCain would have us shift towards fiscal restraint?

McCain knows we need tax cuts and infrastructure but his own party is making sure that infrastructure spending is as small as possible to make room for more tax cuts. So what is it that he wants if “this is not it”. Incidentally, McCain says that he wants more bang for the buck but he concedes at the same time that the kind of tax cut we tried earlier during this recession has little impact on consumption. And yet he wants more tax cuts and less spending.

Now I will concede that an $800 billion fiscal stimulus is larger than anything we saw in the 1930’s in nominal aggregate terms. But nominal GDP was less than $100 billion back then. The proper comparison would have to be done either in real per capita terms or relative to GDP. But does Senator McCain not understand that we had very little fiscal stimulus during the New Deal, which is one reason why it took so long for the economy to get back to full employment? If McCain’s Republican colleagues have their way, we are going to repeat the policy mistake of not doing enough fiscal stimulus, which will insure that the current recession will be deeper and last longer.

Thank goodness we did not select this economic know-nothing to be President!

Could Someone Inform Alan Reynolds of the 1981-82 Recession?

NBER says we had a recession from July 1981 to December 1982 but I guess Alan Reynolds does not know this:

This suggests the entire period from early 1983 to mid-1990 was nothing more than a routine recovery from recession. That is wrong. Real GDP peaked in the first quarter of 1980 at $5,221.3 billion, measured in 2000 dollars. By the first quarter of 1983, real GDP reached $5253.8 billion; the economy had already passed from recovery to expansion. Industrial production hit 59.5 by 1984—well above the peak of 56.6 in 1979.

Reynolds uses this piece of disinformation as part of his attack on Paul Krugman. But let’s look at table 1.1.6 of the National Income and Product Accounts. From 1980QIII to 1981QIII, real GDP rose from $5107.4 billion to $5329.8 billion, which of course, is the recovery that NBER identifies. But Reynolds and other rightwing apologists for the Reagan recession omit this period in their discussion. From 1981QIII to 1982QIII, real GDP fell to $5185.2 billion before we saw the recovery that Paul Krugman discussed.

If one looked at the economy that Bush41 left Clinton to the one that Carter left Reagan, both would be described as economies that were slowly and tentatively recovering from recessions with similar unemployment rates. So if we looked at real GDP growth during the Reagan-Bush41 periods, we could be relatively assured that we would be picking up more of the long-term growth and less of Keynesian features. Real GDP growth during this period was 3% as compared to around 3.5% from thirty years before the Reagan-Bush41 era and 3.7% during the Clinton term. But Alan Reynolds wants to distort this fact and to do so, he has to deny the 1981-82 recession.

Why Rescue Banks?

What is it that a bank really does? In college, many decades ago, I was taught that banks served to bundle many small investments to make them available for investors to create productive businesses. More recently, the idea became popular that banks specialized in accumulating information that made them ideally suited to determine which investment projects would be viable and which would lack merit. Of course, with the demise of Glass-Steagall, banks did accumulate massive amounts of information -- especially when the same company ran a person's bank, stockbroker, insurance company, and credit card. But that kind of information is something entirely different.


By the time this new idea of banks as information specialists became widely accepted, the business of lending to large corporations was shrinking. Large corporations were able to finance themselves by borrowing directly in the commercial paper market. To compensate for this lost business, banks began to see their future in collecting -- organizing mergers and acquisitions, bundling financial investments in novel ways, and, on the retail side, late fees from unwary customers. And yes, bundling subprime loans. Is any public purpose served by slicing and dicing financial paper?

We all know that until recently they were very successful, but the question is whether their success reflected any public purpose. We now know that the financial system was not particularly efficient in gathering information. If it was, TARP would not exist.

Why couldn't banks be more like a public utility, as they were supposed to be in the age of Glass-Steagall? Just as a public utility sends water or electricity to where it is needed, public banks could run checking accounts for the public, paying bills and accepting deposits.

Hookah-Smoking Caterpillar Keynesians

by the Sandwichman

We are all Keynesians now but some are more Keynesian than others. Keynes was NOT a Keynesian. There are, nevertheless, New Keynesians, post-Keynesians, bastard Keynesians, Popular Front New Dealers, military-industrial complex Keynesians, StimPack™ salesmen and supply-side tax-cutting trickle-down voodoo economics crypto-Keynesians.

Most commonly encountered are the hookah-smoking Caterpillar Keynesians and the Humpty-Dumptians. It is conceivable -- indeed it is almost inevitable -- for a self-styled Keynesian to be both a Caterpillar and a Humpty-Dumptian simultaneously.

For the hookah-smoking Caterpillars, the federal budget is a mushroom, one side of which makes the economy grow taller and the other makes it shrink. For the Humpty-Dumptians, economic growth means "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!" When H-Ds use a multiplier it means just what they choose it to mean -- neither more nor less. Taken together -- the Humpty-Dumptians with the Caterpillars -- there is only one side of the mushroom that matters.

Astonishing as it may seem, there is a kernel of truth to the mushroom and multiplier story. To get at that kernel, though, it is best to eschew the platitudes and tautologies of the Caterpillars and Humpty-Dumptians themselves and listen (critically) to the Village Idiots instead. Peter Schiff is an Idiot. So is Niall Ferguson. Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian are certifiable Idiots. These people are Idiots because they find an inherent flaw in the conventional wisdom and they run with it -- not seeming to notice (or care) that there are parallel weaknesses in their own analyses and prescriptions.

Cole and Ohanian took it for granted that working fewer hours was a bad thing. Enough said. Ferguson rails against debt and then prescribes a wholesale "restructuring" of debt that would, in effect, amount to a substantial default on debt. As Ferguson acknowledges, one "objection to such a procedure is that it would reward the imprudent." He waves that objection away with the glib assurance that "bad behavior only matters if it is likely to be repeated" and the reckless assumption that such a restructuring would be a one-off bonanza. Not only would such a plan reward the imprudent, it would also bestow a windfall on prudent debtors while leaving prudent non-debtors out in the cold. So why not just gather everything up into one big pile and give an equal share to everyone?

Schiff worries that government intervention will only perpetuate a phony economy based on borrowing and spending. The Sandwichman has tremendous sympathy for Schiff's moral outrage against phoniness. So what is Schiff's prescription? Let the market run its corrective course and make people "take the tough medicine." After all, if it tastes like poison, it must be good for you. Oh, doctor! doctor! The attentive reader may notice that while Ferguson and Schiff share an aversion to prolonging the phony debt economy through deficit spending, they offer diametrically-opposed policy prescriptions -- even before reckoning with the political palatability of either of their approaches.

It is only through a process of elimination that the Caterpillars and Humpty-Dumptians remain standing as the "least daft". In my next post, I will propose a method for wringing a bit more of the daftness out.

Mitt Romney Does Not Understand Ricardian Equivalence Either

I guess CNN felt compelled to allow Mitt Romney words to be aired because Romney was once a Presidential contender but the following is really stupid:

These are extraordinary times, and like a lot of Republicans I believe that a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work. But the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy … We're on an economic tightrope. The package that passed the House is a huge increase in the amount of government borrowing. And we've borrowed so much already that if we add too much more debt, or spend foolishly, we could invite an even bigger crisis … First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.

Maybe Romney is thinking along the lines of the Friedman permanent income hypothesis when he calls for permanent tax cuts but he also noted we have a huge deficit. Paul Krugman understands how to put the Friedman permanent income hypothesis together with the long-run government budget constraint and apply it to increases in government spending as well as tax “cuts” which are actually only tax deferrals:

a temporary increase in government spending should have a larger impact on demand than a permanent increase, not a smaller impact. And that’s actually an important point: one way to explain why government spending is better than tax cuts as a stimulus is to say that temporary tax cuts aren’t effective at increasing demand, but temporary spending increases are. Here’s the logic (which follows directly from Milton Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis, by the way): suppose that the government introduces a new program that will cause it to spend $100 billion a year every year from now on. To pay for this, it will have to raise taxes by $100 billion a year, permanently — and if consumers take this into account, they might well cut their spending enough to offset the increase in government purchases. But suppose the government introduces a one-time, $100 billion program to repair bridges over the next year. The government will have to issue debt to pay for this, and will have to service that debt, requiring higher taxes — say, $5 billion a year. That’s a much smaller impact on consumers’ future after-tax income than the permanent program. So much less of the spending rise will be offset by a fall in consumer demand. (I’m not considering the effect of the spending in raising income, which would probably cause consumer demand to rise rather than fall.) So economic theory — Milton Friedman’s theory! — says that spending is a more effective form of stimulus than tax cuts.

The same logic falls under the heading of Ricardian Equivalence - a topic that Robert Barro understands. Yet- Mitt Romney gets this all completely backwards. I guess when he was running for President, he never quite grasped these basic topics even though Greg Mankiw was one of his economic advisors!

Australia’s catastrophic Summer of 2009

The image on the right is of a koala in South Australia that sought refuge from the extreme heat this last fortnight by climbing into a tub of water in a resident's back porch.

This week 60 percent of the northern Australian state of Queensland is subject to flooding while the Southern state of Victoria is scorched with unprecedented record temperatures of 43 degrees Celsius. Tomorrow’s temperature is expected to reach 44 degrees in Melbourne and 46 degrees in rural Victoria, making it the hottest place on the planet. This extraordinary and unprecedented heat, combined with strong dry winds, is expected to worsen the fires in industrial tree plantation and native bush already raging in this state. The high temperature is also expected to lead to yet more large power blackouts so there’s a question mark tomorrow as to whether residents will be able to relieve their heat-stress by switching on their fans or air conditioners…or even their fridges? [1] Last Friday “half a million homes and businesses were blacked out, and patients were turned away from hospitals.” [2] The number of bodies being stored at the city’s morgue is witness to the fact that over three times as many people are dying at this time. [3]

The Melbourne heat has also caused an electricity substation to explode. That shut down the city's entire train service, trapped people in lifts, and blocked roads as traffic lights failed. [2] Further severe disruptions to the city’s train system is expected tomorrow as well and this is exacerbated by railway lines warping and becoming unusable as a result.

Victorian farmers have lost many crops this summer as vegetables died from the heat and fruit crops stewed on the trees. The situation for them was already bad. Last October it was reported that “a combination of high temperatures and close to no rainfall” had meant that “hundreds of farmers had then reached the point of no return.” The Mallee, Wimmera and north-east wheat crops were destroyed by a combination of the heat and dry winds and low irrigation allocations were then placing a question mark over continued production in the Victorian horticulture and dairy industries this summer. [4]

Even in my normally mild Tasmania the state suffered its second-hottest day in a row, as temperatures reached 42.2C in some areas. “Two days before, Adelaide hit a staggering 45.6C. After a weekend respite, more records are expected to be broken this week.” [2] Fish populations are under stress in the Murray-Darling Basin of Victoria, New South Wales, South Australian and Queensland. Low water levels and hot temperatures have resulted in fish kills in parts of the system. Water shortages also pose risks of algal blooms and severe damage to the ecosystems. [5]

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the record heat is yet another sign of global climate change scientists have forecasted."Eleven of the hottest years in history have been in the last 12, and we also note, particularly in the southern part of Australia, we're seeing less rainfall," Wong told reporters."All of this is consistent with climate change, and all of this is consistent with what scientists told us would happen." [6]

Many people around me are trying to change the way they live. They have a creeping conviction that they will not survive unless quick change occurs and have stopped waiting for government to take the lead. I pray that it’s not too late?

"Despite the very serious nature of the threat to environmental preservation, the inherent inertia of our system will probably block effective action at least until public concern is galvanised by some catastrophic disaster."

'Citizens' Action - Vital Force for Change', Wm. Michael Kitzmiller and Richard Ottinger, Center for a Voluntary Society 1971.

[1] Power switched off in heat wave
30th January 2009
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2477962.htm

[2] Parched: Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in
Geoffrey Lean and Kathy Marks report on the worst heatwave in the country's history
Sunday, 1 February 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/parched-australia-faces-collapse-as-climate-change-kicks-in-1522529.html

[3] Heat behind a crush at the mortuary
Erdem Koch, February 7, 2009
http://www.theage.com.au/national/heat-behind-a-crush-at-the-mortuary-20090206-7zzk.html

[4] Record heat destroys Victorian wheat crops
Wires, October 02, 2008 09:28am
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24434725-5017353,00.html

[5] Murray-Darling needs quick action: environmental group
Ξ February 5th, 2009
http://watersanity.com/?m=200902

[6] Australian Heat Wave To Last Six Days, Signaling Global Warming
Posted on: Thursday, 29 January 2009, 16:58 CST
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1631148/australian_heat_wave_to_last_six_days_signaling_global_warming/

The Rise in the Unemployment Rate Understates the Weakness in the Labor Market

BLS leads with some bad news in its January 2009 Employment Situation Summary:

Nonfarm payroll employment fell sharply in January (-598,000) and the unemployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll employment has declined by 3.6 million since the start of the recession in December 2007; about one-half of this decline occurred in the past 3 months. In January, job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors.

The news further down paints an even darker picture:

The civilian labor force participation rate, at 65.5 percent in January, has edged down in recent months. The employment-population ratio declined by 0.5 percentage point to 60.5 percent over the month, and by 2.4 percentage points over the year.

The civilian labor force participation rate was 65.7% as of December 2008 and had been as high as 66.4% as of December 2006, which means the rise in the unemployment rate actually understates the fall in the employment-population ratio, which fell from 61% as of December 2008 to 60.5% last month. The employment-population ratio had been 63.4% as of December 2006. While some of us were unimpressed with the employment-population ratio being only 63.4% given that this ratio was at or above 64% for much of Clinton’s second term in office, I’d be incredibly happy if we could see the employment-population ratio approach this level in the next couple of years. Of course, this is not likely to happen unless Congress pass a stimulus bill over the objections of the Herbert Hoover faction.