Beltran and the all-time Mets

A little exercise for Mets fans, now that Carlos Beltran is in San Francisco: Where would you place Beltran on the all-time depth chart.

Here is my starting nine:

C: Mike Piazza
1B: Keith Hernandez
2B: Edgardo Alfonzo
3B: David Wright
SS: Jose Reyes
LF: Cleon Jones
CF: Carlos Beltran
RF: Darryl Strawberry
SP: Tom Seaver

Bench
C: Gary Carter
1B: John Olerud and Carlos Delgado
2B: Felix Millan
3B: Robin Ventura
SS: Bud Harrelson
OF: Rusty Staub, Tommie Agee, Lenny Dykstra, Mookie Wilson
SP: Dwight Gooden, Jerry Koosman, Ron Darling, Al Leiter, Johan Santana
RP: John Franco, Jesse Orosco, Roger McDowell, Randy Myers, Tug McGraw, Billy Wagner

So, friendly fans of the Mets: What players did I leave out?

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Do the math

Today's math lesson comes to us, courtesty of Daniel Froomkin at Huffington Post. As he points out:

The Big Five oil companies this week announced they had made a whopping $36 billion in profits in the second quarter of 2011.

Here's the second-quarter profit tally:

• ExxonMobil, $10.7 billion
• Shell, $8.7 billion
• Chevron, $7.7 billion
• BP, $5.6 billion
• Conoco Philips, $3.4 billion

These are astonishing numbers when you consider that our economy is locked in a massive stall -- and it should make the folks realize that budget reform is possible and that it can come without shredding the programs and services that the poor and middle class have come to rely on.

 

What do these obscene profits have to do with the deficit discussions currently paralyzing Washington? The oil industry gets "$4 billion to $8 billion a year in deficit-increasing tax subsidies" that remain in place, as Froomkin says, "the incentives those subsidies were designed to create ceased to make economic sense."

 

The subsidies should end -- and could, given their profits, without much pain to the oil industry.

 

But that would be bad form, right, given the amount the industry spends on the political process. I mean, if you pay to get a politician elected you have every right to expect him to do your bidding. Right?

 

 

 

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Manufactured crisis v. real crisis

The American government is barrelling foward into an abyss in which the nation's credit-worthiness will be called into question and its economic well-being badly damaged.

And yet, the crisis we face is one created in Washington having little to do with the way our economy functions.

The federal government -- specifically, the president and the two houses of Congress -- has until next week to raise the national debt ceiling or face the shutdown of government programs, the inability to send out government checks and default on some of our debt.

The crisis is real, if contrived, and the solution is actually rather simple: eliminate the debt ceiling. The ceiling, as The New York Times points out in a useful Q&A today, is a relic of an earlier time:

The system goes back to World War I, when Congress first put a limit on federal debt. The limit was part of a law that allowed the Treasury to issue Liberty Bonds to help pay for the war. The law was intended to give the Treasury greater discretion over borrowing by eliminating the need for Congress to approve each new issuance of debt. Over the years the limit has been raised repeatedly, to $14.3 trillion today from roughly $43 billion in 1940. But outside observers have noted that the failure to make increases in the debt limit part of the regular budget process can be risky. The G.A.O. concluded that it would be better if “decisions about the debt level occur in conjunction with spending and revenue decisions as opposed to the after-the-fact approach now used,” adding that doing so “would help avoid the uncertainty and disruptions that occur during debates on the debt limit today.”

It is an arbitrary limit that treats all debt the same way and strips legislators of their responsibility to consider the long-term implications of their budgeting decisions. Removing our multiple wars from the budget, as was done by President George W. Bush, makes it seem as though the budget is responsible, that we have the revenues to pay for what we want to spend. But the billions that are being tossed down the rabbit hole of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Pakistan and Libya and South America) come from somewhere. So we borrow.

The same goes for the Bush tax cuts, which were described by the president at the time as stimulative to the economy and, therefore, a revenue generator. The absurdity of the claim was obvious at the time, and has only grown more ridiculous as time has passed.

So, what might we consider good debt? Spending on roads and bridges, for instance, because the result is something with a long shelf life. Basically, you are paying off the use of the roads, bridges, solar grids, rail lines, etc., over the length of their lives. And, this is a philosphical point, you are asking future generations to contribute to the cost of infrastructure that they will be using.

Education would fall under good debt, because it adds value to the workforce (I hate looking at education in this way, but from a budget and debt standpoint, I think we have to). The same goes for R&D and weatherization programs, upgrades to public housing and affordable housing, environmental enforcement (because it maintains a long-term societal good), and so on.

The issue is not debt, but the kind of debt we are dealing with (we have reached a point where we are borrowing to pay off previous debt, a problem that will not be aided by a failure to raise the debt ceiling). And it is a problem with revenue -- let the Bush-era tax cuts expire on everyone.

Revenue, of course, is the key issue here. Beyond the Bush tax cuts, we face a serious drop-off in revenue caused by the recession. With unemployment approaching 10 percent and about one in six Americans either unemployed or underemployed, by most estimates, the amount that the middle class can contribute to the federal budget is in decline. The only way to address this is to put Americans back to work. And the only way to do this is for the federal government -- i.e., the entity empowed by the American people to act on their behalf -- to step in with public works projects, aid to states (to avert public worker layoffs), etc.

And we should eliminate the debt ceiling and leave it to the market to determine whether the United States is a creditable risk.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Dodd-Frank is the Obama presidency

The Dodd-Frank financial reforms are a year old and very little has changed in the banking system. As Matt Stoller points out, the bill was more about creating the illusion of a solution to the financial crisis than imposing the kind of financial restructuring needed to prevent future problems and begin a real stabilization of the economy.

After the immediate crisis was contained, losses were socialized, and profits returned to financial executives, Congress had to put together a “solution”. It would have a giant bite at the apple in restructuring our regulatory apparatus. But in order to perpetrate the oligarchic banking structure, it would be important that no structural changes to the industry be implemented. Not one regulator was fired for his or her part in the crisis. The Justice Department adopted a posture of legalizing financial control fraud by refusing to prosecute anyone involved in the meltdown, and continues to allow millions of cases of foreclosure fraud to continue. Ben Bernanke was renominated, and the administration fought a bitter below-the-radar battle to secure his confirmation. With a few modest exceptions, the risk-taking and leverage in our financial markets continues apace, and the deregulatory neoliberal mindset is still dominant. The Federal Reserve has been audited, but the system is now accountability-free for high level operatives in finance and politics. And now that Elizabeth Warren has been thrown overboard by the administration, the lockdown of the financial system is nearly complete.

And mostly, that’s what Dodd-Frank accomplished. It rearranged regulatory offices and delivered a new set of mandates, but effected no structural changes to our banking system. Congress never asked what happened, or why, or even, what kind of banking system do we want? And that’s because Obama’s Treasury Secretary already had the answers to these questions.

So, unemployment hovers at between 9 and 10 percent, the housing market remains in the dumper and consumer confidence remains low. The euphoria that followed the election of a Democrat who professed to be a reformer has abated once it was clear that he is nothing more than a brand (in Chris Hedges' words) who talks a good game and shills for the establishment. So now, rather than the dawning of a promised progressive era, the November 2010 election brought us a Congress controlled by kooks and cranks who are more than willing to send the nation to financial default.

But the president and his supporters continue to praise his efforts, which they say prevented a full collapse. That may have been enough in the early part of 2009, but two years on, we have a right to expect more from him and from the Republicans who now control the House of Representatives.
 The sad fact, as Dodd-Frank hits its first birthday, is that it is a perfect representation of the Obama presidency.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Journalists behaving badly, British division: Rupert punts before Parliament

I've avoided weighing in on the phone-hacking scandal surrounding the media empire of Rupert Murdoch -- mostly because I have little to add. (Disclosure: My wife works in the corporate offices of Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal, which was bought by Murdoch nearly four years ago.)

But watching the highlights of Murdoch's act before Parliament yesterday -- and I can only assume it was an act because of his reputation as an engaged and ruthless businessman -- made me mourn for what is left of the newspaper business.

Let's get this out of the way, first: Paying cops for stories and phone hacking -- whether done to innocent victims of crimes of hypocritical politicians -- is unethical even, in those rare cases, when it is not illegal. It casts all journalists in a bad light and should not be tolerated.

What is troubling about the allegations here is that a) Murdoch has taken no personal responsibility for what happened under his command and b) it appears that the scandals tentacles reach well beyond the New of the World into other areas of the Murdoch empire.

Murdoch has promised to fix this, but given that News Corp. has always played by its own rules and has used language to mask its true agenda (fair and balanced, anyone?), I am dubious that much will change going forward.

Of greater concern, of course, is his unwillingness to take personal responsibility for the failures of company with which, by all accounts, he is engaged with on a micro level. He may have been humbled by his appearance before Parliament, but he also remains defiant -- leaving me to wonder exactly what he means when he says he'll clean this up.

Expect a public-relations effort that, in the end, will attempt to paint a friendlier face on Darth Vader, while leaving the news divisions to play their dirty games.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

ESPN says Reyes to stay in New York I say, great news



Jose Reyes,
ESPN photo



The Mets apparently are going to make a run at keeping Jose Reyes. While there is no guarantee that they can sign him at the end of the season, they have to make the effort. He is the face of the franchise and the perfect fit for Citi Field.

The problem is money. The Wilpons' financial woes are well known, but the return they would get for him at this point is not worth not taking a run at signing him, as the Beltran market indicates. The trade market more generally might be depressed this year. Consider what Buster Olney has to say:


So keep him and make him the cornerstone of a new era.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Let's talk about jobs

Ben Bernanke demonstrated a political split personality this week, first saying job-growth is the issue and stimulus is probably necessary and then following with a "maybe, not now, later, soon."

Washington is stuck on the debt ceiling debate and the dangerous push to slash and burn the federal payroll, which will mean lost federal jobs and more state jobs flushed down the toilet. In South Brunswick. There were more than a hundred school jobs cut. Other districts did the same, as did municipal governments without anyone talking about the reality that public jobs are still jobs and that cutting these jobs does nothing to improve our debt situation (fewer workers means fewer taxpayers) or the economy (fewer workers means less money around to spend on consumer goods or housing or w en necessities).

This approach is not goin to u us to fiscal or economic health, but continue the downward spiral.

I say this all the time, but it bears repeating hers: end our multiple wars now, bring the troops home and slash the military budget. Use some ofthemmoney to pay down the debt and the rest for infrastructure and aid to states and towns. That will create jobs and create lasting improvements on which our future e onomic health can be built.

The debt debate should be a war debate

Has the president finally gotten a spine? According to Sam Stein at The Huffington Post, President Barack Obama told House Majority Leader Eric Cantor not to call his bluff, promising to go to the American people to get something done on the debate over the debt ceiling.

And yet, why don't I feel like the president has the back of the American people. Maybe it is the second part of his threat that has me worried:

"Eric, don't call my bluff. I'm going to the American people on this," the president said, according to both Cantor and another attendee. "This process is confirming what the American people think is the worst about Washington: that everyone is more interested in posturing, political positioning, and protecting their base, than in resolving real problems."

Translation: Both sides are wrong, Washington is the problem and principle is not all that important.

Stein reports that the two sides were arguing over just how much to cut from federal spending, though he does not say what programs might be on the table.

According to several attendees, negotiations stalled from the onset over the same issues that have proved irresolvable. Working off of talks that had been spearheaded by Vice President Joseph Biden, the president said he would be comfortable signing off on northward of $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending and mandatory spending cuts. With additional negotiations, he added, he could move that figure up to $1.7 trillion, and with a willingness to consider revenue increases and tax loophole closures, lawmakers could get to over $2 trillion. His preference, he said, was to continue to push for the biggest package possible, so long as it was balanced.

What is missing from this debate is that the cost of two (some, myself included, would say three-plus) wars and a bloated military budget -- along with the recession -- has driven the debt up dramatically. End the wars, create jobs and let the Bush tax cuts expire and we have a good start toward righting our fiscal ship.

• Send me an e-mail. 
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.  
• Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here. 
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Dean Baker on Social Security

Dean Baker offers the best explanation I've come across of why Social Security should not be sacrificed to the debt debate. Social Security, as he shows, has nothing to do with the nation's alleged debt crisis.

File under WTF

School ended just three weeks ago and the back-to-school sales are in full force. Think we've grown just a tad impatient in our consumerism?

Why Obama?

I voted for Barack Obama, with reservations, in 2008. I knew he wasn't a progressive, but I'd hoped that, in the face of a near-economic depression, he might follow Franklin Roosevelt's path and become more progressive when he entered office.

I knew it was a long shot and I had no illusions.

But I'm a minority among progressives, with too many still making excuses for what has proven to be a failed presidency. Obama has, to date, done little to create jobs, little to reverse the nation's economic decline and has, instead, opted to make Wall Street whole.

And while he blames Republicans for blocking more progressive reforms, it has been the president himself who has turned his nose to his left flank. He removed single-payer from the table before the health-care debate began, offered a stimulus plan that was too small by half even before it was watered down by Senate Democrats and moved to address deficit concerns well before it was economically logical.

But we still get defenders from the left and in the media of both his economic and national security policies. And we still hear the tired argument -- if not Obama, then who? The argument is the flip-side of the Anybody But Bush movement that began percolating -- unsuccessfully - in 2003 and 2004. it is based on the notion that the left must give its unconditional support to the president or someone like Michele Bachman or Mitt Romney will win the White House and things will really get bad.

That is a fear-based argument that let's the president off the hook for his own failings and marginalizes the left at a time when the country needs to hear legitimate and detailed critiques from the president's left flank.

We're now two and a half years into the Obama presidency. We remain mired in the recession he inherited from his predecessor, with unemployment hovering at between 9 percent and 10 percent and the ranks of the long-term unemployed and underemployed being much higher. Foreclosures continue to rise, the health-care industry remain in charge and our infrastructure is crumbling. We're engaged in three wars in four countries (or is it four wars in five countries?) and have a growing national security state and expanding imperial presidency.

At some point, the president needs to take responsibility for this.

I'm not advocating that the left not vote for Obama in 2012. But the left's votes should not come cheaply. And it should not remain silent as the president drifts farther to the right. Enough is enough.

• Send me an e-mail.
• Read poetry at The Subterranean.
• Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
• Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.