Manufacturing a Double-Dip Recession

(Crooked, clueless or both. There's no way these are smart honest politicians legislating with the people in mind. No way.--jef) 

Congress and Obama are Making Things Worse
By DAVE LINDORFF

The chief economist at ratings agency Moodys is warning that the U.S. could be headed for a renewed recession.

Calling the current situation "very perilous," John Lonski adds that the politicians in Washington, where both parties are vying to present budgets featuring massive cuts in spending, could help bring on that recession--just as the new Conservative Party-led government in Great Britain brought on a return to recession this year through its aggressive cutting of public spending. Worse yet, they could create a new shut-down in credit or "liquidity" in the financial industry that "could be more serious even than what caused the collapse of Lehman Brothers" in 2008.

Lonski, in an interview with ThisCantBeHappening!, said, "What scares me is that, because of the weakened condition of the federal government, there is less confidence in the philosophy of `too big to fail'-- the idea that the government will come in and back up any financial company that runs into trouble." He said the government is probably no longer in a position to make trillions of dollars available to prop up failing big banks as it did in 2008 and 2009, and that fearing this, financial institutions may pull back, drying up lending.

Lonski and his colleague Ben Garber, another economist at Moody's Capital Markets Research Group, today released a new report titled "Double Dip Risk Rises as DC Standoff Continues," in which they warn that the U.S. "may be closer to a double dip recession than commonly thought."

The two men note that the US economy "continues to soften," and say that evidence is "proving elusive" of any recovery in the second half of of this year. And that's "assuming a reasonable resolution of the debt standoff" between Republicans and Democrats in Washington, and increasingly even among Republicans themselves.

"Even with a market-friendly resolution of the debt standoff," they write, "a double-dip recession is far from unlikely."

The new Moody's report comes out on the same day as new data from the U.S. Commerce Department, which is also alarming. The new government data show that growth in the last quarter of 2010 was actually running at only a 2.3% annual rate, not the more robust 3.1% rate initially reported. Annualized growth rates for the first and second quarters of this year were also revised downward by the Commerce Dept. to 0.4% and 1.3% respectively. Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody's Analytics says, "The economy essentially came to a grinding halt in the first half of the year."

Of course, the over 20% of Americans who are out of work or who are working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs, and the millions who have been out of work for so long that their unemployment compensation checks have been exhausted, already knew this. They've been in a recession ever since 2007, and they represent one in five of American workers. The 40 million living on Food Stamps or going hungry--almost one-seventh of all Americans, also knew this.

It is getting hard to find any good economic news, write Lonski and Garber, especially with regional manufacturing statistics "hinting of stagnation," and with housing markets still unable to "find a bottom."

They two economists note that the Chicago Federal Reserve's National Activity Index (CFNAI), in its latest three-month moving average for the last quarter, registered a figure of -0.60. They warn that 5 out of the last 9 times that the CFNAI fell that low, "recession was often impending, or was already present."

The U.S. cannot expect much help this time from the rest of the world, either, because which most other countries are experiencing a slowdown in growth, though not as severe as the U.S.

Many economists, and not just those on the left, worry that politicians in Washington from both the Republican and Democratic Parties, focused as they are now in competitive cutting of the budget deficit, could make things worse.

As Lonski says, "Even [Fed Chairman] Ben Bernanke has said it's very important not to bring on budget cuts until we can be reasonably certain that the U.S. economy is self-sustaining."

These days, in what Lonski calls a "political theater," many politicians, as well as President Obama, are calling for immediate cuts in social spending programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, Education, etc., but Lonski warns, "The problem with the U.S. budget is not what is being spent now," but what is being spent over the longer term.

The irony, he noted, is that if government inaction on raising the debt ceiling, or government action in the form of overly-aggressive near-term budget cutting, helped usher in a double-dip recession, it would have the perverse effect of just worsening the debt, as tax receipts would plunge.

How Courts Avoid Doing Justice

Monday 14 February 2011

by: Luke Hiken  |  Progressive Avenues | Op-Ed

It is apparent that in order to put more than 2.3 million people behind bars and keep them there, while simultaneously building a prison guard/police arm of the state that numbers in the millions, courts must make credible findings that an enormous number of American citizens are violent, dangerous, and worthy of extended imprisonment. Such a goal requires creativity in redefining what is “dangerous” to our society and why the incarceration of so many people is in the national interest.

It is too blatant and obvious for the courts to simply say that being poor or black is justification enough to imprison somebody. They have to put it into language that is palatable to Americans.

Thus, in order to find so many people guilty of the massive array of crimes established by the state, courts have had to construct an elaborate maze of rules and exceptions, authorizing and sustaining the convictions of so many people, and making sure that their criminal appeals go nowhere (except to profit those in the legal system fortunate enough to make a living by it). This maze is comprised of a series of rules that, on their own, appear reasonable, but when taken as a whole, demonstrate the total contempt courts have for the judicial process, and highlight the result-oriented nature of the process.

We all are familiar with how the law loves archaic Latin phrases that the typical
American knows nothing about: stare decisis (a rule is a rule); habeas corpus (bring us the body, dead or alive), ad infinitum (give us more money indefinitely) and res ipse loquitor (we can talk you blind), are obvious and well-known examples; but what is less known is how courts go about convicting the innocent in spite of laws forbidding it.

Here are just a handful of the excuses conjured up by result-oriented jurists to avoid letting the innocent out of our jails or prisons:

1) Waiver. An example: If you didn’t file your motion to suppress evidence when you should have, we don’t have to consider the fact the police unlawfully broke into your home and car, and seized evidence that would not have been admissible at trial. But you didn’t raise the argument when you should have. It is not our fault that your lawyer was asleep or drunk during the hearing.

2) Procedural Default. The federal court doesn’t have to consider the issues you’ve raised in your habeas corpus proceeding, because you didn’t raise those issues adequately when you were in front of the state court. Even if your argument would have won on the merits, you lose, because the state court didn’t get a chance to rule on it first.

3) Speculative. An example: You are arguing that the lethal injection procedure the state is going to use to kill you is cruel and unusual punishment, and will subject you to unwarrranted and excessive pain. But that argument is too speculative, and you can’t raise it until you can PROVE that the pain is unreasonably harsh. Perhaps you should consider filing again if, once you’re dead, it turns out you were correct. (Honestly, that is the law in Ohio.)

4) Timeliness. An example: You had one year within which to file your habeas corpus petition, and you filed it a day late. We won’t consider it, and you die in prison, regardless of how meritorious your claims are.

5) Presumption of correctness: You are arguing that your trial was unfair, but we, the court, are going to presume that everything was done correctly, and you have the burden of proving that the trial was unfair. The fact that your argument is as reasonable as the state’s doesn’t matter. You lose because of the presumption. But what about the presumption of innocence? Oh, that only applies before you are convicted. Afterwards, the presumption is that the trial was fair and you are therefore guilty as charged.

6) Legislative matter, not judicial. You are arguing that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, but the legislature has declared it to be the law. If you don’t like their decision, ask them to change the law. Don’t ask us to tell them how to do their job.

7) Factual innocence ain’t enough. The judge says: You might be factually innocent of the charged crime, but your trial was “fair” and that’s good enough for us. Conviction affirmed. (A gift from the U.S. Supreme Court!)

8) State’s Rights. We know that the federal government authorizes you to engage in the conduct we’re prosecuting you for, but this is Texas, buddy. And here, you’re going to jail for it. This is not to be confused with “federalism” that says: even though the state has legalized the use of marijuana, the federal law says it’s illegal, and since federal law trumps state law (except when we prefer the state law), you can’t smoke pot, regardless of what your state electorate says.

9) Harmless Error. This is the favorite excuse for courts throughout the nation: the reliable catch-all “harmless error.” The court explains: “We understand that the prosecutor didn’t give you the exculpatory evidence that would have shown you were innocent. The police lied about your conduct. One of the jurors used to date the victim. The trial judge accepted money to rule against you. BUT, we find these little problems to be “HARMLESS ERROR” and we know, down deep, that you are guilty as hell. Conviction affirmed!

While the examples of these excuses might seem exaggerated, they are precisely what it is like to practice law in American courts these days. It is virtually impossible to read an appellate court decision that doesn’t rely upon one or all of these excuses to create an insurmountable obstacle course assuring that those charged with crimes do the time.

Picture yourself entering a labyrinth – you walk down the hallway and enter the first room. A big sign on the wall reads “Procedural default.” You turn around and keep searching for the next room. You find it, enter, and the sign reads “Harmless Error.”

Same result every which way you turn. Welcome to the courthouse.