Naked Capitalism has the article Senate Democrats Work with Republicans Throw Medicare Under the Bus as Part of TPP Fast Track Sausage-Making by Lambert Strether.

So, Congress is preparing to loot Medicare not just for this one program, TAA, but as standard operating procedure. I think that qualifies as “throwing Medicare under the bus.”

Strether took to the idea idea with the same skepticism that I showed in my previous post, U.S. Senate: Reject Medicare cuts and reject Fast Track. He also came to the same conclusion that I did. His article includes far more detail than mine, though.

I made two observations about this. The first is the following:

The reason why the politicians like the “pay for” paradigm is that it is a way to try to get people to stop complaining. I have always said that when you ask Congress to close tax-loopholes, their response has always been, “Ok, if you want us to close tax-loopholes, we’ll gladly cut the ones that you use.” They hope that the lesson people will finally learn is that you’d better not ask Congress to close tax-loopholes.

If the politicians have to make cuts in government programs, they first make cuts in the most popular programs that help the most people. They want you to feel the pain, so you will stop pestering them.

Then I followed it up the this observation.

The reason why the politicians like the “pay for” paradigm is that it is a way to try to get people to stop complaining. I have always said that when you ask Congress to close tax-loopholes, their response has always been, “Ok, if you want us to close tax-loopholes, we’ll gladly cut the ones that you use.” They hope that the lesson people will finally learn is that you’d better not ask Congress to close tax-loopholes.

If the politicians have to make cuts in government programs, they first make cuts in the most popular programs that help the most people. They want you to feel the pain, so you will stop pestering them.

Democracy For America has the petition U.S. Senate: Reject Medicare cuts and reject Fast Track.

There’s a big — brand new — attack on Medicare that’s just been added in the Senate to the Fast Track bill for the TPP. The bill would cut a whopping $700 million from Medicare, hurting seniors who need access to health care.

I have received several emails about this. The best I can do to find out what these emails are talking about is the article in The Hill, Healthcare groups object to Medicare cuts in trade bill.

Leading healthcare provider groups are objecting to Medicare cuts being used to help pay for a new House Republican trade bill.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bill helps workers displaced by trade and provides a tax credit to help pay for health insurance. It was rolled out in addition to a proposal to give President Obama “fast-track” authority on trade.

The healthcare providers object to the TAA bill including a 0.25 percent cut in Medicare payments in fiscal year 2024, which amounts to a $700 million cut, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Here is the breathless prose in the email that I received from Democracy for America.

Robert Reich’s blog has the post Nike, Obama, and the Fiasco of the Trans Pacific Partnership. He concludes with the following:

No doubt Nike is supporting the TPP. It would allow Nike to import its Vietnamese and Malaysian-made goods more cheaply. But don’t expect those savings to translate into lower prices for American consumers. As it is, Nike spends less than $10 for every pair of $100-plus shoes it sells in the U.S.

Needless to say, the TPP wouldn’t require Nike to pay its Vietnamese workers more. Nikes’ workers are not paid enough to buy the shoes they make much less buy U.S. exported goods.

Nike may be the perfect example of life under TPP, but that is not a future many Americans would choose.

Along the way, he has facts and figures that refute the BS that you are hearing from President Obama.

Another thing he said is something that I should remember to emphasize in general, not just about Nike.

I’m not faulting Nike. Nike is only playing by the rules.

I’m faulting the rules.

Although, if Nike is using bribery to get the rules to be the way they want them, then I guess we would be justified in faulting Nike. So let me just apply this amnesty to innocent bystanders, like myself. I know how to play by the capitalist’s rule. I play by them to survive, but I didn’t vote to have the rules this way, and I would be happy to see them changed. If any other company or person has the same justification for playing by the rules they don’t like, then I don’t think their behavior is hypocritical.

Naked Capitalism has the article Exit Strategy, Part One: ZIRP.

The Fed has announced plans to raise rates in the imminent future, but the market does not believe it.  Why not?  Conventional wisdom appears to be that the Fed will chicken out, just as it did during the so-called Taper Tantrum.  The Fed has signaled its appreciation that “liftoff” will involve increased volatility, and has stated its resolve this time simply to let that volatility happen, but markets don’t believe it.

I want to suggest a slightly different source of disconnect, concerning expectations about what exactly will happen in the monetary plumbing when the Fed raises rates.

Some of it is reasonably easy to understand if you have a little knowledge of the Fed and finance. Other parts may require more knowledge to understand.

Here is my explanation of why this article is important to read, even if you don’t understand all of it in detail.

I hark back to what our <sarcasm>beloved</sarcasm> ex Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, once said.

1. There are things we know.
2. There are things we know that we don’t know.
3. And there are things that we don’t know that we don’t know

It is worthwhile to read an article that can move things from category 3 above into category 2. That is the best chance you have of ever getting them into category 1.

Politico has the article Dems: Hillary Clinton must campaign more.

Four in 10 Democratic insiders in the early states warn that Hillary Clinton is not spending enough time on the campaign trail, making her vulnerable to possible challenges from the left and dampening the enthusiasm of progressives who are already committed to her.

In all the verbiage in the article, I think Politico still leaves out a very significant issue. When you compare Hillary Clinton’s visibility on a day to day basis, she is nowhere to be seen compared to Bernie Sanders, and even Elizabeth Warren. I get plenty of material from the Sanders campaign every day to post on the Sturbridge For Bernie Sanders Facebook page. Even Elizabeth Warren, who is not running for President, issues more statements, video clips, and television interviews than Hillary Clinton.

Politico goes on to say:

One-third of GOP insiders said she’s smart to limit her appearances.

“She has no credible opponents,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “She could hibernate for the next 10 months and be totally absent from the campaign trail. And still be fine.”

I am sure that the GOP is happy to give this advice to Hillary Clinton. We in Massachusetts know how well that worked out for Martha Coakley in her run against Scott Brown for the Senate seat. She did try a little harder in her subsequent run for Governor, but she never was able to live down the image she established in her failed run for Senator.

At this stage of the campaign it is fine to be nearly invisible to the average voter who isn’t paying much attention this far ahead of the election. On the other hand, at this stage of the campaign, you need to fire up the political enthusiasts so that they will be volunteering in your campaign when the rest of the voters start paying attention.

MSNBC has at least two video segments that highlight the problem.

The first is Chris Hayes surveys crash site from helicopter.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes retraces the route of Amtrak Northeast Regional 188 from the station to the crash site.

The second video clip is Former PA governor sounds off on ‘these SOBs…’

Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell sounds off on today’s House Appropriations Committee vote to cut Amtrak funding.

So infrastructure is no joke or simply a pet project of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

I go an email from Brave New Films with the subject It’s The Fed, Stupid.

On YouTube, they have headlined it Fed Up: Why The Federal Reserve Needs Reform • BRAVE NEW FILMS.

Here is the video.

I told them by email and by comment on YouTube:

No, it’s Brave New Films, stupid.

The FED doesn’t have the control you imply. Otherwise the economy would have been fixed already. If you are worried about the cost of a mortgage, shouldn’t you be complimenting the FED on the low interest rates?

The FED doesn’t decide things willy-nilly, the Congress has give them goals, and the fed has told us all what their targets are for meeting those goals. They are trying for 2% inflation and are having a devil of a time getting there no matter how much money that they pour into the economy.

If your understanding of all this is exemplified by your movie, then I am darn glad you don’t have a say in how the economy is run.

This is what happens when the liberals who don’t understand economics get to weigh in. It’s not any better than the right wingers opining about what they understand very weakly.

The FED has its problems, but neither Brave New Films, nor Rand Paul, nor Ron Paul have enough knowledge to tell us how to fix it. Primarily, the FED wouldn’t be forced to use its ineffective tools to stimulate the economy if only the Congress and the President would use the very effective tools that they have at their disposal.

The Congress and the President refuse to invest enough in infrastructure. Such investment would put people back to work and it would put money into the economy in a way which would stimulate growth. Not only that, but such investments could save the lives of railroad passengers. See my subsequent post It’s The Infrastructure.

If despite all I have said, you still want to support this idiotic move, here is the link.

Talking Points Memo has the article Stewart Rips F… N… For Attacking Obama On Poverty: ‘Buffet Of Bullsh*t’ (VIDEO).

Stewart rolled a barrage of clips … cataloging “Fox’s contempt for those in poverty,” including features named things like, “Entitlement Nation,” “freeloaders,” “moochers,” and poor people “sucking on the nipple of the government.”

Do the people who watch Faux Noise religiously have such short term memories that they cannot recognize the lies that they are being told?

I received an email from the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Occupy Democrats has the article Watch: Bernie Sanders Schools Wal-Mart Apologist On How Taxpayers Subsidize Poverty Wages | Occupy Democrats.

“Do you think the Walton Family (owners of Wal-Mart), worth a hundred billion dollars, is in need of welfare from the middle class of this country, or do you think maybe we should raise the minimum wage so those workers can earn a living wage and not have to get Medicaid or food stamps?”

I have been mulling over how I might clarify Sanders question.

“Do you think Walmart should be able to drive the competition out of business by paying their workers such a low wage and thereby selling goods so cheaply that the workers need government help to survive and work for Walmart? Isn’t Walmart taking advantage of government programs that they claim they are against?”

You might try to come up with how you would phrase the question to better drive home the point.

As I was posting this article on Facebook, I came up with the following:

“So we get to buy stuff at Wal-Mart cheap, but we have to pay taxes to support Medicaid and food stamps for Wal-Mart workers. Is that really a good deal for us?”