Morning in Arizona

Morning in Arizona
Rainbows over Canyonlands - Dave Stoker

The Headline Animator

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Thursday, June 26, 2014 - Buffers and Filibusters

Financial Review with 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
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: