Week 9 NFL Picks:
New England at Cleveland:
The Pats are playing basically like a better version of their 2001-2002 Super Bowl club (Note: This isn't to say they're a Super Bowl team in the making, because that first Super Bowl was a crazy run with multiple upsets). Safe, extremely efficient, but able to make big plays a handful of times each game. The defense has improved immensely from the start of the year, and they look like they have rookie difference makers in Cunningham and McCourty.
In this matchup with Cleveland, the Pats should be able to load up against the run and force the Cleveland receivers to make plays on their own. Problem is, the Brown receivers can't make plays and the QB has NEVER seen the kinds of zone looks Belichick will put out there. The Pats offense will be able to grind out some points, and probably break a big pass with Hernandez or Tate. Probably not a ton of points, since New England won't play a risky offensive scheme.
Pats, 27-13
Miami at Baltimore
I'm really not a big Miami fan. That being said, Miami should be able to create some problems with the pass game in the same way that they always have given the Jets problems. Baltimore's problem is going to be Marshall making big plays on the crappy Raven DBs and Bess converting on 3rd Downs. I'd be surprised if Miami ran for more than 75 yards.
But Baltimore is going to score, since the Dolphins have a pretty good pass rush and corner in Vontae Davis. Baltimore's about a 5-6 point favorite. I like Baltimore to win, but not to cover.
Ravens, 20-16
Chargers v. Texans
How is this not a shootout, I first thought. But here's the thing: the Charger D is better than you think. And has anyone confirmed that the Texans have any heart? No evidence as of yet. Even at home, I like the Bolts. Big day for Rivers against a crappy Houston defense.
Chargers, 27-20
Giants at Seahawks
Are the Seahawks actually good? Hard to tell, since their wins are a little hollow-looking. I don't see it, and losing big to Oakland doesn't help their case. The Giants are for real, even if their wins are a little soft as well.
Giants, 24-10
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Week 7 NFL Picks
Week 7 NFL Picks
Here's a look at a few of the weekend games. I'm not going to get into the obvious games, since there's no use wasting space on why Baltimore will beat a 2-14 in the making Bills club.
Pats at Chargers:
Why do we think the Chargers aren't crappy? They play decent at home, awful on the road, and haven't beaten anyone worth a damn. And that was when they were healthy. And now come the suddenly rejuvenated Pats coming off two solid wins over Miami and Baltimore. The pass defense for New England is still a work in progress, but the front 7 has gotten pretty solid in a hurry. Jermaine Cunningham is a baller. The difference is that Brady and the Pats offense is going to overwhelm San Diego's defense. And San Diego's special teams will hurt them, just like they have every game so far.
Pats, 34-20.
Bengals v. Falcons:
Part of me thinks the Falcons are kind of shitty. They just aren't physical enough to win on a consistent basis, especially with teams who can bang on them with a decent offensive balance. Cincinnati might just have enough to pull it out, especially if they run Benson about 28 times. Nobody's really giving them a chance, and I while I see picking the Falcons, I can't figure out why EVERYBODY'S picking Atlanta. Here's the other thing: Cincy should be able to play single coverage on the Atlanta WRs with their corners, and load up with extra guys in the box. This should be a pretty low-scoring, close, and pretty ugly affair.
Bengals, 16-13.
Redskins v. Bears:
The question, as it is every week, is whether the Bears O-Line can keep Cutler alive long enough to score a few points. The Chicago D is good, not great. That being said, McNabb is so damn inaccurate he's going to struggle in the large number of third and longs Chicago's going to force. It's probably close, but Chicago wins it at home. In DC, the Redskins probably win it.
Bears, 17-13.
Eagles v. Titans:
I really love this matchup. Good teams. But everybody's banged up. The problem is that Desean Jackson's gone, their LT Peters is gone, and Tennesee's D-Line's going to work them over hard up front. Without Jackson, the Eagles are going to struggle to move the ball all day long. On the other side, the Titans offense has Chris Johnson and not much else. Vince Young is out, but I suspect that against a team like Philly he's more a liability than Kerry Collins because the Eagles will bait him into bad throws all day. The fact that Philly's only impressive win was at home against a Falcon team that looks like a fringe playoff team gives me pause.
Titans, 20-16.
Here's a look at a few of the weekend games. I'm not going to get into the obvious games, since there's no use wasting space on why Baltimore will beat a 2-14 in the making Bills club.
Pats at Chargers:
Why do we think the Chargers aren't crappy? They play decent at home, awful on the road, and haven't beaten anyone worth a damn. And that was when they were healthy. And now come the suddenly rejuvenated Pats coming off two solid wins over Miami and Baltimore. The pass defense for New England is still a work in progress, but the front 7 has gotten pretty solid in a hurry. Jermaine Cunningham is a baller. The difference is that Brady and the Pats offense is going to overwhelm San Diego's defense. And San Diego's special teams will hurt them, just like they have every game so far.
Pats, 34-20.
Bengals v. Falcons:
Part of me thinks the Falcons are kind of shitty. They just aren't physical enough to win on a consistent basis, especially with teams who can bang on them with a decent offensive balance. Cincinnati might just have enough to pull it out, especially if they run Benson about 28 times. Nobody's really giving them a chance, and I while I see picking the Falcons, I can't figure out why EVERYBODY'S picking Atlanta. Here's the other thing: Cincy should be able to play single coverage on the Atlanta WRs with their corners, and load up with extra guys in the box. This should be a pretty low-scoring, close, and pretty ugly affair.
Bengals, 16-13.
Redskins v. Bears:
The question, as it is every week, is whether the Bears O-Line can keep Cutler alive long enough to score a few points. The Chicago D is good, not great. That being said, McNabb is so damn inaccurate he's going to struggle in the large number of third and longs Chicago's going to force. It's probably close, but Chicago wins it at home. In DC, the Redskins probably win it.
Bears, 17-13.
Eagles v. Titans:
I really love this matchup. Good teams. But everybody's banged up. The problem is that Desean Jackson's gone, their LT Peters is gone, and Tennesee's D-Line's going to work them over hard up front. Without Jackson, the Eagles are going to struggle to move the ball all day long. On the other side, the Titans offense has Chris Johnson and not much else. Vince Young is out, but I suspect that against a team like Philly he's more a liability than Kerry Collins because the Eagles will bait him into bad throws all day. The fact that Philly's only impressive win was at home against a Falcon team that looks like a fringe playoff team gives me pause.
Titans, 20-16.
Monday, October 18, 2010
A Sunday of Fresh Starts
This Sunday saw two remarkable rebirths, one all together new and the other a long overdue return to a better place. Don Draper, he of the lost and found mojo, took the only road offering a clean break from the last few years in making it official with his Canadian flame. And, back in Foxboro, the newest Patriot Deion Branch made the long overdue return to Brady's side running 15 yard crossing patterns in the guttiest win the Pats have had in years. Did they find the entire solution to everything that's happened? Probably not. But it's clear each jumped at the only chance they had to make it back.
The Mad Men season finale left the lady and I searching for why Don inexplicably signed on to marry the Secretary du jour, Megan. For chrissakes Don what the hell are you thinking? What about the Doc? Wait--is this actually a dream sequence? No? Oh shit. Don's going to marry that goddamn secretary with the janky teeth (Side note: If you're still hot with janky teeth, you're really, really hot.) This can't work.
But wait.
Why the hell not? If he ends up running with the Doc, he's literally going to spend the next 20 years on the therapist's couch trying to come to terms with a past from which it's probably best to just run. And she knows all the things that are just going to linger like cigarette stains on a mod couch. Maybe it's the mature, healthy approach to handling his issues, but taking these things head on just isn't the way Draper rolls. Hey, he's not perfect.
With Megan, at least there was a chance to get away from the last few years. Maybe she'll turn out to be a social-climbing snake or a closet sociopath like Betty. But she's the only real option to just kick things off completely free of prior restraints. Faye wanted to conquer Don's issues, but Megan just doesn't care. Who's right? Who knows. In the end it doesn't matter. The one person who needed to resolve the issues was never going to, so why keep beating the dead horse.
In New England, the return of Deion Branch marked the end of an unfortunate odyssey of 4 lost years and probably 2 sacrificed titles. I remember when Branch started holding out and the whole situatuon became bizarrely hostile out of nowhere. New England loved Branch, and Branch loved New England. He was a team-first guy, a worker, and didn't need a lot of publicity. But at the same time, what made the relationship so perfect--the team-oriented pay structure the Pats have long observed--ultimately limited the adoration he could receive. He forced demands the team wasn't going to meet, and in the end was sent to a Seattle club with a system that just didn't fit. Seattle wanted their star receiver, and paid for one, but Branch just wasn't that guy. And deep down, he must have known.
Without taking the analogy too far, Branch's Seattle downfall aligns perfectly with the train wreck period we saw last year for Don. Like Branch, Don had his chance to be his own man. Both were free of what had seemingly been perfect situations gone awry. (It's important here to differentiate Betty in reality as opposed to an idealized version Don thought he had early on: gorgeous, non-threatening, and adoring. When things went to hell, she started hitting .333.) And both certainly had some decent moments sewing the oats and getting the prestige they sought. Sure Don won a Clio and had some good moments in cabs, and Branch made some serious money with a sporadically good team.
At the end of it all, though, where were they? Draper's mojo was so far gone he'd become a connoisseur of the NYC hooker circuit, either getting a package deal with Lane or getting slapped on his own. Branch was an unwanted part of what became a bottom-dweller who didn't care about his chemistry with Brady in 2003.
The ability of each to figure out where they went wrong--Draper straying too far from a safe and adoring female and Branch leaving a team where he could play his style and maximize his talents--was what saved them. We always have seen Don as the great womanizer, but it only really worked in the context of his own stability at home. Branch's brilliance on certain routes masked the fact that he was small and didn't run long patterns. As it turned out, each had a chance at the life raft on the same day, and grabbed it as fast as possible. Good thing, because it may have been the last chance for both.
The unfortunate part of all this, as that poor bastard Henry barked the other night, is that life doesn't just start over when you want. Draper's older and divorced, the kids are older and moving to Rye, and the firm with his name on the door is damn near going under. Branch is 31, with too many miles on the tires, and a team that has declined since the halcyon days of 2004 and 2005. But it offers the chance to move on to a better place, and that simply couldn't have happened until now.
There's no way to know how things will play out for either of them, although the earliest signs are decent. Branch looked great against the Ravens and we all felt a lot better about things seeing Megan's calm handling of the spilled milkshake. Even if things don't pan out, though, each of the new starts offered the only chance at a better future for the two. At very least, now we can root for them.
The Mad Men season finale left the lady and I searching for why Don inexplicably signed on to marry the Secretary du jour, Megan. For chrissakes Don what the hell are you thinking? What about the Doc? Wait--is this actually a dream sequence? No? Oh shit. Don's going to marry that goddamn secretary with the janky teeth (Side note: If you're still hot with janky teeth, you're really, really hot.) This can't work.
But wait.
Why the hell not? If he ends up running with the Doc, he's literally going to spend the next 20 years on the therapist's couch trying to come to terms with a past from which it's probably best to just run. And she knows all the things that are just going to linger like cigarette stains on a mod couch. Maybe it's the mature, healthy approach to handling his issues, but taking these things head on just isn't the way Draper rolls. Hey, he's not perfect.
With Megan, at least there was a chance to get away from the last few years. Maybe she'll turn out to be a social-climbing snake or a closet sociopath like Betty. But she's the only real option to just kick things off completely free of prior restraints. Faye wanted to conquer Don's issues, but Megan just doesn't care. Who's right? Who knows. In the end it doesn't matter. The one person who needed to resolve the issues was never going to, so why keep beating the dead horse.
In New England, the return of Deion Branch marked the end of an unfortunate odyssey of 4 lost years and probably 2 sacrificed titles. I remember when Branch started holding out and the whole situatuon became bizarrely hostile out of nowhere. New England loved Branch, and Branch loved New England. He was a team-first guy, a worker, and didn't need a lot of publicity. But at the same time, what made the relationship so perfect--the team-oriented pay structure the Pats have long observed--ultimately limited the adoration he could receive. He forced demands the team wasn't going to meet, and in the end was sent to a Seattle club with a system that just didn't fit. Seattle wanted their star receiver, and paid for one, but Branch just wasn't that guy. And deep down, he must have known.
Without taking the analogy too far, Branch's Seattle downfall aligns perfectly with the train wreck period we saw last year for Don. Like Branch, Don had his chance to be his own man. Both were free of what had seemingly been perfect situations gone awry. (It's important here to differentiate Betty in reality as opposed to an idealized version Don thought he had early on: gorgeous, non-threatening, and adoring. When things went to hell, she started hitting .333.) And both certainly had some decent moments sewing the oats and getting the prestige they sought. Sure Don won a Clio and had some good moments in cabs, and Branch made some serious money with a sporadically good team.
At the end of it all, though, where were they? Draper's mojo was so far gone he'd become a connoisseur of the NYC hooker circuit, either getting a package deal with Lane or getting slapped on his own. Branch was an unwanted part of what became a bottom-dweller who didn't care about his chemistry with Brady in 2003.
The ability of each to figure out where they went wrong--Draper straying too far from a safe and adoring female and Branch leaving a team where he could play his style and maximize his talents--was what saved them. We always have seen Don as the great womanizer, but it only really worked in the context of his own stability at home. Branch's brilliance on certain routes masked the fact that he was small and didn't run long patterns. As it turned out, each had a chance at the life raft on the same day, and grabbed it as fast as possible. Good thing, because it may have been the last chance for both.
The unfortunate part of all this, as that poor bastard Henry barked the other night, is that life doesn't just start over when you want. Draper's older and divorced, the kids are older and moving to Rye, and the firm with his name on the door is damn near going under. Branch is 31, with too many miles on the tires, and a team that has declined since the halcyon days of 2004 and 2005. But it offers the chance to move on to a better place, and that simply couldn't have happened until now.
There's no way to know how things will play out for either of them, although the earliest signs are decent. Branch looked great against the Ravens and we all felt a lot better about things seeing Megan's calm handling of the spilled milkshake. Even if things don't pan out, though, each of the new starts offered the only chance at a better future for the two. At very least, now we can root for them.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
2010 NFL Forecast
Thursday marked the start of the NFL Season, so it seems time to actually make the 2010 NFL Forecast, this time from 32 to one. I actually had written some bits on all the teams, but it didn't save correctly and I was too damn angry to write anymore. But here's the rankings on things to start, and some quick notes.
Quick Points:
32) Seattle
31) Buffalo
30)Tampa Bay
29) St. Louis
28) Cleveland
27) Denver
26) Chicago
25) Oakland
24) Arizona
23) Detroit
22) Jacksonville
21) Miami
20) Kansas City
19) Washington
18) Carolina
17) NY Giants
16) Philadelphia
15) Atlanta
14) San Diego
13) Tennessee
12) San Francisco
11) Pittsburgh
10) Houston
9) Minnesota
8) NY Jets
7) Cincinnati
6) New England
5) New Orleans
4) Indianapolis
3) Dallas
2) Baltimore
1) Green Bay
Quick Points:
- I really like Green Bay, Baltimore, and Dallas. They seem like the three with the highest upside.
- I don't understand the fixation with Miami. They're decent, but not great and have a schedule that will leave them at 7-9. People get hung up about Marshall, but was anyone actually nervous about the Bronco passing game last year?
- The Jets aren't the Super Bowl contenders they made themselves out to be.
- If the Pats hadn't taken the personnel hits they have so far (Mankins, Bodden, Ty Warren), I'd put have put them in the top 4. But losing 3 of your top 10 players before week 10 is tough to overcome. As it is, they probably win the division but it's hard to see them making it too far in the postseason because of the young defense. Huge year for Brady and Moss.
- I'm saying Aaron Rodgers for MVP. He could throw for 35 TDs for a team that goes 11 or 12 wins.
- Seattle and Buffalo are going to be effing terrible. But at least next year's draft has solid QBs, which both need desperately.
- Not overly impressed with New Orleans or Minnesota the other night. New Orleans should have won that game by touchdowns, considering it was a home game against a heavily undermanned Minnesota club. They need to be a little more crisp on offense.
- Minny needs some wideouts to step up. They can't rely on Shiancoe to make all the plays in the passing game. People rip on Favre for being old and kind of a hassle, but the two throws he made over the middle to Shiancoe are ones only about 10 guys in the league can make.
- I like Cincy and Pittsburgh more than most. Cincinnati could be a top 8 team if things work out well. Pittsburgh, if they can stay healthy and in contention while Roethlisberger's out, isn't substantially different from the Super Bowl team of 2 years ago. They'll be tough if in contention in December. Brutal division, counting those two and Baltimore.
- I'm not as sold on the NFC East being as brutal as people make it out to be. Philly and the Giants have substantial flaws, and the Dallas could be due for a run of injuries. They'll all beat the hell out of each other.
32) Seattle
31) Buffalo
30)Tampa Bay
29) St. Louis
28) Cleveland
27) Denver
26) Chicago
25) Oakland
24) Arizona
23) Detroit
22) Jacksonville
21) Miami
20) Kansas City
19) Washington
18) Carolina
17) NY Giants
16) Philadelphia
15) Atlanta
14) San Diego
13) Tennessee
12) San Francisco
11) Pittsburgh
10) Houston
9) Minnesota
8) NY Jets
7) Cincinnati
6) New England
5) New Orleans
4) Indianapolis
3) Dallas
2) Baltimore
1) Green Bay
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Preseason Football and Preseason Blogging
Time to get back into blogging training camp! Some quick notes from the last couple of games, nationally aired.
Pats vs. Falcons
Pats vs. Falcons
- If you're the Pats, you've got to love the way the offensive skill players are looking right now. They look like they're a solid 4 deep for wideouts plus the TEs. Moss looks fast and like he's going to get after it. Good sign for August. It's easy to forget Moss was playing with a pretty messed up shoulder for most of last season.
- It's remarkable that Welker is already back from a complete knee blow-out about 7 months ago. He looks to be pretty well back in form, so he'll probably be ready to roll by Week 1. Having him back is nice, although they were realistically in a much better position to compensate for him missing time than they were last year in the Baltimore playoff game. Now they've got Tate and a more prepared Edelman, so they look much deeper.
- The rookies and second year players really seem to be ready to play in a hurry. Pat Chung looks like he's really going to be a ball player at safety after not playing much as a rookie. He's a hitter but doesn't have to play out of control (like McGowan always did). Vollmer similarly looks like he's going to make a big leap. He's better on the run than the pass, but he has the feet to improve on that. He was cleaning house on the right side the other night against a pretty good line.
- The rookie tight ends really look great for NE. Hernandez is going to be a playmaker for them and can create some matchup problems over the middle. I like Gronkowski overall, even though he's more of a traditional big TE. Hernandez only really blocks downfield, which is good, but not on 4th and 1. Gronkowski can move some peeps.
- The problem for the Pats, like we already basically knew, is going to be in the defensive front 7. With Warren out and Seymour never really replaced, it's going to be a band-aid situation all year long. Brace looked decent, but he's got a long way to go. Same thing for the pass rush. It's a little up in the air until Burgess gets more in the loop and Cunningham gets back on the field. They can compensate against the run with the MLBs (Spikes especially--that dude is a thumper) but they lose a little coverage range with those two.
- Count me in for the McCourty fan club. He looked tough out there and seems ready to rush in against the run. He's already in the top 3 for the corners and is going to get a lot of time with Bodden and Butler.
- I'm not sure how much I like the Falcons. This looks like an 8-8 team to me. It just does. They seem to be pretty good in a few spots, but not great at anything.
- That defense is just not physical at all. They're clearly built to beat the Saints (fine), but I don't see how they're going to match up with anyone trying to run the ball.
- Roddy White is solid, but the rest of the receivers are middle of the road guys on their best day. I'm not sold on Turner as being more than a grinder type. He'll get 100 yards, but it'll take 25 carries and he isn't much of a receiver.
- Really a pretty lackluster showing for the Eagles.
- The Eagles interior O-Line seems to be comprised of guys who shouldn't be in the league. They got worked over pretty well last night, and I don't see how this is going to improve. You can scheme help to the ends (TEs, RBs on fakes, etc.), but if you've got constant penetration in the A-gap because your center and guards shouldn't be playing on Sundays, it's damn near impossible to sustain success. Keep in mind that for all the trouble Philly had blocking, Cincy's two starting DEs didn't even play. Yikes.
- I like Philly's skill players, but they're not an overwhelming bunch. Kolb is a solid thrower but doesn't wow me right now. And I'm just not sure that any of the receivers other than DeSean Jackson are really better than average players right now. Vick looked pretty erratic, but they don't need him to throw in real games, so it's not a big concern.
- Can the Bengals really believe that Andre Smith is ever going to be a legit NFL tackle? That guy is terrrrrrible right now, and looks to be about 30 pounds overweight. He looks a legit 375. We're about a season from him getting cut next September.
- Overall I like the Bengals more than I expected (other than the helmets--I've always love the helmets. Those things are the effing jam.) They can run the ball, they've improved their talent level at the WR and TE position, and the defense still seems solid. TO looked better than I remembered from any point last year, although playing with that crappy Buffalo team will pretty much stifle any chance to make plays (See: Evans, Lee).
- The defense still should remain tough for the Bengals. The corners are both ball players, so they can overcompensate against the run. Good unit. They'll really be helped having Odom back in there after his injury last year.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
So That's Why We Had to Sell All the Library Books on EBay...
Just to the Southeast of Downtown LA there's a fairly small city making a lot of headlines lately. The City of Bell, CA, with a working-class immigrant-heavy population of about 40,000 suddenly popped up on the radar last week when it surfaced that they happened to have the highest paid city officials in the country. Turns out that through a series of shady deals, the City ended up paying its City Manager nearly $800,000 annually in salary, his second in command about $375,000, and the Police Chief $450,000. Keep in mind that even in the largest cities in the country, the people with those jobs make at most half that amount. And then we need to consider the city council, all of whom were making $100K for their part time gigs sitting on irrelevant commissions. Yikes.
Like most people, my initial thought was, "how the hell do I get a job there?" Second,of course, was the question of how this possibly could have happened. We only have to look back a few years to see where the system went off the rails. In 2005, the State legislature passed a new law that limited the amount city officials could be paid. Of course this only came on the heels (and because of) a similar scandal in another city called South Gate, which happens to border Bell on the southwest side (of course it does...).
So if you're a scumbag city official and want to avoid all the hassle of state caps, what do you do? You bring a special election that no one knows anything about and turn Bell into a "Charter City." Basically, this is just a mechanism to allow cities to skirt some state control. It sounds good in theory, but then this shit happens and no one likes it anymore. The special election took place after the State passed the pay cap law, but no one made the connection. Only about 400 people of the 40,000 citizens voted (most by absentee), and no one really thought about it again.
Until now.
Problem at this point is that it's tough to undo all that's happened. The money's gone, first and foremost. The whole "drag them out in the street and shoot them" (aka "Option Eastwood") probably is off the list too. They may try to shake down the city council and officials and force retirements, but hell, even if they force them out they're still eligible for sweet pensions (LA Times reported that the manager would be on a $600K annual pension). It'll be hard to show pure fraud or other illegal conduct because most of what they were doing would have been technically legal, albeit offensive to any moral standard. There probably isn't any kind of smoking gun recording of kickbacks. So they're probably just stuck holding the bag, trying to learn for the next time.
I suppose the moral of the story is to make sure we all know who's writing the checks in these local governments, since this isn't just big city stuff. Hell, the town manager in my town growing up did some time for embezzling funds. And second, the song and dance about local control and getting rid of all those oppressive state rules isn't all its cracked up to be. One way or another, everybody's got a hustle. The trick is figuring it out before it's too late.
Like most people, my initial thought was, "how the hell do I get a job there?" Second,of course, was the question of how this possibly could have happened. We only have to look back a few years to see where the system went off the rails. In 2005, the State legislature passed a new law that limited the amount city officials could be paid. Of course this only came on the heels (and because of) a similar scandal in another city called South Gate, which happens to border Bell on the southwest side (of course it does...).
So if you're a scumbag city official and want to avoid all the hassle of state caps, what do you do? You bring a special election that no one knows anything about and turn Bell into a "Charter City." Basically, this is just a mechanism to allow cities to skirt some state control. It sounds good in theory, but then this shit happens and no one likes it anymore. The special election took place after the State passed the pay cap law, but no one made the connection. Only about 400 people of the 40,000 citizens voted (most by absentee), and no one really thought about it again.
Until now.
Problem at this point is that it's tough to undo all that's happened. The money's gone, first and foremost. The whole "drag them out in the street and shoot them" (aka "Option Eastwood") probably is off the list too. They may try to shake down the city council and officials and force retirements, but hell, even if they force them out they're still eligible for sweet pensions (LA Times reported that the manager would be on a $600K annual pension). It'll be hard to show pure fraud or other illegal conduct because most of what they were doing would have been technically legal, albeit offensive to any moral standard. There probably isn't any kind of smoking gun recording of kickbacks. So they're probably just stuck holding the bag, trying to learn for the next time.
I suppose the moral of the story is to make sure we all know who's writing the checks in these local governments, since this isn't just big city stuff. Hell, the town manager in my town growing up did some time for embezzling funds. And second, the song and dance about local control and getting rid of all those oppressive state rules isn't all its cracked up to be. One way or another, everybody's got a hustle. The trick is figuring it out before it's too late.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
99 Problems But The Debt Ain't One
This summer we're seeing the next political death match du jour (werewolves vs. vampires excluded), the question of whether the economy is best served by major increases in Federal spending or by cutting back on spending so as to allegedly enable more private sector growth. What's so problematic about this, of course, is that while the cable news networks are reaping the rewards of unqualified political hacks pontificating on the issues and fictional economic theories, actual humans are getting their asses handed to them by a Lohan-esque economic downturn.
The argument we're hearing from the conservative perspective essentially circles around 3 major concepts:
I understand that it seems, intuitively, that we shouldn't try to fix a debt/growth problem by spending more money--and in our own house, that's possibly true. But we don't have a national economy in our living room and our checkbook doesn't have anything to do with structuring the GDP. If we all had a canoe, we wouldn't try to solve problems on a cruise liner by telling people to paddle harder and throw off deck chairs. And yet that's exactly what this "austerity" solution is doing (Note:I love how they all use "austerity" instead of "not giving money to laid off workers to eat and keep the lights on" because it sounds smarter). Paul Krugman recently stated this well, noting [paraphrasing here] that it all makes visceral sense that we should have to tighten down on everything. But we need to make economic policy with out minds, not our viscera.
The fact remains today, as it did in 1937 and 1941, that the key to a solid recovery from a crisis of this magnitude is a major jump in Federal outlays, even if the debt goes up dramatically. I use 1937 as a reference point because that was the year in which FDR halted the economic recovery dead in its tracks by stopping many of the government spending programs that had been helping to drag the economy upwards. The same sense of back asswards economics that had been the cause and an escalator of the Depression suddenly came back into vogue, and brought the Country right back where it had been trying to escape. It was the start of WWII that ended the Depression, plain and simple. And obviously nobody wants a war. But the point is that going to a global war was an enormous outlay of Federal spending, and that's what put the gears of recovery into motion. Whether it's a tank or a solar power facility, somebody's going to work.
The economics of all of this makes sense, but it does require more thought than most red states want to offer (this is, by the way, the simplified Keynesian view). The national economy is essentially based on a certain level of overall economic activity that creates jobs, profits, and thus tax revenues. When times are good, the government can ease up on spending, and make more money available for private sector investment and purchasing. People have money, so they spend it, creating increases in demand and supply, as well as innovation. This pattern basically played out in the Clinton administration when he was running budget surpluses. When the economy goes into a downturn, private sector spending decreases along with investment and jobs. If a worker loses a job, he stops spending, and because he stops spending, the suppliers stop making as many products and cut jobs and input resources. Rinse and repeat after that, and we have 2008. The Fed will try to cut interest rates to make investing easier and cheaper, and while that can help to a smaller degree, alone it's not enough for major problems. By this point, borrowing funds from the Federal Reserve comes with about zero interest.
Here's where the government spending comes into the picture. If the Federal government can spend enough to overcompensate for the decline in the private sector, this will buy time for the overall economy to normalize and re-energize the investment cycle. This comes through in multiple ways. You have the obvious manner of unemployment insurance, which keeps consumer spending up while the person finds new work or training. There is direct government lending to small businesses, who in turn make more capital investments and hire workers. Similarly, Federal dollars can go to the States to help them from making huge cuts in beneficial spending and education. My favorite is government development of national infrastructure projects that make the larger economy work. Power plants, communications, roads, mass transit, water projects--all of these create enormous advances in the ability of the economy to expand and streamline. Was it Socialism when Eisenhower pushed for the Interstate highways and when FDR brought power to rural areas in the 1930s? Of course not.
Obviously, spending like the country needs to will create an immediate Federal debt. No doubt about it. And while running a debt isn't a great situation, it's a means to a better end. By investing now, the economy stays afloat and then grows, paying off the debt accrued. You keep people at work and allow businesses to grow, which lays the groundwork for the next big jump. Conversely, cutting the spending does nothing to help the situation and is a killer for actually emerging from the problem. The biggest danger we face is seeing a contraction of the economy, cutting national output, consumer spending, and tax revenue. Businesses aren't worried about Federal regulation and taxes, they're worried about people (and other businesses) not walking in the door and buying. The solution to the debt is expanding the economy so that the government doesn't have to spend as much, and the private sector can stand on its own. When it does, the debt goes down and the federal spending goes back to normal.
As for the issue of other countries suddenly stopping all lending and suddenly demanding their money loan-shark style, it's just not realistic. If we were way worse off than all the other countries and were also seeing an increase in the treasury bond prices, maybe this would be a concern. But we aren't. The rate on the loans were taking through the securities is still only about 3%, and foreign countries are eating that up because they're more confident on our economy than their own. We're still the best bet in town, even if the corporate-funded hacks on talk radio are looking for the hordes to come riding in looking for their money. Screw it maybe we should just go buy gold from Glen Beck.
As I said earlier, the simple idea of cutting the federal spending and money magically showing up just doesn't make sense in economic terms. Cutting spending seems workable if the same amount of money is coming in the door, but for the country as a whole that's not happening and the necessary level of growth isn't going to just spontaneously pop up. It's an investment people, and we need it now. This Hoover plan of "austerity" was a trainwreck in 1930, just as much as it is now. Hoover could say that at that point they didn't know any better. What's our excuse?
The argument we're hearing from the conservative perspective essentially circles around 3 major concepts:
- The government is spending too much money and needs to stop borrowing to keep it up.
- Borrowing creates a larger total debt (aka Federal deficit).
- The deficit is bad because eventually the amount of interest gets too high, becomes too expensive for us to repay, and the lendors will stop lending money. There's an inflation argument in here as well, but I'll address that in a follow-up post (in short, this is a bogus argument and the problem we're facing is deflation from inaction, not inflation--this is just a garbage scare tactic ala Death Panels and Obama re-education camps).
I understand that it seems, intuitively, that we shouldn't try to fix a debt/growth problem by spending more money--and in our own house, that's possibly true. But we don't have a national economy in our living room and our checkbook doesn't have anything to do with structuring the GDP. If we all had a canoe, we wouldn't try to solve problems on a cruise liner by telling people to paddle harder and throw off deck chairs. And yet that's exactly what this "austerity" solution is doing (Note:I love how they all use "austerity" instead of "not giving money to laid off workers to eat and keep the lights on" because it sounds smarter). Paul Krugman recently stated this well, noting [paraphrasing here] that it all makes visceral sense that we should have to tighten down on everything. But we need to make economic policy with out minds, not our viscera.
The fact remains today, as it did in 1937 and 1941, that the key to a solid recovery from a crisis of this magnitude is a major jump in Federal outlays, even if the debt goes up dramatically. I use 1937 as a reference point because that was the year in which FDR halted the economic recovery dead in its tracks by stopping many of the government spending programs that had been helping to drag the economy upwards. The same sense of back asswards economics that had been the cause and an escalator of the Depression suddenly came back into vogue, and brought the Country right back where it had been trying to escape. It was the start of WWII that ended the Depression, plain and simple. And obviously nobody wants a war. But the point is that going to a global war was an enormous outlay of Federal spending, and that's what put the gears of recovery into motion. Whether it's a tank or a solar power facility, somebody's going to work.
The economics of all of this makes sense, but it does require more thought than most red states want to offer (this is, by the way, the simplified Keynesian view). The national economy is essentially based on a certain level of overall economic activity that creates jobs, profits, and thus tax revenues. When times are good, the government can ease up on spending, and make more money available for private sector investment and purchasing. People have money, so they spend it, creating increases in demand and supply, as well as innovation. This pattern basically played out in the Clinton administration when he was running budget surpluses. When the economy goes into a downturn, private sector spending decreases along with investment and jobs. If a worker loses a job, he stops spending, and because he stops spending, the suppliers stop making as many products and cut jobs and input resources. Rinse and repeat after that, and we have 2008. The Fed will try to cut interest rates to make investing easier and cheaper, and while that can help to a smaller degree, alone it's not enough for major problems. By this point, borrowing funds from the Federal Reserve comes with about zero interest.
Here's where the government spending comes into the picture. If the Federal government can spend enough to overcompensate for the decline in the private sector, this will buy time for the overall economy to normalize and re-energize the investment cycle. This comes through in multiple ways. You have the obvious manner of unemployment insurance, which keeps consumer spending up while the person finds new work or training. There is direct government lending to small businesses, who in turn make more capital investments and hire workers. Similarly, Federal dollars can go to the States to help them from making huge cuts in beneficial spending and education. My favorite is government development of national infrastructure projects that make the larger economy work. Power plants, communications, roads, mass transit, water projects--all of these create enormous advances in the ability of the economy to expand and streamline. Was it Socialism when Eisenhower pushed for the Interstate highways and when FDR brought power to rural areas in the 1930s? Of course not.
Obviously, spending like the country needs to will create an immediate Federal debt. No doubt about it. And while running a debt isn't a great situation, it's a means to a better end. By investing now, the economy stays afloat and then grows, paying off the debt accrued. You keep people at work and allow businesses to grow, which lays the groundwork for the next big jump. Conversely, cutting the spending does nothing to help the situation and is a killer for actually emerging from the problem. The biggest danger we face is seeing a contraction of the economy, cutting national output, consumer spending, and tax revenue. Businesses aren't worried about Federal regulation and taxes, they're worried about people (and other businesses) not walking in the door and buying. The solution to the debt is expanding the economy so that the government doesn't have to spend as much, and the private sector can stand on its own. When it does, the debt goes down and the federal spending goes back to normal.
As for the issue of other countries suddenly stopping all lending and suddenly demanding their money loan-shark style, it's just not realistic. If we were way worse off than all the other countries and were also seeing an increase in the treasury bond prices, maybe this would be a concern. But we aren't. The rate on the loans were taking through the securities is still only about 3%, and foreign countries are eating that up because they're more confident on our economy than their own. We're still the best bet in town, even if the corporate-funded hacks on talk radio are looking for the hordes to come riding in looking for their money. Screw it maybe we should just go buy gold from Glen Beck.
As I said earlier, the simple idea of cutting the federal spending and money magically showing up just doesn't make sense in economic terms. Cutting spending seems workable if the same amount of money is coming in the door, but for the country as a whole that's not happening and the necessary level of growth isn't going to just spontaneously pop up. It's an investment people, and we need it now. This Hoover plan of "austerity" was a trainwreck in 1930, just as much as it is now. Hoover could say that at that point they didn't know any better. What's our excuse?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)