Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktMarkets are flat this morning on no real news. Bonds and MBS are flat as well.
I don’t think bonds are closing early today, but for all intents and purposes they are as most of the Street will be gone by noon ahead of the 3 day weekend.
The ISM Milwaukee index fell to 59.6, however the Chicago Purchasing Managers Index rose to 64 and the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey rose to 82.5.
Ready to pop the champagne over the good consumer sentiment numbers? Well, it has yet to flow through to actual spending. Personal Spending fell .1% in July, however the reason was falling energy prices. Ex-food and energy, spending increased .1%. That said it isn’t that strong of a number. Personal Income rose .2%.
One of the interesting features of this recovery has been the disconnect between the reported unemployment rate and the actual health of the labor market. While unemployment keeps falling, the labor market still doesn’t feel much better. The Fed is now looking at an index comprised of 24 indicators called the Labor Market Conditions Index (LMCI) to describe the health of the labor market. There are two pieces to the index – the current level of activity and momentum. The momentum indicator gives you clues as to where the market is going in the future. Here is what it looks like at the moment – about a year away from normalcy.
Short missive as there is not much going on. Have a happy Labor Day everyone.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
This is exactly correct:
Democracies being volatile things, it is difficult to know precisely what the American people “want” the president to do. Either way, it is wholly irrelevant to the question at hand. I am quite sure that it is frustrating for Barack Obama that he happens to be president of the United States at the same time as the House of Representatives is controlled by the Republican party. I daresay, too, that it was irritating for George W. Bush that he happened to be president at a time during which there were insufficient legislators to indulge his own immigration plans. But, one might ask, “So what?” However they might have conceived of themselves and their agendas, neither our 43rd nor 44th presidents were possessed of a cosmic right to see their programs codified into law. Instead, they were and are but one cog in a large machine — a machine, it should be remembered, that deliberately stations the executive as one of the least important players within the legislative field. In America, presidents enjoy the right to use their limited powers to get as much of what they want as is possible. But they enjoy nothing more. When his ambitions are tempered by the ambitions of the other elected figures within the structure . . . well, nothing happens. That, I’m afraid, is how separation of powers works.
More importantly, perhaps, that’s how separation of powers is supposed to work. At the time of writing, the United States is not in extremis — and nor are its political arrangements historically egregious. Instead, the system is humming along nicely. There is little point in having a written constitution if the president can merely free himself from its restrictions when he deems them irresponsible. Nor, for that matter, is there much virtue in the people’s sending men and women to Washington to serve as a check on the president if the very act of being checked provokes him into circumventing the rules. Which is to say that Obama is irritated not with his inability to deal with imminent catastrophe, but with business as usual, and his lamentations amount not to a Churchillian roar but to a whine. On a human level, one can empathize. It is never nice to be thwarted when you believe that you have the only acceptable answers. On a legal level, though, one can do little more than shrug. Congress was elected, too.
Typically, these principles have enjoyed broad acceptance in America. No doubt they will again. If next year a Republican Senate turns the tables and renders President Obama the “obstructionist,” do we expect to hear Mitch McConnell explaining that he has been forced by Obama’s “unique” intransigence to pass laws without the president’s signature? Will we see a McConnell Senate seeking to form GOP-friendly proto-treaties with other nations? Will the House of Representatives start to issue the pardons that the president won’t on the grounds that they are “too important” to wait for? Might John Boehner begin to command the armed forces and to fly around on Air Force One, justifying his appropriation on the grounds that Obama is uniquely absent on the world stage and that the consequences of his absence are too deleterious to allow? Will the legislative branch announce that it “can’t wait,” and cut the corporate tax rate on its own? Of course not. Clearly, these would all represent intolerable hijackings of the executive branch’s role. One wonders, then, why we are we expected to indulge the practice the other way round. Are appeals to expedience less problematic when the president, and not the legislature, is the one indulging in the seizure? Congress has considered the Dream Act 24 times in the last twelve years. Each time — regrettably, in my view — it has declined to pass it. In what possible universe does this suggest that the president should go it alone?
LikeLike
Let’s face facts, if Congress is unwilling to use the power of the purse or impeach, there is no limit on Executive power.
Where am I wrong?
LikeLike
McWing:
Let’s face facts, if Congress is unwilling to use the power of the purse or impeach, there is no limit on Executive power.
I think you need an acquiescent SCOTUS, too.
LikeLike
At least they had free healthcare Bagger!
LikeLike
As Andrew Jacksson asked, “How many Divisions does the Supreme Court have?”
LikeLike
McWing:
As Andrew Jacksson asked, “How many Divisions does the Supreme Court have?”
That is true, but by that measure congress is equally impotent. With both the Treasury Department and the IRS falling under the executive, congress’ own lack of Divisions also leaves it powerless even to control the purse.
Since the government power to employ literal coercion rests only with the executive branch, executive power is, ultimately, limited only by the goodwill and willingness of individuals within the executive branch to bow to the decisions of the other branches. And, of course, the threat of insurrection from citizens.
LikeLike
Well, ok, that’s not quite what he said but…
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_did_President_Andrew_Jackson_respond_to_the_Supreme_Court_ruling_allowing_the_Cherokee_to_stay_on_their_land
Points the same, SCOTUS requires Executive Branch to enforce it’s edicts. If it doesn’t…
LikeLike
Knock me over with a feather.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/08/29/did-the-health-law-raise-or-lower-wages/
Meh, it’s only wages
LikeLike
Since the government power to employ literal coercion rests only with the executive branch, executive power is, ultimately, limited only by the goodwill and willingness of individuals within the executive branch to bow to the decisions of the other branches. And, of course, the threat of insurrection from citizens.
Agreed with everything you wrote. I’m not expecting an insurrection from a populace that elected Obama.
Twice.
LikeLike
McWing:
Agreed with everything you wrote. I’m not expecting an insurrection from a populace that elected Obama.
Twice.
Can’t argue with that. I daresay that, should Obama provoke a constitutional crisis by explicitly defying both plain congressional authorization and SCOTUS rulings, it would be met not with outrage but with cheers from a not insignificant portion of the electorate, including many of those posters from the Plum Line.
LikeLike
Agreed. There is nothing Obama could do that would cause 67 Senator to vote for Impeachment.
If someone thinks there is, I’d love to hear.
LikeLike
George: dead girl-live boy?
LikeLike
Name a dozen or more D Senators that would vote to convict Obama?
LikeLike
George – cannot do it without the dead girl/live boy sequence.
Meanwhile, our DEA is spending our money freely:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/08/29/justice-department-inspector-investigates-dea-payments-for-amtrak-passenger-info/?wpisrc=nl_pmpol&wpmm=1
And I also learn from this story that when I use Amtrak my info is available to DEA for the asking – I kinda wish the DEA would really have to pay $800K for it because I’M WORTH IT, DAMMIT.
LikeLike
Ok, name 12 or more D Senators that would vote to convict Obama in a dead girl / live boy scenario.
Before the election I figure Manchin, Landriue, Begich and Pryor. After the election I cannot think of a single one.
LikeLike
‘Cause it might hurt the party.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/08/29/kirsten_gillibrand_sexual_harassment_scandal_the_senator_should_not_name.html#comments
Bury it or bury your future!
Also, was what was done to her anything different then what Bill Clinton has done to Gid know’ how many chicks?
LikeLike
I think most of them would, George. Of course we would then have President Biden.
I do want to know if everyone thinks that DEA/AMTRAK story sux in every dimension or if I am just overreacting b/c I am old and recall train trips with fond nostalgia.
LikeLike
Fascinating.
LikeLike
Gillibrand for POTUS. She isn’t HRC.
LikeLike
I’m for Fauxahontas or Bernie Sanders.
LikeLike
Heh.
https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/505411589185744896
LikeLike
Well, it was a reset of sorts…
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/505408534981660672
LikeLike
Heh.
LikeLike