Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Software Designer Reports Error in Anthony Trial
This one search was made only days subsequent to Casey's having seen that graphic about chloroform on her boyfriend's MySpace page.
July 11, 2011~ The New York Times
July 11, 2011~ The New York Times
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
MIAMI — Assertions by the prosecution that Casey Anthony conducted extensive computer searches on the word “chloroform” were based on inaccurate data, a software designer who testified at the trial said Monday.
The designer, John Bradley, said Ms. Anthony had visited what the prosecution said was a crucial Web site only once, not 84 times, as prosecutors had asserted. He came to that conclusion after redesigning his software, and immediately alerted prosecutors and the police about the mistake, he said.
The finding of 84 visits was used repeatedly during the trial to suggest that Ms. Anthony had planned to murder her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, who was found dead in 2008. Ms. Anthony, who could have faced the death penalty, was acquitted of the killing on July 5.
According to Mr. Bradley, chief software developer of CacheBack, used by the police to verify the computer searches, the term “chloroform” was searched once through Google. The Google search then led to a Web site, sci-spot.com, that was visited only once, Mr. Bradley added. The Web site offered information on the use of chloroform in the 1800s.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Office had used the software to validate its finding that Ms. Anthony had searched for information about chloroform 84 times, a conclusion that Mr. Bradley says turned out to be wrong. Mr. Bradley said he immediately alerted a prosecutor, Linda Drane Burdick, and Sgt. Kevin Stenger of the Sheriff’s Office in late June through e-mail and by telephone to tell them of his new findings. Mr. Bradley said he conducted a second analysis after discovering discrepancies that were never brought to his attention by prosecutors or the police.
Mr. Bradley’s findings were not presented to the jury and the record was never corrected, he said. Prosecutors are required to reveal all information that is exculpatory to the defense.
“I gave the police everything they needed to present a new report,” Mr. Bradley said. “I did the work myself and copied out the entire database in a spreadsheet to make sure there was no issue of accessibility to the data.”
Mr. Bradley, chief executive of Siquest, a Canadian company, said he even volunteered to fly to Orlando at his own expense to show them the findings.
Cheney Mason, one of Ms. Anthony’s defense lawyers, said it was “outrageous” that prosecutors withheld critical information on the “chloroform” searches.
“The prosecution is absolutely obligated to bring forth to the court any and all evidence that could be exculpatory,” Mr. Mason said. “If in fact this is true, and the prosecution concealed this new information, it is more than shame on them. It is outrageous.”
“This was a major part of their case,” Mr. Mason added.
The State Attorney’s Office in Orlando did not return messages seeking comment.
Capt. Angelo Nieves, media relations commander for the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, said Mr. Bradley had a vested interest in coming forward since his software was used in the investigation.
“We’re not going to relive the trial again,” Captain Nieves said. “We are not prepared to do that nor are we going to participate in that.”
A former Canadian police sergeant who specializes in computer forensic analysis, Mr. Bradley said he first became suspicious of the data after he testified on June 8. He said he had been called to testify by the prosecution about his CacheBack software. Instead, he was asked repeatedly about the Sheriff’s Office report detailing the 84 search hits on “chloroform,” which he had not seen.
“I had translated the data into something meaningful for the police,” he said. “Then I turned it over to them. The No. 1 principle for them is to validate the data, and they had the tools and resources to do it. They chose not to.”
Soon after giving testimony, Mr. Bradley learned during the defense portion of the case that the police had written a first report in August 2008 detailing Ms. Anthony’s history of Internet searches. That report used NetAnalysis, a different software.
Despite his appearance as a witness, Mr. Bradley said he was never told about that first report either by the police, with whom he had been in contact, or the prosecution.
Of the search results in both reports relating to chloroform, only one hit was found for sci-spot.com. That site was visited once, according to NetAnalysis, and visited 84 times, according to the CacheBack analysis.
Concerned that the analysis using CacheBack could be wrong and that a woman’s life might be at stake, Mr. Bradley went back to the drawing board and redesigned a portion of his software to get a more accurate picture.
He found both reports were inaccurate (although NetAnalysis came up with the correct result), in part because it appears both types of software had failed to fully decode the entire file, due to its complexity. His more thorough analysis showed that the Web site sci-spot.com was visited only once — not 84 times.
Mr. Bradley, fearing that jurors were being given false information based on his data, contacted the police and the prosecution the weekend of June 25. He asked Sergeant Stenger about the discrepancy, and the sergeant said he was aware of it, Mr. Bradley said. He waited to see if prosecutors would correct the record. They did not.
“They needed to get that right,” Mr. Bradley said.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Life Coaching Those Obsessed With the Casey Anthony Trial
By Nancy Colasurdo
Published July 08, 2011
Dear Fellow Americans –
Please feel free to skip right by this if you have no idea who Casey Anthony is or if you know who she is but you’ve managed to live your life without catching a single moment of her murder trial. (Congratulations on that, by the way. No small feat.)
Instead, this is directed to those of you who have latched on to a murder trial featuring a family you’ve never met to the point where you have rearranged your schedules, spewed vitriol, hung on to every word and expression in the courtroom and taken a nice hot bath in self-righteousness.
.
Before you started firing off comments to me on Casey Anthony’s every twitch and the merits of the case against her, you should know it will fall on deaf ears. My only interest in this is to understand what has become a national obsession to the point where I was slack-jawed reading the status updates and comments on my Facebook page and Twitter feed. That doesn’t even include the actual conversations I’ve overheard or extricated myself from because the tone became hostile.
I am sad that a little girl died and I know you are, too. But here’s some perspective -- what about all the others?
According to the FBI’s “Crime in the United States” report, there were 1,494 people under the age of 18 murdered in 2008. More than 500 of those were under age four. Aside from Caylee Anthony, can you name one other victim? In 2009, the total was 1,348 and nearly 500 of those were under age four. How many of them have you left your porch light on for in the name of justice?
Somewhere Sigmund Freud’s head is spinning from all the projection and displaced anger going on around this. I think it’s worth asking ourselves why this case got snared in the American consciousness and what it means in our individual lives. Clearly we need to express frustration and anger and this has provided an outlet.
Casey Anthony has been called a slew of names and she’s been wished dead more times than I can count and the possible ways for her to meet her demise have been detailed. There has been discussion of her karma as well as her lack of tears.
This is a lot of energy expended on a stranger, folks. If you’re in that mix, perhaps it’s time to dig in and figure out why this has affected you so deeply.
For example, if you are struggling to have children, it’s natural to feel frustrated when you perceive someone like Anthony has succeeded in that and squandered it. It’s understandably human to ask why and even have some confusion and/or resentment, but ultimately you have to know railing at a stranger to the level where your blood pressure is rising isn’t going to bring you a baby.
Ditto for all the other possibilities that have you getting so emotionally involved in one woman’s story.
There’s another way to go here.
Ideally, the fever pitch around the Casey Anthony trial could spur action for children in need. If there is time to watch hours of coverage and craft status updates, there is time to funnel the energy into something more productive. One Facebook friend posted a terrific suggestion -- get better acquainted with a Web site for missing kids.
That’s an easy, surface-level idea that requires only time on the Internet. But you can always take it up a notch. Write a check. Write regular checks if you can. Target causes that help make children’s health and well-being a priority.
Just Tell Director Vivian Farmery would be all too happy to let you release your frustration at the mistreatment of children by contributing to Just Tell, whose mission is, according to its Web site, “to educate and empower children and adults around the issue of childhood sexual abuse.”
Need I mention St. Jude’s Hospital? What better place to bring your compassion for children? No extra cash? They appreciate volunteers, too.
So does Big Brothers Big Sisters. Becoming a “big” is an opportunity to affect a child’s life one-on-one in a meaningful and steady way.
This is just a tiny sampling of the organizations that could use your support.
That kind of giving of your time, talent or treasure will not bring back Caylee Anthony or any other murdered child, but it will help you feel like you’re doing something to make a child’s world better. And your world will subsequently improve by leaps and bounds because of your kind actions.
So how about it? Might we harness this energy and fuel a movement for positive change? Will you heed the call?
That would honor Caylee Anthony more than any trumped-up outrage or shining porch lights ever could.
Sincerely,
Nancy
Nancy Colasurdo is a practicing life coach and freelance writer. Her Web site is www.nancola.com.
Casey Anthony: Making a Case for Compassion
By Sensei Morris Sekiyo Sullivan
Created Jul 11 2011
I live in Central Florida, where the Casey Anthony case has been in the forefront of the community consciousness for several years, and where the outcome of her trial was received with very strong emotions. Like the O.J. Simpson trial, the Anthony case fueled a controversy rife with feelings of animosity, distrust and betrayal....and displaced feelings. However, rather than participate in the controversy over her guilt or innocence, perhaps we can use our feelings about this particular tragedy as an opportunity for spiritual growth.
For a Buddhist, there are good religious reasons to abandon anger and cultivate kindness. However, there are also ample mental health-related incentives for transcending ill will and cultivating compassion - or at least what Albert Ellis termed unconditional other-acceptance - for the Casey Anthonys of the world.
One of the sutras relates a conversation between the Buddha and his son, Rahula, a novice monk. The Buddha begins by asking his son, "What is a mirror for?" He goes on to explain that just as Rahula might use the reflection in a mirror to examine his face, he can use his awareness to reflect on his actions of body, speech and mind.
If, on such reflection, Rahula finds himself engaging in a harmful mental, verbal or physical act, he should abandon it. If he finds the action is helpful, he can continue it and even cultivate it. Like Rahula, we can use our minds to reflect on our Casey Anthony-related acts of body, speech and mind and determine whether to abandon or cultivate them.
I suspect the typical thoughts that fuel animosity toward Anthony go something like this: "Casey Anthony did a terrible thing, so she is a terrible person who deserves damnation. Because she's so evil, she must be punished, and anyone who could have but didn't punish her is also a terrible person who deserves damnation."
As I mentioned in my previous post, The Buddha and Albert Ellis: The Eightfold Path Meets the ABCs of REBT, global self-rating is irrational and leads to stress and difficulty. Just as it is unskillful to rate one's ever-changing, indefinable "self," it is equally irrational to rate another's "self."
Let's use our mindfulness as a mirror to reflect on the most prominent of these other-rating views, "Because Casey Anthony did a terrible thing, she is a terrible person." We'll disregard the question of guilt: The irrationality (or ignorance, in Buddhist terms) has little to do with whether or not she is guilty, but whether or not her guilt makes her a "terrible person."
First, we can ask ourselves, "Is there evidence to prove the belief that if someone does a bad thing, he or she is a bad person?"
The answer is no-there is no evidence that Anthony is "bad" because she did a bad thing. A bad person could only do bad things, but we know all people do both good things and bad things, so there's no way this one terrible act makes her a terrible person.
In fact, we can now answer our second question, "Is there evidence that belief is false?" Anthony doubtless has some good qualities, so she can't possibly be a "bad person." Even if we could find very few good qualities in her, there is no reason she couldn't go on to do many good things in her lifetime.
Next, we can weigh the disadvantages of hanging on to such beliefs and the disadvantages of relinquishing them. What happens if we continue believing that someone who does a bad thing is therefore a thoroughly bad, damnable person? We will probably continue to get angry when people in the news-and in our personal lives-do bad things.
If we look closely into our hearts and minds, we discover that anger includes some pretty unpleasant sensations. We now see that these unpleasant feelings are the result of our mental processes, not the situation itself. If we can transcend the irrational mental formations at the source of our anger, we can end the suffering!
Freed from this filter of rage, we can now clearly see Anthony as another being who, like us, our friends and our loved ones, is suffering the universal dukkha of aging, illness and impermanence. She has also lost her child. I've heard people discount that, using the perception that she may not feel exhibit adequate remorse as further evidence of her "terribleness." However, if this mother is not suffering from this loss, what kind of suffering must she have endured to get that way?
Cultivating compassion for Casey Anthony won't cost you anything, but it will benefit you by helping you develop the capacity for compassion, which is a great strength. If you're still feeling anger or other distress over the case, here are a few things to try:
(1) Work towards non-animosity for Anthony by accepting that she, like you, is an imperfect being struggling with the effects of past karma.
(2) Cultivate compassion for everyone involved in this case: Along with Anthony herself and her family, this case involved judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, jurors and their friends and families. Each of them have performed good actions and have good characteristics, and each have performed some unskillful actions and have negative characteristics. See if you can have compassion for the entire group.
(3) Cultivate some compassion for yourself. Recognize that you have caused yourself distress by generating feelings of anger or hopelessness, for example, and resolve to ease your own suffering without condemning yourself for it: You, too, inherited the effects of past karma.
(4) Rather than being resentful or feeling hopeless about the lack of "justice," perhaps you can help prevent future similar situations. Consider donating to or volunteering for community organizations that aid families in crisis or ask your state representative to increase resources for agencies that assist children and families.
For a Buddhist, there are good religious reasons to abandon anger and cultivate kindness. However, there are also ample mental health-related incentives for transcending ill will and cultivating compassion - or at least what Albert Ellis termed unconditional other-acceptance - for the Casey Anthonys of the world.
One of the sutras relates a conversation between the Buddha and his son, Rahula, a novice monk. The Buddha begins by asking his son, "What is a mirror for?" He goes on to explain that just as Rahula might use the reflection in a mirror to examine his face, he can use his awareness to reflect on his actions of body, speech and mind.
If, on such reflection, Rahula finds himself engaging in a harmful mental, verbal or physical act, he should abandon it. If he finds the action is helpful, he can continue it and even cultivate it. Like Rahula, we can use our minds to reflect on our Casey Anthony-related acts of body, speech and mind and determine whether to abandon or cultivate them.
I suspect the typical thoughts that fuel animosity toward Anthony go something like this: "Casey Anthony did a terrible thing, so she is a terrible person who deserves damnation. Because she's so evil, she must be punished, and anyone who could have but didn't punish her is also a terrible person who deserves damnation."
As I mentioned in my previous post, The Buddha and Albert Ellis: The Eightfold Path Meets the ABCs of REBT, global self-rating is irrational and leads to stress and difficulty. Just as it is unskillful to rate one's ever-changing, indefinable "self," it is equally irrational to rate another's "self."
Let's use our mindfulness as a mirror to reflect on the most prominent of these other-rating views, "Because Casey Anthony did a terrible thing, she is a terrible person." We'll disregard the question of guilt: The irrationality (or ignorance, in Buddhist terms) has little to do with whether or not she is guilty, but whether or not her guilt makes her a "terrible person."
First, we can ask ourselves, "Is there evidence to prove the belief that if someone does a bad thing, he or she is a bad person?"
The answer is no-there is no evidence that Anthony is "bad" because she did a bad thing. A bad person could only do bad things, but we know all people do both good things and bad things, so there's no way this one terrible act makes her a terrible person.
In fact, we can now answer our second question, "Is there evidence that belief is false?" Anthony doubtless has some good qualities, so she can't possibly be a "bad person." Even if we could find very few good qualities in her, there is no reason she couldn't go on to do many good things in her lifetime.
Next, we can weigh the disadvantages of hanging on to such beliefs and the disadvantages of relinquishing them. What happens if we continue believing that someone who does a bad thing is therefore a thoroughly bad, damnable person? We will probably continue to get angry when people in the news-and in our personal lives-do bad things.
If we look closely into our hearts and minds, we discover that anger includes some pretty unpleasant sensations. We now see that these unpleasant feelings are the result of our mental processes, not the situation itself. If we can transcend the irrational mental formations at the source of our anger, we can end the suffering!
Freed from this filter of rage, we can now clearly see Anthony as another being who, like us, our friends and our loved ones, is suffering the universal dukkha of aging, illness and impermanence. She has also lost her child. I've heard people discount that, using the perception that she may not feel exhibit adequate remorse as further evidence of her "terribleness." However, if this mother is not suffering from this loss, what kind of suffering must she have endured to get that way?
Cultivating compassion for Casey Anthony won't cost you anything, but it will benefit you by helping you develop the capacity for compassion, which is a great strength. If you're still feeling anger or other distress over the case, here are a few things to try:
(1) Work towards non-animosity for Anthony by accepting that she, like you, is an imperfect being struggling with the effects of past karma.
(2) Cultivate compassion for everyone involved in this case: Along with Anthony herself and her family, this case involved judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, jurors and their friends and families. Each of them have performed good actions and have good characteristics, and each have performed some unskillful actions and have negative characteristics. See if you can have compassion for the entire group.
(3) Cultivate some compassion for yourself. Recognize that you have caused yourself distress by generating feelings of anger or hopelessness, for example, and resolve to ease your own suffering without condemning yourself for it: You, too, inherited the effects of past karma.
(4) Rather than being resentful or feeling hopeless about the lack of "justice," perhaps you can help prevent future similar situations. Consider donating to or volunteering for community organizations that aid families in crisis or ask your state representative to increase resources for agencies that assist children and families.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
A Gallery of Archetypes from Caroline Myss
The archetypes listed here in boldface type are just a few of the many ancient patterns that exist in human consciousness. Many additional archetypes that are closely related are mentioned in parentheses, such as Hermit (found under Mystic), Therapist (under Healer), or Pirate (under Rebel). Please read through the entire list, looking at all the archetypes in parentheses, before assuming that the one you're looking for isn't here. Naturally, it's impossible to list all the hundreds of archetypes that exist, but these are some of the most common, and include just about all that are mentioned in my book, CD, or tape of Sacred Contracts. If you feel that you have an archetype that isn't found here, please do not hesitate to give it careful consideration, and feel free to include it in your support team.
Remember that all archetypes are essentially neutral and manifest in both light and shadow attributes. Accordingly, I have tried to include both sets of attributes for each listing, along with cues to help you determine whether a given archetype may be part of your lifelong support team of twelve. To help you further, I've listed some examples of each archetype as embodied in popular film, fiction, drama, and the world's religions and mythologies. In evaluating whether an archetype is part of your intimate group, pay special attention to whether you can perceive a pattern of influence throughout your history, rather than only isolated or recent incidents. Never evaluate your connection to an archetype only by obvious markers. You have to stretch your imagination and burrow into yourself to discover your life patterns, lessons, and gifts. This inner knowledge does not surface easiy.
For a more entire list of archetypes, go to:
http://www.myss.com/library/contracts/three_archs.asp
The U.S. Treasury Will Not Default
I received this in an email this morning, but do not know who the original author was. Nevertheless, it is well worth the read.
Despite all the rhetoric and posturing we see in the media and in Washington D.C., it is safe to say categorically that the U.S. Treasury will not default on its debt after August 2nd, even if the debt ceiling is not raised. Not only will the Treasury be able to pay interest on U.S. debt obligations, but there is money for other essential programs as well. However, there will be some serious cutting that has to happen because spending clearly exceeds revenues. [my underlining added here and below]
I believe a debt ceiling limit extension will be enacted. However, let’s consider what might happen if the debt ceiling limit is not raised. Here in a Q&A format is what I believe you need to know at a basic level.
Q: What is a default?
A: In this case, a default would be the failure by the U.S. Treasury to make payments of principal or interest on its debt in a timely manner.
Q: In a given month how much does the Treasury owe as interest on its debt?
A: Roughly about $15–20 billion (more on this in a moment).
Q: How much revenue does the Treasury take in on average in a month?
A: Roughly about $200 billion.
Q: Are you saying the Treasury could pay interest on its debt 10 times over (or more) from monthly income?
A: Yes. Therefore the likelihood of not paying interest on its debt is zero.
Q: But, what about redeeming bonds that come due?
A: As bonds come due, the Treasury would again use monthly income to pay them off. This would lower the debt owed beneath the so-called debt ceiling. Then, the Treasury could turn around and issue debt in that amount up to the debt ceiling.
Q: Why then do Treasury Secretary Geithner and others in government make such apocalyptic statement about the horrors of default.
A: I’m afraid Secretary Geithner and others in government are doing the moral equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater and they are doing so for political reasons rather than financial reasons. They simply do not want any interruptions in the bloated spending underway in Washington and they want to scare Americans into thinking the end of the world is nigh unless the gravy train keeps chugging along.
Math is hard for politicians
Now, let’s do the math to flesh out some of these points. I know that for many politicians and pundits math is hard, but I’ll try to make it as simple as possible. If we do not raise the debt ceiling by August 2nd, we will not default on Treasury obligations. Nor, will we have trouble making Social Security payments. However, there would be a big drop — roughly 44% — in government spending because that percentage represents the difference between government revenues which would be about $200 billion for the full month of August and $172 billion for August if we start counting after the first week when the deadline hits. Spending is slated to be over $300 billion that month.
Here are the numbers from an excellent and highly detailed study by the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) quoted in this piece [emphasis added]:
What about the bond market vigilantes
Earlier, I posted some of the thoughts of hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller who discussed a potential Treasury bond default in a solid piece in the Wall Street Journal. With his experience in the bond market, Druckenmiller’s voice adds a dose of common sense and street smarts to the discussion of the U.S. government debt ceiling and what might happened if the ceiling does not get raised.
In the piece, he pours cold water on the fiery and apocalyptic language being used by Treasury Secretary Geithner, Fed Chairman Bernanke and many others [emphasis added]:
I have pointed out before that Geithner makes the flying leap from a failure to increase the debt ceiling to actual default, that is non-payment of interest on the debt we already have. Even if the debt ceiling is not increased, the Treasury has plenty of funds to pay interest on existing debt.
The Wall Street Journal continues:
The WSJ continues:
Update: On CNBC last week, Warren Buffett had a very good comment:
See also:
How I cut the deficit and saved the country
U.S. Deficit: Tax increases will never be enough
I believe a debt ceiling limit extension will be enacted. However, let’s consider what might happen if the debt ceiling limit is not raised. Here in a Q&A format is what I believe you need to know at a basic level.
Q: What is a default?
A: In this case, a default would be the failure by the U.S. Treasury to make payments of principal or interest on its debt in a timely manner.
Q: In a given month how much does the Treasury owe as interest on its debt?
A: Roughly about $15–20 billion (more on this in a moment).
Q: How much revenue does the Treasury take in on average in a month?
A: Roughly about $200 billion.
Q: Are you saying the Treasury could pay interest on its debt 10 times over (or more) from monthly income?
A: Yes. Therefore the likelihood of not paying interest on its debt is zero.
Q: But, what about redeeming bonds that come due?
A: As bonds come due, the Treasury would again use monthly income to pay them off. This would lower the debt owed beneath the so-called debt ceiling. Then, the Treasury could turn around and issue debt in that amount up to the debt ceiling.
Q: Why then do Treasury Secretary Geithner and others in government make such apocalyptic statement about the horrors of default.
A: I’m afraid Secretary Geithner and others in government are doing the moral equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater and they are doing so for political reasons rather than financial reasons. They simply do not want any interruptions in the bloated spending underway in Washington and they want to scare Americans into thinking the end of the world is nigh unless the gravy train keeps chugging along.
Math is hard for politicians
Now, let’s do the math to flesh out some of these points. I know that for many politicians and pundits math is hard, but I’ll try to make it as simple as possible. If we do not raise the debt ceiling by August 2nd, we will not default on Treasury obligations. Nor, will we have trouble making Social Security payments. However, there would be a big drop — roughly 44% — in government spending because that percentage represents the difference between government revenues which would be about $200 billion for the full month of August and $172 billion for August if we start counting after the first week when the deadline hits. Spending is slated to be over $300 billion that month.
Here are the numbers from an excellent and highly detailed study by the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) quoted in this piece [emphasis added]:
…The BPC study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. “It’s a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending” if Congress hits the debt limit, [BPC's Jay] Powell said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there’s enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion).No doubt picking and choosing who gets paid and who doesn’t would be chaotic. And, lots of programs would not get their funding and that would lead to plenty of screaming. Nonetheless, it should be clear from this exactly how much we are spending in excess of government revenues. And, that could and should lead to a sober assessment of what government can and cannot do.
That leaves you with about $39 billion to fund (or not fund) the following:
Defense vendors ($31.7 billion)
IRS refunds ($3.9 billion)
Food stamps and welfare ($9.3 billion)
Unemployment insurance benefits ($12.8 billion)
Department of Education ($20.2 billion)
Housing and Urban Development ($6.7 billion)
Other spending, such as Departments of Justice, Labor, Commerce, EPA, HHS ($73.6 billion)
The decision to prioritize payments would fall on the Treasury department, and Powell points out it would be chaotic picking and choosing who gets paid (in full or partially) and who doesn’t…
What about the bond market vigilantes
Earlier, I posted some of the thoughts of hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller who discussed a potential Treasury bond default in a solid piece in the Wall Street Journal. With his experience in the bond market, Druckenmiller’s voice adds a dose of common sense and street smarts to the discussion of the U.S. government debt ceiling and what might happened if the ceiling does not get raised.
In the piece, he pours cold water on the fiery and apocalyptic language being used by Treasury Secretary Geithner, Fed Chairman Bernanke and many others [emphasis added]:
…One of the world’s most successful money managers, the lanky, sandy-haired Mr. Druckenmiller is so concerned about the government’s ability to pay for its future obligations that he’s willing to accept a temporary delay in the interest payments he’s owed on his U.S. Treasury bonds—if the result is a Washington deal to restrain runaway entitlement costs.As he holds Treasuries himself, it is clear that Druckenmiller has his own money on the line.
“I think technical default would be horrible,” he says from the 24th floor of his midtown Manhattan office, “but I don’t think it’s going to be the end of the world. It’s not going to be catastrophic. What’s going to be catastrophic is if we don’t solve the real problem,” meaning Washington’s spending addiction.
I have pointed out before that Geithner makes the flying leap from a failure to increase the debt ceiling to actual default, that is non-payment of interest on the debt we already have. Even if the debt ceiling is not increased, the Treasury has plenty of funds to pay interest on existing debt.
The Wall Street Journal continues:
…It’s hard to think of someone with more expertise in the currency and government-debt markets, but Mr. Druckenmiller’s view on the debt limit bumps up against virtually the entire Wall Street-Washington financial establishment. A recent note on behalf of giant banks on the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee warned of a “severe and long-lasting impact” if the debt limit is not raised immediately. The letter compared the resulting chaos to the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and warned of a run on money-market funds. This week more than 60 trade associations, representing virtually all of American big business, forecast “a massive spike in borrowing costs.”It should be no surprise that Geithner is peddling such nonsense and it should be no surprise that Wall Street firms and government dependent agencies such as Fannie Mae are trumpeting similar views. They don’t want the government gravy train to stop chugging along.
On Thursday Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke raised the specter of a market crisis similar to the one that followed the 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. As usual, the most aggressive predictor of doom in the absence of increased government spending has been Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. In a May 2 letter to House Speaker John Boehner, Mr. Geithner warned of “a catastrophic economic impact” and said, “Default would cause a financial crisis potentially more severe than the crisis from which we are only now starting to recover.”
The WSJ continues:
…Mr. Druckenmiller is puzzled that so many financial commentators see the possible failure to raise the debt ceiling as more serious than the possibility that the government will accumulate too much debt. “I’m just flabbergasted that we’re getting all this commentary about catastrophic consequences, including from the chairman of the Federal Reserve, about this situation but none of these guys bothered to write letters or whatever about the real situation which is we’re piling up trillions of dollars of debt.”…Good point. The debt ceiling is a technicality. The long-term issue is the size and scope of government and growing debt is just a symptom of that.
Update: On CNBC last week, Warren Buffett had a very good comment:
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection."Hat tip for Buffett comment: Barry Ritholtz
See also:
How I cut the deficit and saved the country
U.S. Deficit: Tax increases will never be enough
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"there were no words, but images flooded every cell in her being ...4 and a half decades!"
