Why Sarah Palin harm on a double-standard tears (Atlantic)

Marika Franke-Ruta - Garance Franke-road is an editor at the Atlantic, and oversees TheAtlantic.com policy coverage. December 2010 17, 1: 22 PM ET

Sarah Palin said Friday there is a "double-standard" for female politicians who obtain verklempt on the public stage.

"I'm sure I could be a bit hit" predicts Palin on ABC "Good Morning America" on what might happen if she shocked by giving a speech on the occasion and children. Tears if often accompany House remarks pending speaker John Boehner on these topics, on the other hand, get a "pass", says.

"I know if a woman would be given a pass necessarily", Palin told Robin Roberts during a walkout at his winter home in Wasilla Alaska.

Women in politics "to be that much more difficult", said Palin.

But this right?

Of the most prominent stories about the impact of public tears on the political fate are also ancient Gran Torino Clint Eastwood polished in the eponymous film.

Today, we're flooded in Misty moments and only they seem poorly politicians is based on the recent instance sex more important to a female politician is strangled really helped his most be difficult or angry at this time would have.

Hillary Clinton could have back in New Hampshire without its vulnerable moment in a Portsmouth coffee in January 2008? Bill and Hillary Clinton have credited his emotions to a question about how she adapts paving the way to victory in the State.

And gets the nucleus of how lacrimose today's politicians are different from those in the past and a significant difference in how male and female emotional responses are interpreted.

Boehner cries when he was hurt or angry, as Ed famous Muskie made in 1972 while defending the character of the wife. He is crying because he felt too. "There are things that are very difficult to talk," Boehner said in an interview with "60 minutes" aired Sunday and renewed conversation on his weepy tracks. "Family." Children. I can't go to school. I used to go to many schools. And you see all these children autour. "Cannot talk about it".

This same excess of feeling is what motivated the tears of Clinton.

Indeed, the real enemy of women in politics is not casual expression of vulnerability, but current expressions of anger.

As on the Science Daily summarizes the latest research on this topic in 2008:

If you're running for President or seeking employment office, you cannot afford to angry if you are a woman, psychologist at the University of Yale Victoria Brescoll found.

Brescoll and Eric Uhlmann at Northwestern recently completed three separate studies exploring a phenomenon that can be all too familiar to women as Senator from New York Hillary Clinton: accept and even reward that angry men but women who lose their temper as less competent advice....

Clinton Presidential campaign has highlighted the issue of whether anger is wrong for a female candidate. The answer, according to studies, appears to be Yes unequivocally - unless the anger deals with the treatment of a member of the family.

"Angry woman loses status, regardless of its what position," said Brescoll. ".

No wonder that Palin - which is known for its public grievances and disputes these days perhaps more than anything else - is regarded as not qualified to be President. More it supports with and suddenly the press and his enemies more number of autumn survey.

According to Washington Post-ABC new survey today, only 8% of Americans say they would definitely vote for it should challenge the Obama President in 2012 - while 60 percent say that they would certainly not.

Perhaps it is time to give a chance to tears.

Submitted by

After you comment, click on the post. If you have not logged in you will be asked to open or save. Powered by comments

Cutting tax Deal: it is all in the but tax Estate (Atlantic)

Chris Good - Chris good is an associate at the Atlantic, where he wrote for the channel policy editor. It has been reported and blog for the Hill newspaper. On 15 December 2010, Bush-tax deal 5: 20 PM and President Obama dug close to his Office on Wednesday afternoon, with only a dispute concerning the tax position of the estate in its own way.

The Senate has passed tax that resembles what President agreement Obama outlined - extend to all age Bush for two years, the tax rate, throw in a tax reduction pays two per cent a year, add a child tax credit etc. - unless other assorted goodies thrown by Democrats in the Senate, including biodiesel credits and as.

Next step: House Democrats will sign on this subject and they fishing you for making speech later this week.

But to do that, House Democratic leaders are seeking amendments to tax included in the agreement area, whose President Obama proposed week last, to their dismay) and the Senate passed its version on Wednesday afternoon.

Estate tax aka death tax aka tax on large areas that transfer of rich people in their wills, exceeded the last year. In terms of taxes established Bush 2001, the estate tax has been lowered and planned stop existing in 2010 (what he did - did there was no real estate tax in 2010) and then go back in force at much higher levels pre-2001 next year.

If intact Estate tax return at a maximum rate of 55 per cent and a $ 1 million exemption.

In the Senate-passed version, the Estate tax would be tantamount to a lower rate than expected: a maximum rate of 35%, with an exemption from 5 $ per person million and 10 million per couple.

House Democrats want a rate higher and higher exemptions. They want to return to levels of 2009: a maximum rate of 45 percent and an exemption for individuals $ 3.5 million and 7 million households. As this morning, it is clear how the House Democrats would manage it, but it seems that they are going to vote on this tax provision in succession on the floor in a way in the next couple days.

It is all backdropped by the nuclear arms reduction policy: Senator John Kyl (R - AZ) grows Estate percentage of 5 million to $10 million to $35 fee levels, and it also wishes to the President Obama New START-arms reduction Treaty with the Russia Senator. Reid tries to obtain a new beginning, the omnibus Bill to continue funding from the Government and the repeal of "Don't ask, do tell" on the floor as soon as it can.

The "death tax" is a favorite campaign season. He made his menacing return this year as Republicans ran ads accusing Democrats support.

This time, it is all about negotiations initiated rather than attack ads, and the next few days will effectively determine how tax Estate is next year.

Submitted by

After you comment, click on the post. If you have not logged in you will be asked to open or save. Powered by comments

Even now, Obama is still on the fence (Atlantic)

Clive Crook - Clive Crook is an editor of the Atlantic, columnist for National Journal and a commentator for the Financial Times. He worked for The Economist 20 years including 11 as Deputy Editor in Chief. Clive Crook is an editor of the Atlantic, columnist for National Journal and a commentator for the Financial Times. For 20 years, he worked for The Economist as Washington correspondent, editor of the economy and for 11 years, associate editor. He writes about the intersection of politics and the economy. December 2010 14, 6: 23 PM and for reasons that I have discussed before, I welcome the agreement of the tax, which the Senate seems ready to back and the House probably comes, however reluctantly. Key issue: is the White House now engaged in a strategy of Clintonian triangulation, or is this off Pact? We discuss this in a new column for the FT. The answer, I think, is that Obama itself is not yet known.

Barack Obama continued to hesitate a decision that there may be no retreat that could seal the fate of his presidency. It resists Congressional Democrats, find the esteem of the country average and get reelected in 2012? Or he fight for progressive principles also dispose of independent voters who switched to the Republican party in mid-term elections and do so with a single term?

You might think the compromise that it struck just with Republicans to extend current us - rather than their livestock for households with higher income tax rates as it was previously - moved to the question. It should have, but he did not.

Submitted by

After you comment, click on the post. If you have not logged in you will be asked to open or save. Powered by comments

Will be highly reactive growth in 2013? Don't bet on IT (Atlantic)

Last week, Washington has been buzzing to talk about reducing additional tax extensions and stimuli. Unemployment continued to double-digits, decision-makers think it is wise to delay deficit reduction until after retrieves the US economy. So that additional measures will be implemented to decrease the rate of unemployment and promote the activity of the company. But that happen once the economy stabilizes finally close to full employment? Prepare for a period of very slow growth.

Think about how unfold the best possible future. Assuming that Congress gets its act together for the two years of tax rates will remain low and employment increase slowly. If everything goes to plan, at the end of 2012, we see a little less than 8% unemployment. At this time, with the labour market steadily but slowly improving, Washington turn to the reduction of the deficit and the Federal Reserve will feel is no longer the need to engage in an expansionary monetary policy. Consider two effects.

Fiscal tightening

In 2013, we can expect a few things to arrive on the fiscal plan. First of all, Washington will finally have obtain the deficit seriously. Very high unemployment will allow Congress to postpone the serious debt reduction policy until then. But when the recovery is clearly underway and unemployment starts constant fall, the Government must stop so greatly to spend money.

Higher taxes

The first obvious step in 2012 will have to increase taxes. It is likely that we will see a tax reform which will include higher cross rates. Taxing the rich only cannot close the gap completely, so the bourgeoisie will also have to pay more.

Less expenditure = law reform

In addition to an increase in taxes, expenses will also be more controlled. To curb spending significantly from the Government, you must reform entitlements. Social security and Medicare could become less generous, for example. What amount of money the Government saves payments will convert less than dollars spent by the United States.

Two of these changes will be eventually mean the same thing: Americans will have less money to spend and save. As a result, revenue and investment with the two companies decline. This does not mean that a new recession strike, but this does not mean that strong growth will be more difficult with less money spent and invested.

Monetary tightening

Government taxation and spending is only a way in which Washington affects the economy, however. The US Federal Reserve took measures extremely aggressive to maintain stability and economic growth over the past few years. The federal funds rate was almost zero since the end of 2008. Reserve US Federal has also engaged in several quantitative easing efforts to maintain long term low and interest rates.

But in 2013, or perhaps even a little earlier, when the economy seems to be on more solid footing, Central Bank must tighten monetary policy to prevent the runaway inflation. To do this, it will have to sell the bulk of the assets of his inflated balance and raise interest rates.

Once again, that the US Federal Reserve began to increase interest rates, this slow further economic activity. Companies will face more expensive loans if they hope to develop. Americans will be discouraged to move to the record will increase interest rates. Real estate purchases, a wind will face also face as mortgage interest rates increase at levels not seen for years.

Yet once it not necessarily cause a recession, but there will be a more difficult to achieve real GDP growth rate.

Irrational expectations?

Yet, the wisest economists on earth do not appear to see this unavoidable. Here the most recent estimates of growth of the GDP of the US Federal Reserve.

You can see that their 2013 estimates vary between 3% and 5% and concentrated between 3.5% and 4.6%. How could this happen with higher taxes, less money rights affecting the economy and environment rising interest rates? The presence of aggressive fiscal measures and monetary tightening will be very difficult to achieve growth.

Still have been taken to history when taxes and interest rates were relatively high, and they have managed to grow rapidly. A good example is the end of the 1990s. Yet, who was a time that included the rise of an important new technology - Internet - provided a much higher growth that was normal. So if another unexpected new advance strikes from 2013, then he could propel United States high growth. But, assuming that the economy hums along at their normal pace, maintain high growth won't be easy.

In the decade or so after 2013, you'll probably get the same. There is at least a decade, not only a few years to reduce the deficit and the broader national debt by a significant amount. And the balance of the Federal Reserve has grown so large there to sell assets in the years to reduce to a manageable size, while maintaining high interest rates for an extended period avoid inflation. Long term above of 2.4% and 3.0% estimate is a bit more reasonable, but can still be optimistic. It is quite difficult to see how the us can really hope to achieve much higher than 2% growth in the kind of economic environment that will be necessary after 2012.

Something Democrats and Republicans agree on: the hatred of the US Federal Reserve (Atlantic)

Daniel Indiviglio - Daniel Indiviglio is an editor at the Atlantic, where he wrote on the credit markets regulation, policy monetary & tax, taxes, banking, trade, markets and technology. Before joining the Atlantic, he wrote to Forbes. He has also worked as an investment banker and a consultant. Daniel Indiviglio is a publisher of blogger and partner for the Atlantic Business Channel, where he provides insight, analysis and advice on the intersection of business, finance, economy and politics. Among its specific interests of writing: markets, regulators, policy monetary & tax, tax, banks, markets and credit technology. Before joining the Atlantic, he wrote to Forbes. Front of journalism, Daniel has spent several years as an investment banker and consultant for financial services companies. Prior to this, he gets graduated from Cornell where he triple lags in economics, philosophy and physics. He resides in Washington, D.C. metro area. December 2010 9: 11: 13 AM ET

Nowadays, it is quite difficult for the Democrats and Republicans agree on almost anything. But a new survey of Bloomberg reveals that they see eye - to-eye on a single issue: their hatred of the Federal Reserve. While the broad public discontent with the u.s. Federal Reserve is not shocking news, the action should aggressively Americans think survey shows they want big changes.

Joshua Zumbrun provides figures:

Us across the political spectrum say the Fed should not retain its current structure of independence. Was asked if the Central Bank should be responsible to the Congress, independent of the left or removed altogether, 39 percent said that it should be held responsible for more than 16% should be abolished. Only 37% favor the status quo.

In other words, a majority of Americans want to change. This goes beyond mere dissatisfaction. And this is not really a political problem. According to the survey, 19% of independents, 16% of Republicans, 12% of Democrats and 21% of the tea party goers want the Central Bank was abolished. This last statistic isn't terribly surprising, since one of the favorite politicians party Tea, Rep Ron Paul (R - TX) is probably the main opponent of Fed in Washington.

However, the idea that the Federal Reserve should be abolished entirely is rather madness. A complex economy needs a Central Bank. Some calls for reform may be more legitimate, however.

It is therefore a few examples of changes that could be more reasonable? The audit authority Paul Republic claimed could allow additional Congressional oversight, but would not necessarily undermine capacity the Fed to conduct monetary policy. Fed independence are a good idea, because politics clouds often its economy. But this does not mean that the mandate of the Federal Reserve is indisputable. Could support the maintenance of a stable inflation rate should be a priority, and Congress should worry about unemployment.

Of course, it is has more varied opinions on the ways in which the Fed must change, depending on the political view type. If you're more far-left and like the idea of a planned economy, then explicit you probably like the idea that u.s. Federal Reserve can intervene to improve financial stability and to reduce unemployment without consent of Congress. But if you are more far to the right and would prefer a free market, then you can believe that the interference of the Federal Reserve does more harm than good.

And in both cases, you may be dissatisfied with the US Federal Reserve, thinking it was too little or too much during the past few years. This explains why there is so much dissatisfaction with the Central Bank. That macroeconomics is not a hard science with easily identifiable cause and effect, the debate in the US Federal Reserve is not likely to end at any time soon either. As long as people disagree on the basic economic principles, they will be disagreement on how Central Bank economists must take steps to promote a healthy economy.

Submitted by

After you comment, click on the post. If you have not logged in you will be asked to open or save. Powered by comments