Kelley Ayotte event in northern NH

Kelly Ayotte is our incumbent US Senator, running for re-election. She traveled up to northern NH to give a town hall event today.  It was held in the classic NH location, a VFW hall, this one in Haverill.  Turnout was good, parking lot was full, so was the VFW hall.  It was a close knit affair, Kelly knew half the people present and greeted them all. 

Learning to trash The Donald

Just watched Mitt Romney laying into The Donald on TV.  Wow. Zap.  Mitt came on just as strong as Marco Rubio, maybe stronger. 

Learning to love The Donald

The Donald is gonna win the Republican nomination, unless something really weird happens, like an assassination, or all the other Republicans consolidate behind either Cruz or Rubio.  Or  lightening strikes the convention.  Not likely. 
   I have some problems with The Donald as president, but I have more problems with Hilliary.  So I'll vote for The Donald, and work to get him elected.  I sincerely hope that The Donald can beat Hilliary in November, but I have my doubts.  Hilliary's negatives are very high, but The Donald's are higher. 

Everyone whines about the US deficit

But nobody running for president talks about how to reduce it.  It's very simple, Uncle spends more than he takes in with taxes.  So Uncle borrows whatever to make up the difference.  So far, Uncle has borrowed a total of one year's output of the entire US GNP, call it $17 trillion. 
  The only way to reduce the deficit is to hike taxes (highly unpopular with everyone) or cut spending (highly unpopular with those on the federal teat).  Nobody wants to talk about either alternative except The Bern, who wants some good old fashioned soak-the-rich taxes.  Trouble with soak-the-rich taxes, is we will all be rich in a few years from inflation.  So soak-the-rich today means soak everybody tomorrow.
   Since the people on the federal teat are less than everybody, it's more politically possible to cut spending than to hike taxes.  Although it still ain't easy.
   If we are gonna cut spending, it makes sense to start with the biggest money suckers, namely Medicare, Social Security, and perhaps Medicaid.  The US spends 19% of GNP on health care, twice as much as any other country in the world.  Some investigation ought to reveal how decent first world countries like Canada, Britain, France, Germany and a bunch of others get by spending half what we do.  Naturally the doctors, the drug companies, the insurance companies, and the hospitals will scream bloody murder when Uncle does a little cost cutting, but let 'em.  They don't have that many votes. 
   Social Security (the third rail of American politics, touch it and die) is harder.  Cutting retiree's social security benefits would create a nationwide firestorm against those stupid enough to try it.  But Social Security pays out a lot in "Survivors Benefits" and "Disability Benefits" which could be tightened up somewhat.  Even a small cut in a big program would save serious money.
  And nobody running for president is talking about any of this.  Wimps. 

We got so much crude oil they are stashing it in railcars

US oil production is up, sales are down and the oil is piling up every where.  The surplus is so bad that owners are renting empty rail tank cars to just hold the stuff until prices rise or customers come forward.  That's a long way from "peak oil".  The Wall St Journal says US oil inventories have not been this high since the 1930's. 

Uncle wants to revive Mortgage Backed Securities.

Mortgage backed securities used to be a $ trillion dollar a year market, up until 2007 that is.  Since 2007 nobody will touch them.  The Journal shows a bar graph of sales over the years and zero sales in any year after 2007. 
   Many people think that mortgage backed securities caused Great Depression 2.0  In the go-go real estate bubble back in the aughts, banks and mortgage lenders needed more money to do mortgages with.  Someone had the bright idea of creating a security, essentially a company IOU, which was "backed" by mortgages held by the bank. These IOU's were sold to gullible investors, by promises of high yield,  and the proceeds used to write more mortgages.  Trouble was, the "backing" didn't mean anything, the IOU holders did not get the right to repossess the properties when the borrowers stopped paying.  And when the borrowers stopped paying, the investors stopped getting paid too.  Investors wised up in 2007 and no more mortgage backed securities have been sold. 
   So banks can do mortgages using their own money, of which they never have enough, or by getting FHA or Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac or VA to put up the money.  But, these government agencies, still suffering huge losses from 2007, all have pretty stiff rules about what kind of mortgage they will accept.  Unless the borrower has a real clean credit record, no deal, no mortgage.
  Now we have Monique Rollins,  deputy assistant secretary in Obama's Treasury Dept saying "We do believe that a reformed asset class could responsibly broaden access for qualified buyers who are not being served today."   Translation: Let's do mortgage backed securities to give the banks money to do any kind of mortgage they like."   Which is what caused Great Depression 2.0.  Not good.  But the Obama administration is in favor.
  Of course, Monique has not explained what she would do to get investors to touch the new model mortgage backed securities.  
  I wonder what a Trump administration would do?
  

Brexit

Short for British Exit From EU. The Brits have set 23 June as the date for a nationwide referendum on pulling out of the EU.  British bookies are offering 2:1 odds that Brexit will happen. The Conservative party prime minister will campaign to keep Britain in.  He cannot get all the senior conservatives to support him. Heavy duty Conservatives like the mayor of London and the justice minister are in favor of getting out and have said so publicly.
   Prime Minister Cameron went to Brussels, dickered, and came back with some concessions from the EU. Britain will be able to refuse to pay welfare to new immigrants until they have been in Britain for four years.  There will be some poorly understood restrictions on immigration to Britain.  It probably ain't enough.  The Brits fear being overrun by foreigners and resent EU regulations on just about everything.
   Problem for Her Majesty's Government.  About one third of British exports go to the EU.  Right now they go duty free since Britain is currently an EU member.  If Britain pulls out, that stops and British exports to the EU will face full EU tariffs.  Which means the end of that huge export market.  The EU has 10% unemployment, which means plenty of EU suppliers who would be so pleased to pick up all the Brit's business after EU tariffs made the Brits noncompetitive.
   I did see one clueless letter to the editor in the WSJ claiming that it ain't so, Britain could pull out and still enjoy EU tariff preferences.  I don't believe that.
   The Economist is clearly concerned, they see economic disaster, of the lights go out and everybody starves to death sort.  They also checked with the bookies for odds.  I think the Economist is onto something.  Where do you go to replace one third of your export business?   Canada?  Australia?  the US?  Would we let them join NAFTA?
   Britain is the second largest economy in the EU.  If they pull out it will make the job of keeping the EU from falling apart harder.  Actually, the EU has come a long way since 1945, they have passport-and-customs free travel between most EU countries, they have a single currency, they have EU wide regulations of things like food purity and labeling, electrical safety standards,building codes.  They have a ways to go to become a United States of Europe, they have no EU wide foreign policy or armed forces, and the EU government in Brussels lacks a lot of powers that the US constitution gives to Washington.
   I wish the Brits every kind of luck.  They are gonna need it.