Tuesday, February 26, 2013

February 26, 2013, Bob Brinker's Moneytalk Guest Summary

February 26, 2013....Bob Brinker's Moneytalk guest Sunday was Dean Clancy. Brinker seemed less than enthused about the interview. He gave Clancy no build up whatsoever and he was only on the air for 14 minutes.  Maybe there's a clue about Brinker's view of Dean Clancy in this summary.

Guest-writer, Frank J. wrote this summary of Brinker's third-hour Clancy interview:

Feb 24, Moneytalk third hour interview with Dean Clancy, VP of Public Policy, Freedom Works.


The third hour interview was with Dean Clancy, VP of Public Policy with Freedom Works.  The interview finally got underway at 3:38 pm and ended abruptly at 3:53.   Speculating here, maybe there was a mix up on when the guest was expected.  This might explain the filibustering Bob did during the first half of the final hour.   I began to suspect something was amiss when his review of housing prices went from thorough to exhaustive!   

In any event, here is a link to Freedom Works’ website.  Freedomworks

Bob started off by asking the guest about the sequester and the $44 billion in cuts that would affect the final 6 months of the federal government’s fiscal year.  Mr. Clancy said it only represents a small trimming of federal spending and if plotted on a graph showing projected spending, both with and without the reductions, you’d need a magnifying glass to see the difference. 

There was a little back and forth about the predictions swirling around about the dire consequences of cutting government spending, Bob mentioned a 57 item list put out earlier this week.   Here is a link to an article that lists all 57 items, in case anyone would like to see them.  57 Terrible Consequences of the Sequester

A short sampling:
#6. Nationwide Meat and Poultry Shortage.
#28. An Even More Porous Border. 
#51. Slower Reporting on Economic Data, Less Analysis of It
#55. Fewer Air-Quality Forecasts
To the list of 57, I would like to add one I read today:  bears in Yosemite National Park will be frequenting the campgrounds in greater numbers, raiding the garbage cans because trash pickup will be cut back. 

The guest sounded like he had seen the list, and said modest reductions can and should be done.  There was agreement that politicians and others with a vested interest in government spending are afraid if the cuts go through, people will actually see that we can cut spending without the sky falling -- and they will want MORE cuts. 

Clancy said if we get some relief it will be an important milestone for the fiscal conservative movement.  He is hopeful it will show we can do more to slow down government growth. 

Bob said that government spending has been essentially flat since 2009 at about $3.5 trillion and the deficit has come down.   There was some discussion of spending as a percent of GDP, as to what would be acceptable.  Clancy made the point that reducing spending may have a negative short term effect on the economy but this is outweighed by the positive long term effect of lower government spending.

Discussion then turned to income taxes.  Bob had asked what level of spending is appropriate.  Mr. Clancy answered by talking about the income tax and said if 10% is good enough for God, then it should be good enough for Uncle Sam.  Bob asked him if the income tax should be progressive and Clancy was emphatic in his answer that he did not think the government should levy an income tax, but if we are going to have one, it should be flat.    Clancy said graduated income taxes are bad because they lead to corruption and income redistribution. 

He recommended that the tax be as close to 10% as possible, mentioning that Sen. Rand Paul (R. Kentucky) calls for 17%; the  Heritage Foundation proposed 28% payroll tax and income combined.  Clancy said we should get rid of the income tax and fund government tariffs and excise taxes.   Government would then focus on only the powers given to it by the founders.

Bob pointed out that private sector jobs are  growing and public sector ones are declining.  Is this the trend you want to see?   Yes, said Clancy.  Grow the private sector and shrink the public sector because dollars that go out of the private sector into the public sector are used less productively.   There has been growth both in government jobs and in pay rates.   

Bob quoted Sen. Coburn from Oklahoma who said 10% could be cut from the Defense budget.  The USA spends $740 billion on defense and the Chinese spend about $90 billion.  How much should we spend on defense?   Clancy said conservatives are divided on defense but Freedom Works thinks the Pentagon is like any other bureaucracy and reductions are possible.  Then he said, the people best qualified to tell you the needs are the generals and senior officers.   Defense is projected to grow by 16% over the next 10 years vs. 20% so the cuts under discussion are really about cutting the rate of growth.

Bob commented that he has difficulty with the “Armageddon cloak” they’re putting over these tiny cuts.  And he mentioned he has a hard time trusting the generals on what to spend. 

Bob said that Medicare recipients get $3 in benefits for every $1 they paid in … what kind of reductions in benefits can we look forward to?   Clancy mentioned that Medicare is projected to be cut to help pay for the people under 65 who will be receiving health care benefits under the newly passed Affordable Health Care Act.  (Obamacare).    The Democrats want to ratchet down on payments, not realizing that this simply leads to rationing.  The Republicans want to get more choices out there, bring in more competition and get savings.  Clancy said that Medicare is a “giant check writing system” and the program contains 10% fraud, possibly up to 20%.  Only after the payments are already made, does any policing take place.   

Honey here: Many thanks to Frank J!  Please scroll down to read my show summary. 

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Clancy and Freedom Works are extremist bent on bringing down our government.

Chamers said...

Maybe that's why Brinker was not too keene on having representative from this right-wing extremist group on his program. He probably has no control over guests but he doesn't have to be nice to them.

Honeybee said...

Anonymous,

So you are saying that Bob Brinker would actually have a subversive on his program?

That's ridiculous! And your accusation of Clancy is positively moribund.

Honeybee said...

Chamers,

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say that you are ill-informed to think that Bob Brinker does not have control over his guests.

As I said to anonymous, that's ridiculous. And to even suggest it shows how ignorant you are on how Bob Brinker operates.

Anonymous said...

ECRI won't like this news. The economy EXPANDED last quarter.

GDP data shift gears, show growth on second reading

The U.S. economy expanded in the fourth quarter — just barely, reversing earlier report of contraction.

GED

Jeffchristie said...

Anonymous said:

"Clancy and Freedom Works are extremist bent on bringing down our government."

Is that Bob Brinkers objective as well? He invited him on Moneytalk and seemed to agree with everything Mr. Clancy said.

Actually I think it is a noble idea. Count me in and I think we can find a rabbit and a pig around here, that would also sign up.

Anonymous said...

don't think Bob Brinker would knowingly and wilfully allow a XXXXXX propagandist like Clancy on his show.

That's why he sandbagged him like he did.

I don't think Brinker gets to choose his guests either. Are your sure about that?

Alw

(Nasty word edited for publication.)

Alw....I don't care what you think and please do NOT use insulting and vulgar terms on this blog. That is not allowed.

Unknown said...

interesting how left winger liberal immediately begin name calling whenever there is a point of view not in agreement with their agenda. they walk in lockstep or rather goosestep with the big govt machine now in the whitehouse. just as the left yells racist to all opponents. the left is so predictable and boring

Honeybee said...

Hi Deb,

WELCOME to my blog! I think you and I speak the same language. :)

Anonymous said...

Wow, Clancy sounds like my kind of guy - awesome. As for Brinker, everything he does in calculated. He wanted this guy on, either to belay the comments abut his own liberal tendencies or to attempt to drive moderates from the conservative movement. But never doubt, the master of misdirection and information distortion knew exactly what he was doing.

tfb

Anonymous said...

" As for Brinker, everything he does in calculated. He wanted this guy on, either to belay the comments abut his own liberal tendencies or to attempt to drive moderates from the conservative movement."

??? What does this mean? TIA

Honeybee said...

Jeffchristie,

Speaking of our own resident Pig and Rabbit, did you know that Pig got busted?

Piggy Pulled Over in his Convertible

Honeybee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Honeybee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Honeybee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Honeybee said...

Bob Brinker has not told subscribers this in the March, 2013 Marketimer, but if you want to follow his fixed-income portfolio or his balanced portfolio, you need to know this:

Jeffrey Gundlach plans to close DTLNX in 2013 or 2014:

The doors of one of the mutual fund industry's most popular offerings may soon be closing to new investors. DoubleLine Capital CEO Jeffrey Gundlach tells U.S. News that it's only a matter of time before the company's flagship fund, DoubleLine Total Return Bond (DLTNX), stops accepting new money.

For DoubleLine, the last two and a half years have been a whirlwind of growth. The company launched its first mutual fund in April 2010. Currently, it has more than $53 billion in assets under management. In 2012 alone, DoubleLine's asset base more than doubled, according to the mutual fund research firm Strategic Insight. Businessweek labeled it the "fastest-growing mutual fund startup in history."
[Read: What to Expect From Bond Funds in 2013.]

In light of his company's rapid rise, Gundlach says he's preparing to step on the brakes. "When we started the company, our stretch goal was to reach $50 billion of [assets under management] within three years," he says. "We do not have a goal of trying to reach $100 billion any time in the foreseeable future."

With that in mind, Gundlach says he expects to close DoubleLine Total Return Bond to new investors in late 2013 or early 2014. Gundlach says closing the fund, which currently has $38 billion in assets, is necessary to keep it at a manageable size.

Read more

Honeybee said...

Dear friends and blog readers,

I have opened up comments again. I think I have found a better way to deal with the stalker.

Thanks for your patience.

Pig said...

I think I have found a better way to deal with the stalker.

My solution would not be legal......but it sure would be fun.

NOONE would miss the girlie-boy, drug addicted stalker, since sHE has NO friends anyway.

Jay said...

For some reason, the KSFO archives for Sunday still only have the 2/17/13 show...so I can't listen to the 2/24/13 show.

Anonymous said...

From the Gundlach link...

"For investors who remain suspicious of stocks and want to add to their fixed-income investments in 2013, Tjornehoj suggests looking for value in high-yield funds.

High-yield funds had a strong 2012, with the average fund in that category gaining nearly 15 percent, according to Morningstar. Certain high-yield funds, including Loomis Sayles High Income, even returned north of 20 percent last year. Tjornehoj predicts that high-yield investments "will continue to do well."

http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2013/01/04/what-to-expect-from-bond-mutual-funds-in-2013

aw23

Anonymous said...

Also on rising interest rates...not that big of a deal...

"Another issue for bond investors to keep an eye on in 2013 is interest rates. As interest rates rise, bond prices fall. Bond funds with longer average durations stand to suffer the most from rising rates.

Roger Young, the senior vice president of fixed income at Fidelity, acknowledged in a recent bond outlook that the prospect of rising rates means that "this does not seem like a great time to move into bonds opportunistically."

Nonetheless, he cautioned against panic. "Rising interest rates are not what bond investors would prefer," he observed. "But if history is any guide, there will be a slow move up, and what is lost in price will be at least partly made up in rising income."

Honeybee said...

Jay,

That is certainly mysterious why KSFO did not change the Moneytalk archives to last week. Instead, they just left up the prior week.

Hopefully, it was just an oversight and not a pattern.

Anonymous said...

Can we blame the delay in last week's Moneytalk archives on the sequester?

-- Frankj

Anonymous said...

You missed a Terrible Consequences of the Sequester: Bears are now forced to poop in the woods! And it's the GOP's fault!

I don't think Bob liked the guest, but I sure did.

joel in Dallas

Colortini said...

You can trust the military brass to make cuts far more sensibly than Congress who force the military to buy ineffective or inefficient weapons systems just to keep defense contractors in their districts happy. I'm not saying the military doesn't screw up occasionally with purchases. A friend of mine is a civilian who works for the Army. His job is to read specs to see if a "Composite Multi-task Compression Device" is simply a "hammer" and deserving of a $20 charge instead of a $400 one. Defense contractors play this game all the time and sometimes they sneak something past the spec people, hence the $1400 toilet seat.

Anonymous said...

I just found this blog. I listened to money talk today and found Bob Brinker to be extremely misleading. I was googling to see if he was a liberal. He kept saying the budget has stayed the same since 2009. I think that was because of the stimulus that got added to the baseline that year. He would not answer the question about an automatic increase each year with the budget. I got so sick of his slanting of the info. that I turned the radio off before the guest speaker. Just my 2 cents.