Why Money Market Funds Are Especially At Risk If The Government Defaults

the one-month T-bill settled at .27 after spiking to .32

Money market funds invest in ultra short term securities like T-bills with average maturities under 60 days. These came under pressure yesterday, as reported here:

The one-month U.S. Treasury bill yield spiked to a multiyear high on Tuesday amid mounting concerns that the U.S. may not fulfill its payment obligations to short-term bond holders. The yield on the one-month T-bill traded as high as 0.322 percent, levels not seen since the fourth quarter of 2008, before settling at 0.273 percent, according to data from Thomson Reuters. The yield stood at 0.083 at the start of the month. ... 

"If the U.S. was to default, T-bills are under real threat of not being paid... and the risk premium in the bond yields is reflective of that fear," said Evan Lucas, market strategist at IG. A large portion of demand for T-bills comes from institutional investors, such as money market funds. "Ten-year bonds [by comparison] are relatively unaffected by the shutdown and debt ceiling as coupon payments will flow over the life of the instrument and one or two missed coupons can be recuperated," he added.

-------------------------------------------------------

To put the fear in perspective, a 2-year Treasury yields only 0.373% this morning, so the spike in the one-month to 0.322% shows how seriously the bond market can react to the prospect of debt default.

Charlie Gasparino Gets It Right: America Lost Its AAA Because Of Debt, Not Debt Ceiling

Charles Gasparino for The New York Post, here:

In fact, economic growth is barely existent on [Obama's] watch; millions of Americans have stopped looking for work and the country lost its Triple-A bond rating because debt isn’t the settled matter Obama pretends it is.

Estimated Fair Value Of The S&P500 Today Is About 1000

Doug Short doesn't say "fair value", but about 1000 should be the fair value level of the index using regression analysis, here (where he has, as always, a vivid chart):

The peak in 2000 marked an unprecedented 152% overshooting of the trend — nearly double the overshoot in 1929. The index had been above trend for two decades, with one exception: it dipped about 11% below trend briefly in March of 2009. But at the beginning of July 2013, it is 62% above trend. In sharp contrast, the major troughs of the past saw declines in excess of 50% below the trend. If the current S&P 500 were sitting squarely on the regression, it would be around the 998 level. If the index should decline over the next few years to a level comparable to previous major bottoms, it would fall to the 450-500 range.

-----------------------------------

Investors with a memory will remember that when TARP was signed on October 3, 2008, the S&P500 was at 1099 and then fell dramatically from there until early March 2009, and that on the third anniversary of TARP in October 2011 the index revisited 1099 exactly, in the wake of the summer debt ceiling brouhaha. But we haven't looked back since.

Unfortunately, the S&P500 has another date with the depths, but just hasn't set it yet.

Total Public Debt Outstanding Stuck At $16.738 Trillion For Over Two Months

The normal explanation for this would be that redemptions of Treasury securities are running at precise equilibrium with issues, which might imply there has been a big shift away from note and bond purchases by the public since the end of May when Ben Bernanke first floated the possibility of a tapering of Fed purchases in the secondary market. Bond outflows in June of nearly $62 billion dramatically reversed a trend (albeit declining) of purchases in 2013 through May.

Theoretically total public debt outstanding occasionally goes down in the rare cases when redemptions exceed issuances, but the maintenance of a consistent level equilibrium is indicative of a deliberate policy, that is, a policy not to exceed the debt limit of $16.7 trillion. This is effected by recourse to extraordinary measures on the part of the US Treasury Dept.

Tax revenues are also running higher in 2013, helping remove pressure from the situation as is the sequester which is curbing outlays. Revenue has also increased from the GSEs, in excess of $59 billion according to Reuters, here. The Associated Press has reported here for July 18th that the current fiscal year deficit is projected to come in over $300 billion less than last year when all is said and done.

Now you know why Congress felt it could take the traditional August recess without doing anything about the debt ceiling. They'll just let Jack Lew sweat it out.

Sen. Rob Portman Made An Excellent Point On Today's Larry Kudlow Radio Program

Sen. Rob Portman, Republican from Ohio, made an excellent point on today's Larry Kudlow Radio Program on wabcradio.com. Sen. Portman led off by gently correcting Larry Kudlow for criticizing attempts to use the debt ceiling as leverage to obtain spending cuts.

Sen. Portman pointed out, about 33 minutes into the podcast, that the technique has been used successfully since the days of Warren Rudman, and that we wouldn't have the spending sequester agreed to, admittedly very reluctantly by both political parties, in August 2011 without it, an agreement which, however inelegantly, lops $100 billion off spending annually, if only future Congresses stick to it. Unfortunately for us, the last Congress which agreed to the sequester in the first place already postponed its original implementation date by two months in the fiscal cliff deal over the New Year Holiday. That is a bad sign, preceded by a good sign.

It is heartening to see a Republican Senator wholeheartedly affirming the idea that the politics of the debt ceiling is helpful to the interests of the American people. But I would caution that Sen. Portman's feet need to be kept to the fire. His performance today on Kudlow's program looks to me like fence mending with the US House, an apology of sorts to the House after upstaging it in 2011 with his dalliance with the Gang of Twelve.

Whatever else may be said, his instincts expressed today are right. Spending must be reduced, and the debt ceiling is a weapon which the US House must use to get that, no matter how messy.

Three Dubious Firsts For Obama In Quick Succession In 2011

The dollar hit its all time low under Obama, on 5/2/11 at 67.97, but this has not been much discussed even though it is surely related to the following other firsts.

On 8/5/11 Standard and Poor's downgraded the US for the first time ever, from AAA to AA+, primarily because it was looking for $4 trillion in spending cuts over ten years and only got $1 trillion in the sequestration deal.

And then on 9/2/11 it was reported that for the month of August 2011 net zero jobs had been created, the first time since World War II that a month went by without job creation.

These are remarkable and dubious firsts, three of them in a row in the span of four months.

It is clear how much two of these still rankle Obama, who views them in purely political terms instead of as injuries to all of us. In a press conference on the debt ceiling almost a year and a half later, held this last Monday, Obama brought up both the AAA rating loss and the net zero jobs milestone, seeking to blame them both on Republicans:


"And they'd better choose quickly because time is running short. The last time Republicans in Congress even flirted with this idea [of not raising the debt ceiling], our triple-A credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history, our businesses created the fewest jobs of any month in nearly the past three years, and ironically, the whole fiasco actually added to the deficit."

The revisionist history on the jobs number is noteworthy. Who would even remember the fact now unless he brought it up?

The fact of the matter is, however, that the weak dollar, which is not even on Obama's radar screen, is the root of the problem for both our out of control debt and deficits and the dearth of jobs.

And Jeffrey Snider, coincidentally, says just as much today, here, concluding this way:


"The politics of the debt ceiling really should be concerned with monetarism rather than focused solely on spending or deficits. But that is a hard position for either party to take. Democrats won't because their interests are aligned with monetarism, while Republicans have at many times embraced monetarism with equal passion. Neither seems to want to move outside conventional economics that salutes as policy success a 64% increase in total debt without any perturbation in interest costs.


"We have not just a fiscal problem, but a persistent and massive monetary imbalance through dollar debasement that is directly related to both the debt disaster and the weak economy. Without directly facing it and working toward currency stability, we will be stuck with both the continued debt trajectory and no real growth. Neither can be adequately solved without first solving the dollar by ending capital repression."

CNBC's John Carney Defends The Debt Ceiling

John Carney is a rare voice of reason at CNBC.

Here's the conclusion to his defense of the authority of Congress over appropriations, taxes and borrowing:

The logic of the opponents of the debt ceiling is that Congress implicitly approves borrowing when it votes for spending and taxing laws. By this same logic the President should have the power to tax unilaterally based on spending authorizations and borrowing limits. Likewise, the President should have spending powers based on directions to federal agencies in the absence of legislative appropriations.

This isn't the logic of the Constitution's framers, who built a system in which Congressional mandates do not imply a power to spend, in which appropriations do not imply a power to tax, and in which neither mandates nor appropriations imply a power to borrow. Each requires distinct, specific Congressional authorization. 

The framers built this around a revolutionary idea: that these powers, which had so often been held by kings, should be held by legislatures. Authority that still rests in the hands of the executive branches of government across much of the world is, in the United States, in the hands of legislators. 

This cannot be undone with a bill. It would require a constitutional amendment. And, of course, a rejection of the framers's wisdom about who should have the power to borrow on the credit of the United States.

In a word, the president of the United States isn't a king. The current one just thinks he is.

CNBC Laughably Portrays Sen. Alan Simpson Of Wyoming As A Conservative

Sen. Lisa MirrorCowSki gets ready for a date!

Republican Alan Simpson has never been a conservative and hates conservatives. When CNBC portrays him as one, here in "More Conservatives Tell GOP: Don't Mess With Debt Ceiling", it's pure propaganda:

"It would be a grave mistake to use the debate on the debt ceiling to get President Obama to agree to spending cuts," Alan Simpson, co-founder of the Campaign to Fix the Debt and former GOP senator from Wyoming told CNBC's "Closing Bell" Tuesday.

"I know they're (GOP lawmakers) going to try it and how far they'll go with that game of chicken I have no idea," said Simpson, who was co-chair of the Simpson-Bowles Commission that looked at reducing government debt.

The former Senator from Wyoming may carry some weight with liberal Republicans, like Sen. Lisa Mercowsky of Alaska, but not with conservatives. The last thing liberal Republicans want is for the gravy train to run empty.

Continuing resolutions have done nothing but continue to fund government at the new much higher baseline established by Democrats in 2009 with the addition of massive stimulus spending, after which they have passed no budgets. It was an ingenious strategy to ramp up government spending and keep it there. Republicans only participate in this charade by continuing to raise the debt ceiling which facilitates it.

Republicans should shut down the government until the lawful budget process is restored, which means Sen. Reid must pass a budget out of the Democrat-controlled Senate and send it to the House, which he has not done in violation of the law in place since 1974. If anyone should be impeached in this country, it is Sen. Reid.

Americans Have Been Hoarding Spending Money Since October 27th, 2008

That's the last time M1 was at the $1.4 trillion level.

Americans haven't looked back since.

Since that date in 2008, hoarding of spending money has increased at a rate north of 66% overall. Compare that to the previous four year period from October 2004 to October 2008 when money in consumers' spending accounts increased only 8.4%.

Theoretically, in excess of $1 trillion has been removed from consumer spending over the four year period since 2008, but it has been kept in such a way that it is ready to spend, suggesting Americans have been waiting to spend the money, preparing to spend the money, or just plain saving the money in the only accounts they own where they can keep it.

I'll go with the latter.

This is an enormous sum when compared with the actual dollar increase in GDP for the three years from 2009 through Q3 2012 annualized, which is a measly $1.84 trillion. Assuming non-crisis conditions, however, these monies might have been spent instead of saved and GDP would have increased to at least $2.84 trillion instead of $1.84 trillion, or as much as 35% higher than the reality.

Parenthetically, notice the fear represented by the near verticality of allocation to this category during the debt ceiling crisis of Summer 2011, and then the resumption of the trend upward.

Another such episode will be upon us shortly.

NYT: Fiscal Cliff Deal Gave Obama Only "Small Victories"

The New York Times, here at CNBC.com, admits it: Obama's victories in the fiscal cliff deal were small.

"For President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress, the fiscal deal reached this week is full of small victories that further their largest policy aims. ... White House officials took the path they did because they feared that a hardened stance on the debt ceiling would result in no deal at all: taxes would have risen on nearly everyone; automatic spending cuts would have begun; jobless benefits would have ended for many; and markets may have reacted badly.

"In the chaos that could have followed, the officials believed, a grand bargain would have been unlikely. If anything, Democrats -- worried they would be blamed for the economy's troubles, as the party holding the White House -- might have struggled to get a deal as good as this week's. Having won this round, Democrats still have compromises to offer Republicans in the next one, like changes to Social Security."

In other words, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts was a gun pointed at Obama's already terrible economy. There was no way the Democrats were going to let that gun go off and ruin the second term of the most overrated president in history. The stock markets knew it for months, which is why they never tanked even as the expiration date passed.

Here's a newsflash for the readers of the NYT: this deal is as good as it's going to get, and Democrats lost big even on the tax hike on the rich because, despite raising taxes on estates and on high incomes, dividends and capital gains, the AMT fix is going to cost the Feds (read: offset the taxes paid by the rich) $1.8 trillion over ten years. The price of that to the rich was barely $600 billion over ten years for those other things, about which so-called conservatives doth protest too much. The rich aren't going to be getting any less rich at all.

And the Times boasts that the deal reduces economic inequality. In their dreams. What a joke.

If Democrats won anything, it's that the economy isn't going to tank immediately under their mismanagement, and that they have more time to take the credit for the successes the Republicans achieve.

Moody's Warns Lack Of Deficit Reduction Could Affect AAA Rating Negatively

As reported by Reuters, here:

"On the other hand, lack of further deficit reduction measures could affect the rating negatively," Moody's said.

Moody's placed the U.S. credit rating on a negative outlook August 3, 2011 when the Congress and the White House wrestled over a relatively routine measure of raising the debt ceiling to the point where the United States was on the brink of default before hammering out a deal.

That political impasse and near financial calamity prompted rival rating agency Standard & Poor's to take the unprecedented move of cutting the U.S. credit rating to AA-plus from AAA.

Speaker Boehner Wins One For The Sipper

The 112th Congress just made the evil Bush tax cuts permament, and conservatives think they've lost?

People who think such things are not terribly intelligent.

Really rich people lost a little (a 13% tax increase on the backs of the top 0.3% of wage earners, who will promptly elect not to take income in the form of wages). Meanwhile the Bush tax rates are set in stone indefinitely for the remaining 99.7% of us. I say let's drink to the 2013 13% tax increase. It'll never hurt them much anyway.

Liberals voted for this. Do you understand what that means? While certain Republicans are whining loudly today that they just overturned a decades long stand against increasing tax rates and suddenly became hypocrites who can't live with themselves any longer for doing so, liberals had to cry uncle and vote in massive numbers for George Bush's tax cuts to save Obama's sorry ass. Who's the hypocrite, huh?!

The 112th Congress voted 346-175 to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, nearly 2-1, and WE LOST?! The only thing Republicans lost was their strategy of trying to link spending cuts to a tax agreement, which was not very wise. So it didn't work. Big deal. Quit whining. Declare victory. Move on. Republicans continue to hold the purse strings. So tighten them. The sequester is an opportunity. The debt ceiling is an opportunity.

I'd say it was liberals and Democrats who lost, and lost big.

Bar owner John Boehner just won one for the sipper, with a lot of help from Ol' Kentucky.

Pour me another.

Senate Passes Fiscal Compromise At 2 AM, 89-8

So reports CNBC and Reuters, here, noting that taxes go up only on the wealthy and that the sequester agreement cutting spending is post-poned for two months. I'm sure Standard and Poors is not amused.

Without agreement on spending cuts the US risks more downgrades of its debt rating, yet Democrats in particular seem not to care about that.

Separate reports indicated that taxes revert to the old Clinton era rates under the measure for individuals making $400,000 a year or more, which in 2011 included barely 0.3% of wage earners, or 586,000 people, and that new revenue expectations from the agreement amount to a laughable $60 billion per year. Expect this group to take even less ordinary income in the future, which came to barely $500 billion last year.

The expiration of the Bush tax cuts, combined with the sequestration cuts, was supposed to translate into ten times that new revenue per year, or $600 billion, a Pyrrhic victory for the president who was already gloating yesterday at an event clearly staged in advance for the purpose that he got Republicans to flip-flop on raising taxes.

If the House doesn't pass the bill today or tomorrow, that will complicate things, says the story:

"A new, informal deadline for Congress to legislate is now Wednesday when the current body expires and it is replaced by a new Congress chosen at last November's election."

If there is any virtue to the bill, it is that it makes a number of tax rates permanent, and permanently fixes the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The House would do well to take the deal, and press the spending cuts issue separately in two months on the sequestration, and again when the debt ceiling must be raised, but the extension of unemployment benefits yet again for another whole year could be a problem.

Like making the real thing, government sausage isn't pretty.

Rules For Radical Republicans: Bush Tax Cuts Edition

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.

The enemy knows the Congress is a coequal branch of the government. The problem is the Republicans and the Speaker of the House do not. You actually have more power even than that. You have 30 Republican governors. Start using them.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.

"New revenues from the rich" is the enemy's idea, not Republicans'.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy.

Bush is ancient history. Time to make your own and repudiate the past. Pass something in the House which goes farther than Bush ever dreamed, and send it to the Senate to enrage the enemy.

Rule 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

The enemy is funding gold-plated union jobs and pensions for federal and state workers at the expense of middle class Americans in the private sector who enjoy neither. It's time you reminded the middle class about that.

Rule 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

Use surrogates saying: Moochelle. Crony capitalist. Ideologue. Bolshevik. Dictator. Muslim sympathizer. Race baiter. Panetta flies cross country too much at taxpayer expense. The vice president thinks FDR talked to a television camera.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy.

Republicans can campaign, too. Go frequently to friendly territory and bring 2016 hopefuls with you.

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag.

The idea of compromise became a drag a long time ago. Stop waiting for it. Go on the offensive instead.

Rule 8: Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period.

The enemy is trying to combine everything into one event, "the fiscal cliff", which tells you they perceive they are at a disadvantage. They are. You need to keep the events separate and do things piecemeal. Raising the debt ceiling should come later, crossing the tax rates fiscal cliff should come first. Fight for spending cuts later with the debt ceiling, not now. Sequestration already gave you some spending cuts, which you should embrace.

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

The greatest fear of the Democrats is a debt ceiling fueled government shutdown over spending cuts, but it wasn't the end of the world under Bill Clinton, and it won't be the end of the world if it happens in 2013. You actually won that in 2011. Do it again, except bigger, to satisfy the ratings agencies. Besides, it's red meat for the base.

Rule 10: Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

No more appearances with the enemy, especially on the golf course. You are third in line for the presidency. Start acting like it. Visit Afghanistan to encourage the troops.

Rule 11: If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

The place you need to get to is the same place you were at two times when the president extended the Bush tax rates, so you should know the way. An uncompromising new insistence on tax reform and much lower tax rates might get you there. It changes the subject and focuses the argument on relieving the taxpayers. The president upped the ante. You need to see him and raise him. Aim for the moon, and you might get into orbit.

Rule 12: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

You might not get the radical tax reform, about which you must be deadly serious, but settling for making the Bush tax cuts permanent is a constructive alternative.

Rule 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.

Focus your attention on answering the partisanship of individuals in the pundit class. Don't fire Tea Party men. Enlist them in attacking the enemy. They are good at it, and they will repay you with support later.

Peter Schiff Reminds Us That The Debt Ceiling Isn't Original To The Country

For RealClearMarkets, here:

The debt ceiling itself is both an ill-conceived compromise and a relic of past governmental integrity. For its first 128 years as a republic, the United States was able to function without a debt ceiling. This was possible for the simple reason that U.S. government had no central bank and could not borrow beyond its ability to repay through taxation. And since the ability to tax is always limited by taxpayers' assets (and their extreme hostility to those who want to take them), legal gimmicks were not needed to prevent Congress from spending too freely. But the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 gave the Federal Government a potential means to borrow indefinitely by having the new bank buy its debt. Sensing this danger, the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913 prohibited the Fed from buying or holding government debt.

But just four years later the United States needed a means to raise money quickly to pay for its efforts in the First World War. The government passed an amendment to the charter to allow the Fed to purchase Treasury Bonds. Fearing (correctly) that this would create a mechanism for perpetual debt expansion, conservative lawmakers insisted that the amendment include a "debt ceiling" provision that would cap the amount that the government could borrow.

The Whopper Of The Day: We Lost AAA Because We Almost Defaulted Last August

The whopper of the day comes from Annie Lowrey in The New York Times, here:

Shortly after “taxmageddon,” perhaps sometime in February, the American government will exhaust its borrowing authority – meaning some unprecedented form of government default. It almost happened in the summer of 2011 and resulted in a credit downgrade. Neither party wants to go back there. Expect some agreement to lift the debt ceiling to come along with the deal to delay or otherwise soften the blow of the fiscal cliff.

No, we experienced a credit downgrade because we needed to cut $4 trillion in spending over the next ten years and could only agree on $1 trillion, and if we don't get busy cutting spending more than that there will be more credit downgrades to come.

Why Do We March? Why Do We Protest? Why Do We Hate Congress?

Surely the answer is because we believe that our government does not represent us.

And it doesn't. In fact, the current Speaker of the House doesn't even believe that it should, and never has believed it. He went on the record early in the current legislative session saying that the president should set the Congress' agenda, as here:

“While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government.”

Rep. Boehner is seriously mistaken if he thinks the Tea Party would agree with that. It's the president's agenda which created the Tea Party, and the Tea Party doesn't like the president's agenda one bit.

Whether from the right with the Tea Party or the left with Occupy Wall Street, there is massive discontent in the American people with government.

That is why Gallup can report in December here that Congress has the lowest approval rating ever, since the polling organization began tracking the issue in 1974:

From a broad, long-term perspective, Congress has never been popular. The average annual congressional job approval rating since 1974 is 34%. Still, this year's 17% annual average is by one point the lowest yearly average Gallup has recorded.

The actual number approving of Congress has also reached a record low: 11 percent.

Instead of trying to make the Congress we have more responsive to us, why don't we just get a new one, a bigger and a better one than the one we've got?

Say, with tail fins.

Your congressman and my congressman now represent on average 707,999 people other than you or me. Which is to say, each and every voice he or she hears is next to meaningless. Once elected, your congressman treats you more like a serf than an equal because he doesn't need you to get re-elected. He needs money to do that, big money for television and other forms of advertising to get his name out there. He needs movers and shakers, not you.

If your congressman represented only 30,000 people instead of 708,000, however, do you think that he would need less money to get elected, work harder for your vote, and have an incentive to vote in Congress the way you want him to instead of the way he does? I do. And so did the authors of the constitution.

Since 1929 America has not had a Congress of the size required under Article 1, Section 1. The Congress voted to fix the size by law at the 435 level, by-passing the constitutional requirement to expand the size of the House as population grows. The consequences for the American people have been negative ever since.

This was a neat little trick designed for the benefit of only one group, the Congress. As a consequence money, influence and power have been concentrated in their few hands instead of distributed and divided broadly in order to contain it as the founders intended.

It is no wonder that Congress has become the rich, corrupt, arrogant and vile body it is today.

The best way to repair this situation, however, is not to "throw all the bums out," or work to hand control to a different political party than the one that has it now, or throw out the electoral college, or amend the constitution in some way.

No, the best way is simply to follow it. What we need to do is dilute the power the Congress presently has as the constitution requires: with a population of 308 million Americans, we should have 10,267 members in the US House, not 435.

If you want to give business as usual the boot, just hand Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner the task of trying to herd 10,000 cats for a vote on the debt ceiling, or the Patriot Act, or any other measure.

Just the thought of it should appall them.

And make no mistake about it: this sounds like a revolutionary act, but it's anything but. The real revolution occurred when Congress voted to usurp your right to the founders' vision of adequate representation.

To restore matters to the status quo ante is only counter-revolutionary.

The Market is Not a Leading Indicator

It is a market that has followed . . . the ratings agencies, the Congress, the Fed, the EU appendage du jour. Anyone with any sense knows this and doesn't need an analyst to explain it to him. The smart money remains out of the market.

Herds keep following, and mostly in fear.

Today we're basically back to August 2 and the debt ceiling fiasco, falling then from the 1260 level and rising to it now.

This is a market longing for the days of QE II in late 2010 and early 2011, but it isn't happening, probably because Ben Bernanke doesn't want to be accused of getting Barack Obama reelected.

But all that QE really could do was reproduce a high level around 1360, last seen in June 2008 before all hell broke loose. 1560 might as well be Mt. Everest.

One false move and it's . . . say . . . 575.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Splat.

Today's DOW Drop Ranks 9th For Daily Point Losses. It's Not a 'Crash'.

Wikipedia has this nice chart, among others, here:

The percentage loss was big, but won't be truly significant unless it becomes part of a larger pattern of losses like we had in the fall of 2008, which dominates this chart.

For all we know, the decline today and Tuesday was the market's verdict on President Obama's and Senator Harry Reid's expressed resolve to raise taxes in the very near future in the wake of the debt ceiling deal.

Notice, however, that the historic market lows of February and March 2003, and March 2009 are absent from this chart. Those were incredible buying opportunities which did not reveal themselves precipitously. Those lows were achieved by grinding down to them.

Republicans Should Have Demanded Far More Than Reid's Cuts Because They're the Last

(Have you noticed that just like with ObamaCare, it's the Senate calling the shots on everything?)

Senator Reid's cuts are the last spending cuts anyone's going to be seeing for the foreseeable future.

From TheHill.com here:

“The numbers relative to the problem are minimal, but the directional change is huge,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas), the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

Yeah, right.

The opposite is more like it. The next fight will be over the 2012 fiscal year budget, and Republicans will die on that hill, after which it's a long way to the election.

Democrats will dig in, having compromised on the Bush tax rates extension, new revenues in the debt ceiling debate, and spending cuts. Their attitude will be that it's time for Republicans to give in on something.

More spending cuts before the election aren't going to happen.