4 ms·
I understand that government departments are led by political appointees. There's a very good reason for it. When we elect somebody as president we expect them
by DanielBMarkham 15y ago
I understand that government departments are led by political appointees. There's a very good reason for it. When we elect somebody as president we expect them to make an imprint on the rest of the federal government. So I'm cool with Treasury running it's own PR game and responding to other news items.
What I'm confused about is why the Treasury Department feels a need to get into a pissing contest with S&P. Nobody likes the ratings agencies, so I guess that makes them an easy target? And the U.S. will just print up more money, so it's not like the debt won't be paid -- the currency will just be trash. So there's definitely a bit of made-up drama here. But even with a math error and the flimsiness of connections to this being germane for Treasury, the overall news is still bad and it's not like somehow that makes the overall U.S. position more tenable. Instead it just looks like a lot of blame-storming -- finding the latest organization or person to point a finger at. In other words, it seems to continue drawing attention to a mess I wouldn't want any part of if I were in Treasury.
So it's not interesting that S&P made an error, or that the debt ceiling debate was so protracted. What's interesting to me is this political strategy of deflection. Can it go on forever? Isn't there some limit, some place -- perhaps if the market tanks another 5 percent next week or an election goes against the party in power -- where you just say "Maybe we need to do our job more and worry about blame a bit less?"
Regardless of the "facts" of the S&P decision, I just can't see that this communications strategy -- as a political tool -- is going to keep paying dividends. This is just like the "factual" chart the White House put out that showed debt as as a function of policies approved by which president -- true but completely pointless except as a tool to deflect blame. Every time there's bad news there's a follow-up story about how it's somebody else's fault. It might work a few times, but it can't keep working. Can it?
- antidaily 15y agoBuffet said if there was a AAAA rating, he would give it to the US. The S&P downgrade is bullshit and everyone knows it. So who cares if the Treasury responded negatively?