As presented in InvestorsInsight.com

 

One of the great privileges of traveling and speaking as I do is getting to
meet a wide variety of very interesting people. Of late, I have become friends
with David Walker, former Comptroller General of the US, who is now
crisscrossing the country warning of the deficit crisis. It is a message that my
book Endgame resonates with. If we do not bring the deficit down below
the growth rate of nominal GDP, we become Greece. We hit an economic wall and
everything collapses. It will be a real and true Depression 2.0. Fixing this is
the single most important topic and task of our generation. If we do not,
worrying about P/E ratios, moving averages, long-term investments – anything
else, in fact – is secondary. Solve this and we can go back to the usual
issues.

This week’s Outside the Box is a presentation that David made recently.
Powerful stuff. I urge you to forward this on. The message must be heard so that
we can as a nation get this right. The world does not need a crippled USA.

David released a short statement about the Navy Seals getting Osama
(finally!). It echoes my own thoughts.

“All Americans should come together in appreciation for the work of America’s
intelligence agencies and special forces who planned and executed yesterday’s
Osama Bin Laden operation. While his death is a key milestone in the fight
against terrorism, the battle is far from over. More importantly, as I said in a
CBS 60 Minutes segment in 2007, ‘The greatest threat to America is not a
person hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, it is our own fiscal
irresponsibility.’ That statement was true then and it is even more true now.
It’s now time for the President and the Congress to work together and address
the fiscal debt bomb that represents a much greater threat to our country’s and
families futures.”

My flight was cancelled, so I am in Toronto for one more night. The folks at
Horizon Funds have graciously offered to take me to an early dinner and a
private wine cellar, as I have a 4:30 AM (ugh) wake-up call and will turn in
early. I hate 4:30 AM. That is not a civilized time of day. If I wanted to live
like Dennis Gartman I could learn to deal with it, but I guess occasionally one
does what one must.

One final thought. While getting OBL is a wonderful thing, it does little to
change the reality of the Middle East, and may even finally create a true martyr
(albeit one who was living well, and not in a cave). The world remains
unsettled. Every speaker at my recent conference was asked what keeps them up at
night. Every speaker mentioned the Middle East, some rather pointedly. It is a
true wild card. But let us enjoy for the moment some token of pleasure for the
just end of the planner of the 9/11 tragedy.

I will report more about the conference in future letters.

Your having a lot to think about analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box


Restoring Fiscal
Sanity in the United States: A Way Forward

By: Hon. David M. Walker, Founder and CEO of the Comeback
America Initiative and Former Comptroller General of the United States
(1998-2008)

Two hundred and twenty two years ago, the American Republic was founded. The
United States had defeated the world’s most powerful military force to win
independence, and over a several year period, went about creating a federal
government based on certain key principles, including limited government,
individual liberty, and fiscal responsibility. That government was established
by what is arguably the world’s greatest political document – the United States
Constitution.

Our nation’s founders understood the difference between opportunity and
entitlement. They believed in certain key values including the prudence of
thrift, savings and limited debt. They took seriously their stewardship
obligation to the country and future generations of Americans.

The truth is, we have strayed from these key, time-tested principles and
values in recent decades. We must return to them if we want to keep America
great and help to ensure that our future is better than our past.

Believe it or not, to win our independence and achieve ratification of the
U.S. Constitution, the U.S. only had to go into total federal and state debt
equal to 40 percent of the size of its then fledgling economy. Fast forward to
today, when the U.S. is the largest economy on earth and a global superpower –
but total federal debt alone is almost 100 percent of the economy and growing
rapidly. Add in state and local debt, and the total number is about three times
as much as the total debt we held at the beginning of our Republic – and it is
headed up rapidly. As the below graphic shows, our total federal debt has more
than doubled in just the past ten and a half years.

America has gone from the world’s leading creditor nation to the world’s
largest debtor nation. We have also become unduly dependent on foreign nations
to finance our excess consumption. Many of these foreign investors have shunned
our long-term debt due to concerns over future interest rates and the
longer-term value of the dollar. And PIMCO, the largest Treasury bond manager in
the U.S., also recently sold their Treasury security holdings due to a lack of
adequate return for the related interest rate risk.

And who is now the largest holder of Treasury securities? It’s the Federal
Reserve. I call that self-dealing. The Fed may be able to hold down interest
rates for a period of time; however, they cannot hold them down forever. The
Fed’s debt purchase actions are just another example of how Washington
policymakers take steps to provide short-term gain while failing to take steps
to avoid the longer-term pain that will surely come if we fail to put our
nation’s fiscal and monetary policies in order.

The Fiscal Fitness Index

In March 2011 the Comeback America Initiative (CAI) and Stanford University
released a new Sovereign Fiscal Responsibility Index (SFRI) – or as my wife Mary
refers to it, a Fiscal Fitness Index. We calculated each country’s SFRI based on
three factors – fiscal space, fiscal path, and fiscal governance.

Fiscal space represents the amount of additional debt a country could
theoretically issue before a fiscal crisis is imminent. Fiscal path is an
estimate of the number of years before a country will hit its theoretical
maximum debt capacity. (The U.S. will hit its maximum within16 years, but will
enter a “fiscal danger zone” within 2-3 years). Fiscal governance is a value
based on the strength of a government’s institutions, as well as its
transparency and accountability to its citizens. Unfortunately, the U.S. ranks
far below the average in all three of these categories – in particular, the
fiscal governance category.

The overall SFRI index showed that the U.S. ranked 28 out of 34 nations in
the area of fiscal responsibility and sustainability. And when you see which
countries rank around us, it’s clear that we’re in a bad neighborhood. We’re
only a few notches above countries like Greece, Ireland, and Portugal, all of
which have recently suffered severe debt crises. That report also showed that
the U.S. could face a debt crisis as soon as two to three years from now, given
our present path and interest rate risk. Below is the full list of rankings.

On the positive side, the CAI and Stanford report showed that if Congress and
the President were able to work together to pass fiscal reforms that were the
“bottom line” fiscal equivalent of those recommended by the National Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform Commission last year, our nation’s ranking would
improve dramatically, to number 8 out of 34 nations. In addition, we would
achieve fiscal sustainability for over 40 years!

So what are our elected officials waiting for? Do they want a debt crisis to
force them to make very sudden and possibly draconian changes? If not, they need
to wake up and work together to make tough choices. That’s what New Zealand did
in the early 1990s, when that country faced a currency crisis. Due to tough
choices then and persistence over time, New Zealand now ranks number 2 in the
SFRI – second only to Australia, which the Kiwis are not happy about! If New
Zealand can do it, America can too!

The Recent Budget Policy Proposals

In order for us to begin to restore fiscal sanity to this country, President
Obama has to discharge his leadership responsibilities as CEO of the United
States Government. He got into the game with his fiscal speech on April 13, in
which he largely embraced the work of his National Fiscal Responsibility and
Reform Commission, although with a longer timeframe for implementation and less
specifics on entitlement reforms. The President also endorsed the debt/GDP
trigger and automatic enforcement concept that CAI had been advocating. Under
this concept, Congress could agree on a set of statutory budget controls that
would come into effect in fiscal 2013. Such controls should include specific
annual debt/GDP targets with automatic spending cuts and temporary revenue
increases in the event the annual target is not met. In my view, a ratio of
three parts spending cuts, excluding interest savings, to one part revenue would
make sense.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan recently demonstrated the political
courage to lead in connection with our nation’s huge deficit and debt
challenges. His budget proposal recognizes that restoring fiscal sustainability
will require tough transformational changes in many areas, including spending
programs and tax policies. Chairman Ryan’s proposal includes several major
reform proposals, especially in the area of health care. For example, he
proposes to convert Medicare to a premium support model that will provide more
individual choice, limit the government’s long-term financial commitment and
focus government support more on those who truly need it. He also proposed to
employ a block grant approach to Medicaid in order to provide more flexibility
to the states and limit the governments’ financial exposure. These concepts have
varying degrees of merit; however, how they are designed and implemented involve
key questions of social equity that need to be carefully explored. And contrary
to Chairman Ryan’s proposal, additional defense and other security cuts that do
not compromise national security and comprehensive tax reform that raises more
revenue as compared to historical levels of GDP also need to be on the table in
order to help ensure bipartisan support for any comprehensive fiscal reform
proposal.

The President and Congressional leaders should be commended for reaching an
agreement that averted a partial shutdown of the federal government and resolved
funding levels for fiscal 2011. While it took way too much time and effort, this
compromise involved real concessions from both sides and represents a small yet
positive step towards restoring fiscal responsibility. But this action is far
from the most important fiscal challenge facing both the Congress and the
President. After all, Washington policymakers took about 88 percent of federal
spending, along with much-needed federal tax reforms, “off the table” during the
recent debate over the 2011 budget. In essence, they have been arguing over the
bar tab on the Titanic when we can see the huge iceberg that lies ahead. The ice
that is below the surface is comprised of tens of trillions of dollars in
unfunded Medicare, Social Security and other off-balance sheet obligations along
with other commitments and contingencies that could sink our “Ship of State”. It
is, therefore, critically important that we change course before we experience a
collision that could have catastrophic consequences. As you can see in the
series of pie charts below, mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare
already take up the largest share of the federal budget and, absent a change in
course, will continue to do so in increasing amounts in the next several
decades.

The Federal Debt Ceiling Limit

Now that the level of federal funding for the 2011 fiscal year has been
resolved, there has been an increasing amount of attention on Congress’ upcoming
vote to increase the federal debt ceiling limit. As is evident by the chart
below detailing the debt ceiling limit per capita adjusted for inflation since
1940, the U.S. started losing its way in the early 1980s. Fiscal responsibility
was temporarily restored during the 1990s, when statutory budget controls were
in place, but things went out of control again in 2003, the year after those
budget controls expired.

In essence, raising the debt ceiling is simply recognizing the federal
government’s past fiscally irresponsible practices. But while federal law
provides for the continuation of essential government operations even if the
government has not decided on a budget or funding levels for a fiscal year, such
a provision does not exist in connection with the debt ceiling. Therefore, if
the federal government hits the debt ceiling during a time of large deficits,
which is the case today, dramatic and draconian actions will have to be taken to
ensure that additional debt is not incurred. This would likely include a
suspension of payments to government contractors, delays in tax refunds, and
massive furloughs of government employees. In addition, since Social Security is
now paying out more in benefits than it receives in taxes, the monthly payments
may not go out on time if we hit the debt ceiling limit. That would clearly get
the attention of tens of millions of Americans, including elected officials.

However, although failure to raise the debt ceiling is not a viable option
given our current fiscal state, we must take concrete steps to address the
government’s lack of fiscal responsibility. We must also do so in a manner that
avoids triggering a massive disruption and a possible loss of confidence by
investors in the ability of the federal government to manage its own finances.
Such a loss of confidence could spur a dramatic rise in interest rates that
would further increase our nation’s fiscal, economic, unemployment and other
challenges.

In order to begin to restore fiscal sanity, Congress could increase the debt
ceiling limit in exchange for one or more specific steps designed to send a
signal to the markets, and the American people, that a new day in federal
finance is dawning. To be credible, any such action must go beyond short-term
spending cuts for the 2012 fiscal year. The debt/GDP trigger and automatic
enforcement concepts I advocate above are one specific step Congress could take.

The S&P’s revised outlook on the long-term rating for U.S. sovereign debt
should be yet another wake-up call for elected officials and other policymakers
in Washington. S&P’s action serves as a market-based signal that independent
ratings agencies believe the U.S. is on an imprudent and unsustainable fiscal
path and that action is needed in order to maintain investor confidence. In my
view, this action should have been taken place some time ago; however, it is now
likely that other rating agencies will reconsider their ratings positions on
U.S. Sovereign debt.

Moving Past Partisan Politics

The American people need to understand that doing nothing to address our
deteriorating financial condition and huge structural deficits is simply not an
option. Failure to act will serve to threaten America’s future position in the
world and our standard of living at home. Therefore, both major political
parties must come to the table and put aside their sacred cows and unrealistic
expectations. As John F. Kennedy said, “The great enemy of the truth is very
often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth —
persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”

Given President Kennedy’s admonition, liberals need to acknowledge that we
need to renegotiate the current social insurance contract. For example, contrary
to assertions by some, Social Security is now adding to the federal deficit and
is underfunded by about $8 trillion. As you can see below, it will face
escalating annual deficits beginning in 2015.

There is no debate that last year’s health care reform legislation will
result in higher federal health care costs as a percentage of the economy. (See
the chart below). In addition, according to Medicare’s independent Chief
Actuary, based on reasonable and sustainable assumptions, last year’s health
care reform legislation will end up exacerbating our deficit and debt challenges
rather than helping to lessen them. He estimated that the cost of the health
care law to the Medicare program could be over $12 trillion in current dollars
more than advertised.

Conservatives need to acknowledge that we can’t just grow our way out of our
fiscal hole. They need to admit that all tax cuts are not equal and there is
plenty of room to cut defense and other security spending without compromising
our national security. And while conservatives are correct to say that our
nation’s fiscal challenge is primarily a spending problem, they must recognize
that some additional revenues will be needed to restore fiscal sanity. The math
just doesn’t work otherwise.

All parties must acknowledge that we can’t inflate our way out of our problem
and that we must take steps to improve our nation’s competitive posture. This
means that some properly targeted and effectively implemented critical
infrastructure and other investments may be both needed and appropriate even if
they exacerbate our short-term fiscal challenge.

Washington policymakers need to understand that the same four factors that
caused the recent financial crisis exist for the federal government’s own
finances. And what are those factors?

First, a disconnect between those who benefit from prevailing policies and
practices and those who will pay the price and bear the burden if and when the
bubble bursts. Second, a lack of adequate transparency and accountability in
connection with the true financial risks that we face. Third, too much debt, not
enough focus on cash flow, and an over-reliance on narrow and myopic credit
ratings. Finally, a failure of responsible parties to act until a crisis was at
the doorstep.

There is growing agreement that the greatest threat to our nation’s future is
our own fiscal irresponsibility. In fact, as I noted in 2007 and Joint Chiefs
Chairman Admiral Mullin stated last year, our fiscal irresponsibility and
resulting debt is a national security issue. After all, if you don’t keep your
economy strong for both today and tomorrow, America’s standing in the world and
standard of living at home will both suffer over time – and waiting for a crisis
before we act could also undermine our domestic tranquility.

So where should Washington go from here?

First, Congress and the President should reach a compromise agreement on an
appropriate level of spending cuts in 2012 while also providing for some
additional properly designed and effectively implemented critical infrastructure
investments. Second, they should agree to re-impose tough statutory budget
controls that will force much tougher choices on both the spending and tax side
of the ledger beginning no later than 2013. Third, they should authorize and
fund a national citizen education and engagement effort to help prepare the
American people for the needed actions and to facilitate elected officials
taking them without losing their jobs. Fourth, they should create a credible and
independent process that will provide for a baseline review of major federal
organizational structures, operational practices, policies and programs in order
to make a range a transformational recommendations that will make the federal
government more future focused, results oriented, successful and sustainable.

Spending levels certainly need to be cut. After all, the base levels of
federal discretionary spending increased by over 30 percent between 2007 and
2010 during a time of low inflation. At the same time, all parties must be
realistic regarding how much should be cut and how quickly it can be achieved.
In my view, we should be targeting greater cuts than have been recently
considered, but over a longer period of time: for example, real spending cuts of
$125-$150 billion over several years. If we did so, the related savings would be
significant and would compound over time.

As the National Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Commission, CAI, The No
Labels political movement (of which I am a co-founder), and others have noted,
everything must be on the table – and all political leaders need to be at the
table – in order to put our nation on a more prudent and sustainable fiscal
path. This includes a range of social insurance program reforms, defense and
other spending cuts, and comprehensive tax reform that generates additional
revenues, including both individual and corporate tax reform. We must keep in
mind that the private sector is the engine of innovation, growth, and jobs. In
addition, many businesses are taxed at the individual, rather than the
corporate, level.

Realistically, it will take us a number of years to get back into fiscal
shape. And while it would be great if we could do a “grand bargain” and enact a
broad range of transformational reforms in one step, that just isn’t realistic
in today’s world. Therefore, what is a reasonable order of battle to win the war
for our fiscal future?

First and foremost we need to enact budget process reforms, re-impose the
type of budget controls and engage in the fact-based citizen education and
engagement effort referred to previously. The next order of battle items should
be corporate tax reform and Social Security reform. Why corporate tax reform?
Because it can help to improve our competitiveness, enhance economic growth and
generate jobs.

And why Social Security reform? Because we have a chance to make this
important social insurance program solvent, sustainable and secure for both
current and future generations. We can also exceed the expectations of all
generations and demonstrate to both the markets and the American people that
Washington can act before a crisis forces it too.

The above efforts should be followed by broader tax reform and
Medicare/Medicaid reforms. We will then need to rationalize our health care
promises and focus more on reducing health care costs in another round of health
care legislation. We must also begin a multi-year effort to re-baseline the
federal government’s organizations, operations, programs and policies to make
them more future focused, results oriented, affordable and sustainable.

In summary, the truth is that the government has grown too big, promised too
much and waited too long to restructure. Our fiscal clock is ticking and time is
not working in our favor. The Moment of Truth is rapidly approaching. As it
does, let us hope that our elected officials must keep the words of Theodore
Roosevelt in mind: “In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the
right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can
do is nothing.” And “We the People” must do our part by insisting on action and
by making the price of doing nothing greater than the price of doing something
We must insist that our legislators offer specific solutions to defuse our
ticking debt bomb in a manner that is economically sensible, socially equitable,
culturally acceptable, and politically feasible We need to recognize that
improving our fiscal health, just like our physical health, will require some
short-term pain for greater long-term gain. The same is true for state and local
governments.

We’ll soon know whether Washington policymakers are up to the challenge and
whether they will start focusing more of doing their job than keeping their job.
They need to focus first on their country rather than their party. And yes, the
President and Congressional leaders from both political parties need to be at
the table and everything must be on the table in order to achieve sustainable
success. Let’s hope they make the right choice this time!

All of us who are involved with the Comeback America Initiative (CAI) will do
our part. All that we ask is that you do yours. The future of our country,
communities and families depends on it.

For more information about the Comeback America Initiative and No Labels,
check out www.tcaii.org and www.nolabels.org.

As reported in Huffinton Post by Ryan Grim and Elise Foley

WASHINGTON — More than half the Senate was convened early Tuesday morning by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) for a briefing on a deficit-reduction plan being negotiated by group of five senators from both parties once known as the “Gang of Six.”

The gang had previously comprised six lawmakers before Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) abandoned the talks, rebuking Democrats for being unwilling to cut Social Security or Medicare. Yet Coburn had heavy praise for the plan outlined Tuesday morning, raising hopes (and fears) that the gang may be getting back together.

Senators were effusive about the plan after the briefing meeting, calling it “great” and saying it would likely gain support from a majority of the Senate. The plan includes $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, managed by spending caps and cuts to government programs.

“We’ve gone from a Gang of Six to a mob of 50,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) after the meeting.

More than half of the Senate arrived to hear about the debt-reduction plan Tuesday morning, and the general atmosphere was positive, said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

“Everyone felt a sense of relief that there was a bipartisan, carefully constructed plan before us,” she told reporters outside the meeting.

A Senate Democratic aide familiar with the negotiations with Coburn said that the Oklahoma senator had refused Democratic entreaties, even after cuts to entitlements were offered. But now that the five other Senators are moving forward without him, the aide said, Coburn is more interested in being involved again.

// “This type of a wider audience may make him less important, particularly if there are other Republicans willing to step up,” said the aide.

A different Senate aide said it remains unclear whether there is enough time to move forward with the plan before Aug. 2, the date the Treasury Department predicts the federal government could begin defaulting on its debt. But Collins said the Gang has completed enough work on their deal that it could be ready in time for a pre-Aug. 2 vote.

“They have done so much work that a lot of the issues have been gone through, and they’re in the midst of drafting statutory language,” Collins said. “I believe it should be considered in conjunction with the debt ceiling plan.”

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said the plan could gain traction in the Senate and even in the Republican-controlled House, which is committed to major spending cuts.

“I think if you look at the details here, they will see it does lots of things they’ve called for,” Hutchison told reporters.

“They have come up with a plan that can get a majority vote in the Senate, very likely 60,” she said, adding she would vote for the plan. “The House should like this plan because it has spending cuts.”

UPDATE 1:45 p.m.: President Barack Obama expressed some support of the Gang of Six plan during remarks to the press on Tuesday, calling the plan a “very significant step” that is “broadly consistent with the approach that I’ve urged.”

“What it says is we’ve got to be serious about reducing domestic spending, both in domestic and in defense,” he said. “We’ve got to be serious about tackling health care spending and entitlements in a serious way and we’ve got to have some additional revenue so we have an approach in which there is shared sacrifice.”

UPDATE 2:10 p.m.: The Gang of Six plan is laid out in a summary flyer obtained by HuffPost and details the group’s proposal for cutting the deficit by more than $3.6 trillion over the next decade.

The plan would immediately cut $500 billion in spending to bring down the deficit. It would also include major tax cuts, with about $1.5 trillion in overall tax savings, its authors say.

But that estimate factors in a $1.7 trillion cut to the alternative minimum tax — a tax Congress already eliminates much of every year. But even with the AMT cuts, the package raises only a net $200 billion compared to cuts of more than $3 trillion — not exactly a balanced approach.

Much of the Gang of Six plan would require other agencies and Congressional committees to work to find savings, setting up guidelines for $80 billion in armed service cuts and $70 billion from health, education, labor and pensions. Under the plan, the Budget Committee would be required to set spending caps that would extend over the next decade.

UPDATE 3:10 p.m.: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) threw some cold water on the Gang of Six plan Tuesday, voicing doubts that the plan could be scored and passed before the Aug. 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling.

Reid said he got a call from Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf, who said the plan would take at least two weeks to score for cost and savings, putting the completion of that work just beyond the Aug. 2 deadline. Reid called the plan “wonderful” and said he does not want to diminish enthusiasm over it, but said alternatives still must be considered.

Reid said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), a Gang of Six member, would meet with him in the next 24 hours with parts of the plan that can be incorporated into a deal brokered by Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to raise the debt ceiling.

Michael McAuliff contributed to this report.

By  Bruce Bartlett, Published: July 7

 

In recent months, the federal debt ceiling — last increased in February 2010 and now standing at $14.3 trillion — has become a matter of national debate and political hysteria. The ceiling must be raised by Aug. 2, Treasury says, or the government will run out of cash. Congressional Republicans counter that they won’t raise the debt limit unless Democrats agree to large budget cuts with no tax increases. President Obama insists that closing tax loopholes must be part of the package. Whom and what to believe in the great debt-limit debate? Here are some misconceptions that get to the heart of the battle.

1. The debt limit is an effective way to control spending and deficits.

Not at all. In 2003, Brian Roseboro, assistant secretary of the Treasury for financial markets, explained it best: “The plain truth is that the debt limit does not affect the deficits or surpluses. The critical revenue and spending decisions are made during the congressional budget process.”

The debt ceiling is a cap on the amount of securities the Treasury can issue, something it does to raise money to pay for government expenses. These expenses, and the deficit they’ve wrought, are a result of past actions by Congress to create entitlement programs, make appropriations and cut taxes. In that sense, raising the debt limit is about paying for past expenses, not controlling future ones. For Congress to refuse to let Treasury raise the cash to pay the bills that Congress itself has run up simply makes no sense.

Some supporters of the debt limit respond that there is virtue in forcing Congress to debate the national debt from time to time. This may have been true in the past, but the Budget Act of 1974 created a process that requires Congress to vote on aggregate levels of spending, revenue and deficits every year, thus making the debt limit redundant.

 

2. Opposition to raising the debt limit is a partisan issue.

Republicans are doing the squawking now because there is a Democrat in the White House. But back when there was a Republican president, Democrats did the squawking. On March 16, 2006, one Democratic senator in particular denounced George W. Bush’s request to raise the debt limit. “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” the senator thundered. “Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. . . . Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.”

That senator was Barack Obama, and he, along with most Democrats, voted against a higher limit that day. It passed only because almost every Republican voted for it, including many who are now among the strongest opponents of a debt-limit increase.

 

3. Financial markets won’t care much if interest payments are just a few days late — a “technical default.”

Some Republicansbelieve that bondholders know they will get their money eventually and will understand that a brief default — just a few days — might be necessary to reduce future deficits. “If a bondholder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four,” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told CNBC in May, “what is more important [is] that you’re putting the government in a materially better position to be able to pay their bonds later on.”

 

This is nothing but wishful thinking. The bond-rating agencies have repeatedly warned that any failure to pay interest or principal on a Treasury security exactly when due could cause the U.S. credit rating to be downgraded, which would push interest rates up as investors demand higher rates to compensate for the increased risk.

J.P. Morgan recently surveyed its clients and asked how much rates would rise if there was a delay in payments, even a very brief one. Domestic investors thought they would go up by 0.37 percentage points, but foreign buyers — who own close to half the publicly held debt — predicted an increase of more than half a percentage point. Any increase in this range would raise Treasury’s borrowing costs by tens of billions of dollars per year.

Some may think that a rise in rates would be temporary. But there was a case back in 1979 when a combination of a failure to increase the debt limit in time and a breakdown of Treasury’s machines for printing checks caused a two-week default. A 1989 academic study found that it raised interest rates by six-tenths of a percentage point for years afterward.

 

4. It’s worth risking default on the debt to prevent a tax increase, given the weak economy.

While Republicans’ concerns about higher taxes are not unreasonable, most economists believe that any fiscal contraction at this time would be dangerous. They note that a large cut in spending back in 1937 brought on a sharp recession, which undermined the recovery the country was making after the Great Depression.

Republicans respond that tax increases are especially harmful to growth. However, they made the same argument in 1982, when Ronald Reagan requested the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, and again in 1993, when Bill Clinton also asked for a large tax boost for deficit reduction. In both cases, conservative economists’ predictions of economic disaster were completely wrong, and strong economic growth followed.

 

5. Obama must accept GOP budget demands because he needs Republican support to raise the debt limit.

Republicans believe they have the president over a barrel. But their hand may be weaker than they think. A number of legal scholars point to Section 4of the 14th Amendment, which says, “The validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.”

Some scholars, including Michael Abramowicz of George Washington University Law Schooland Garrett Epps of the University of Baltimore Law School, think this passage may make the debt limit unconstitutional because by definition, the limit calls into question the validity of the public debt. Thus Treasury may be able to just ignore the debt limit.

Other scholars, such as Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School, say the 14th Amendment will force Obama to prioritize debt payments and unilaterally slash spending to pay bondholders. But this would involve the violation of laws requiring government spending.

Either way, a failure to raise the debt limit would force the president to break the law. The only question is which one.

 

Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official in the George W. Bush administration, is the author of “The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward.” He will be online at 11 a.m. on Monday, July 11, to chat. Submit your questions and comments now.

Want to challenge everything you know? Visit our “Five myths” archive, including “Five myths about interest rates,” “Five myths about the Bush tax cuts,” “Five myths about defense spending,” and “Five myths about the deficit.”

As reported in Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is renewing an old fight with the business community by insisting that $400 billion in tax increases be part of a deficit-reduction package. His proposals have languished on Capitol Hill, repeatedly blocked by Republicans, often with help from Democrats.

Some would raise big money. Limiting tax deductions for high-income families and small business owners could raise more than $200 billion over the next decade. Others are more symbolic, such as scaling back a tax break for companies that buy corporate jets.

The corporate jet proposal would raise $3 billion over the next decade, according to GOP congressional aides. That’s a relatively small sum in the big scheme of Washington budgets, but Obama and Democrats call attention to it repeatedly in their effort to portray Republicans as defenders of corporate fat cats.

No matter how Democrats characterize their proposals as revenue raisers or plugging tax loopholes, GOP leaders oppose them all, arguing that raising taxes in a bad economy would only make matters worse.

“If we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and natural gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars,” Obama said this week, “then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship, that means we’ve got to stop funding certain grants for medical research, that means that food safety may be compromised, that means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden.”

The White House has identified about $600 billion in tax increases it wants over the next decade. About $400 billion of them were offered as part of deficit-reduction talks led by Vice President Joe Biden. That would be paired with more than $1 trillion in spending cuts.

Some of the tax proposals are vague and budget experts have yet to calculate just how much they would raise. For example, limiting deductions for high-income families and small businesses could raise anywhere between $210 billion and $290 billion, depending on what threshold is established as high income.

Obama is proposing to eliminate $41 billion in tax breaks for oil and natural gas companies, raise taxes on investment fund managers by $21 billion and change the way many businesses value their inventories for tax purposes. The change in inventory accounting would raise an estimated $70 billion over the next decade, hitting manufacturers and energy companies, among others.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has given Congress an Aug. 2 deadline for raising the current debt ceiling, currently $14.3 trillion, to avoid defaulting on the government’s financial obligations for the first time in the nation’s history. He warns that a default could trigger potentially dire consequences for an already anemic economy, including higher interest rates, tighter credit and new rounds of job layoffs. The government hit the debt ceiling in May and has been juggling accounts since then to make all its payments.

Obama says he is proposing a balanced approach that spreads the pain among people who rely on government services and those most able to finance them.

While Republican leaders argue that raising taxes is bad policy, bad politics and too unpopular to pass the Republican-controlled House, several GOP senators have said they are willing to consider eliminating unspecified tax breaks to reduce the deficit.

Two weeks ago, 33 Republican senators joined a 73-27 majority to repeal a $5 billion annual tax subsidy for ethanol gasoline blends. On Wednesday, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said, “I would like to do away with special tax breaks but not legitimate business deductions.”

But GOP leaders insist there is no support among Republicans to impose the kind of tax increases Obama is proposing.

“The president is sorely mistaken if he believes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes would pass the House,” Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. “The votes simply aren’t there, and they aren’t going to be there because the American people know tax hikes destroy jobs.”

Among the tax increases proposed by the White House and the amount they’d raise over the next decade:

_ Limit itemized deductions, including those for charitable contributions and mortgage interest, for families and small business owners making more than $500,000. Under current law, if a taxpayer’s top income tax rate is 35 percent – the highest rate – a $100 deduction is worth $35 in tax savings. For several years, Obama has proposed limiting itemized deductions for people making above $250,000 to 28 percent, meaning a $100 deduction would be worth only $28 in tax savings at most. That would raise $293 billion. Increasing the income threshold to $500,000 would raise “in the ballpark of $210 billion,” said Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, one of the House Democratic negotiators in the Biden talks.

_ Change the way businesses value their inventory, raising an estimated $70 billion. Current law allows businesses to lower their taxable profits – and their tax bills – by using an accounting method that can inflate the cost of goods sold. Obama proposes to phase out the practice, known as last-in, first out, or LIFO.

_ Increase taxes on investment fund managers, mainly hedge funds and private equity firms, raising about $21 billion. Investment managers typically pay capital gains taxes on their fees, with a top rate of 15 percent. Obama wants to tax the fees as regular income, with a top tax rate of 35 percent.

_ Eliminate about $41 billion in tax breaks for oil and natural gas companies. Obama has called for eliminating tax breaks for all oil and gas companies every year since he took office in 2009. The biggest is a deduction for production expenses that is available to all manufacturers. In May, the Senate rejected a smaller proposal that targeted the five biggest companies: Shell Oil Co., ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, BP America and Chevron Corp.

___

Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn, Andrew Taylor and Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

Wall Street Journal June 17,2011

By JAMES
A. BAKER III

If the United States does not address its looming debt crisis, the cost of
servicing the national debt will spiral out of control. The annual interest
bill, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, will increase
four-fold to $916 billion by 2020. This year, we will spend 70% less on debt
payments than we do on defense. In nine short years, we are expected to spend 8%
more.

Washington so far has been unable or unwilling to make the tough choices
required to put us on the road toward fiscal sanity. And it is unlikely that a
grand bargain will emerge prior to the 2012 election. Nonetheless, our country
can still take three short-term steps to bolster confidence in the bond markets
and prevent a rise in interest rates that will damage our fragile recovery.

Step No. 1 is to raise the debt limit in a way that generates confidence in
the markets. That means including a restraint on spending.

To accomplish this, the debt limit should be increased by an amount
sufficient to service the U.S. debt for six months, provided that the proceeds
from the increase are used to service debt obligations. Doing this would
eliminate the argument that a U.S. default will end Western civilization as we
know it. And we should also increase the debt limit by an additional amount
sufficient to cover the federal government’s anticipated borrowing needs for the
next six months. But we must do so only if the administration and Congress agree
to a cap on total spending that will be enforced by sequestering spending from
specific programs or by cuts across the board—and only if, in addition,
agreed-upon amounts and types of projected spending are eliminated. Special care
here should be taken not to agree to waivers, exceptions or exemptions that
could be used to defeat the purpose of the cap, sequester or across-the-board
cuts.

We’ll have to repeat the process twice a year until a comprehensive budget
fix is reached. The caps should aim at achieving a historical ratio of spending
to GDP of 20.6%. The debt-limit increase should not exceed the six-month period,
because it is only when the debt limit has to be increased that Congress will be
forced to muster the political will to enact enforceable spending restraint.

Of course, the best way to permanently reduce spending would be to enact a
balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution requiring a supermajority in both
houses of Congress to run an annual deficit, raise tax rates, or increase the
debt ceiling. Unfortunately, the chances of enacting such a constitutional
amendment are slim.

Step No. 2 is to take a page from Ronald Reagan’s playbook in 1986 and
restructure our convoluted tax code by reducing loopholes and lowering marginal
rates. Business responded when the Reagan administration and a Democratic House
overhauled the tax system this way. It would respond again today if given the
chance. But, as in 1986, any changes in 2011 must be revenue-neutral so as to
avoid turning the discussions on tax reform into a heated debate over aggregate
levels of taxes and expenditures. Otherwise, with a divided government, the
effort will fail.

Step No. 3 is for Congress and the White House to fully embrace free trade.
With the dollar at low levels, consumers in other countries have an appetite for
products with a “Made in the USA” label. To encourage them, we should give more
than lip service to the currently pending free trade agreements with Colombia,
South Korea and Panama. The White House should stop stalling after two and a
half years of inaction and send them up to Congress for a vote.

In the long run, much more will be needed to correct America’s fiscal woes.
We must solve long-term funding shortfalls in entitlements such as Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security. And at some point we will have to start thinking
about ways to raise revenue. But as President Reagan taught us, the very best
way to do that is by increasing economic activity with pro-growth economic
policies—lower tax rates, less regulation and more free trade.

With the Federal Reserve ending its purchase of bonds later this month, the
Treasury must rely even more on China, Saudi Arabia, Japan and other countries
to invest in our securities. The cost of these borrowings will ultimately
increase if the U.S. is not seen to be dealing with its fiscal problems. We must
demonstrate to the American people as well as the world that our leaders are
doing so.

Mr. Baker was President Ronald Reagan’s secretary of the Treasury from
1985-88.

The Mistake of 2010

June 3, 2011

By
Published: June 2, 2011

 

Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a blog post about the “mistake of 1937,” the premature fiscal and monetary pullback that aborted an ongoing economic recovery and prolonged the Great Depression. As Gauti Eggertsson, the post’s author (with whom I have done research) points out, economic conditions today — with output growing, some prices rising, but unemployment still very high — bear a strong resemblance to those in 1936-37. So are modern policy makers going to make the same mistake?

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman

Mr. Eggertsson says no, that economists now know better. But I disagree. In fact, in important ways we have already repeated the mistake of 1937. Call it the mistake of 2010: a “pivot” away from jobs to other concerns, whose wrongheadedness has been highlighted by recent economic data.

To be sure, things could be worse — and there’s a strong chance that they will, indeed, get worse.

Back when the original 2009 Obama stimulus was enacted, some of us warned that it was both too small and too short-lived. In particular, the effects of the stimulus would start fading out in 2010 — and given the fact that financial crises are usually followed by prolonged slumps, it was unlikely that the economy would have a vigorous self-sustaining recovery under way by then.

By the beginning of 2010, it was already obvious that these concerns had been justified. Yet somehow an overwhelming consensus emerged among policy makers and pundits that nothing more should be done to create jobs, that, on the contrary, there should be a turn toward fiscal austerity.

This consensus was fed by scare stories about an imminent loss of market confidence in U.S. debt. Every uptick in interest rates was interpreted as a sign that the “bond vigilantes” were on the attack, and this interpretation was often reported as a fact, not as a dubious hypothesis.

For example, in March 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Debt Fears Send Rates Up,” reporting that long-term U.S. interest rates had risen and asserting — without offering any evidence — that this rise, to about 3.9 percent, reflected concerns about the budget deficit. In reality, it probably reflected several months of decent jobs numbers, which temporarily raised optimism about recovery.

But never mind. Somehow it became conventional wisdom that the deficit, not unemployment, was Public Enemy No. 1 — a conventional wisdom both reflected in and reinforced by a dramatic shift in news coverage away from unemployment and toward deficit concerns. Job creation effectively dropped off the agenda.

So, here we are, in the middle of 2011. How are things going?

Well, the bond vigilantes continue to exist only in the deficit hawks’ imagination. Long-term interest rates have fluctuated with optimism or pessimism about the economy; a recent spate of bad news has sent them down to about 3 percent, not far from historic lows.

And the news has, indeed, been bad. As the stimulus has faded out, so have hopes of strong economic recovery. Yes, there has been some job creation — but at a pace barely keeping up with population growth. The percentage of American adults with jobs, which plunged between 2007 and 2009, has barely budged since then. And the latest numbers suggest that even this modest, inadequate job growth is sputtering out.

So, as I said, we have already repeated a version of the mistake of 1937, withdrawing fiscal support much too early and perpetuating high unemployment.

Yet worse things may soon happen.

On the fiscal side, Republicans are demanding immediate spending cuts as the price of raising the debt limit and avoiding a U.S. default. If this blackmail succeeds, it will put a further drag on an already weak economy.

Meanwhile, a loud chorus is demanding that the Fed and its counterparts abroad raise interest rates to head off an alleged inflationary threat. As the New York Fed article points out, the rise in consumer price inflation over the past few months — which is already showing signs of tailing off — reflected temporary factors, and underlying inflation remains low. And smart economists like Mr. Eggerstsson understand this. But the European Central Bank is already raising rates, and the Fed is under pressure to do the same. Further attempts to help the economy expand seem out of the question.

So the mistake of 2010 may yet be followed by an even bigger mistake. Even if that doesn’t happen, however, the fact is that the policy response to the crisis was and remains vastly inadequate.

Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it; we did, and we are. What we’re experiencing may not be a full replay of the Great Depression, but that’s little consolation for the millions of American families suffering from a slump that just goes on and on.

James
Pethokoukis

Politics and policy from inside Washington

 

So I took a crack at the budget
simulator
cooked up over at the NYTimes Web site. It starts out with a
projected 2015 deficit of $418 billion and a projected 2030 deficit of $1.355
trillion. My goal was to do it through 100 percent spending cuts.

nytimes

Here is what I did:

1.  Eliminated earmarks  ($14 billion)

2. Cut the pay of civilian workers by 5 percent ($17 billion)

3. Reduced the federal workforce by 10 percent ($15 billion)

4. Reduced nuclear arsenal and space spending  ($38 billion)

5. Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and
Europe ($49 billion)

6. Reduce Navy and Air Force fleets ($24 billion)

7.  Cancel or delay some weapons programs ($18 billion)

8. Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015
($149 billion)

9. Enact medical malpractice reform ($13 billion)

10. Increase the Medicare eligibility age to 68  ($56 billion)

11. Reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance ($157
billion)

12. Cap Medicare growth starting in 2013 ($562 billion)

13. Raise the Social Security retirement age to 70 ($247 billion)

14. Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes ($54
billion)

15. Tighten eligibility for disability ($17 billion)

16. Use an alternate measure for inflation ($82 billion)

In the end, my budget would have a minuscule 2015 deficit of $80 billion and
a 2030 surplus of $187 billion. Now I would have preferred an option for deeper
domestic spending cuts. The Heritage
Foundation has ideas
for over $300 billion worth. And I think eliminating
hundreds of billions of tax breaks and lowering tax rates across the board would
boost growth and revenue. The simulator only lets me use the Bowles-Simpson plan
which would lower rates by cutting tax expenditures —  but uses some of the
dough for deficit reduction. Plus, the simulator assumes no impact on growth
from higher taxes or lower taxes. Also, there is no doubt the Medicare cuts
would be rightly labeled as “rationing.”  But Americans really have only two
choices, I think: severe government healthcare rationing (since right now
healthcare costs are rising much faster than GDP growth) or voucherization.

The simulator also shows how tough it is to balance the budget through tax
increases alone. If you went for every tax increased offered, you would still
have a slight deficit in 2030. And again, that assumes zero impact on economic
growth from a) letting all the Bush tax cuts expire; b) eliminating tax breaks;
c) adding a national sales tax, carbon tax and bank tax. That is a fantasy.
Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire, for instance, would probably knock 2-3
percentage points from GDP next year.

Deficitly

May 25, 2011

With all the commotion going on around us

Osama…..tornadoes….floods

The public has been spared the talk on the debt ceiling

Did you hear the gang of six talks fell apart?

They were seen as representing the best hope

For a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit

Senator Tom Coburn dropped out

Citing differences over entitlement spending,

Saying the 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats were

Unable to bridge differences over Medicare and Social Security

The clock is ticking,

We already exceeded the debt limit.

Now we are just shuffling payments

While waiting for a resolve.

How did we get to
this point?

There is some great information on the internet about this
subject.

Stephen Bloch did some extensive research on the deficit

And how it relates to each President

His report is titled:

US Federal Deficits, Presidents and Congress

Below are some of the facts I found interesting

  • First data he found showing
    a deficit was traced back to 1910
  • The single best predictors
    of deficits for most of the century have been war.
  • Starting in the 1970’s, it
    became harder to see a connection between war and deficits:
    • Permanent deficits became
      a way of life, regardless of whether there was a war going on.
  • The Deficit did not break
    the $1 trillion mark until 1981
  • The Deficit did not break
    the $5 trillion mark until 1995
  • During the first seven
    years of G W Bush presidency, the deficit was increased by almost twice
    the dollar amount as it had been for 32 years. (Running from JFK through
    GHW Bush).
  • When GW Bush entered
    office the deficit was $5.807 trillion
    • When GW Bush left office
      the deficit ballooned to $11,909 trillion.
    • The deficit increased
      $6,102 trillion
  • Since Obama entered office
    the deficit has grown to $14,268 trillion
    • That an additional $2,359
      trillion

Some other interesting facts:

  • Military spending has
    increased 81% since the year 2000
  • Fraud constitutes at least
    ten percent ($100 billion) of the nearly one trillion in taxpayer dollars
    that Medicare and Medicaid will spend this year.
  • The current tax system of
    the United States will collect about 18% of the GDP(Gross Domestic
    Product)
  • Spending needs are much
    higher, currently around 24% of GDP.

What makes up the 24%?

I referred to an article by Jeffrey Sachs (Economist and
Director of Earth Institute, Columbia University)

Focusing on best estimates for 2021, a decade from now

  • Social Security outlays
    will total around 5.2% of GDP
    • As Americans age and as
      health care cost have multiplied, The cost of Social Security and
      Medicare have risen from 1.7% of GDP in 1980 to 5.1% of GDP in 2011
  • Medicare will total around
    3.6% of GDP
  • Medicaid, assuming no
    drastic cuts, will total around 2.9% of GDP
  • Other mandatory programs
    for the poor, such as food stamps, will total 2.1% of GDP
  • Total defense spending is
    around 5% of GDP, most agree that defense should be cut and be around 3% of
    GDP
  • Most projections put
    interest cost on debt around 2.7% of GDP
  • Discretionary spending
    (cost used on public goods and services that cannot be provided
    efficiently by the private economy alone) will be around 4.5% of GDP

Now if you go and add up all these categories,

You will see that cost will total around 24% of GDP

In Paul Ryan’s plan, taxes would be kept at 18% of GDP and
spending would be cut to 19% of GDP.
However the deficit is still expected to grow to $16 trillion by 2021.

The Obama plan would have a slightly higher tax collection,
around 19% of GDP (by allowing Bush tax cuts expire for those making over
$250,000), while allowing the deficit to grow to $19 trillion by 2021.

Guess what!!!!!

 

They are still going
the wrong way!!!!!

Many experts feel that both of these current plans, as
presented seem practically impossible.

In several opinion surveys,

The public has spoken clearly about what to do:

  • Do not balance the budget
    by slashing Medicare, Social Security, or programs for the poor;
  • Increase spending on
    education and infrastructure;
  • Tax the rich and giant
    corporations.

This is not a practical solution either…….

It is our responsibility to stop the bleeding

Everyone will have to proportionally share in the sacrifice

Will someone step forward and have the vision and leadership,

To usher in this era……….

Will the public be accepting to the reality of their
resolution….

Or will we continue to allow our excesses to undermine us.

Let us know your thoughts…… email george@hbsadvantage.com

WASHINGTON — Congressional negotiators held what were described as “productive” talks Tuesday afternoon in an effort to pass a spending measure that would cut tens of billions of dollars from the federal budget. But with just days remaining before the federal government runs out of money, there was only muted optimism that lawmakers would be able to avert a government shutdown.

The above paragraph was ripped from the headlines on Wednesday April 6th

What do you make of all this talk?

You can turn on any cable channel and the coverage is 24/7. The American press seems to be obsessed with the moment.

Japan??? ………That happened over a month ago

Libya…….That sound bite may last 30 seconds

Now we are faced with a Government shutdown!!!!….

Is it possible?

Will it happen?

I found myself being drawn to this topic. Numbers are constantly being discussed.

What are we really dealing with?

Can we just focus on making cuts to 12% of the budget and tackle the deficit issues?

What about the sacred cows!!!!!!

Defense….Social Security….Medicare…..Medicaid

Let’s look at some numbers:

On February 14, 2011, President Obama released his 2012 Federal Budget.

The report updated the projected 2011 deficit to be $1.645 trillion.

This is based on estimated revenues of $2.173 trillion and outlays of $3.818 trillion.

Observations

The federal deficit of $1.645 trillion is for 1 year (2011)

The federal deficit of $1.645 trillion is 75.7% of the $2.173 trillion total revenue the Government brought in last year.

The US Government is currently funding only 56.9% of their current expenses ($3.818 trillion) with the total revenue they received ($2.173 trillion).

The federal deficit of $1.645 trillion helps fund 43.1% of the $3.818 trillion in expenses.

You hear Congress arguing over whether to cut $30 billion or $40 billion in expenses.

That number may seems like a large amount, but what is it in the scheme of things?

Let’s take a quick look at where we are spending this money.

The federal budget in 2011 was projected at $3.83 trillion in total spending.

Below is a breakdown of the budgeted expenses for 2011. (This budget has never been passed, yet!!!)  

Obama’s new 2012 budget calls for reducing these cost by $12 billion dollars to $3.818 trillion from the proposed 2011 figure of $3.83 trillion.

You can now……. all play along….

Where do you want to take the $12 billion from?

$787.6 billion in pensions, $898 billion in health care expenditures, $140.9 billion for education, $928.5 billion in defense spending, $464.6 billion in welfare spending, $57.3 billion in protective services such as police, fire, law courts, $104.2 billion for transportation, $29 billion in general government expenses, $151.4 billion in other spending including basic research, and          $250.7 billion on interest payments.

Let’s not get too aggressive…..

What are our options?

 

How do we reduce cost and lower the deficit?

There is some talk of cutting all the expenses, 5%  across the board.

They’ll be no discrimination, everyone will take a hit.

That would reduce overall cost by $190.9 billion.

Guess what…..

the deficit would still be $1,454.1 trillion for this year.

Now what?

…………..I’m thinking…….I’m thinking

More factors to think about

 

The overall deficit is just under $15 trillion,

Our existing $1.645 trillion deficit makes up just under 11% of the overall deficit.

Recently, Robert Gates said the Pentagon has identified $178 billion in cuts for the five years from fiscal year 2012 to 2016. The Pentagon plans to reinvest about $100 billion of that into its own services, leaving the remainder for deficit reduction.

Hmmmmm!

Gates can identify $178 billion in cuts but wants to keep 57% of it?

This week, Portugal was looking to raise money by selling 6 month T -Bills for 5.117%.

Just 60 days ago the same T Bill was selling for 2.984%.

The US is currently selling T Bills for under 0.5%.

What do you think will happen if there is a Government shutdown?

There is the looming question of raising the debt ceiling.

How long before the world loses confidence in our ability to control cost?

Somehow I think we really took our eye off the ball.

Just this morning, experts were discussing the fact that the Government is expected to run with a deficit,

But……. $4 to $5 trillion is a more acceptable number.

How do we get from $15 trillion to $5 trillion?

Let’s try cutting the deficit by $1 trillion a year.

That means ………

In 10 years we can be within the acceptable numbers.

If we have already budgeted for a deficit of $1.645 trillion; to save $1 trillion this year, we would have to cut expenses $2.645 trillion dollars.

That means, we cut expenses from $3.818 trillion to $1.173 trillion.

We would only have to cut expenses by 70%!!!!

That doesn’t sound too promising!

How about we take 20 years to get the deficit from $15 trillion to $5 trillion?

Then we would only have to cut expenses 35%.

Do I hear 30 years?

Where am I going with all this fuzzy math?

I wish I knew!!!

No one seems to want to stand up and address any of these questions?

Ask anyone, we already feel we pay our fair share of taxes.

Can the American public be asked to pay more?

If you want to get reelected,

you better not be talking about raising taxes!

Cut our taxes but don’t dare cut our programs….

Is the US Government up for the challenge?

Will they be able to make the tough choices?

Or will the push the ball forward.

At HBS we pride ourselves on providing Smart Solutions for Smart Business

I am not sure where we would place this budget category?

I am just trying to make some sense of it.

Your comments are welcomed.

You may email george@hbsadvantage.com

Visit us on the web www.hutchinsonbusinesssolutions.com

Written by Jon Ward as reported in Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — The big numbers from Paul Ryan’s budget: It will reduce spending by $6.2 trillion over the next decade and reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion.

It also cuts the top income tax rate by nearly a third, from 35 percent to 25 percent.

A big part of the House Budget Chairman’s plan rests on the assumption that President Barack Obama’s health care law will be repealed. Over the next decade, that would cut $1.4 trillion in spending alone, according to Ryan’s budget. Those savings, however, wouldn’t go directly to deficit reduction, because Ryan would also repeal the elements of health care reform that are aimed at raising revenue or reducing costs.

The Wisconsin Republican’s budget spends less on nearly every major category of the budget. Over the next decade, Ryan (R-Wis.) wants to cut $389 billion from Medicare, the public health insurance program for seniors. Over the same period, Ryan’s budget puts $735 billion less toward Medicaid, which benefits Americans too poor to afford private insurance. Discretionary spending on domestic programs is also reduced by $923 billion.

Two exceptions are security and defense spending and spending on Social Security, the public pension program for the elderly. Both are kept steady and relatively unchanged from Obama’s proposed budget.

A draft proposal from Ryan’s House Budget Committee says that under his plan, the national debt would be $1.1 trillion less than it would be over the next five years under Obama’s budget, and would add $3 trillion less to the debt than Obama’s budget proposal over the next decade. Ryan’s budget proposal would bring the debt held by the public to $13.9 trillion by 2016 and $16 trillion by 2021, compared to $15 trillion in 2016 and $19 trillion in 2021 under the president’s proposal. (The full national debt of just over $14 trillion also includes money owed to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but the public figure is the one normally used for budget forecasts.)

Though Ryan’s plan would reduce the size of the national debt as a portion of the economy – which is the key factor when considering the country’s obligations to creditors – the addition of new debt in the short term shows the gap between talk of not raising the debt ceiling by many Republicans and fiscal reality.

Ryan’s plan has $40 trillion in spending over the next 10 years compared to $34.9 trillion in revenues. Obama would spend $46 trillion in the coming decade while bringing in $38.8 trillion in revenues. So Ryan’s plan would still result in the government spending $5.1 trillion more over the next decade than it brings in, but that’s less than the $7.2 trillion in deficit spending that Obama has proposed.

The most fundamental difference between the competing budget proposals is seen in the way they envision the size of government’s imprint in the economy, as measured by spending and revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product.

Obama’s budget plan would take spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), the total economic output of the American economy, from 25.3 percent this year to the 22 percent range for much of the next decade. But by the end of the 10 year horizon, his plan has spending back at 23 percent. Revenues, meanwhile, which are currently at an anemic 14.4 percent, would creep up to 19 percent by 2015 and then hit 20 percent in 2021.

It would be the highest amount of government spending since World War II. During the 12-year presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, spending went from 8 percent of GDP to 41 percent, driven by FDR’s New Deal but even more so by war spending.

During Harry Truman’s administration, spending was cut in half, from 41 percent of GDP down to 20 percent, and went down further to 18 percent under Dwight Eisenhower. It stayed at 18 percent of GDP through the John F. Kennedy presidency, crept up to 19 percent under Lyndon Johnson, and then went up to 20 percent while Richard Nixon was in the White House. Gerald Ford brought spending back down to 19 percent of GDP, it then went up to 22 percent during Jimmy Carter’s term, down to 21 percent under Ronald Reagan’s two terms and George H.W. Bush’s four years as commander in chief. Bill Clinton brought spending back down to 18 percent of the U.S. economy.

No president since FDR has increased spending as a percentage of GDP by more than George W. Bush, taking it from 18.4 percent of GDP to 22.8 percent.

Obama’s budget does not show what happens beyond the 10-year window. So, compared to George W. Bush’s spending, he seems to be about on par. However, projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show spending growing at its current pace will grow to more than 26 percent of GDP in 2022, over 32 percent of GDP in 2030, 38 percent of GDP in 2040, and 45 percent of GDP by 2050, with the bulk of that spending driven by ever-rising health care costs.

Revenues under CBO projections would not move above 19 percent of GDP, leading to a gap between spending and revenues that would be difficult to sustain.

Ryan said a computer simulation program of what would happen in the future “crashes in 2037, because it can’t conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue because of this massive burden of debt.”

Ryan’s plan would move spending back to historic levels, keeping it at 20 percent of GDP through 2030, and actually reducing it to under 19 percent by 2040. Ryan’s plan predicts revenues growing to 19 percent of GDP by 2040, allowing the national debt to be reduced over time.

The proposal landed in the middle of a busy news cycle where Washington is consumed with a spending fight over the current fiscal year budget, a much smaller portion of government spending that nonetheless will shut down the federal government if it is not resolved by Friday.

“Right now we’ve got some business in front of us that needs to be done,” Obama told reporters Tuesday afternoon, declining to respond to Ryan’s budget.

The reaction to Ryan’s plan was predictably split along ideological lines, though even those who supported the broad contours of Ryan’s plan did not embrace it in all its detail.

Robert Borosage, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America’s Future, delivered the harshest rebuke of the day to Ryan’s plan.

“This is being hailed as courageous. It isn’t courageous; it is corrupt,” Borosage said in a statement.

“Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan will push rising health care costs onto those least able to afford them – the elderly, the disabled and the poor,” Borosage said. “It will do nothing to curb the rising costs imposed by the powerful complexes – insurance and drug companies, private hospitals – that now force Americans to pay twice per capita of any other industrial nation for worst results.”

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democrat who is Ryan’s foil as the Budget Committee’s ranking member, said the plan was a “lopsided approach” to deficit reduction that took too much from the disadvantaged and elderly in order to benefit wealthy Americans and big business.

“Behind the sunny rhetoric of reform, the Republican Budget represents the rigid ideological agenda that extends tax cuts to the rich and powerful at the expense of the rest of America – except this time on steroids,” Van Hollen said in a statement.

However, David Walker, the former U.S. comptroller general and founder of the Comeback America Initiative who is generally a fiscal hawk, said Ryan “should be commended for having the courage to lead in connection with our nation’s huge deficit and debt challenges.”

“His budget proposal recognizes that restoring fiscal sustainability will require tough transformational changes in many areas, including spending programs and tax policies,” Walker said.

Among the 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls, only former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was quick to comment on Ryan’s plan.

“Thanks to Paul Ryan in Congress, the American people finally have someone offering real leadership in Washington,” Pawlenty said, but he otherwise steered clear of the details and focused on the coming fight over the debt ceiling.

“President Obama has failed to lead and make tough choices his entire time in the White House. While the budget is going to be debated for several months to come, the more immediate issue we face is President Obama’s plans to raise the debt ceiling next month. That’s a really bad idea,” Pawlenty said in a statement.

“With over $14 trillion debt already, we should not allow Washington’s big spenders to put us further in the hole. We must get our fiscal house in order with real spending cuts and with real structural reforms that stop the spending spree before it bankrupts our country,” he said.

Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, which heralded Ryan’s plan as “a monumental budget proposal for monumental times,” dinged it for insufficient levels of defense spending and for not addressing Social Security.