Deficitation

July 27, 2011

I thought I would only write 1 newsletter this week.

 

You know….

 

Keep it light…

 

Talk about the summer fun

 

 

As much as I am trying to enjoy this summer

 

I am finding that I once again have to speak up

 

 

 

I wrote several newsletters in the past

 

Discussing the deficit and government spending

 

 

It just amazes me that Washington

 

Is going out of their way

 

Not to bring a serious resolve to the issue

 

 

Short term……Long term

 

 

What steps must be taken?

 

 

Putting party politics aside

 

 

That will send a message to the financial world

 

That we are done drinking the kool aid

 

 

The US will take responsible steps

 

To control our cost

 

And bring our economy in line

 

 

We can no longer continue to borrow $.43 cent of every
dollar

 

To support our economy

 

 

The chart below shows the growth of government

Over the past 40 years

 

 

TotReceipt     Tot Expense  Surplus/Deficit

 

1970      $192B          $195B              $2.8B

 

1980      $517B        $590B               -$73B

 

1990      $1.031T     $1.253T         -$221B

 

2000      $2.025T   $1.788T        +$236B

 

2010      $2.165T   $3.833T     – $1.555T

 

 

They are talking of doing a short term deal

 

 

Cutting spending by $1.2T over the next 10 years

 

 

That’s about $120B a year

 

Although they say most of it is on the back end

 

 

Smoke and Mirrors….

 

 

Every family has to deal with budget issues

 

 

We are all held to responsible spending

 

 

Even when we borrow money

 

 

Banks look at acceptable levels of

 

Debt to Income

 

 

 

We are a great nation…

 

Difficult decisions have been made in the past

 

To bring us to where we are today

 

 

Let Washington send a strong message

 

 

That we are back…

 

 

And ready to do business responsibly.

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 Business

Written by William Alden

NEW YORK — As politicians fight over the federal debt ceiling, Americans could start feeling the consequences of Congressional gridlock even before that limit is hit.

Moody’s Investors Service warned on Thursday that if lawmakers have not made progress in negotiations to raise the debt limit by mid-July, the ratings agency plans to reassess the nation’s sterling credit rating for a possible downgrade. The warning, coming after Standard & Poor’s lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to “negative” in April, underscores that the current political stalemate in Washington has already begun to dampen the nation’s economic prospects.

A downgrade from Moody’s on U.S. debt, or even the imminent threat of one, could itself begin to choke the economic processes that still have not fully recovered from the Great Recession. It would imply that a credit default is possible, likely causing yields on Treasury debt to rise and pushing up interest rates across the board.

“It would be an earth-shattering event,” said Scott Anderson, senior economist at Wells Fargo. “It’s taken as a given that U.S. Treasuries are a safe asset. Once you question that assumption, it shakes the foundations of global finance, and the way it’s been established over the last 50 years.”

Federal lawmakers have been locked in a debate over raising the nation’s legal borrowing limit, as the vote to allow the government to fund its existing obligations has been tied to a more controversial legislative agenda. Congressional Republicans insist they will not vote to raise the limit without also achieving measures to reduce the federal deficit, while economic officials in the Obama administration warn that procrastination on the debt ceiling vote could have disastrous consequences.

The country could be forced to default if the limit is not raised by August 2, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said in a letter to Congress last month.

But the economic pain could begin before that date. The risk of a default by the U.S. government has risen, Moody’s Investors Service said in a note posted to its website. Moody’s incorporates these considerations into its credit ratings, which are treated by many investors as authoritative assessments of credit quality. Investors use these ratings in their decisions to buy or sell a security.

The country will keep its top rating if the government does not default, Moody’s said. But if the agency determines there isn’t significant progress on a deal by mid-July, it will initiate the process that could lead to a downgrade, the agency said in the release.

“Although Moody’s fully expected political wrangling prior to an increase in the statutory debt limit, the degree of entrenchment into conflicting positions has exceeded expectations,” the note reads. “The heightened polarization over the debt limit has increased the odds of a short-lived default.”

Moody’s added that its long-term assessment would also depend on lawmakers’ hammering out a plan to reduce the federal deficit. S&P sounded a similar note in April, saying it could downgrade U.S. credit if lawmakers don’t settle on a plan to reduce the deficit and debt by 2013.

Investor confidence in Treasury debt began to show cracks on Thursday. Yields on U.S. debt have been low for the past several months even as politicians fight over the debt limit, suggesting that investors believe the government will not ultimately default. But yields edged up on Thursday as the value of the debt fell.

The 10-year Treasury note was yielding nearly 3.03 percent on Thursday, after closing on Wednesday at 2.95 percent. Rising interest rates suggest investors perceive the debt as risky, demanding higher payment in compensation for this lack of safety.

As congressional negotiations drag on, this trend in bond markets could continue, said Anderson, the Wells Fargo economist. Higher Treasury rates would make borrowing more expensive for businesses and individual Americans. Especially in light of Friday’s dismal jobs report, any further economic strain should be avoided, Anderson said.

“The markets would start pricing in the possibility of default even before the drop-dead deadline,” he said. “We can’t deal with another shock.”

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

By
Published: May 8, 2011
 

The past three years have been a disaster for most Western economies. The United States has mass long-term unemployment for the first time since the 1930s. Meanwhile, Europe’s single currency is coming apart at the seams. How did it all go so wrong?

Well, what I’ve been hearing with growing frequency from members of the policy elite — self-appointed wise men, officials, and pundits in good standing — is the claim that it’s mostly the public’s fault. The idea is that we got into this mess because voters wanted something for nothing, and weak-minded politicians catered to the electorate’s foolishness.

So this seems like a good time to point out that this blame-the-public view isn’t just self-serving, it’s dead wrong.

The fact is that what we’re experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. The policies that got us into this mess weren’t responses to public demand. They were, with few exceptions, policies championed by small groups of influential people — in many cases, the same people now lecturing the rest of us on the need to get serious. And by trying to shift the blame to the general populace, elites are ducking some much-needed reflection on their own catastrophic mistakes.

Let me focus mainly on what happened in the United States, then say a few words about Europe.

These days Americans get constant lectures about the need to reduce the budget deficit. That focus in itself represents distorted priorities, since our immediate concern should be job creation. But suppose we restrict ourselves to talking about the deficit, and ask: What happened to the budget surplus the federal government had in 2000?

The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. Second, there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional $1.1 trillion or so. And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a collapse in revenue and to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs.

So who was responsible for these budget busters? It wasn’t the man in the street.

President George W. Bush cut taxes in the service of his party’s ideology, not in response to a groundswell of popular demand — and the bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority.

Similarly, Mr. Bush chose to invade Iraq because that was something he and his advisers wanted to do, not because Americans were clamoring for war against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, it took a highly deceptive sales campaign to get Americans to support the invasion, and even so, voters were never as solidly behind the war as America’s political and pundit elite.

Finally, the Great Recession was brought on by a runaway financial sector, empowered by reckless deregulation. And who was responsible for that deregulation? Powerful people in Washington with close ties to the financial industry, that’s who. Let me give a particular shout-out to Alan Greenspan, who played a crucial role both in financial deregulation and in the passage of the Bush tax cuts — and who is now, of course, among those hectoring us about the deficit.

So it was the bad judgment of the elite, not the greediness of the common man, that caused America’s deficit. And much the same is true of the European crisis.

Needless to say, that’s not what you hear from European policy makers. The official story in Europe these days is that governments of troubled nations catered too much to the masses, promising too much to voters while collecting too little in taxes. And that is, to be fair, a reasonably accurate story for Greece. But it’s not at all what happened in Ireland and Spain, both of which had low debt and budget surpluses on the eve of the crisis.

The real story of Europe’s crisis is that leaders created a single currency, the euro, without creating the institutions that were needed to cope with booms and busts within the euro zone. And the drive for a single European currency was the ultimate top-down project, an elite vision imposed on highly reluctant voters.

Does any of this matter? Why should we be concerned about the effort to shift the blame for bad policies onto the general public?

One answer is simple accountability. People who advocated budget-busting policies during the Bush years shouldn’t be allowed to pass themselves off as deficit hawks; people who praised Ireland as a role model shouldn’t be giving lectures on responsible government.

But the larger answer, I’d argue, is that by making up stories about our current predicament that absolve the people who put us here there, we cut off any chance to learn from the crisis. We need to place the blame where it belongs, to chasten our policy elites. Otherwise, they’ll do even more damage in the years ahead.