Japan clings to the same Keynesian Policies that have Failed for over 20 Years

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 30th, 2012

Week in Review

The fiscal cliff negotiations are all about deficit reduction.  The Right wants to do it with spending cuts.   The Left wants to do it with new taxes.  So they can spend more.  This is why they can’t reach an agreement.  The Right wants to reduce the deficit.  While the Left wants to increase spending.  For benefits.  For education.  For investments in Green Energy.  For infrastructure.  For economic stimulus.  Which will only increase the deficit.  So the Democrats are not exactly sincere when they talk about deficit reduction.  Which is why they can’t make a deal with the Republicans.  Who are serious when they talk about deficit reduction.

Another reason why the Democrats want to spend so much money is that they are Keynesians.  Who believe the government can bring an economy out of a recession with stimulus spending.  Despite that failing every time we’ve tried it.  In the United States in the Seventies.  Again during the Obama administration.  In the Eurozone.  In Asia.  Especially in Japan.  Where they’ve been trying to stimulate themselves out of a recession since their Lost Decade.  The Nineties (see Japan’s New Stimulus: The Race With China To The Bottom by Gordon G. Chang posted 12/30/2012 on Forbes).

The universal consensus is that the fall in manufacturing bolsters the case for Shinzo Abe’s plans to stimulate the economy.  The new prime minister is pursuing a broad-based program of shocking Japan out of its fourth contraction since the turn of the century.

First, Abe is going to prime the pump in a big way…

Second, Abe is going to push the yen down to help struggling exporters…

Third, the just-installed prime minister is leaning on the Bank of Japan to open up the taps…

Markets may love Abe’s stimulus solutions, but they are at best short-term fixes.  Tokyo, after all, has tried them all before with generally unsatisfactory results.  What Japan needs is not another paved-over riverbed—past spending programs have resulted in useless infrastructure—but structural reform to increase the country’s competitiveness.

Tokyo’s political elite, unfortunately, has got hooked on the false notion that governments can create enduring prosperity.  Two decades of recession and recession-like stagnation in Japan are proof that repeated government intervention in the economy does not in fact work.

If you keep trying to stimulate yourself out of a recession with Keynesian policies for over twenty years perhaps it’s time to give up on those failed policies.  Of course to do that may require some spending and tax cuts.  And you know how well that goes over with big government types.  It’s why the Americans can’t make a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff.  And why the Japanese are going to try more of the same failed policies of the past.

Another impetus for these bad policies decisions is what’s happening in China.  Whose economy is much younger than Japan’s economy.  So they don’t have years of failed Keynesian policies digging their economy into a deep hole.  And because of that they’re going to go big.  Their stimulus is going to include the building of cities.  And that’s what the Japanese see.  That, and the (one time) economic explosion of their export economy.  Something they once had in Japan.  And would love to have again.  So they are going to follow China’s lead.  Even though their economic expansion is pretty much at its end.

Although there has been a “recovery” beginning in October, it looks like the upturn is already running out of steam.  China’s technocrats know they’re in trouble: they are apparently planning to increase the central government’s planned deficit for 2013 by 41% to 1.2 trillion yuan ($192 billion).  At present, it is now slated to be only 850 billion yuan.  Much of the shortfall is going toward an urbanization push next year.  Last year, Beijing announced its intention to build 20 new cities a year in each of the following 20 years.

The two biggest economies in Asia are ailing at the same time, and both Beijing and Tokyo have decided that government intervention is the shortest path to long-term growth.  Neither government’s program, however, looks viable.  Unfortunately, both China and Japan are going down the wrong road at the same time.

This could help the U.S. economy.  If they enacted spending cuts for their deficit reduction they could cut tax rates to spur the economy along.  And make the U.S. competitiveness soar while Japan and China dig themselves into deeper holes.  But the Americans, being the foolish Keynesians they are, are going to follow the Japanese and the Chinese into economic stagnation.  And with President Obama’s reelection they will stay Keynesian.  Drive over the fiscal cliff.  And compete with the Japanese to see who can have more lost decades

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Australia taxes their Rich People far more than the US but it’s still Not Enough to Pay for their Welfare State

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 10th, 2012

Week in Review

With President Obama’s reelection some are saying it is a mandate to raise taxes on the rich.  Because he said all along that he wanted to tax the rich more.  And he won reelection.  Ergo, ipso facto, mandate.  But we should be careful about raising taxes.  For it seems our government is always raising taxes.  Or demanding that we need to raise taxes.  So the question is where does all this tax-raising end?  A new carbon tax?  A GST?  Well, Australia has both.  Yet they’re still talking about raising taxes (see States to eye online shopping for GST boost – Sydney Morning Herald posted 11/10/2012 on Canberra Hub).

State treasurers will this week consider calls to cut the GST-free threshold for goods bought from overseas online stores, in an attempt to bolster flagging revenues from the tax.

Under current rules, products costing less than $1000 that are privately purchased from overseas are not subject to GST, sparking complaints domestic retailers face an uneven playing field.

State governments – which receive the revenue raised by the GST – also miss out on about $600 million a year due to the threshold, and this foregone revenue is projected to rise as online shopping takes off…

NSW Treasurer Mike Baird, who wants the GST-free threshold to $30, will raise the issue as a “key consideration” at the meeting, a spokeswoman for Mr Baird said…

The simplest way to resolve the situation was to require foreign retailers selling into Australia to charge GST, he said.

Mr Greiner has also called for a debate on raising the GST’s rate from 10 per cent or broadening its base, but this was ruled out on Monday by the Treasurer, Wayne Swan.

Australia’s top marginal tax rate is 45% on incomes over $180,001 ($187,021 US).  They tax companies at 30%.  And capital gains, after some discounting and adjustments, they tax as income.  Whereas in the US the top marginal tax rate is 35% on incomes over $388,350.  The corporate tax rate is 35%.  And a capital gains tax of 15%.  Apart from the higher corporate tax rate, the Australians tax individuals far higher in Australia than the US taxes their individuals.  And yet it’s still not enough.

On top of these higher tax rates are additional taxes.  Like the carbon tax.  And the goods and service tax (GST).  Which they are currently discussing ways of increasing to generate more tax revenue.  There’s an important lesson to learn here.  No matter how much government taxes their people it will never be enough.  For the unsustainable rising costs of a welfare state for an aging population will always exceed the tax revenue from an aging population.  Higher tax rates and new taxes are inevitable.  And for those states with national health care, cost cutting, longer wait times and service rationing are also inevitable.  Because however much they tax it will never be enough.

This is the future in America.  Because we’ve just added Obamacare even though we’re already suffering record budget deficits under the Obama administration.  And 4 years of anemic economic growth.  Which will only become more anemic with higher tax rates.  And new taxes.

The only way a state will ever pay for its welfare state is if they have a population that is getting younger such that there are always more people entering the workforce than leaving it.  Or by reducing the size of the welfare state to a size the current population growth rate can fund.  So the United States has two paths to solvency.  Start having a heck of a lot babies.  Or start slashing state benefits.  Or both.  Which would be a third option.  But the current option, increasing state spending with a declining birthrate, will not work.  No matter how much you tax rich people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Class Warfare Escalates in France to pay for Out of Control Government Spending

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 8th, 2012

Week in Review

Once again a government is asking the rich to pay their fair share.  Well, not asking so much.  More confiscating their wealth.  In the name of fairness (see Socialists in France Announce New Taxes by STEVEN ERLANGER posted 7/4/2012 on The New York Times).

France’s new Socialist government announced on Wednesday billions of euros in tax increases and new taxes, to be borne by businesses and the wealthy, in a revision of the 2012 budget designed to meet promised deficit targets in a period of nearly stagnant growth…

For this year alone, the government announced about $9 billion in higher taxes, with about $7.6 billion more to come next year. A freeze on government spending is expected to save $1.8 billion.

So that’s $16.6 billion in new taxes and only spending cuts of $1.8 billion.  That’s $9.22 in new taxes for every dollar cut in spending.  When the Democrats snookered Ronald Reagan into increasing taxes they dangled $3 in spending cuts for each dollar in new taxes.  A deal he accepted and lived to regret.  Because governments just don’t cut spending.  Especially if they get the new taxes up front.  For Reagan it was about the reverse of the deal they offered.  There was $3 in new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts.  Guess the French are much more receptive to paying taxes than the Americans.  Or should I say, they are much more receptive to forcing higher tax rates on those who pay taxes.

Among the main new taxes is a special surcharge on the assets of individuals with more than $1.62 million of global wealth, which is expected to bring in $2.87 billion; the tax is expected to be made permanent next year, when there will also be a new tax bracket of 75 percent on incomes of more than $1.25 million a year…

There will also be a one-time tax on oil stocks, which is expected to raise $688 million and will hit refineries and gasoline stations, which supposedly have benefited from higher oil prices. About $1.13 billion is to come from ending a tax exemption for overtime income, a major effort by former President Nicolas Sarkozy to raise take-home pay, and there will be a new tax on dividends and stock options…

The figures are based on assumptions that the economy will grow by 0.3 percent this year, 1.2 percent in 2013 and then by 2 percent each year after that, which some economists find overly optimistic.

Taxing wealth.  Ouch.  This isn’t taxing capital gains on your investments.  This is taxing the value of your investments.  Even if those investments lose money.  Which means the rich may end up paying for the privilege of losing money in France.  It’s a good thing Europe is bilingual.  It’ll help the French rich as they settle in their new home.  Britain.  So those overly optimistic tax revenue figures will bring even in less revenue.  Making the French economy worse.  And the deficit bigger.  Requiring even deeper spending cuts later.

The auditors urged the government to cut spending more than raise taxes, because the latter hurts economic growth, but the prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, insisted that the key to growth was investment, not austerity. Still, spending cuts would seem to be inevitable to meet the 2013 target. For its 2013-15 budget, the government said it would reduce operating costs. It promises to balance the budget by 2017.

France’s government accounts for 56.6 percent of gross domestic product, one of the highest in the euro zone. It is projected to fall to only 56.2 percent this year and decline slowly after that.

Companies have complained that already thin profit margins are being hit and that France is losing competitiveness in a global market. The auditors said the same, and urged structural changes to better calibrate social welfare benefits to deal with France’s aging population and reduce the debt.

It’s the spending that’s too high.  Taxes aren’t too low.  In fact, taxes are too high.  They’ve transferred over half of private sector wealth to the government.  Over half!  That is an incredible burden on the private sector.  Which will simply collapse as they add the full weight of pension and health care costs of their aging population to their burden.  There will simply be no more wealth to tax.  Which will require draconian spending cuts.  Or a return to subsistence farming.

We may be witnessing the end of the European social democracy.  Which will end as all democracies end.  When the people learn that they have the key to the treasury.  And can vote themselves benefits.  When they learn this all spending restraint is gone.  And politicians pander for votes by promising to spend ever more irresponsibly.  Never worrying about the mess they’re making.  Leaving that to future generations.  Well, that future generation is here.  It’s why the Eurozone is suffering a sovereign debt crisis.  Because all of this social spending has come to a head.  And they can no longer sustain it.  But they still refuse to cut spending.  Instead, they escalate the class warfare.  And when that fails, as it will, then comes the subsistence farming.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Europeans move forward with Carbon Taxes and Costly Carbon Dioxide Capture Facilities

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 25th, 2012

Week in Review

To save the climate the DECC plans to kill the trees.  And economies (see Government files plans to build carbon capture plants by Karolin Schaps and Gerard Wynn posted 2/24/2012 on Reuters).

Calling for proposals for a wide range of engineering projects for CCS, including construction of a power plant, gas storage and pipelines, the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) notice of contract was published in the European Union’s official journal.

“DECC’s current intention is for the projects to start demonstrating the carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage by 2016-2020,” the document said.

Interestingly, carbon dioxide (CO2) is what makes the trees grow.  And pretty much anything green that grows.  So as they pull this CO2 out of the atmosphere the trees will have less CO2 to breathe than they have now.  Poor trees.  Even the people that are supposedly trying to protect them are killing them.

The government cancelled plans to fund a CCS demonstration project in October as costs spiralled higher than expected, leaving CCS developers concerned about where the 1 billion pounds ($1.59 billion) set aside by the government for a CCS pilot project would end up…

The European Union plans to raise money soon through the sale of 300 million carbon permits called EU Allowances (EUAs) to fund CCS or renewable energy projects through its New Entrant Reserve 300 (NER300) programme…

DECC also said in the notice document that it expected CCS projects could be built without government support from the early 2020s onwards as its power market reform proposals to reward low-carbon electricity production will allow CCS to compete with other technologies. ($1 = 0.6306 British pounds).

First the government will support them by taxing everyone.  Then the market will fund these by taxing businesses (by making them buy carbon permits allowing them to emit carbon which will be nothing more than carbon taxes).  And raising prices for everyone that buys from these businesses.  But will this happen in China?  India?  Brazil?  Or any of the other export countries?  Probably not.  Meaning their trees won’t be the only thing they’ll be killing.  They’ll be killing their economies, too.

So if they’re going to kill their trees and their economies why are they doing it?  I refer you to the European sovereign debt crisis.  These governments need lots of money to support their burgeoning social democracies.  And they can’t see anything beyond these new taxes they hope to collect.  And I say ‘hope’ because the resulting fall in economic activity from these new taxes will decline tax revenue overall.  Giving them nowhere near what they hope to collect in the end.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

FT89: “Liars lie.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 28th, 2011

Fundamental Truth

Keynesian Tax and Spend Big Government Liberals don’t Win Elections

No one shops at the store with the highest prices.  Not if we can buy the same for less elsewhere.  That’s why stores can’t just raise their prices to make their owners rich.  Because most stores sell something that can be bought elsewhere.  We call it competition.  It’s what keeps prices fair.  And the ‘fair’ price is exactly what both buyer and seller agree on.  Too high and the buyer won’t buy.  Too low and the seller won’t sell.  Just right and buyer and seller happily make the sales transaction.

So people don’t willingly choose to pay higher prices.  Because they want to keep their hard-earned money.  And rightly so.  Because they earned it.  And the same goes for paying taxes.  Just as they don’t willingly choose to pay higher prices they don’t willingly choose to pay more taxes.  Which presents quite the quandary for the tax and spend liberal.  Because to tax and spend you must first tax.  And telling the people that you want to raise their taxes doesn’t really go over well at election time.

So they lie.  Because that’s what liars do.  Liberals never run as Keynesian tax and spend Big Government liberals.   Because they’ve learned from experience that Keynesian tax and spend Big Government liberals don’t win elections.  (Unless you’re Nancy Pelosi in uber liberal San Francisco.  But that’s a whole other story.)  So they lie and run as conservatives.  Reagan Democrats.  New Democrats.  Or they just launch withering personal attacks on their opponents.

About 40% of the Electorate are Limited-Government Conservatives

Of course, not everyone is against higher taxes.  Those who don’t pay taxes rarely oppose higher taxes.  Or those with generous pay and benefit packages courtesy of the taxpayer.  They’re always in favor of new taxes.  Because more taxes means more free stuff.  And better salary and benefit packages.

These two groups of people are rather large.  Nearly half of the electorate doesn’t pay any federal income taxes.  And there are a lot of people in the public sector.  Because government keeps growing.  So these are a lot of people to vote for Keynesian tax and spend Big Government liberals.   But it’s not enough.  About 40% of the electorate are limited-government conservatives.  And about 40% are moderates.  Who can swing either way.  And that’s a lot of votes.  If only 10% of the moderates vote conservative, government will have a lot of trouble growing.

The problem with that moderate 40% is that they have jobs.  They pay taxes.  And are none too keen on paying any more.  So what is a liberal to do?  Well, lie, of course.  Liberals don’t want to raise taxes to go on a spending orgy to buy more votes.  No.  They want to make the rich pay their fair share.  Which has a nice sound to it at election time.  Because most people don’t consider themselves rich.  But when nearly half of the electorate doesn’t pay federal income taxes, guess what?  A lot of people are richer than they thought.  Because ‘taxes on the rich’ will ultimately include anyone with a job.  Because half of the people aren’t paying them now.  And that pilloried 1% just doesn’t earn enough to pay all of the taxes.  Even if we take all of their earnings.

Liberals lie because Voters don’t Willingly Vote for Candidates who say they will Raise your Taxes

When liberals are talking you can be certain of one thing.  They’re lying.  Because that’s what they do.  Liars lie.  Because if they told you they were going to raise your taxes and pass job-killing regulations, chances are that you wouldn’t vote for them.  Unless you’re part of that 50% that doesn’t pay any federal income taxes.  Or collect your pay from the private sector taxpayer.  In which case you’ll say, “Tax on!  Tax those private sector tax-paying suckers.  Just give me more free stuff.”

They may not say it in these exact same words.  But you get the gist.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Taxing the Rich in America, Taxing Everyone as Rich in Europe

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 24th, 2011

Spending is so Great the Only Way to get Serious Deficit Reduction is with Spending Cuts

Dan Greenhaus with BTIG looked at Obama‘s proposed Buffet Tax.  Crunched the numbers from the 2009 U.S. tax returns.  And found that the Buffet Tax is more politics than deficit reduction (see A Little Bit Of Math On The ‘Buffett Tax’ by Joe Weisenthal posted 9/19/2011 on Business Insider Politix).

Nonetheless, if we add up the $1,000,000 and above categories, we get taxable income of $623.6 billion that resulted in $177.5 billion in income tax paid, a rate of less than 28.5%. If we were able to somehow change that tax rate to say 35%, an increase of more than 7 percentage points, the income tax paid in 2009 would have been over $218 billion or an increase of a bit less than $41 billion. If we were able to do this over ten years, the U.S. would have extra income of $410 billion. All from raising taxes by seven full percentage points on those making income over $1,000,000.

Unfortunately, $410 billion is “only” about 7% of the deficit we expect to incur over the next ten years. That is not an inconsequential portion but considering the debate surrounding hiking tax rates by any amount, let alone generating an increase sufficient see a seven percentage point increase in taxes paid, as well as the negative consequences such a sharp adjustment would engender, this hardly seems to be the “only” place to go to achieve debt reduction.

The magnitude of the deficit is too great to pay with new taxes.  As it is now, the 2011 deficit will come in at $1.65 trillion.  A 7% tax rate hike would net an additional $41 billion.  Or $410 billion over ten years.  This would reduce the 2011 deficit from $1.65 trillion to $1.61 trillion.  Not impressive.  Remember, Standard and Poor’s wanted to see $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next decade.  And $410 billion is a long way from $4 trillion.

Take a close look at these numbers.  A $1.65 trillion dollar deficit.  And taxable income as reported to the IRS of $623.6 billion.  The deficit is 2.6 times the total taxable income from those making $1 million or more.  In other words, you could tax away all of their money and the government would still run a deficit.

The spending is so great that the only way you’re going to get serious deficit reduction is with spending cuts.  Because spending is big enough to cut to make a difference.  Unlike taxing the Warren Buffets.  Whose incomes aren’t big enough to make a difference.

So when Keynesian tax and spend liberal Democrats talk about serious deficit reduction it’s just misdirection.  They know they can’t reduce the deficit.  But that’s okay with them.  For that isn’t their goal.  They want to raise taxes for a different reason.  They like to spend.  It’s how they get power.  And votes.  But when you run such massive deficits it’s hard to spend more.  Unless you raise taxes.  And that’s why they want to raise taxes.  Not to reduce the deficit.  Which is impossible to do with tax hikes.  They’ve just run out of money.  And they want more to spend.

Left of Center Welfare States are Always Good for Vote-Getting

And if you think it’s bad on this side of the Atlantic, you should see what they’re doing on the other side.  The Europeans have a lot of social democracies.  Left-of-center governments.  With huge welfare states.  Which is always good for vote-getting.  But it comes at a price.  High taxes.  And lots of debt.

To keep spending at their levels of spending they have raised tax rates on the ‘rich’.  And lowered the threshold for being ‘rich’.  The Business Insider crunched the numbers and put together a little slideshow showing the tax rates.  And what it means to be rich in these countries.  We pulled the data from the slide show and put them into tabular form below (see These Are The Toughest Taxes For Europe’s High Earners by Nick Jardine posted 9/24/2011 on Business Insider Europe).

We calculated the numbers above based on the threshold salary that puts these taxpayers into the top tax rate.  And the tax rate.  All numbers are in U.S. dollars.  The numbers very a little from the Business Insider slideshow possibly due to rounding error.  Or other tax considerations.  But the numbers were close enough to fill in the blanks where needed.  Though it may not be completely accurate, the numbers should be close enough in magnitude for the purpose of discussion.

When they couldn’t Tax the Rich Anymore, they Taxed the Middle Class.  By Redefining them as Rich.

Depending on your political persuasion, you no doubt will draw different conclusions from these numbers.  A Keynesian liberal Democrat will say Germany isn’t taxing their rich enough.  That they are the richest of the rich.  And that they should probably tax everyone earning over, say, $100,000 at the highest rate.  Like in Greece.  A non-Keynesian will see it differently.  They will note that only the German economy is rich enough to bailout the poorer nations of the Eurozone.  Particularly Greece.  Meaning that the more rich people you let be rich the more tax revenue you will have.

A non-Keynesian will think it’s not fair that a rich German only gets to keep $3,581 from the $6,511 he or she earns every week.  The Keynesian will have no problem with that.  Of course, they may not think it’s fair that a Belgian only gets to keep $446 of the $892 he or she earns every week.  They’ll think it’s fair to take about half of what the rich make.  But they don’t think it’s fair calling someone rich who makes only $46,349.  Or calling someone rich who only makes $20,613.  Especially if they earn more than they do.  And currently pay no income taxes.

None of these countries started out at these income thresholds or tax rates.  They’ve lowered income thresholds through the years.  And they’ve raised tax rates.  Whenever their governments spent more money than they had.  Employing class warfare they vilified the rich.  Raised their tax rates.  And when they couldn’t raise tax rates on the rich anymore, they raised taxes on the middle class.  By redefining them as rich.  And they then paid the higher tax rates.  It’s gotten so bad in some countries that people who pay no income tax in America would be paying the highest tax rate in some European countries.  But it all starts with taxing the rich.

With Keynesians in Power you’ll never see Spending Cuts because that’s how Democrats Buy Votes

We have to be careful of what we ask for.  Such as taxing the rich.  Because we may be rich ourselves one day.  As the threshold for being rich shrinks over time.  First it was the billionaires.  Then the millionaires.  Then those earning $200,000 or more.  Then those earning $100,000 or more.  Down to as low as $20,000.

Fair is fair they’ll say.  So you’ll agree to make the rich pay their fair share.  And then those earning less than you will also agree to make the rich pay their fair share.  And by rich they’ll mean you.  Until all earners will be taxed at the highest rate.  To support those non-earners who vote Democrat.

But no matter how much they’ll take it will never be enough.  Because you can’t reduce the deficit/debt by raising taxes.  They’re just too big.  The only way you can reduce these is by reducing the thing that made them so big.  Spending.  But that’s not likely to happen.  As long as Keynesians are in power.  Because that’s how Keynesian tax and spend liberal Democrats buy votes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Keynesian Policies are giving us Great Depression Unemployment with no Hope of Economic Recovery

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 4th, 2011

Real Unemployment is Greater than the Unemployment Rate for about half of the Great Depression 

The unemployment numbers are bad.  But few realize just how bad they are.  The real unemployment numbers.  Not the official unemployment rate released by the government (U-3).  Because that number doesn’t count a lot of people who can’t find a full time job (see Unemployed face tough competition: underemployed by Paul Wiseman and Christopher Leonard posted 9/4/2011 on the Associated Press).

America’s 14 million unemployed aren’t competing just with each other. They must also contend with 8.8 million other people not counted as unemployed – part-timers who want full-time work…

And the unemployed will face another source of competition once the economy improves: Roughly 2.6 million people who aren’t counted as unemployed because they’ve stopped looking for work. Once they start looking again, they’ll be classified as unemployed. And the unemployment rate could rise.

Combined, the 14 million officially unemployed; the “underemployed” part-timers who want full-time work; and “discouraged” people who have stopped looking make up 16.2 percent of working-age Americans…

If you look at the unemployment rate during the Great Depression (1929 to 1941), this more real rate (16.2%) is greater than the unemployment rate for about half of those years.  From 1932 until 1936, the rate was 23.53%, 24.75%, 21.60%, 19.97% and 16.80%.  After dropping down to 14.18% in 1937, it went back up to 18.91% in 1938.  It fell to 17.05% in 1939.  It was below 16.2% for only 6 years of the 13 years of the Great Depression.  So this 16.2% is bad.  Very, very bad.  And very, very real.

In a healthy economy, this broader measure of unemployment stays below 10 percent. Since the Great Recession officially ended more than two years ago, the rate has been 15 percent or more.

Even if you don’t use Great Depression standards this 16.2% is still very, very bad.

Eventually, lots of Americans…will start looking for jobs again. If those work-force dropouts had been counted as unemployed, August’s unemployment rate would have been 10.6 percent instead of 9.1 percent.

If it wasn’t for a counting gimmick to exclude long-term unemployed who gave up looking for work, the official unemployment rate would count all the unemployed.  And it would be 10.6%.  Not the ‘official’ 9.1% reported.  Of course, throw in the underemployed and it’s back up to 16.2%.

If Taxes and Regulations were Good for the Economy, we wouldn’t have Real Unemployment of 16.2%

No doubt the employment picture is far worse than the media has reported.  And that Recovery Summer was purely political propaganda.  To put a positive spin on some really wasteful ‘stimulus’ spending.  Spending that was more pork and earmarks than stimulative.  And President Obama is going to address a joint-session of Congress to tell us how he’s going to fix the economy.  No doubt urging more of the same that hasn’t worked thus far (see Cheney dismisses Obama’s jobs speech: ‘Don’t think it will get the job done’ by Vicki Needham posted 9/4/2011 on The Hill).

Former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested Sunday that the White House should adopt Reagan-era tax and regulatory policy to spur economic growth…

“The Obama administration is doing exactly the opposite, they’re loading on more regulation on the private sector in respect to how the economy functions,” he said.

They say if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  But if it is broke then we should probably fix it.  And based on the real unemployment numbers, the Obama policies are broke.  And need to be fixed.  And a good place to start would be to back off on all of their regulations.  And stop with the new taxes.  We know they’re bad for the economy.  For if they were good for it, we wouldn’t have a real unemployment rate of 16.2%.

President Obama will address a joint session of Congress on Thursday to outline a jobs plan likely to include a call for more infrastructure spending along with an extension of the payroll tax cuts, unemployment benefits and tax incentives for business to pick up hiring…

The president used his weekly address to push passage of an extension of the surface transportation bill to spur highway construction, bridge repair and the improvement of mass transit systems.

Haven’t we heard this message before?  Infrastructure spending?  As in ‘shovel-ready jobs’?  That was the whole point of the stimulus bill.  And being that we’re still talking about ‘infrastructure spending’, apparently it didn’t work.  So why return to a failed policy?

Infrastructure Stimulus Projects are like a Pill that Cures the Common Cold…in only 3 Weeks

Even Obama conceded there was no such thing as a ‘shovel-ready’ job.  Not with the regulatory red tape you have to go through before breaking ground.  Which costs millions of dollars.  So it’s not likely anyone spent millions of dollars over the years just in anticipation of a stimulus program.  Something unknown then that would pay for a project started without adequate funding.  Yeah, like that would ever happen.

But infrastructure work isn’t your everyday make-work kind of employment.  It takes skill.  And experience.  It’s not picking up trash along the side of the road that any unemployed person can do without extensive training (see Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? Not Always for the Unemployed by Megan McArdle posted 91/2011 on The Atlantic).

In the construction industry, there’s another wrinkle; many of the specialties in heavy construction are, at least as I understand it, not overfull with qualified applicants; finding young people who have the math skills and other academic talents necessary to be a modern skilled construction worker, and also want to skip college and apprentice with an outfit like the operating engineers, is something that a lot of the skilled trades worry about. 

I think a lot of people assumed that doing infrastructure construction projects would be a great way to soak up excess labor from the homebuilding industry, but there’s not actually that much overlap; knowing how to install drywall or do framing work does not qualify you for a job that requires sandhogs and specialty welders.  And it can take a long time to make journeyman in many of these professions.  This is also true of certain kinds of civil engineers and so forth. 

Cleary infrastructure projects are not the panacea the Obama administration thinks they are.  They are not ‘shovel-ready’ for the unemployed.  After years of regulatory compliance expenditures, highly skilled and highly specialized workers will break ground.  Which won’t employ a single person outside these specialties.  At least, not without years of training.  And working as an apprentice.  Which will be years down the road.  Which won’t stimulate anything in the here and now. 

This is like a pill that cures the common cold.  In only 3 weeks.  They have no effect.  And their ‘cure’ is purely illusionary.

The Era of Keynesian Big Government came to an End in 1980…for Awhile 

So we know what doesn’t work.  We know what policies are wrong.  Almost 3 years of Obama policies have told us that.  But it’s easy to point to failure.  To identify problems.  It’s a little more difficult to fix problems.  But the amazing thing is we don’t have to fix them.  We just have to stop causing them (see Free The Market by Peter Boettke posted 9/2/2011 on The European).

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design”, F.A. Hayk once wrote. We would we well-served to heed his call and reinvigorate the ideology of the free market.

There are a few schools of economics.  There’s the Keynesian school.  The majority of mainstream economists adhere to this.  As well as the Obama administration.  And then there is the Austrian school.  Which is more in keeping with economists like F.A. Hayek and Adam Smith

The Keynesians want hands-on government control and spending.  The Austrian school doesn’t.  Because they don’t think they are better and smarter than the average consumer.

The past thirty years proved the validity of Adam Smith’s assertion, “The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition…is so powerful, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations.”

During “the age of Milton Friedman”, as Andrei Shleifer dubed it, key developments in economic freedom—deregulation in the US and UK, the collapse of communism in East and Central Europe, and the opening up of the economies of China and India—allowed individuals to surmount government meddling in the economy. From 1980 to 2005, there were marked, world-wide improvements in life expectancy, education, democracy, and living standards as integration into a world economy delivered billions of individuals from poverty, ignorance and squalor.

From 1980?  You know what happened at that time?  The era of Keynesian Big Government came to an end.  For awhile.  With the rise of Margaret Thatcher in the UK.  And the rise of Ronald Reagan in the USA.  Both were adherents to the Austrian school.  And because of that their nations exploded with prosperity.  Thanks to tax cuts.  And deregulation. 

Unfortunately, this began to reverse course around 2005.  Big Government began to return.  And it’s becoming bigger than it ever was.  We see this in declining Western economies.  And financial crises in these same Western economies (in Europe and the United States).  As they are imploding under excessive government spending.  And debt.

A setting of private property rights, free pricing, and accurate profit and loss accounting aligns incentives and communicates information so that individuals realize the mutual gains from trade with one another. Efficient markets are an outcome of a process of discovery, learning, and adjustment, not an assumption going into the analysis. That process, however, operates within political, legal, and social institutions. Those institutions can promulgate policies that block discovery, inhibit learning, and prevent adjustment, causing the market to operate poorly.

So rather than free market ideology being obsolete, what is needed is a reinvigorated ideological vision of the free market economy: a society of free and responsible individuals who have the opportunity to prosper in a market economy based on profit and loss and to live in caring communities. Yes, caring communities. The Adam Smith that wrote The Wealth of Nations also wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and the F. A. Hayek that wrote Individualism and Economic Order also wrote about the corruption of morals in The Fatal Conceit. Our challenge today is to embrace the full scope of free market ideology so as to understand the preconditions under which we can live better together in a world of peace, prosperity, and progress.

Get government out of the private sector.  Let the private sector respond freely to market forces.  Be responsible.  And be kind to others.  Like they told us in kindergarten.

Keynesians don’t like the Masses, they just want to Rule over Them

Anyone looking objectively at the economy can see where the problem lies.  With government.  Their policies didn’t work in the Seventies.  And they’re not working now.  So why are they returning to failed policies of the past?  Because Keynesian policies grow government.  And those in government want to grow government.  For the money and the power.  And to stroke their egos. 

Keynesians are academics.  They have little real-life experience.  They didn’t run businesses.  Make payrolls.  They didn’t sell.  Or live on the other side of regulatory compliance.  Why?  Because they aren’t entrepreneurs.  They don’t have the ability to be creative.  So they elevate themselves above those who are.  To compensate for their inadequacies. 

They prefer privilege.  Entitlement.  Like the aristocracy in the Old World.  Where a good last name was all you needed for wealth and power. 

Just listen to them talk.  Their very words drip with condescension.  They don’t like the masses.  They don’t live with them.  They don’t vacation with them.  They don’t want to have anything to do with them.  Except to rule over them.  The way it should be.  In their world of privilege.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Insufficient Spending Cuts triggers S&P Downgrade, not Insufficient Taxes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 6th, 2011

Ah, the Good Old Days when Communists didn’t school Americans in Capitalism

It happened.  S&P downgraded the U.S.  Just like they said they would if we didn’t make $4 trillion in spending cuts.  And our patron is not pleased (see China attacks US debt ‘addiction’ after America loses AAA credit rating by Richard Blackden posted 8/6/2011 on The Telegraph).

“The US government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,” China said in a commentary carried by the Xinhua News Agency.

Ouch.  Strong words from a communist.  The Soviet Union never gave us lessons in capitalism when there was a Soviet Union.  Then again, we always had a AAA bond rating back then.  And their GDP growth wasn’t greater than ours.  Ah, the good old days.  When communists didn’t school Americans in capitalism.

Vince Cable, the British Business Secretary, said the downgrade was an “entirely predictable consequence of the mess that the Congress created a few weeks ago when they couldn’t agree on lifting the debt ceiling.”

Francois Baroin, France’s finance minister, said his country had total confidence in the US economy, while India called the “situation was grave” and Russia said it would keep the level of dollar investments in its national reserve funds, adding: “There is not a great difference between AAA and AA+.”

Those are some very supportive words from the Russians.  Which differ slightly from previous remarks when Putin said, “They are living like parasites off the global economy and their monopoly of the dollar.”  It’s subtle but it’s there.  On the one hand the downgrade is no big deal.  On the other we’re the scum of the earth.  It’s subtle but there is a distinct difference in these statements.  They resent us.  But they can’t live without us.  Kind of sweet.  In a bitter way.

In an explanation of the decision, S&P said that despite last week’s agreement, which raised the $14.3trillion debt ceiling and promised cuts of $2.5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, the ratio of America’s public debt to the size of its economy may climb to 79pc in 2015 and 85pc by 2021. It is understood that an agreement that had delivered a $4 trillion reduction in the debt pile would have preserved the AAA rating.

S&P downgraded us, of course, for having too much debt.  Now debt grows from having annual deficits.  And deficits are caused by either taxing too little.  Or by spending too much.  S&P wanted to see the debt reduced by $4 trillion.  They only got $2.5 trillion.  Hence the downgrade. 

You can’t Reduce the Debt $4 Trillion by Raising Taxes, at least not Mathematically

Reducing the debt by $4 trillion won’t be easy.  That’s a lot of money.  About $333 billion each month.  Current tax revenue into Washington is about $200 billion each month.  So, to get this $4 trillion in deficit reduction with new taxes only would require raising monthly tax revenue from $200 billion to $533 billion (an increase of 166%).  Increasing taxes by 166% (income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.) is going to do some devastating economic damage.  The kind the economy is not going to get up and walk away from.  So it’s a non-solution.

But what about a balanced approach?  In addition to that $2.5 trillion in cuts we throw in $1.5 trillion in new taxes for a total $4 trillion in debt reduction.  $1.5 trillion is about $125 billion each month.  This would increase monthly tax revenue from $200 billion to $325 billion (an increase of 65%).  This will also do some serious economic damage.  So it’s a non-solution, too.

And sticking it to the ‘rich’ won’t work either.  For they can’t afford it.  Let’s look at the numbers.  The total adjusted gross income reported in 2009 was $7.626 trillion.  The percent of that total earned by the top 5% earners (earning $159,619 or more) is 31%.  So the total income of the top 5% in 2009 is $2.36 trillion.  Total federal income taxes paid in 2009 was $1.05 trillion.  The top 5% of earners pay 59% of all federal income taxes.  So the total they paid in income taxes in 2009 is $570 billion.  This leaves a balance of $1.79 trillion of their earnings they didn’t pay in federal income taxes, or about $150 billion each month.  Which is not enough to pay an additional $333 billion each month.  But it is enough to pay an additional $125 billion each month.  As long as these people are willing to pay an effective federal income tax rate of 87.6%.  Which I doubt.  For another 12.4% in taxes (state, country, local, property, gas, sales, etc.) and they’re working for free.  Like a slave.  Only without the free room and board.

You can’t reduce the debt enough by raising taxes a lot.  Or a little.  The rich people (those earning $159,619 or more) will run out of earnings before they can pay the $4 trillion in debt reduction.  It’s just mathematically impossible.  The only way you can do this is by cutting spending.  And they didn’t.  Hence the downgrade.

Paul Krugman ‘defends’ Ronald Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s Deficits

Meanwhile, while the S&P tragedy unfolds, Paul Krugman ‘defends’ Ronald Reagan‘s and George W. Bush‘s deficits.  Saying that big deficits aren’t a big deal.  And we don’t have to knock ourselves out trying to pay down the debt they create.  For depreciation of the dollar makes those once large numbers become trivial (see The Arithmetic of Near-term Deficits and Debt by Paul Krugman posted 8/6/2011 on The New York Times).

What matters for debt sustainability is the real interest rate, since what matters is keeping real debt, not nominal debt, from growing. (World War II debt never got paid off, it just eroded in real terms to the point where it was trivial). As of yesterday, the US government could lock in 30-year bonds at a real interest rate of 1.25%. That means that a trillion dollars in extra debt would mean $12.5 billion a year in additional real interest payments.

Meanwhile, the CBO estimates potential real GDP in 2021 at about $18 trillion in 2005 dollars, or around $19 trillion in 2011 dollars.

Put these together, and they say that an extra trillion in borrowing adds something like 0.07% of GDP in future debt service costs. Yes, that zero belongs there. The $4 trillion S&P said it needed to see clocks in at less than 0.3% of GDP.

Of course I’m extrapolating his remarks to apply them to the Reagan and Bush deficits.  For if they hold for a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit then they surely hold for a $200 billion (Reagan) and a $400 billion deficit (Bush).  The key is to make that old debt worth less by making the dollar worth less.  The more you devalue the dollar the less that debt held by the Chinese is worth.  As well as the debt held by pension funds and retirement accounts.  And our personal savings.  For inflation is a killer of dollar-denominated assets.  Which is good for the debtor (the seller of treasuries).  But bad for the creditor (the buyer of treasuries).

Further extrapolating Krugman’s remarks one must conclude that with the deficit being trivial he would endorse the economic boom of the Eighties.  And agree that Reaganomics was a success.  For the argument has always been that Reaganomics traded exceptional GDP growth for deficits.  But with deficits being trivial, there is no tradeoff for that exceptional GDP growth.

To Live within our Means we will have to Cut Spending 

True, inflation will make bonds easier to redeem 30 years later.  But too much inflation causes a lot of damage.  Especially to those living on fixed incomes.  No, a better solution would be to live within our means.  And that doesn’t mean raising taxes.  Besides, the rich don’t have much left to give.  No, if we’re going to live within our means we will have to cut spending.  As painful as that may be.  And the longer we wait to make those cuts the more painful those cuts will be.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Deficit Reduction and the Credit Rating Agencies don’t Care

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 3rd, 2011

The Credit Rating Agencies wanted Serious Spending Cuts and our Glorious Government Delivered 

It was scary.  We stared into the abyss.  We stood at the edge of the world as we knew it.  With one foot held up midstride, dangling precariously over the void.  Ready to tumble forward into the chasm of fiscal demise.  And then something happened.  Congress compromised.  There would be more debt.  There would be more spending.  And they restored our financial house to order.  We could put that foot down on terra firma.  Everything was going to be all right.  Like it was before.  Hallelujah (see U.S. Debt Rating: Economists Wait to Hear From S&P by Susanna Kim posted 8/3/2011 on ABC News).

Now that President Obama has signed the debt ceiling deal and averted a default, economists are waiting to see if ratings agency Standard and Poor’s will downgrade the nation’s credit rating…

At stake in all this is not only interest rates the US must pay on its $14.4 trillion debt, but a host of rates for consumers, from mortgages to car loans to credit cards. A downgrade of US debt would cause interest rates of all kinds to edge up and that would cost the US and consumers billions of dollars. The stock market plunged yesterday partly on worries about this possibility.

What a horrible fate this would have been.  God bless Barak Obama, Harry Reid, John Boehner and everyone else that did such an extraordinary job of saving us from this fate.  The credit rating agencies wanted to see some serious spending cuts.  And by God if that isn’t what our glorious government gave them.  Moody’s and Fitch have already given us the good news.  We’re still AAA with them.  Just waiting on Standard and Poor’s.  If they still like us we’re golden.

No spending cuts, no Deficit Reduction and no Credit Downgrade, were they Lying?

The only problem with this is that it is all bull [deleted expletive] (see Spending Cuts Seen as Step, Not as Cure by Binyamin Appelbaum posted 8/2/2011 on The New York Times).

There is something you should know about the deal to cut federal spending that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday: It does not actually reduce federal spending.

By the end of the 10-year deal, the federal debt would be much larger than it is today.

Indeed, both the government and its debts will continue to grow faster than the American economy, primarily because the new law does not address federal spending on health care.

Well how can this be?  More spending?!?  And not just a little but a lot.  So much that it will grow faster than the economy.  But they told us they made real spending cuts.  That they made some real deficit reduction.  Are you telling me that our government lied to us?

Stabilizing that [debt] ratio would require about $4 trillion in cuts over the next decade, according to a number of independent analysts. That is also the target that S.&P. declared the nation must meet, and it was the goal of the “grand bargain” that Mr. Obama tried to reach last month with Speaker John A. Boehner.

The deal they reached instead contains cuts of at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. By the end of that period, the federal debt could equal as much as 80 percent of economic activity, and rising.

Guess so.  We barely made half of the recommended cuts and two of the agencies already gave us their blessings.  Which begs the question was all that fear mongering of the debt downgrade just bull you-know-what?  Just a trick to raise the debt ceiling?  I mean, this deal should have triggered the credit downgrade.  It doesn’t cut spending or reduce the deficit.  So how can it be the end of the world as we know it one minute and then credit rating bliss the next?  Because nothing changed.  Something fishy here.

With the Spending Crisis over, now comes More Spending

All right, so the spending cuts were only phantom spending cuts.  Just designed to fool the American people so the government can do what they do best.  What they always planned to do.  Even though the credit rating agencies said we can’t keep doing it.  Spend with reckless abandon (see Compromise achieved, reform’s the next chapter by Timothy Geithner posted 8/2/2011 on The Washington Post).

The agreement creates room for the private sector to continue to grow, without the threat of default and the burden of higher interest rates…

And by locking in long-term savings, Congress will have more room in the fall to pass additional short-term measures to strengthen the economy — such as extending the payroll tax cut, which provides an average of a thousand dollars to the after-tax incomes of working Americans; extending unemployment benefits; and financing infrastructure investments. After all, strengthening growth and putting more Americans back to work are among the most important things we can do to improve our fiscal situation today and over the long term.

This is like a chain smoker who just got the scare of his life.  A bad lung X-ray that could be cancer.  Only to find out later that it wasn’t cancer.  He feels so good that he lights up to celebrate his good health.

The government has already tried every Keynesian stimulus in the book.  A trillion dollar stimulus bill.  Subsidies for green energy (the economy of the future).  Tax credits.  Shovel ready jobs.  None of this helped the economy.  It just gave us a spending crisis that added so much debt that the credit agencies are threatening to downgrade the U.S. bond rating.  Additional spending is not going to improve our credit worthiness.  In fact, it will do that other thing.  The opposite thing.  It will make it much, much worse.  How can they not see this?  Was I the only one paying attention these past weeks?

When the Market Corrects things get Better; when the Government Corrects you get Double-Dip Recession

So it’s been all smoke and mirrors.  So what?  So they like to spend.  But their spending stimulates, does it not?  They’re investing in the future.  To win the future.  Like green energy.  The economy of the future.  They’re pouring money into this to create jobs and stimulate the economy.  And imagine how bad things would be if they didn’t do this.  Instead of a double-dip recession we may be in a triple-dip recession.  The recession could be one dip worse, then, couldn’t it?

Yeah, that’s a joke.  The economy is horrible despite everything they’ve tried.  Or perhaps it’s horrible because of everything they’ve tried.  Spending for the sake of spending hasn’t produced any results yet.  Just take a look at the Chevy Volt.  The car that was to lead GM back from the abyss.  And change the American automobile industry.  The Obama administration was going all in on this car.  Even ponying up $7,500 in tax credits per car just to make people buy these things.  But apparently the people don’t like the Chevy Volt.  Because they’re not buying them.  Even with a federal gift of $7,500 to sweeten the deal (see Chevy Volt: Still Not Selling by Jonathan V. Last posted 8/3/2011 on the weekly Standard).

The July sales numbers are out and the Chevy Volt continues to electrify (get it?) the country. GM sold … 125 Volts last month!

Way back in March I made fun of the Volt for selling 281 units in February. Turns out, February was a good month. But wait, there’s more! GM says they’re going to increase production to 5,000 Volts per month in order to keep up with demand. You see, they claim that the reason the Volt isn’t selling is that they can’t keep enough cars on the lot. A GM spokeswoman recently claimed that they are “virtually sold out.” Which is virtually true. Mark Modica called around his local Chevy dealers and found plenty of Volts waiting for an environmentally conscious driver to bring them home.

These numbers are so bad they’re embarrassing.  And building 5,000 units to meet a 125 unit demand?  You can tell the government is calling the shots at GM.

This is what happens when government starts running automobile companies.  They destroy automobile companies.  And wastes tax money.  They’ll keep raising taxes (and borrowing money) so they can ‘invest’ in jobs.  Creating jobs where people build things that nobody buys.  This is how the best and brightest tweak the economy.  Use Keynesian stimulus to correct for ‘market inefficiencies’.  Which in Washington is when people don’t spend their money ‘correctly’.

Of course, when the market corrects things get better.  When the government corrects you get a double-dip recession.

The Obama Administration did some serious Fear Peddling to get the Debt Ceiling Raised

The Obama administration did some serious fear peddling to get the debt ceiling raised.  First they tried to scare everyone that the government would default on their debt obligations.  When it was pointed out that there was some $200 billion of tax revenue coming in monthly they changed their story. 

Then they tried to scare old people by saying they couldn’t send out Social Security checks.  When it was pointed out that Social Security Trust Fund was full of treasury securities (i.e., IOUs) that could be converted into cash without any impact on the debt ceiling they changed their story. 

Then they tried to scare everyone that if they didn’t reduce the deficit with a balanced approach (new taxes and spending cuts, but mostly new taxes) the credit rating agencies would downgrade the U.S. AAA debt rating.  So far that hasn’t happened.  Despite there being no deficit reduction.

Well, they got their debt increase.  They may have been less than honest but they got it.  And what are they going to do with that additional $2.4 trillion?  Why, build more Chevy Volts, I guess.  And other winning-the-future job-creating Keynesian stimulus spending.  Because it’s worked so well these past few years.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Debt Ceiling Deal Light on Cuts and Sets Stage for Future Taxes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 1st, 2011

$2.4 Trillion Debt Ceiling Deal may spend $96.68 for each Dollar Cut

Everyone seems to hate the budget deal to raise the debt ceiling.  Conservatives are saying they’ve been screwed.  Liberals are saying they’ve been screwed.  Interesting.  So exactly what did they agree to in order to hike the debt ceiling $2.4 trillion?  Which, incidentally, is the largest increase in history (see Small spending cuts to have little economic impact by Christopher S. Rugaber, Associated Press, posted 8/1/2011 on Yahoo! News).

Discretionary spending, which excludes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, would be cut by only $7 billion in 2012 and $3 billion in 2013, according a summary by Senate Democrats. That’s a tiny fraction of the nation’s $14 trillion economy…

The independent Congressional Budget Office offered its own analysis Monday. It said the agreement would reduce government spending by $25 billion next year. That’s compared to current law, which factors in a projected increase in spending.

The first phase of cuts would reduce spending by $917 billion over 10 years. A congressional committee would decide on a second phase of cuts totaling $1.5 trillion.

Whoever’s numbers you believe one thing is sure.  That’s not a lot of cuts.  The cuts are dwarfed by the amount of new spending the $2.4 trillion debt ceiling increase will give.  In fact, if you use the high $25 billion number, one could say these cuts are negligible.  For if they spend that $2.4 trillion next year, the cuts will only be 1.03% of the new spending.  Or an additional $96.68 spent for each dollar cut.  Now, granted, my math skills may be outdated, but I think if you spend more than you cut while you already have a $1.6 trillion deficit, I don’t think you’re going to reduce the deficit.  But that’s just me using arithmetic.

$7 Billion is a little shy of the $4 Trillion in cuts S&P said would prevent Credit Downgrade

And this is what was important.  Deficit reduction.  To stop spending money we don’t have.  So the debt doesn’t rise so high that it threatens the full faith and credit of the United States.  As S&P warned would happen if we don’t make some serious spending cuts (see FreedomWorks Opposes Budget Control Act of 2011 by Jacqueline Bodnar posted 8/1/2011 on FreedomWorks).

“The deal has few immediate cuts totaling one half of one percent of the budget, with most savings coming in the later part of the decade,” commented Matt Kibbe, President of FreedomWorks. “How can we be serious about reducing the debt limit when we are not even talking about cutting programs like AmeriCorps and agricultural subsidies? This is not the serious reform Tea Partiers demanded last November.”

Standard & Poor’s has stated that anything less than $4 trillion in cuts will lead to an inevitable downgrade from the United States’ current AAA credit rating. “The ‘Cut, Cap, Balance Act’ is the only option on the table that would preserve the nation’s AAA credit rating and secure our long-term economic future,” added Kibbe. “

So S&P will downgrade the full faith and credit of the United States despite this deal.  So it doesn’t appear that the Republicans got much for that additional $2.4 trillion of spending.  So it would appear that the Democrats screwed the Republicans.  But that sure isn’t how some see it.

Ruthlessly dictating Terms to the Opposition is Okay as long as Liberals are doing the Dictating

In fact, some are spitting mad (see The President Surrenders by Paul Krugman posted 7/31/2011 on The New York Times).

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

Come on, Paul, tell us how you really feel.

And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren’t accepted, there will be more spending cuts…

And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options. In ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced with the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have been totally justifiable…

In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.

I don’t recall any such concern about the Democratic process that rammed Obamacare through the Congress along strictly party lines.  As bad as it is, the current deal was bipartisan.  Which is more than you can say about what Pelosi, Reid and Obama did with their health care bill.  Even the polls showed the people didn’t want it.  And many who voted for it paid the ultimate price at the next election. 

Apparently, ruthlessly dictating terms to the opposition is okay as long as liberals are doing the dictating.  In fact, liberals would be fine with doing away with the Democratic process if they held full power.  Let’s just hope they don’t resort to any legal maneuvering to make that happen.

The Sneaky Little Bastards are going to Escape those Spending Cuts and get their Tax Hikes

Liberals aren’t idiots.  They are very pragmatic.  And they’re liars and sneaks.  I think all this protesting is just smoke to make all the Tea Party Republicans think they’ve come out as winners in this deal.  Just take a closer look at the deal.  Negligible spending cuts up front.  A panel to determine future spending cuts (probably more heavily weighted on cuts that matter like out of control health care spending).  And a trigger for when that panel fails.  Which will make half of those future spending cuts come from defense.

And it gets better.  As this last round of negotiations has shown agreeing on spending cuts is next to impossible.  Even with the trigger those Medicare spending cuts are not likely to happen.  And with Obama just getting another $2.4 trillion to spend, that deficit isn’t going to get any smaller.  In fact, it’ll only get bigger.  Which means, of course, they will have no choice but to talk about revenue again (i.e., new taxes).  Say goodbye to the Bush tax cuts.  For they will let them expire next time.  Also, Obamacare kicks in after the 2012 election.  As do all those new taxes to pay for it.  More taxes upon more taxes.  Which is a lot of new taxes.

The sneaky little bastards are going to escape those spending cuts.  And get their tax hikes.  The Great Recession will linger on.  Or fall into full blown depression.  So it’s really clear who the winners and losers are in this debate.  The Ivy League liberal ruling elite are the winners.  And the American people are the losers.  As their country is transformed into a third world banana-republic.  Where the ruling elite at the top live very well.  And everyone else is poor and oppressed.  

Viva la Revolucion, El presidente.  Viva la Revolucion.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries