The Threat of Default on the Debt is from the Left not the Right

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 10th, 2013

Politics 101

We have a Debt and Spending Problem as we are Spending so much that we have to Raise the Debt Ceiling

Contrary to popular belief the government doesn’t just borrow money.  They also raise money by taxing us and charging us fees.  A lot of it.  In this past fiscal year (October 2012 to September 2013) they raised $2,450,200,000,000.  That’s $2.45 trillion dollars.  Sadly, they spent $3,537,100,000,000.  Or $3.5 trillion.  Giving us a deficit of $1,086,900,000,000.  Or $1.1 trillion.  Which is why we’re having a debt crisis.

Interestingly, the left does not believe that we have a debt problem.  Or a spending problem. For they see no problem with these numbers.  The only problem they have is with Republicans.  Who do believe we have a debt problem.  As well as a spending problem.  And they want to do something about it.  Before the debt grows so big that it threatens the full faith and credit of the United States.

Now the Democrats, who don’t think we have a debt or a spending problem, are saying the Republicans are threatening the full faith and credit of the United States.  With their shutting down of government.  And their demand for spending cuts before raising the debt ceiling.  Which proves the Republicans point.  We have a debt and a spending problem.  Because we are spending so much that we have to raise the debt limit.

The Interest on the Debt is only 11.75% of the Available Revenue so there is no Danger of Default

Of course, this explains the $1.1 trillion deficit.  Out of control spending.  That the government is funding with more and more borrowing.  Which threatens the full faith and credit of the United States.  Because the more debt we accumulate the less likely we’ll ever be able to pay it off.

But are we risking default on the debt now?  With this battle over the debt ceiling?  No.  Yes, the debt is huge.  Currently it is in excess of $16 trillion.  About six and a half times total federal revenue.  To get an idea what that means consider you have the median household income which is approximately $51,000.  If you carried the same amount of debt the federal government carries you would have approximately $331,500 in credit card debt.  Any household with a median income of $51,000 with credit card debt of $331,500 has a bleak future.  And unless they win the lottery they will not escape bankruptcy.

So $16 trillion in debt is recklessly high.  And impossible to pay off.  But as bad as that is the amount of revenue the federal government collects via taxes and fees greatly exceeds the interest on the debt.  The interest on the debt is $415.7 billion.  This is the amount the government has to pay to avoid defaulting on the debt.  Which is easy to do with $2.45 trillion in revenue.  The interest on the debt is only 11.75% of the available revenue.  So even if the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling there is no way in hell the government will be unable to pay the interest on the debt.  Unless the government chooses NOT to pay the interest on the debt.  Even when they have the ability to pay the interest on the debt.

The Democrats become Chicken Little whenever anyone ever Threatens their Spending Authority

So why all the talk of defaulting on the debt?  And ruining the full faith and credit of the United States?  Simple.  Democrats are liars.  And what do liars do?  They lie.  The interest on the debt is in no danger of going unpaid.  It’s all that other government spending that is in danger of going unspent.  That spending that makes people dependent on government.  And buys votes.

The left tries to frighten the people so they can keep spending.  And keep buying votes.  They try to scare Social Security and Medicare recipients.  Telling them they will lose their benefits if the Republicans don’t stop what they’re doing.  Even though they won’t.  First of all we pay into our own retirement account. At least that’s what the government tells us.  And there is a Social Security Trust Fund.  Full of our money just waiting to pay our benefits.  Or so they say.  But the Trust Fund doesn’t have money in it.  It has government IOUs.  Because the government spent that money.

So that’s why Democrats lie.  So they can keep spending and buying votes.  Which they won’t be able to do if they can’t borrow more money to spend.  And they’re spending so much that they can’t afford to lose their charging privileges.  This is why they warned the sky would fall if the sequestration spending cuts went into effect.  But as we all witnessed the sky did NOT fall with those spending cuts.  There was some discomfort.  But nowhere near the calamity the Democrats warned would befall us if they didn’t get their way.  Bringing us to their greatest fear.  That life can go on with a large spending cut.  And telling us that the government can cut spending even more.  Far more.  Which is a threat to their ability to buy votes.  And to their power.  Which is why they become Chicken Little whenever anyone ever threatens their spending authority.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

President Obama is OK with Food Assistance for Illegal Immigrants but wanted to charge Legal Border Crossers a Toll

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 12th, 2013

Week in Review

Does the Obama administration have a spending problem?  Or a revenue problem?  Well, according to an article in the Examiner, since Obama has been president the food stamp program (SNAP) has “increased at 10 times the rate of job creation, the annual spending on SNAP has doubled, and one in seven Americans now participates in SNAP.”   The USDA even sent a Spanish-language flyer to the Mexican Embassy “advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance.”

The Obama administration is giving away so much food assistance that the treasury will soon be unable to borrow money fast enough to pay for it.  Showing a real spending problem.  And a love for illegal immigrants living in the country.  Or who would like to live in the country.  Basically throwing open our southern border.  While at the same time President Obama wants to make Mexicans and Canadians crossing the border legally pay a toll (see U.S. Senate nixes planned U.S.-Canada border tolls by Paul Koring posted 5/10/2013 on The Globe and Mail).

Obama administration plans to impose a toll on land travellers crossing the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico were scrapped Thursday.

The proposed toll, which sparked angry responses on both sides of the borders, was blocked in a rare show of bipartisan unanimity by Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate…

It effectively killed a Homeland Security suggestion contained in Mr. Obama’s proposed budget that tolls on pedestrian and vehicular traffic crossing the Canada-U.S. and Mexico-U.S. borders be considered as a means of raising revenues for the cash-strapped federal government.

When the president wants to make people pay for the privilege of crossing our border to spend their money in our economy it’s time to admit you have a spending problem.

It is interesting that the Department of Homeland Security wants more money to secure the border when they continue to refuse to secure the border.  Which seems to be more of a policy decision than a cost factor.  Especially when the USDA is telling illegal immigrants that they can get food assistance without being able to speak English or prove that they are a legal citizen.

Bridges and tunnels need maintenance.  Which is why we charge tolls at river-crossings.  But we don’t charge tolls at land-crossings.  To do so would add a tariff to cross-border trade.  Violating the North American Free Trade Agreement.  As well as defeating the purpose of a free trade agreement.  To encourage cross-border trade.

The problem is with America’s southern border.  Making Canadians pay for the problems at our southern border would be unfair to say the least.

President Obama has a spending problem.  And he needs to fix that problem by cutting spending.  Not by raising taxes everywhere and on everyone.  Higher taxes and a less friendly business environment destroy economic activity.  And he should know this.  As he had a front-row seat for his destructive economic policies that have created the worst recovery since that following the Great Depression.  And yet all he ever comes up with is more of the same failed policies of the past.  It’s as if he just tries them one more time they will have a different outcome.  Which is either a sign of insanity.  Or of someone that puts politics before all else.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Disposable Income, Federal Taxes, Federal Debt and our Spending Problem 1940-2012

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 27th, 2013

History 101

Excessive Federal Taxes reduce Disposable Income which reduces New Economic Activity

The key to economic growth is disposable income.  The more disposable income people have the more economic activity they will create.  So the key to a healthy economy is maximizing disposable income.  And we can do that in a few ways.  First of all we need jobs.  And we can create more jobs with fewer costly regulations.  And lower taxes.  If we make it less costly to hire people businesses will hire more people.  Which they aren’t doing right now.  Primarily because of Obamacare.  Which is so costly to businesses that they’ve frozen new hiring.  And are pushing some full time employees to part-time.  As well as investing in capital equipment wherever they can.  Replacing people with machines.  Because machines don’t incur Obamacare costs, taxes or penalties.

For those lucky few who haven’t been replaced by machines they can earn some disposable income.  Depending on their skill level.  A low-skilled person who never graduated from high school cannot earn as much disposable income as a thoracic surgeon.  So if you want stuff.  And you want to stimulate the economy.  Become a thoracic surgeon.  Or something else that takes years of college and years of on the job training.  And hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debt.

But earning a good income isn’t enough.  Because from that income we must pay an enormous amount of taxes.  Greatly reducing our disposable income.  Some of the taxes we can see.  Such as those itemized on our paycheck stubs.  Federal and state income taxes.  And Social Security and Medicare taxes.  But there are a lot of taxes we don’t see.  Such as excise taxes on the things we buy from gasoline to liquor to cigarettes.  And then there are property taxes.  Sales taxes.  And the list goes on.  All of which take a bite out of our disposable income.  Siphoning away real economic activity over the years as the federal government added new taxes.  And increased the tax rates of the old taxes.

The Federal Government came up with the Withholding Tax to Prevent an all out Tax Revolt

When the Founding Fathers ratified the Constitution there weren’t many taxes.  Mostly custom duties and tariffs.  Which was enough to fund the limited government they created.  But ever since the Founding some in the federal government have been trying to destroy what the Founding Fathers created.  And replace it with what they fought so long to get rid of.  A very large government that reaches into all parts of our life.  Like a monarchy.  Where those in the federal government belong to a new aristocracy.  Who are more equal than everyone else.  And live a far, far better life.  If you don’t believe this just check out property values around Washington DC.

With the American Civil War killing a generation of fathers a lot of boys grew up with over protective and doting mothers.  When these boys came of age and entered politics they weren’t as manly as their father’s generation was.  Because they grew up without fathers to teach them to hunt and fight.  Instead, they grew up with mothers who taught them to be more nurturing.  Giving us the progressive movement.  Woodrow Wilson gave us a permanent federal income tax.  And tried to expand the federal government to be more of a monarchy with a powerful executive that can govern against the will of Congress.  And the people.  After World War I we returned to normalcy.  And Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge gave us the Roaring Twenties.  And the modern world.  Then Herbert Hoover and other progressives caused the Great Depression.  With a crisis too good to let go to waste FDR picked up where Woodrow Wilson left off.  Exploding the size and reach of the federal government.  And the great surge in federal taxes began.  Over the years they added more and more.  Such as these (see Table 2.1—RECEIPTS BY SOURCE: 1934–2017).

Income Payroll Excise and Other Taxes Key

Some of these you are no doubt familiar with.  The biggest bite is the individual income tax.  Something most of us have received our W-2s for and have just prepared our federal income tax returns.  Or are about to.  Dreading it.  Unless we’re getting a refund.  Those who owe money will probably take their sweet time.  As they hate writing a check to the federal government.  Which is why the federal government came up with the withholding tax.  For if people had to write a check for the full amount of their federal income taxes each year there would be an all out tax revolt.  And probably a lot more imprisonment for people not paying their federal taxes.  For no one has that kind of money sitting around.  Which is why the government takes it from you before you can spend it yourself.

Excessive Federal Spending requires ever Higher Taxation and ever more Borrowing to Feed

The big debate in Washington now is the sequester.  And the automatic cuts of the sequester.  Which were proposed by President Obama.  Which Congress wrote into a bill.  And the president signed into law.  In hopes that Republicans and Democrats would come together and find a way to reduce the record high deficit.  The Republicans want to do the obvious.  Cut the spending that caused the record deficit.  Democrats want to do what they always want to do.  Raise taxes.  Saying that we don’t have a spending problem.  That the four years of trillion dollar deficits isn’t because we’re spending too much.  It’s because we’re not taxing enough to pay for that spending.   That rich people aren’t paying their fair share.  But that’s not what you see when you look at the numbers.

Income Payroll Excise and Other Taxes

These taxes are identified in the above table.  As government spending grew so did taxes.  In particular personal income taxes which provide the majority of federal tax revenues.  Which exploded after LBJ’s Great Society added a lot of new federal spending.  And after President Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold in 1971.  Unleashing inflation.  Note that personal income taxes are greater than corporate income taxes.  That’s because there are more people than corporations.  For example, Siemens AG is an international corporation that employs about 360,000 people.  Who all pay personal income taxes.  After personal income taxes comes old-age and survivors insurance.  Otherwise known as Social Security.  And all of these taxes have continued to grow.  Taking a bigger and bigger bite out of disposable incomes.  Putting a drag on new economic activity.  Note that the only falls in federal tax revenue were due to two Democrat-caused recessions.  Bill Clinton’s dot-com bubble burst causing a bad recession in 2000.  And his subprime mortgage lending bubble he started with his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending burst causing a bad recession in 2007.  Apart from these, though, the pattern has been more spending.  Not less.  Which would suggest that we do have a spending problem.

Also included on this chart is the federal debt.  Note how it spiked up during World War II.  Then settled down at a constant rate for about 30 years.  Until LBJ’s Great Society spending increased federal spending.  But these massive new taxes weren’t enough.  For that’s when the big deficits started.  Adding on to a growing federal debt.  With the only decline in this growth coming during President Clinton’s presidency.  President Clinton’s dot-com boom (before the bubble burst), the peace dividend from President Reagan winning the Cold War, the Asian financial crisis and Japan’s Lost Decade all helped the American economy shower the treasury with cash.  Putting the nation into a surplus for a year or so.  But that didn’t last.  As federal spending continued to outpace tax revenue.  Culminating with President Obama’s trillion dollar deficits.  With federal tax revenue at the highest since President Bush’s record high just before Clinton’s subprime mortgage bubble burst into the subprime mortgage crisis.  And the Great Recession.

So yes, Virginia, we have a spending problem.  A spending that requires ever higher taxation and ever more borrowing to feed.  Taking an ever bigger chunk out of disposable incomes.  Leaving less and less for new economic growth.  Explaining why the economy has never recovered from the Great Recession.  For President Obama’s policies only increase taxes and the cost of doing business.  And do nothing to create disposable income.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

State of the Union, Benghazi, Sequestration and the Politics of Spending

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 14th, 2013

Politics 101

President Obama’s Idea of Compromise and Bipartisanship is Unconditional Surrender

President Obama’s State of the Union Address was a little light on details.  But the general gist is no spending cuts.  And more taxes.  Which makes the sequestration about to hit a crisis in the making for the president.  For it was sort of his idea.  And he did sign it into law.  But to him it was more like playing a game of chicken.  Confident that the Republicans would cave and roll over.  Giving him whatever additional tax increases he wanted to prevent cuts in defense spending.  But the Republicans aren’t blinking.  Because this is the only way they’re going to get any spending cuts.  Even if it means gutting defense spending.  Something the president didn’t consider.

Despite being an architect of the sequestration he called it a stupid idea during the State of the Union.  He doesn’t care about the cuts in defense spending.  He is, after all, a leftist liberal.  And they hate defense spending.  He even denied Ambassador Stevens’ request to beef up security in Benghazi.  Which led to Ambassador Stevens’ death.  Along with three other Americans.  But it’s the equal cuts in things he does care about that has him worried.  That social spending.  The kinds of things that buy votes.  And makes people dependent on government.  Helping to endear the Democrat Party to the American people.  While making them hate the Republican Party.  Who want to take away the great things the Democrats so generously give them.  Even if the government can’t afford to give these things to the American people.

President Obama may talk about compromise and bipartisanship but he doesn’t mean it.  His idea of bipartisanship is unconditional surrender.  He has no interest in meeting Republicans halfway.  He wants to destroy the Republican Party.  And undo the Reagan Revolution.  And bring back the Big Government of the Sixties and Seventies.  When the Democrats ruled supreme.  And you do that with spending money.  Not cutting spending.  Which is why the sequestration bothers him so much.

Running Deficits is OK if it provides for Senior Citizens, Our Children and Clean Stuff

Leading Democrats are saying we don’t have a spending problem.  We’re just not paying enough for the stuff we want.  Which also happens to be the stuff that buys votes.  So the excess spending to buy votes is not the problem.  The problem is that we’re not raising taxes enough to pay for this orgy of spending that is the problem.  We’re not taxing rich people enough.  Or corporations.  And once we do then we won’t be taxing the middle class enough.  And once we do that it probably won’t matter what we do as the country will be so deep in debt that no amount of new taxes will help.  Unless they figure out a way to tax away more than 100% of a person’s earnings.

So low tax revenue is the problem.  Well, that, and spending money on the wrong things.  On things that don’t buy votes.  Things that weren’t on the laundry list President Obama rattled off during the State of the Union that we need to spend more on.  Defense spending.  And…, well, defense spending.  Which is the only thing the Obama administration is willing to consider cutting.  Because we can get a lot of free things by gutting defense.  New programs that won’t add a single dime to the deficit.  Something he said more than once during the state of the union.  Obamacare, for example, will be deficit neutral.  Because the money we were going to spend on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will pay for it.  So even though the spending will still add to the deficit it’s now Obamacare spending.  Not defense spending.  Which is OK.

You see, running deficits is OK if it provides for senior citizens.  Our children.  If it gives us clean water.  And air.  Invests in clean energy.  And in those jobs of the future.  If it builds roads and bridges.  For less face it, we would be nothing without our government-provided roads and bridges.  Which we simply could not have it if it weren’t for government.  (Then again railroads build and maintain their own roads and bridges.  With funds they earn operating their railroads.  But I digress.)   In fact, any deficit reduction that comes from cutting this spending is just about the worst thing in the world we could do.  According to those on the left.  So we should tax rich people and corporations more.  And cut defense spending more.  Because we spend way too much on defense spending anyway.  And for what?  It’s not like we’re going to use it for anything.  Such as protecting our ambassadors in hostile lands.

Defense Spending is the only Spending growing at a Rate less than Total Federal Outlays

If you listened to the State of the Union (and didn’t fall asleep during it) you’ve learned that we don’t spend enough on our social spending.  And too much on defense spending.  That’s what the president said.  But what do the numbers say?  To find out let’s look at federal outlays (see Table 3.1—OUTLAYS BY SUPERFUNCTION AND FUNCTION: 1940–2017).  The following chart graphs the historical data from 1958 to 2011 and the projection for 2012.  We look at 4 areas of spending: defense; education, training, employment and social services; Medicare; and Social Security.  We calculate the spending as a percentage of total spending and graph the results.

Percent of Total Federal Outlays

The one area we spend too much on that the Obama administration is willing to cut is the one area that has seen the greatest decline in spending.  Defense spending.  Which as a percentage of total outlays has fallen while non-defense has trended up or held steady.  This tells us the government has pulled money from defense to pay for these other things.  But this chart doesn’t tell the whole story.  For although Medicare and Social Security have trended up they haven’t taken as big a piece of total spending as defense gave up.  And education spending has been pretty flat.  Perhaps giving credence to President Obama’s claim that we’re not spending enough on education.  But if you look at the year-to-year growth in spending you see a different picture.

Federal Outlays as a Percentage of 1958 Outlays

Here we divide each year’s spending by the spending in 1958 (or 1966 for Medicare).  Showing the increase in spending over time.  This chart also includes total federal outlays.  Which tells a startling story.  Not only is defense spending being gutted to pay for other spending it is the only spending growing less than the growth rate of total federal spending.  While the other three areas are growing at greater rates.  In 2011 Social Security spending was 8,892% of the spending in 1958.  Medicare, which came into existence in 1965, grew at an even greater rate.  In 2011 it was 17,673% of the spending in 1966.  More than twice the growth in less time.  And education spending tracked pretty close to Medicare spending.  In 2011 it was 15,744% of the spending in 1958.  While defense spending in 2011 was only 1,509% of the spending in 1958.

Note that the general trend of increased spending holds regardless of who is in power.  That’s because of baseline budgeting.  Which provides for automatic increases in spending.  When government talks about spending cuts it not really spending cuts.  It a cut in the rate spending increases.  You can see some dips in the graphs and where they may have cut the rate of growth.  But nowhere is there really a cut that results in reducing net spending.  Except for defense.

Increases in spending on education (and training, employment and social services) has grown at a rate greater than most other spending.  And what can we learn by throwing money at education?  Well, based on the president’s remarks, it doesn’t work.  It doesn’t increase the quality of education.  At least based on the great increases year after year that only give us the need to spend more money.  And this spending doesn’t even include the bulk of education spending.  That generated from property taxes.  Which can mean only one thing.  If we’re paying more and need to spend even more the quality of education is not as good as it should be.  Or all that money is going to teachers’ salaries, pensions and health care benefits.

Of all this spending the only sustainable spending is defense spending. For it is the only one growing at a rate less than total federal outlays.  While increases in the other spending is going off the chart.  With the slopes of these graphs getting ever steeper.  And the closer they get to vertical the more impossible it will be able to pay for these programs.  That’s why Medicare is near crisis mode.  With the cost of our aging population pushing that graph closer and closer to vertical.  Where our spending obligations will approach infinity.  Which is, of course, impossible to sustain.

Of all this spending the only sustainable spending is defense spending. For it is the only one growing at a rate less than total federal outlays.  While increases in the other spending is going off the chart.  Contrary to what the president said we are increasing spending in these areas so much that we won’t be able to sustain it.  For there just won’t be enough money to tax away from the people.  Unless we figure out a way to tax away more than 100% of their earnings.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Aging Populations cause Falling Revenue and Greater Spending Obligations in Japan and the United States

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama added $5.3 trillion in new debt in his first term.  Approximately the sum total of all debt added from George Washington to George H.W. Bush (in real dollars).  It took about 200 years to accumulate that massive amount of debt.  It only took President Obama 4 years.  Yet according to the Left we have a revenue problem.  Not a spending problem.  But when you add about 200 years of debt into only 4 years you have a spending problem.

In the recent fiscal cliff theatre the Democrats got a bipartisan compromise.  They got the higher tax rates they wanted.  And the Republicans gave them those higher tax rates.  The very meaning of bipartisan to the Democrats.  Unconditional surrender so they can get their way.  And now the total debt is around 103% of GDP.  Which means we owe as much as the nation produces in economic activity.  Meaning that we ain’t paying it down anytime soon.  And with our aging population things are only getting worse.  More workers are leaving the workforce consuming retirement and health care benefits than are entering the workforce to pay for them.  Which means the problem is only going to get a lot worse.

Eternal Keynesian optimists on the Left, though, like to point to Japan.  Whose total debt is about 230% of their GDP.  They say if Japan can get along with a debt of 230% of GDP then we have nothing to worry about.  Well, the Japanese are starting to worry (see Japan’s population logs record drop by AFP/fa posted 1/1/2013 on Channel News Asia).

Japan’s population logged a record drop in 2012, health ministry estimates showed on Tuesday, highlighting concerns that an ever-dwindling pool of workers is having to pay for a growing number of pensioners…

Japan is rapidly greying, with more than 20 percent of the population aged 65 or over — one of the highest proportions of elderly people in the world.

The country has very little immigration and any suggestion of opening its borders to young workers who could help plug the population gap provokes strong reactions among the public.

Japan has a lot to worry about.  And the last thing we want is to have their problem.  The Left understands this.  Which is one of the reasons they want to grant immunity to all those in the country illegally.  So they can tax them.  But when you’re buying votes by giving away free stuff you’re still going to have a spending problem no matter how much you increase revenue.  Especially when your spending has pushed the national debt past 100% of GDP.

As the population continues to age revenues will shrink.  This is the reality we have here (as well as what the Japanese are facing).  Adding a new entitlement, Obamacare, was the height of fiscal irresponsibility.  It will quickly push our debt up to Japanese levels.  Who will have a very painful day of reckoning in the not so distant future.  Higher spending obligations and falling revenues can only lead to one place.  And it isn’t a good place.  Just ask the Greeks.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Supercommittee Succeeds in Preventing Deficit Reduction without Raising Taxes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 27th, 2011

Week in Review

The supercommittee failed.  Deadlocked over higher taxes.  What a surprise.  And by surprise I mean it’s what everyone expected.  Because it never had anything to do with deficit reduction.  It was just yet another opportunity for Democrats to raise taxes.  And when they failed it was yet another opportunity to blame Republican intransigence.  While all the time refusing to budge from their demand for new taxes (see Supercommittee Failed, and Spending Is Still the Problem by Curtis Dubay posted 11/25/2011 on The Foundry).

Overspending, especially on entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is the cause of our debt problem.

Higher taxes are unnecessary because there is enough revenue flowing into Washington as long as Congress holds spending to historical levels. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), with all current tax policies, including the Bush tax cuts, tax revenue will surpass its historical average as a share of the economy in a decade. And should the economy break the shackles of growth-impeding Obama policies faster than CBO anticipates, tax revenues will exceed that mark much sooner.

On the other hand, in 2021 the federal government will spend 26 percent of the economy, well in excess of its historical average of 20 percent. And it will keep growing on this trajectory, primarily because of the growth in entitlements. The data is clear. We have a spending problem – not a taxing problem.

They’re forecasting tax revenue at record amounts.  Yet it’s not enough.  It’s never enough.  Why?  Because the government spends it faster than they can collect it.  And that’s the problem.

Advocates of raising taxes often resort to the argument that debt reduction requires spending cuts and tax increases. But they’re merely revealing their preference for bigger government. Higher taxes lead to bigger government because Congress always spends the extra revenue it raises. The new taxes never go to deficit reduction. That’s why any deal that offers spending cuts in exchange for tax hikes is fundamentally unbalanced – despite the president’s claims.

Higher taxes would go to pay for the spending increases that President Obama and his allies foisted upon the country – including stimulus spending, Obamacare, and a host of other big government programs. Unless they’re reformed, entitlement programs would also devour new tax revenue as more baby boomers retire.

Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush learned the tax-and-spend lesson the hard way. They agreed to deals that were supposed to cut spending and raise taxes. While the tax hikes became permanent law, succeeding Congresses were under no obligation to abide by the agreed-upon spending levels and quickly undid them. The same would be true today if Congress strikes a similar deal.

How to you get a deficit?  By spending more than you collect in taxes.  Note the word ‘spending’.  That’s key.  Because if you don’t spend more than you collect in taxes you don’t have deficits.  Record lows in tax revenue didn’t cause Barack Obama’s record deficits.  Record government spending caused those record deficits.  Again, spending is key.  Because you have to overspend to get a deficit.

This isn’t chicken and egg stuff.  Spending clearly came first.  Then deficits.  So the logical and rational way to deficit reduction is to cut spending.  Not to raise taxes.  Because raising taxes just supports further overspending.  And you know they will.  Because they always do.  Because you don’t buy votes with deficit reduction.  You buy votes with spending.

Which is why the supercommittee failed.  Because it was supposed to fail.  If the full House couldn’t agree to spending cuts neither could a supercommittee.  Because they all report to the same leadership.  This was just theater to raise the debt ceiling.  And a delaying tactic by the Democrats who hoped they could turn public opinion into favoring tax hikes.

So now what?  I’m guessing more lies.  And more theater.  At least until 2012.  When the curtain finally falls on this tragic comedy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

‘More Taxes, Regulations, Uncertainty and Spending’ is the Mantra of the Obama Administration

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2011

Obama’s Proposed Aviation Fees will Fall Predominantly on the People who can Least Afford It

In Obama‘s deficit reduction plan he plans to tax the rich.  Those who can most afford it.  Rich people.  And by rich people he means anyone who has any money to spend (see Airline groups attack Obama proposals to boost fees for aviation security, air traffic control by Associated Press posted 9/21/2011 on The Washington Post).

The aviation fees are part of Obama’s deficit-cutting plan that was released Tuesday. The plan would:

— raise the passenger security fee — now $5 to $10 per round trip — to $15 by 2017 and give the Homeland Security Department the power to push it higher.

— impose a surcharge of $100 per flight to help pay for air traffic control.

But college students fly.  Middle class families fly on vacation.  Non-rich people everywhere fly to visit family members that have moved away.  A lot of people fly.  And an interesting tidbit about the flying public?  They’re not all rich.

The rich people that Obama wants to tax?  Because they can most afford it?  Those well-to-do folk who fly those private jets?  Well, a lot of them do just that.  Fly private jets.  And, therefore, do NOT fly on commercial planes.  So they won’t be paying these new taxes/fees.  So these taxes/fees will fall predominantly on the people who can least afford it.  Imagine that.

The Air Transport Association, which represents large airlines, said it’s unfair for airlines and passengers to pay for security against terror attacks that target the U.S. and not the airlines themselves. The trade group says a typical $300 round-trip ticket already includes $60 in taxes and fees.

The Regional Airline Association, a group of smaller carriers, said the fees could lead to a loss of flights to smaller cities. The group’s president, Roger Cohen, said the $100 surcharge would cost more than regional airlines earned last year, threatening service to smaller cities.

The groups also complained that some of the money raised from airlines and passengers would be used to pay down the federal budget deficit and not to improve the air-travel system.

The airlines have a vested interest in protecting their planes.  Because they bought them.  And planes that blow up or crash in terrorist attacks don’t help the bottom line.  There’s the loss of an expensive airplane.  And the future revenue from that airplane.  The cost of replacing that airplane.  And the lost business from passengers who tend to shy away from an airline whose planes are easy pickings for terrorists.

So let them hire a security contractor to secure their planes.  Using the Israeli model.  Ask very pointed questions and observe people’s responses.  It works well for the Israelis.  Couldn’t be any worse than what the TSA is doing.  I mean, what passengers are going to complain about being groped less?

The administration estimated that boosting passenger security fees will raise $24.9 billion over 10 years. It proposed to spend $15 billion of that to reduce federal debt.

This is telling.  The airlines did not run up that federal debt. So there’s something really troubling about this.  Taking $15 billion from the airlines under the auspices of national security.  Just so they can continue their irresponsible spending ways in Washington.  This is no different than an addict stealing from his mother’s purse to support his habit.

This is Washington’s problem.  Not the airlines.  Washington has a spending problem.  And they can’t stop spending.  Or simply choose not to.  Instead they look for other people to steal from.  Like an addict.  While denying that they have a problem.  And always blaming others.  Like the rich who don’t pay their fair share.  And by rich they mean anyone that has any money to spend.

Tax Cuts Stimulate, not Keynesian Stimulus Spending Funded by Taxes

So how bad is this spending?  How much of a debt problem has it given us?  That the president is shaking down the airlines for $15 billion (see Committee Searches for Economic ‘Tipping Point’; Prefer Not to Find It by Jim Angle posted 9/20/2011 on Fox News)?

“We know that the debt is now 100 percent — approximately 100 percent of (gross domestic product),” said Allan Meltzer, a professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “That doesn’t include the unfunded liabilities. It doesn’t include (mortgage lenders)Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It doesn’t include a number of other things.”

By unfunded liabilities, Meltzer means entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare alone have $46 trillion in unfunded liabilities, meaning that much more is promised in benefits than the government — and taxpayers — have as a plan to pay for them.

Oh.  It’s that bad.  We owe a dollar for every dollar our economy produces.  But it’s even worse than this.  All of those unfunded liabilities that don’t appear in the official budget.  Fannie and Freddie.  And let’s not forget the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.  Which are filled only with IOUs from Uncle Sam.  Because Uncle Sam spent our money.  That money we put aside with each paycheck.  Those FICA and Medicare withholdings.  That money they forced us to save.  Because we were untrustworthy with our own money.  As they apparently are, too.

Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, argues that U.S. debt is so far out of control that it must be contained soon.

“We’ve had five trillion (in) deficit spending since 2008, the most enormous sort of Keynesian stimulus you can imagine, and yet we’ve had slower growth than any time since World War II. So I don’t think spending helps.”

So the government owes more money than taxpayers can fund.  And yet that didn’t stop them from spending $5 trillion more.  For stimulus.  Which is just code for throwing money at political cronies.  I mean, it’s obvious that it didn’t stimulate anything.  Because the economy is still in the toilet.

And there’s a very good reason for that.  Because tax cuts stimulate.  Not Keynesian stimulus spending funded by taxes.

Meltzer pointed to three “fiscal changes that really did enormous good.” One was the tax cuts from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, the most effective part of which were business tax cuts.

“They got the biggest bang for the buck,” he said.

The second were the Reagan-era tax cuts which came in two rounds and boosted a flagging economy. Meltzer said a completely different option worked well too.

“(The) third policy that gave people confidence were the Clinton tax increases, which assured people that their future tax rates were not going to go up, that they had seen what they were going to have to take, and there wouldn’t be anymore.”

Meltzer said the increases gave people certainty about what tax rates would be, which reassured businesses they wouldn’t go higher, allowing employers to plan and create jobs with confidence.

The Clinton tax increases?  That’s not why the Nineties were booming.  It was because of greedy capitalists.  Looking to strike it rich in the dot-com boom.  The economy was smoking hot because of irrational exuberance.  Not higher taxes.  And the budget went into surplus when all those dot-com people cashed in their stock options.  And they paid a boatload of capital gains taxes.  Before the dot-com bubble burst.  And threw the economy into recession.

But he’s right on the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts.  Both used good Austrian supply-side economics.  Which exploded economic activity.  And similar policies could do that again.  If we would just stop with the Keynesian nonsense.  And the belief that crippling regulations will spur economic growth.

Business Owners Hate Uncertainty because, Unlike Uncle Sam, they can’t Print Money

And speaking of regulation, remember the Dodd-Frank act?  Have you read it?  Probably not.  For I doubt anyone in Congress has read it in its entirety (see Dodd-Frank and Uncertainty by Veronique de Rugy posted 9/20/2011 on National Review).

Remember how President Obama promised that the Dodd-Frank bill would provide certainty, stability and growth…?

It’s 1,623 pages long. It is very heavy. If it could fit it in my purse, I could use it as a protective weapon. Whatever else this will do, however, it will not make lending cheaper or credit more readily available, and it will not protect us from another financial crisis. And it will not protect consumers or taxpayers.

What it will do, and already does, is continue injecting gigantic uncertainty into the economy, paralyzing entrepreneurship and job creation. Imagine how long it will take for all the rules to be written and for U.S. businesses to figure out how they are supposed to operate from now on. The vagueness of the law as written means that even business owners and consumers who have the courage to pick up this book and try to figure out what’s in their future won’t get the answers they are looking for.

Really, is there any doubt that some of the $2 trillion in cash that companies are sitting on is a direct result of this uncertainty?

That’s right.  If you don’t know what tomorrow may bring you save your money.  You deleverage.  Pay down debt.  And hoard cash.  Because cash is king.  It’s the only thing you can pay your employees with.  The only thing you can pay your suppliers with.  The only thing you can pay for your insurance with.  And it’s the only thing you can pay Uncle Sam with.  So if you don’t have enough of it around during bad times you may not be around for the good times.  When they return.  If they return.

Business owners hate uncertainty.  Because, unlike Uncle Sam, they can’t print money.  So they have to be very careful with what they have.  To survive things like recessions.  Depressions.  And Dodd-Frank.

In these Tough Economic Times, it is the People that are Suffering, not Rich Liberals

‘More taxes, more regulations and more uncertainty’ is the mantra of the Obama administration.  And, of course, more spending.  Always more spending.  Is it any surprise the economy is not responding well to Obama’s policies?

There is no way businesses will grow in this environment.  Or create jobs.  And without new jobs the economy will never recover.  People understand this.  That’s why Democrats are losing elections.  Even in New York.  It’s a repudiation of Obama.  And the liberal Democrat agenda.

For though the mainstream media has been a loyal propaganda outlet for the liberal elite, the people aren’t buying it anymore.  For in these tough economic times, it is the people that are suffering.  Because of Obama’s policies.  While rich liberal elitists are living well everywhere.  And continue to fly on their private jets.  While the common people will be paying Obama’s new aviation fees.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

First the Obama Misery Tour, then on to Martha’s Vineyard with the other Millionaires and Billionaires

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 15th, 2011

Raising Taxes on the ‘Rich’ to Close the Deficit will put the Country into a Depression

Roll up, roll up for the misery tour.  Roll up, roll up for the misery tour.  The Obama Misery Tour is waiting to take you away.  Waiting to take you away (see Obama kicks off Midwest bus tour with harsh words on the economy by Zachary A. Goldfarb posted 8/15/2011 on The Washington Post).

Obama, who kicked off a three-day Midwest bus tour Monday focused on the economy, cited comments made by Republican presidential hopefuls at a GOP debate last week.

“I know it’s not election season yet, but I just have to mention the debate,” where Republicans said they would not increase taxes under virtually any circumstance, Obama said at a town hall. “Think about that. That’s just not common sense.”

Neither did raising the deficit from $455 billion to $1.65 trillion, Mr. President.  In fact this spending was downright irresponsible.  Your administration spent an additional $1.195 trillion we didn’t have.  And you’re planning to spend more.  We have a deficit problem because we have a spending problem.  Not because people aren’t paying enough taxes.

“You’ve got to send a message to Washington that it’s time for the games to stop. It’s time to put country first,” Obama said, his voice rising. “Some folks in Congress … would rather see their opponents lose, than America win.”

Mr. President, you increased the deficit by 263%.  That is not good for the country.  In fact, one could say that you are the ‘some folks’ you refer to who would rather see their opponents lose than America win.

He called on Congress to pass measures to hire construction workers, a trio of trade bills, an overhaul of patent laws and new tax credits to spur new jobs for veterans.

You had supermajorities during your first two years in office.  You could have passed any legislation you wanted to spur new jobs.  Instead, you made your priority the passing of Obamacare.  Something that did not spur any jobs.  And only will increase the deficit. 

And hire construction workers?  Wasn’t your Keynesian stimulus bill supposed to do that?  Create some $800 billion in shovel-ready projects?  Of course that’s hard to do when 88% of that bill was pork and earmarks.  Sort of a Democrat wish list to satisfy some 40 years of wants and desires. 

Speaking about the national debt, Obama called for an overhaul of the tax code that would force the wealthy to pay more taxes and an overhaul of entitlement programs…

“I’d like to see the ultra-rich pay their fair share,” said…a nurse from Rochester. “He’s got to be a politician, but I’d like to see a bit more push.”

“I think he’s doing a good job. He inherited a very big deficit,” said…a financial planner from Rochester. “He and Michelle are the first residents of the White House to be familiar with both organic food and leftovers.”

The wealthy just aren’t wealthy enough to pay down the deficit.  If you crunch the numbers, and define anyone who earns $159,619 or more as wealthy, you’ll have to raise the federal income tax to an effective rate of 87.6% (see You can’t Reduce the Debt $4 Trillion by Raising Taxes, at least not Mathematically).  That means the government would have to take 87.6% of everything they earn.  That includes the billionaires and the millionaires.  And everyone earning $159,619 or more. 

Is this possible?  Well, if you earn $159,619 annually, that’s $13,301.58 gross pay each month.  After your federal income taxes are withheld, that leaves a whopping $1,649.40 to pay your state taxes, your mortgage, your car payment, your groceries, health insurance, car insurance, gasoline for your car, etc.  Of course, they won’t be able to have these things at this high tax rate.  In fact, they won’t have any money left to spend.  Consumer spending over all would nosedive us into a full blown depression.  Making things even worse than they are now. 

So what is Obama going to do next?

Obama is scheduled to go on a 10-day family vacation to Martha’s Vineyard on Thursday after completing the economic tour.

While many Americans can no longer afford to take the family on a vacation, he will be spending 10 days in the very swanky Martha’s Vineyards.  Where billionaires and millionaires like to vacation.  And get away from the rabble.  Us.

Politicians are Whores who sell themselves to the Highest Bidder 

The johns threaten to withhold their money from the prostitutes in Washington (see Starbucks CEO urges halt to U.S. political donations by Lisa Baertlein posted 8/15/2011 on Reuters).

In his letter on Monday, Schultz [Starbucks Corp. CEO] invited executives to join him in a “pledge to withhold any further campaign contributions to the President and all members of Congress until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing.”

Men are interested in one thing.  According to all the stereotypes.  And when women want something, they can simply withhold this one thing.  Again, according to the stereotypes.  Eventually the man caves because he can’t live without that one thing.  What a great analogy.  Because all politicians are whores who sell themselves to the highest bidder.  And those buying political favors can simply withhold their money to get what they want.  Which is how government works.  Sadly.

Schultz also urged fellow CEOs to invest in projects or new products that will perk up the economy at a time when fear and uncertainty have made businesses unwilling to invest, consumers unwilling to spend and banks unwilling to lend.

Expand supply in the face of a shrinking demand?  Not a good idea.  Austrian economists call this malinvestment.  This kind of thinking didn’t help ward off the Great Depression.  And it won’t work here.  You create real demand by cutting taxes.  Giving people more money to spend now.  Next week.  Next month.  And next year.  This creates confidence.  Not a one-time stimulus that provides consumers with money to spend one time.  A tax cut will increase demand.  And once consumers are demanding more business will start hiring more. 

I guess a guy who has convinced people to buy over-priced coffee just assumes businesses can make consumers do anything.  But would he open a new Starbucks next to an existing one?  No.  Why?  Because what would probably happen is that each store will have half the business of the first store.  While doubling the overall costs for that business.  So that would be a malinvestment.  So he wouldn’t do it.  Yet he is asking his fellow CEOs to do just that.

Obamanomics has Failed so let’s Return to the Successful Policies of Reaganomics

It’s been about three years.  Record government spending hasn’t done anything but increased the deficit.  And get U.S. credit downgraded.  You can make all the excuses you want.  But eventually you have to answer for your policies.  Obama’s policies have failed.  And left us worse off than we were.

The Keynesian way has once again failed.  Perhaps we should give the Austrian way another try.  Because when Reagan did, those policies worked. 

We tried Obamanomics.  It failed.  So let’s go back to Reaganomics.  At least it has a track record of success.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Only Obama can make the U.S. Default on its Debt Obligations

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 15th, 2011

$172.4 Billion is a lot of Money

Still no closer to a budget agreement to raise the debt limit.  Obama wants more taxes and more borrowing.  The Republicans want a little fiscal sanity.  Because something is definitely wrong in Washington when $172.4 billion a month isn’t enough (see August Invoices Show U.S. Treasury’s Limited Choices by David Rapp posted 7/12/2011 on Bloomberg Government).

The U.S. government, whose legal authority to borrow money expires on or about Aug. 2, expects to take in $172.4 billion next month — enough to cover little more than half of its bills due then, according to a study for the Bipartisan Policy Center, a research organization.

The U.S. may not have to default on outstanding debts or withhold interest payments for that month; it may be able to cover $29 billion in anticipated interest due on Treasury securities with its cash receipts…

Jay Powell, undersecretary of the Treasury for Finance under President George H.W. Bush, calculated for the policy center that $306.7 billion in bills will come due after Aug. 2. They include Social Security benefits, defense vendor payments and military active duty pay, along with federal pay for every department and agency, in addition to the interest payments.

I think we’re missing the bigger picture here.  The government collects $172.4 billion but spends $306.7 billion.  That is, for every dollar it collects it spends $1.78.  In other words, the government’s spending is 78% over their cash budget.  Managers in the corporate world get fired for performances like this. 

That is either a big spending problem.  Or a big revenue problem.  So are taxes too low?  I don’t think so.  I mean, $172,400,000,000 is a lot of money.  How much?  It’ll buy 542 of the new Boeing 747-8 jetliners.  Or 149 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums.  Or 27 nuclear powered aircraft carriers.  It’ll even pay for the Apollo moon program with $41.3 billion left over.  $172.4 billion is an enormous amount of money.  You couldn’t spend this much money if you tried.  Even if you bought the best houses, cars, jewelry, clothes, island, etc.  And if you had the mother of all drug addictions.  It’s just a staggering amount of money.  And if you’re collecting in taxes more money than the cost of the Apollo moon program each month, guess what?  You don’t have a revenue problem.  You have a spending problem.

Bloomberg has a nifty little calculator on their website.  You can put checks on the things you want to pay.  And leave the things you don’t unchecked.  It’s an interesting list of bills coming due this month.  There’s a lot of stuff we can cut easily to save $47.1 billion.  Federal salaries & benefits ($14.2 billion).  Small Business Administration ($0.3 billion).  Education Department ($20.2 billion).  Department of Housing and Urban Development ($6.7 billion).  Energy Department ($3.5 billion).  Labor Department ($1.3 billion).  Environmental Protection Agency ($0.9 billion).  What taxpayer would miss any of these?  Cuts to Social Security and Medicare, on the other hand, will be a little more difficult.  For they actually do something.  And people will miss them.

Incidentally, interest on the debt is $29 billion.  Though a lot of money, it’s not too high for the $172.4 billion to cover.  So if the Obama administration doesn’t pay this and causes a downgrade in our credit rating, President Obama will have some ‘splaining to do.

Monthly Spending Equivalent to 1.3 Apollo Programs should be Enough

The president has no intention of cutting spending.  Their goal is to make Republicans look bad.  And to better position themselves for the 2012 election.  So the president will lie and spin misinformation in hopes that this stuff is just too complicated for the layperson to follow.  And that they only remember one thing.  That Republicans stopped Social Security checks going out because they’d rather give tax breaks to the rich.  And that they miss the fact that Obama and his Democrats gave us this crisis to begin with.  With the greatest spending orgy of any peacetime president.  So he threatens that if the Republicans don’t pay for his reckless spending, he’s going to tell everyone it’s their fault that the country defaulted (see Obama: Chance for ‘something big’ to calm economy by Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, posted 7/15/2011 on Yahoo! News).

Obama urged Republican lawmakers to make tough calls, too. He attempted to turn their opposition to any tax increases back against them, warning that a government default caused by failure to raise the debt ceiling would increase interest rates, “effectively a tax increase for everybody.”

No, a failure to raise the debt ceiling won’t cause a government default.  Barack Obama will.  If and when he decides to pay something he thinks is more important than the interest on the debt.

Obama sternly rejected any plan of that size that did not include increases in tax revenue.

Apparently spending the equivalent of 1.3 Apollo programs a month just isn’t enough.  Obama gives new meaning to tax and spend liberal.  Pity Ted Kennedy didn’t live long enough to work with his kind of liberal in the White House.  Or see his pet cause, national health care, signed into law.  Then they both could have seen their policies destroy this country.  Don’t believe me?

Spending/Debt so bad it’s bringing back the Gold Standard

Then ask the Chinese communists.  Though their economy is rife with cronyism and will no doubt collapse as the Japanese economy did in the Nineties, they know too much debt when they see it (see Return of the Gold Standard as world order unravels by James Quinn and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard posted 7/16/2011 on The Telegraph).

Xia Bin, an adviser to China’s central bank, said in June that the country’s reserve strategy needs an “urgent” overhaul. Instead of buying paper IOU’s from a prostrate West, China should invest in strategic assets and accumulate gold by “buying the dips”.

Step by step, the world is edging towards a revived Gold Standard as it becomes clearer that Japan and the West have reached debt saturation. World Bank chief Robert Zoellick said it was time to “consider employing gold as an international reference point.” The Swiss parliament is to hold hearings on a parallel “Gold Franc”. Utah has recognised gold as legal tender for tax payments.

A new Gold Standard would probably be based on a variant of the ‘Bancor’ proposed by Keynes in the late 1940s. This was a basket of 30 commodities intended to be less deflationary than pure gold, which had compounded in the Great Depression. The idea was revived by China’s central bank chief Zhou Xiaochuan two years ago as a way of curbing the “credit-based” excess.

So the Chinese, the World Bank, the Swiss, Utahans and a dead John Maynard Keynes agree that the U.S. has a spending problem.  A spending problem that is racking up debt to saturation.  So bad that the once invincible U.S. dollar should no longer serve as the world’s reserve currency.  A sad development indeed.  And painful to hear.  Especially coming from a commie.

Tax Hikes First, then Broken Spending Cuts Promises

And yet the president is in denial.  He doesn’t see a spending/debt problem.  He sees a revenue problem.  Because high taxes and high debt are okay in his world.  As long as they pay for liberal government spending.  That’s why he’s dead set against spending cuts only.  He wants those tax hikes.  He needs those tax hikes.  And will promise almost anything to get those tax hikes.  Because once he does, and mark these words well, he will break every spending cuts promise he made to get them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Team Obama Lying to Scare Americans to Increase the Debt Limit so they can Continue their Orgy of Spending

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 10th, 2011

Talking up the Horrible Economy in 2010

Back in August of 2010, Timothy Geithner took to the New York Times to tell everyone how wonderful the economic recovery was (see Welcome to the Recovery by Timothy Geithner posted 8/2/2010 on The New York Times).

The recession that began in late 2007 was extraordinarily severe, but the actions we took at its height to stimulate the economy helped arrest the freefall, preventing an even deeper collapse and putting the economy on the road to recovery…

Private job growth has returned — not as fast as we would like, but at an earlier stage of this recovery than in the last two recoveries. Manufacturing has generated 136,000 new jobs in the past six months…

Wow.  In only 6 months their policies have created 136,000 new jobs.  And their swift and bold action prevented the freefall loss of gosh knows how many jobs.  That’s good.  So how bad was that freefall?

The new data show that this recession was even deeper than previously estimated. The plunge in economic activity started an entire year before President Obama took office and was accelerating at the end of 2008, when G.D.P. fell at an annual rate of roughly 7 percent.

Panicked by the collapse in demand and financing and fearing a prolonged slump, the private sector cut payrolls and investment savagely. The rate of job loss worsened with time: by early last year, 750,000 jobs vanished every month. The economic collapse drove tax revenue down, pushing the annual deficit up to $1.3 trillion by last January.

Okay, first he has to get the obligatory blame George W. Bush first out of the way.  So then we get to the good news.  The amount of damage they prevented.  We were losing 750,000 jobs every month.  Which would be 4,500,000 in a 6-month period.  Humph.  Getting back 136,000 of the 4,500,000 jobs lost is being on the road to recovery?  That’s like one job back for every 33 lost.  Are you sure this is a recovery? 

Oh, and that $1.3 trillion deficit?  It wasn’t from a lack of revenue.  It was from an orgy of spending.

The economic rescue package that President Obama put in place was essential to turning the economy around. The combined effect of government actions taken over the past two years — the stimulus package, the stress tests and recapitalization of the banks, the restructuring of the American car industry and the many steps taken by the Federal Reserve — were extremely effective in stopping the freefall and restarting the economy.

According to a report released last week by Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, advisers to President Bill Clinton and Senator John McCain, respectively, the combined actions since the fall of 2007 of the Federal Reserve, the White House and Congress helped save 8.5 million jobs and increased gross domestic product by 6.5 percent relative to what would have happened had we done nothing. The study showed that government action delivered a powerful bang for the buck, and that the bank rescue on its own will turn a profit for taxpayers.

A powerful bang for the buck?  I don’t know.  Saying how great your actions were by what didn’t happen is a bit spurious.  I mean, I could say that thanks to George W. Bush and the policies he implemented after 9/11 he saved the lives of 8.5 million Americans that would have otherwise died in terrorist attacks.  Simply by scaring a lot of bad guys from trying anything now that there was a new sheriff in town.  It’s as plausible as that Blinder and Zandi report.  You can’t prove either.  Or disprove either.  So it’s a license to lie.

Still Talking up the Horrible Economy in 2011

It’s almost been a year since Geithner’s NYT piece.  If he was right things should be a whole lot better now.  The Obama administration took full credit then for the ‘recovery’.  So the current economic numbers are now theirs.  Which means they can’t blame George W. Bush anymore.  And how are those numbers?  Still horrible (see You are what your record says you are by Conn Carroll posted 7/10/2011 on The Washington Examiner).

Last month, David Gregory tripped up new DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz up with a chart detailing President Obama’s economic record. It showed unemployment up 25 percent since Obama was inaugurated, debt up 35 percent, and gas up more than 100 percent. Wasserman Schultz lamely tried to argue that the economy was getting better, to which Gregory replied: “Americans don’t believe that’s the case.”

This Sunday was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s turn and he fared no better. At one point he even blamed the weather for Obama’s terrible economic record.

The numbers are horrible now.  And they were horrible a year ago.  There’s been no recovery.  And all of the administration’s actions haven’t done anything but explode the federal debt.  Which is at a record high.  As are the deficits under Obama.  And what does Team Obama want to do about that?  Why, borrow some more.  To spend some more.  Of course.

The U.S. isn’t close to Running out of Money

Despite the great economic news last August and the current great news (per the Obama administration, not per reality), things are pretty bad on the debt front.  In fact, those rascally Republicans with their opposition to raising the debt limit may place this glorious economic recovery into jeopardy.  Worse, they may destroy America as we know it (see ‘No delaying’ deadline to lift US debt ceiling posted 7/10/2011 on the BBC).

The US faces running out of money and defaulting if Congress does not allow the government to take on more debt.

If no agreement is reached, the government would be unable to pay civil servants, government contractors, pensioners or holders of government debt.

Economists and the White House have warned that such a default could push the US back into recession and have a global economic impact.

This is actually BS.  And I don’t mean Barbara Streisand.  The federal government is awash in cash.  Just not enough to further increase spending.  How much?  Well, let’s look at some of the numbers per the Tax Policy Center.  Tax receipts (i.e., actual cash dollars the government collects) for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were $2.5 trillion, $2.1 trillion and $2.2 trillion, respectively.  That doesn’t include any borrowing.  That’s pure cash on the barrelhead.  That’s a lot of cash that can pay a lot of bills.  It’s in the neighborhood of $180 billion a month.  And the projection for 2011?  Holding steady at about $2.2 trillion.  Again, that’s cash flowing into Washington from taxpayers.  Nothing borrowed.  Or printed.

Despite this staggering amount of cash raining down on Washington it’s not enough.  For the years 2008, 2009 and 2010, the deficits were $458 billion, $1.4 trillion and $1.2 trillion, respectively.  And the projected deficit for 2011 is $1.6 trillion.  Again, it’s the orgy of spending that is the problem.  It’s not a revenue problem.  The U.S. isn’t close to running out of money.  Team Obama is just lying to try and scare the pants off of people to get them to hate Republicans.  And to pressure them to raise the debt limit.  So they can borrow more.  And go on another spending bender.

Green Energy can only Survive when heavily Subsidized by the Government 

So what, exactly, did they spend all that money on?  Well, there was the stimulus.  The financial and auto bailouts (which should have been left to the bankruptcy courts).  And all their tweaking of the private sector economy.  Especially the green one.  For that’s America’s future.  Green energy.  And they were going to help make it happen.  By subsidizing the crap out of it (see Michigan town shows promise and pitfalls of job retraining by Don Lee posted 7/10/2011 on The Los Angeles Times).

Uni-Solar began with a hiring surge that by 2009 had climbed to 422 workers… But the Greenville plant’s primary market is Europe, and when sales in Italy and France declined as a result of the recession and other factors, Uni-Solar cut back…

Greenville and Uni-Solar also were hurt because state and federal policies simply weren’t in place to support them. Unlike the United States, for instance, Canada subsidizes consumers who adopt solar power, but only if they buy solar panels with domestically manufactured contents…

Canada is not alone in adopting comprehensive programs of subsidies, tax provisions and other incentives to foster domestic industries. Germany has an elaborate program to support automobile, electronics and other manufacturing and to discourage its companies from moving operations overseas.

That’s right, the green energy sector can only survive when heavily subsidized by the government.  To help the green energy market compete with the more reliable and less expensive fossil fuel market.  In the U.S.  As well as in Europe.  Worse, all this government help has only created a green energy bubble.  Created a lot of supply for a demand that wasn’t there.  Just like this plant in Greenville, Michigan.

The only way to make Green Energy practical is to make Consumers pay more for Electricity

The U.S. should consider itself lucky that their government is cutting subsidies.  Because it at least gives consumers a chance at a better economy.  Perhaps Washington will cut its spending.  And let the taxpayers keep more of their money so they can make it in an economy with rising prices.  Unlike in the UK (see Power bills to soar by 30% in ‘green’ reforms by Rowena Mason and David Barrett posted 7/9/2011 on The Telegraph).

Costly new incentives to encourage energy companies to invest in renewable power sources such as wind farms will put an extra £160 a year on the average household bill over the next 20 years…

Mr Huhne is expected to announce on Tuesday that energy companies, such as Centrica and EDF, will get a fixed price for electricity generated from nuclear power and wind farms, which will be higher than the market price.

The financial incentives will be funded by consumers, who will see their electricity bills rise by 30 per cent over the next 20 years from an average of £493 per year to £655 per year.

You see, renewable energy is a money losing investment.  It’s just too costly.  So power companies won’t venture into these green markets unless someone makes it worth their while.  And in the UK the government is doing just that.  By giving them lucrative cash incentives.  Which the government will pay for via higher electricity bills.  Leaving the consumer with less money to live on in an economy with rising prices.

The costly package due to be outlined in full this week is designed to reassure generation companies that Britain is an attractive place to build nuclear power stations and wind farms.

Mr Huhne admitted in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph last year that there was no money available for direct state subsidies for a new generation of nuclear plants, so this week’s announcement sets out how consumers will shoulder the cost of incentives directly.

Yes, the only way to make green energy practical is to make consumers pay more for electricity.

The changes to be outlined by Mr Huhne this week will hand billions of pounds in subsidies to the energy companies and kick-start a construction programme creating thousands of jobs.

But combined with further green taxes, such as the European emissions trading scheme, and upgrades to Britain’s national grid the measures could see Britain’s gas and electricity bills rise by 50 per cent – or £500 per average household bill – according to Ofgem, the energy regulator.

Create ‘thousands of jobs’ by making all consumers live on less.  At least those who use electricity.

By the time you factor in the other costs of green living the average Briton could see a 50% increase in their utility costs.  Which is a staggering cost to pay for a few thousand jobs.  The economy, and the consumer, would be better off with coal.  It’s more reliable.  It’s cheaper.  And one plant out of site can provide power to hundreds of thousands.  Which is better than dotting the landscape with windmills as far as the eye can see.  To produce power only when the wind blows.

The Government has a Spending Addiction

Team Obama has made a mess of things with their orgy of spending.  More than tripled the deficit since coming into office.  Requiring ever more borrowing to ‘save the country’.  Which is, of course, a lie.  Washington is awash in cash.  Over $2 trillion a year.  And if that isn’t enough to pay the bills then this administration should just resign.

The economy is stalled.  The recession never ended.  Money poured into the green energy sector was money wasted.  And is only creating a green energy bubble by building supply for demand that isn’t there.  Like in Greenville, Michigan.  Yes, supply can create demand per Say’s Law.  If that supply is something that people want.  And that’s the problem.  People don’t want more expensive and less reliable energy.  Especially in an economy with rising prices.

The facts and figures all confirm one thing.  The U.S. has a spending problem.  Not a revenue problem.  The government is like an addict with a spending addiction.  Who will lie and say anything to satisfy that addiction.  Only this addict is worse than your run of the mill junkie.  For if Team Obama overdoses it will take a nation with it.  In fact, this administration is in such denial that perhaps an intervention is in order.  Which is really what the budget debate is.  The Republicans need to be strong.  For Obama.  And the nation.  They have to hold the line on the debt limit.  Do not give them more money to spend.  Because with over $2 trillion a year, they have enough already.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries