Deficits, Debt and Interest on the Debt 1988-2012

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 26th, 2013

History 101

Congress printed so much Money that the Continental Dollar became Worthless

The American Revolutionary War lasted eight years.  And eight years of war ain’t cheap.  It took money to buy arms.  It took money to buy uniforms.  It took money to pay soldiers.  And paying for these for eight years required a lot of money.  Which the Americans didn’t have.  They were at war with Great Britain.  Who was their major trading partner.  And pretty much their only trading partner.  As the Americans were a British colony in the days of mercantilism.  Which meant the Americans sent raw materials to the mother country.  On British ships.  Through British ports.  Britain then transformed those raw materials into finished goods.  And exported them.  On British ships.  Through British ports.  Throughout the world.  And back to America.  Before the Revolution, that is.

Thankfully for the Americans there was a nation that hated the British.  And had been in a near perpetual state of war with them since about forever.  And they had just recently lost their North American territories to the British.  Which they wanted back.  So the French had other interests than American Independence.  But American Independence was a good opportunity to settle the score with their old nemesis.  And when the Americans defeated a British Army at Saratoga the French thought that just maybe the Americans could pull this off.  And if so they wanted to be in on the spoils of a British defeat.

So the French financed a large part of the American Revolutionary War.  But it wasn’t enough.  The Continental Army was poorly fed and poorly clothed.  Even leaving bloody footprints in the snow as the Continental Congress couldn’t put boots on their feet.  Nor could they pay them.  So they turned to printing money.  Unleashing a brutal inflation.  No one wanted the currency.  The inflation was so bad that it lost its value before they could spend it.  So no one wanted to accept the Continental paper dollar.  Giving rise to the expression ‘not worth a Continental’.  Everything had two prices.  A low price if you paid with hard currency (gold and silver coins).  And a very high price if you paid in Continental dollars.  They printed so much money that the money became worthless.  So the Continental Army just took what they needed from the people to keep their men from starving to death.  Leaving the people with an IOU.  That Congress would redeem one day.  Maybe.

The Percentage of Tax Receipts going to Pay the Interest on the Debt has fallen as the Federal Debt Rose

Today hard currency is a thing of the past.  It’s pure un-backed paper these days.  This paper money has no intrinsic value.  And you can’t exchange it for gold or silver that does.  But you sure can print it.  Well, the government can.  And they do.  They borrow and print money like there’s no tomorrow.  Allowing them to spend money they don’t have easier than ever before.  And it’s not just for feeding and clothing our soldiers.  But just about everything under the sun.  Causing the federal debt to soar.

Think of the growing federal debt like a credit card with a growing balance.  And these balances grow fast because each month they charge you interest on your past purchases.  And on your past interest charges.  Which is why if you let that credit card balance get too high it’ll grow beyond your ability to pay it off.  A lot of people who do find themselves filing a personal bankruptcy.  Because the interest charges just balloon their monthly payment.  With the interest in their credit cards consuming an ever larger portion of their paycheck.  As should the interest on the federal debt consume an ever larger portion of federal tax receipts.

Debt and Interest as Percentage of Receipts

(Sources: A History of Debt In The United States; Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding; Historical Amount of Revenue by Source)

Interestingly, the percentage of federal tax receipts going to pay the interest on the debt has in general fallen as the federal debt rose.  Odd.  The more debt one has the greater the interest one pays.  That’s how it works on our credit cards.  When the debt was approximately $6.2 trillion in 1991 the percentage of total tax receipts going to pay the interest on the debt was 27.1%.  But when the debt soared to $16.1 trillion in 2012 the percentage of tax receipts going to the interest on the debt fell to 15%.  The federal debt grew to be 2.6 times what it was in 1991.  Yet it appears we are paying less interest in 2012 than in 1991.  Something doesn’t seem right.

Interest Rates will Rise as the Purchasing Power of the Dollar Falls, Raising Prices and the Cost of Borrowing

A couple of things could explain this.  And the first thing that comes to mind is tax revenue.  The reason why interest on the debt as a percentage of tax receipts has fallen while the federal debt grew is, perhaps, that tax revenues grew even greater.  So even though interest on the debt could be soaring along with the soaring federal debt the government could be awash in tax revenue.  And if the number you’re dividing by is larger than the number you’re dividing into it than you get a smaller percentage.  Simple arithmetic.  The driver of the federal debt is the annual deficits.  So let’s compare interest on the debt to the deficit.  To see if the interest on the debt rises with the deficit.

Interest on the Debt and the Deficit

(Sources: Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding; Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–): 1789–2017)

And it doesn’t.  In fact, the interest on the debt almost held constant when the deficit plunged into a surplus.  And when the deficit soared to a record high.  It seems like there was some other factor involved here.  Something actually keeping the interest on the debt down.  Even when the deficit soared after 2007.  What could do this?  Well, there is only one other thing to look at.  Interest rates.

Interest on the Debt the Deficit 10 Year Treasury

(Sources: Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding; Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–): 1789–2017; Market yield on U.S. Treasury securities at 10-year constant maturity, quoted on investment basis)

And we have our answer.  Interest on the debt has not kept pace with the debt because of bad monetary policy.  Keynesian economic policies introduced permanent inflation into the economy.  The Keynesians in government kept interest rates artificially low to stimulate economic activity.  Those low interest rates stimulated so much economic activity in the Nineties that it created a dot-com bubble.  And when it burst it created a painful recession in the early 2000s.  Also, President Clinton’s Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending lowered lending standards in the Nineties setting the stage for a great housing bubble that burst into the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007.  And the Great Recession.

The Keynesians have been increasing the money supply (i.e., printing money) in a desperate attempt to pull the economy out of recession.  Which is why the market yield on a 10-year treasury has fallen as the deficit soared in the early 2000s.  And fell even more as the deficit soared even further after 2007.  With the yield falling to as low as 1.8% in 2012.  Even though the demand for so much borrowing should have raised interest rates.  Which would have happened had the government not been increasing the money supply.

And this is why interest on the debt as a percentage of receipts has fallen.  Despite record debt.  Some may look at this and think it’s a good thing.  As it lets the government borrow more money.  So they can give us more stuff.  But printing money causes inflation.  Which has been kept at bay for now thanks in large part to the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis.  As investors everywhere are desperate to find a safe harbor for their money during these uncertain times.  But that won’t last forever.  Eventually those interest rates will rise as the purchasing power of the dollar falls.  Raising prices.  And the cost of borrowing.  A lot.  Because of that record debt.  And when they start selling new treasuries at higher interest rates than the ones they’re replacing a very large portion of our tax receipts will go to pay the interest on the debt.  Just like when people charge too much on their credit cards.  Pushing the country closer to bankruptcy.  Just like people with overextended credit cards.  And like countries in the Eurozone.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Off-Budget Social Security Surplus

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 18th, 2013

Economics 101

Because we have Limited Income we Prioritize our Expenses

We all want more than we can afford.  We may want to drive a brand new Lincoln MKT but can only afford a used Focus.  So we drive a used Focus.  We may want to live on the beach in Southern California but can only afford a 2-bedroom apartment in Pasadena.  So we live in a 2-bedroom apartment in Pasadena.  We may want to dine on filet mignon and champagne every night but can only afford Hamburger Helper and a store-brand soda.  So we dine on Hamburger Helper and store-brand soda.

In life we have to make choices.  And live within our means.  So we budget our money. We list all our income.  And all of our expenses.  Breaking down the expenses in order of importance.  Rent is more important than cable television.  The electric bill is more important than stopping at Starbucks every morning for a Venti Caramel Macchiato.  The gas bill is more important than unlimited texting.  Because we have limited income we prioritize our expenses.  Those most important we budget to pay first.  Those less important we enjoy when we have some disposable income left over.  After paying everything that is more important first.

This is responsible living.  Which a lot of people do.  Live responsibly.  While some don’t.  And use credit cards to buy things they can’t afford.  Or they do a little work on the side ‘under the table’ for some extra spending cash.  Money they don’t report as income so they don’t have to pay income taxes on it.  Because like Billy Joel said you can pay Uncle Sam for the overtime.  Or not.  And a lot of people choose not.  Interestingly, a lot who do are die-hard Democrats who want to raise tax rates on the rich.  But when it comes to their hard-earned money they want to hide it from Uncle Sam.  But I digress.

Social Security Taxes are Dedicated for One Thing—Social Security Benefits

We can call money we earn on the side off-budget money.  We don’t add this money to our household budget.  It’s special money to spend on things we enjoy.  For if a husband does some plumbing work on the side his wife may want to use that money to pay down a credit card balance.  Or spend it on new window treatments.  While he may have other ideas for that money.  Maybe some new fishing equipment.  Or a new power tool.  Or maybe using it to go tailgating with the boys.  That money could buy a lot of food to barbecue.  And a lot of beer.  Things that are a lot of fun.  While paying down a credit card balance is not.  Just as window treatments are not.

So by keeping this money off-budget he can use it for what he originally intended it for.  Him having fun.  Keeping the money off the family budget prevents anyone from using those targeted funds for some other unintended purpose.  Preventing out of control spending growth on other less important things.  He is actually doing the family a favor by hiding this money.  Or so he rationalizes.  Because hiding it prevents his family from spending too much money.  For let’s face it if you have that additional money you’re going to budget it on something.  You may even commit to some long-term spending obligation.  Like buying a new Lincoln MKT.  Which will be a problem if the husband throws out his back doing all of those side jobs and goes on disability.

Another example of off-budget money is Social Security.  Specifically, the Social Security surplus.  Contrary to the government calling it a retirement investment it is not an investment.  The government collects Social Security tax revenue.  And pays Social Security benefits from that tax revenue.  What’s left over is the Social Security surplus.  (Until it becomes the Social Security deficit.)  And they put it into the Social Security Trust Fund.  Outside of the regular budget.  So they can’t spend it on other things.  And any budget negotiations won’t affect it.  For employers and employees pay into Social Security.  And this is the money we get back in benefits.  Those benefits are not budget items paid from all the other taxes the government collects.  That pay for things from defense spending to food stamps.  No.  Social Security taxes are dedicated for one thing.  Social Security benefits.  Which is why they moved it off-budget.

If the Deficit is Consistently Understated there will be no Money to Redeem the Securities in the Social Security Trust Fund

But that doesn’t stop the government from spending that money.  Just like so many unions have underfunded pension plans so, too, government can’t resist the allure of a great big pile of money.  Because it’s just sitting there.  Not being spent.  Something that just pains a politician to no end.  Unspent money.  But because it’s off-budget they just can’t spend it.  They have to borrow it first.  So the money goes into the Social Security Trust Fund.  They then remove the money from Social Security Trust Fund.  And leave behind an IOU.  Treasury securities.  Backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

So even though that money is dedicated for Social Security benefits and is strictly hands-off for other spending the government spends it on other things.  And it works out pretty well for the government.  Not only do they get a little extra money to spend it helps conceal the extent of their other spending.  For this off-budget money decreases the budget deficit.  Caused by all of that on-budget spending.  That far exceeds their ability to pay for it.  To illustrate that see the following table.  This is a very simplified fictional federal budget.  We have tax receipts.  And federal outlays.  Broken down into two general categories.  Guns and butter.  That’s defense spending.  And everything else.  Note how if they leave the Social Security surplus alone (without) there is a deficit of 47%.  But if they borrow that money (with) it reduces the deficit to 10%.

Social Security Surplus Off-Budget

When they talk about the budget deficit it includes the Social Security surplus.  That money is dedicated for one thing.  Social Security benefits.  They’re not suppose to use it for anything else.  So they shouldn’t count this revenue in the budget that pays for everything else.  When they do they understate the true budget deficit.  Worse, the money in the Social Security Trust Fund does not earn a return on investment.  Like with a 401(k).  Yes, there are Treasury securities in the trust fund.  But a government that is consistently understating their true deficit will never have the money to redeem those securities.  So they will do the only thing they can.  Print money.  Which is what they mean by the full faith and credit of the United States.  Print money.  Causing inflation.  And raising prices.  Making that meager Social Security benefit buy less.  Not to mention that Social Security itself will soon be insolvent.  Thanks to the growth in all of that other spending.  That is growing so great that they continually need to raid the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for it.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

India’s Keynesian Policies may cause S&P to downgrade their Credit Rating

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 13th, 2012

Week in Review

Monetary policy can be confusing.  Especially when the Keynesians start talking about it.  Bunch of policy wonks.  Pushing a defective ideology.  For it doesn’t do anything they say it will do.  Excessive government spending, and deficit spending, rarely ends well.  It only leads to larger debts, weaker growth and price inflation.  Wherever Keynesians try their policies (see Significant chance of cutting India rating in future: S&P by Neha Dasgupta and Swati Bhat posted 10/10/2012 on Reuters).

India still faced a one-in-three chance of a over the next 24 months, Standard & Poor’s said, although a series of reform steps launched in September had slightly improved the country’s prospects…

“Weaker-than-expected tax receipts, owing to weaker economic growth, and higher-than-budgeted subsidies are the main reasons behind it,” S&P said, referring to its deficit outlook.

The high deficit is counteracting the central bank’s efforts to control demand-driven price pressures, while the government’s use of domestic savings to finance the deficit is crowding out private investment and lowering growth prospects.

Governments tend to increase their spending during good economic times.  Because they can.  The problem is that good economic times don’t always last.  And when the economy tanks so do tax receipts.  Leaving the government with spending obligations that they no longer can afford to pay.  So they borrow more.  Run larger deficits.  And expand the money supply by lowering interest rates.  Which leads to, of course, price inflation.  And, finally, that oft asked question.  Is debt really anything to worry about when we owe money to ourselves?  Yes.  For when the government sells bonds to finance deficit spending it pulls investment capital from the private sector.  Where business owners could have used it to create economic activity.  And jobs.

So never be fooled by Keynesians and their rosy projections of economic growth.  For their policies hinder economic growth.  And cause credit downgrades.  Everywhere they’re tried.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Jimmy Carter, Malaise, Ronald Reagan, Austrian Economics, Morning in America, Barack Obama, Keynesian Economics and Great Recession

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 4th, 2012

History 101

It was Morning in America again because Ronald Reagan reduced the Misery Index by 42.7%

Ronald Reagan was a supply-sider when it came to economics.  Of the Austrian school variety.  In fact, one of his campaign promises was to bring back the gold standard.  A very Austrian thing.  The Austrian school predates the Keynesian school.  When the focus was on the stages of production.  Not on consumer spending.  These policies served the nation well.  They (and the gold standard) exploded American ingenuity and economic activity in the 19th century.  Making the U.S. the number one economy in the world.  Surpassing the nation that held the top spot for a century or more.  Perhaps the last great empire.  Great Britain.

Following the stagflation and misery (misery index = inflation rate + unemployment rate) of the Seventies Reagan promised to cut taxes and governmental regulations.  To make it easier for businesses to create economic activity.  Easier to create jobs.  And he did.  Among other things.  Such as rebuilding the military that the Carter administration severely weakened during the Seventies (it was so bad that the Soviet Union put together a first-strike nuclear option.  Because they thought they could win a nuclear war with Jimmy Carter as president).  During the 1980 campaign Reagan asked the people if they were better off after 4 years of Jimmy Carter.  The answer was no.  Four years later, though, they were.  Here’s why.  (Note:  We used so many sources that we didn’t source them here to save space.  The inflation rate and unemployment rates are for August of the respective years.  The dollar amounts are annual totals with some estimates added to take them to the end of 2012.  The debt and GDP are not adjusted for inflation as they are only 4 years apart.  Gas prices and median income are adjusted for inflation.  There may be some error in these numbers.  But overall we believe the information they provide fairly states the economic results of the presidents’ policies.  (This note applies to both tables.))

Reagan entered office with some horrendous numbers.  The Carter administration was printing so much money that inflation was at 12.9% in 1980.  Added to the unemployment rate that brought the misery index to 20.6%.  A huge number.  To be fair Carter tapped Paul Volcker to be Fed Chairman and he began the policy of reigning in inflation.  But Carter did this far too late.  The only way to cure high inflation is with a nasty recession.  Which Volcker gave Ronald Reagan.  But it worked.  By 1984 inflation fell 8.8 points or 66.7%.  Even with this nasty recession the unemployment rate fell 0.2 points or 2.6%.  Which shaved 8.8 points off of the miserable index.  Or reducing it by 42.7%.  This is why it was morning in America again.  The Left to this day say “yeah, but at what cost?” and point to the record deficits of the Reagan administration.  Saying this is the price of tax cuts.  But they’re wrong.  Yes, the debt went up.  But it wasn’t because of the tax cuts.  Because those tax cuts stimulated economic activity.  GDP rose 12.6% by 1984.  And tax receipts even increased with those lower tax rates.  Because of the higher GDP.  By 1984 Reagan’s policies increased tax revenue by 28.9%.  And on a personal level the median income even increased 0.4%.  And this following a very bad recession a few years earlier.  Finally, gas prices fell 22.2%.  And the way Americans feel about rising gas prices this was truly morning in America again.

To Top off the General Malaise of the Obama Economy Gas Prices Soared while Median Income Fell

Barack Obama is a Keynesian through and through.  A believer in pure demand-side economics.  To that end his administration focused everything on increasing consumer spending.  Tax and spend policies.  Income redistribution.  Deficit spending.  Anything to make America ‘more fair.’  Raising taxes on the rich so the poor can spend more money.  With the Keynesian multiplier they believe this is the path to economic prosperity.  Just doing everything within their power to put more spending money into the hands of poorer people.  Increasing government regulation, fees and fines as well as taxes to bring more money in Washington so they can redistribute it.  Or spend it directly on things like roads and bridges.  Or solar power companies.  Even paying people to dig a hole and fill it back in.  Because these people will take their wages and spend them.  Creating economic activity.

So President Obama put Keynesian economics to work.  Beginning with a $787 billion stimulus bill.  Investments into green energy and the jobs of the future.  Like a Department of Energy loan of $528 million to the now bankrupt Solyndra.  Which was only one of many loans.  The bailout of the UAW pension fund (aka the auto bailout).  The government poured $528 million into GM.  And President Obama touted the Chevy Volt, boasting that GM would sell a million each year bringing his green goals to fruition (GM is struggling to sell 10,000 Volts a year).  A lot of malinvestment as the Austrians would say.  But a Keynesian sees any government expenditure as a good investment.  Because if all the people who receive this government money spends at least 80% of it (while saving only 20%) the Keynesian multiplier will be five.  Meaning that the net gain in GDP will be five times whatever the government spends.  So how has that worked for the president?  Well, here are his numbers:

The government spent so much money that the federal debt increased by $5.4 trillion.  Trillion with a ‘T’.  That’s over a trillion dollar deficit each of the president’s 4 years in office.  And his last year isn’t even a whole year.  Unprecedented until President Obama.  And what did all of that federal spending get us after about 4 years?  An unemployment rate 2.1 points higher.  Or 33.9% higher than when he took office.  Inflation fell but it did nothing to spur GDP growth which grew at an anemic 3.1%.  Which is less than a percentage point a year.  Which is why the Great Recession lingers still.  Meanwhile the Chinese are having a bad year with a GDP growth of 7.8%.  So all of that spending didn’t help at all.  In fact, it made things worse.  The economic activity is so bad that even tax receipts fell 2.2% after four years of President Obama.  Which has many in his party saying that we need to raise tax rates.  Contrary to what Ronald Reagan did.  And to top off the general malaise of the Obama economy gas prices soared 107.6% under his presidency.  While the median income fell 7.3%.  One has to look hard to find any positive news from the Obama economy.  And there is one.  Inflation did fall.  But even that really isn’t good.  As it may be an indicator of a looming deflationary spiral.  Giving America a lost decade.  Like Japan’s Lost Decade.

The Flaw in Keynesian Thinking is that it Ignores the Layers of Economic Activity above the Consumer Level

So there you have an Austrian and a Keynesian.  Both entered office during bad economic times.  Although things were much worse when President Reagan took office than when President Obama took office.  The misery index was 20.6% in 1980.  It was only 11.6% in 2008.  About half as bad for President Obama than it was for President Reagan.  It came down 16.4% under Obama.  But it came down 42.7% under Reagan.  Which is why it isn’t morning in America under President Obama.  Reagan increased tax receipts by 28.9 % by the end of his first term.  They fell 2.2% under Obama.  Adjusted for inflation Reagan averaged annual deficits of $348 billion.  That’s billion with a ‘B’.  Obama averaged $1.324 trillion.  That’s trillion with a ‘T’.  Or 280% higher than Ronald Reagan.  Gas prices fell 22.2% under Reagan.  They rose 107.6% under Obama.  Median income barely rose 0.4% under Reagan.  But it fell 7.3% under Obama.  In short there is nothing in the Obama economic record that is better than the Reagan economic record.

And why is this?  Because Obama’s policies are Keynesian.  While Reagan’s policies were Austrian.  Reagan focused on the stages of production to improve economic activity.  Cutting taxes.  Reducing regulatory compliance costs.  Creating a business-friendly environment.  A system that rewarded success.  Whereas Obama focused on consumer spending.  Tax, borrow and print (i.e., quantitative easing).  So the government could spend.  Putting more money into the pockets of consumers.  Which stimulated only the last stage in the stages of production.  So while some consumers had more money it was still a business-unfriendly environment.  Where tax, regulatory and environmental policies (as well as the uncertainty of Obamacare) hindered business growth everywhere upstream from retail sales.  From raw material extraction to industrial processing to construction to manufactured goods.  Where these Obama’s policies punish success.  For the bigger you get the more you pay in taxes and regulatory compliance costs.

The greatest flaw with Keynesian economics is that it looks at aggregate supply and demand.  With a focus on consumer spending.  And ignores the layers of economic activity that happens before the consumer level.  The Austrian school understands this.  As did the British when she became one of the greatest empires of all times.  As did America during the 19th century.  No nation became an economic superpower using Keynesian economics.  Japan grew to be a great economic power during the Fifties and Sixties.  Then went Keynesian in the Eighties and suffered their Lost Decade in the Nineties.  Some Keynesians like to point to China as an example of the success of Keynesian economics.  But they still have a fairly restrictive police state.  And their economic policies are hauntingly similar to Japan’s.  Some have even posited that it is very possible that China could suffer the same fate as Japan.  And suffer a deflationary spiral.  Resulting in a lost decade for China.  Which is very plausible considering the Chinese practice state-capitalism where the state partners closely with businesses.  Which is what the Japanese did in the Eighties.  And it hasn’t been great for them since.  As it hasn’t been great in America economically since the current administration.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

State Capitalism in China earns a lot of Tax Revenue from Big State Tobacco

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 4th, 2012

Week in Review

Big corporations are evil.  That’s all you hear from those on the Left.  These people hate corporations.  Capitalism.  And the private sector in general.  Where people pursue profits.  Instead of the wellbeing of our fellow citizens.  Like they do in China.  Where state capitalism rules supreme.  And the government puts people ahead of profits (see Poisonous gift posted 1/28/2012 on The Economist).

China’s tobacco industry is both owned and regulated by the government. It makes and sells more than two-fifths of the world’s cigarettes—2.4 trillion in 2011, 3% more than in 2010. The government says the industry took in profits and tax receipts of 753 billion yuan ($119 billion) in 2011, an annual increase of over a fifth. Production, sales and tax receipts are likely to increase for years to come.

Yes, the economic model that those on the Left want us to adopt is worse than Big Tobacco.  For the tobacco companies in China not only kill people in pursuit of big profits.  They’re owned by the government.  So it’s the government killing people in pursuit of profits.  Funny.  Because state capitalism isn’t supposed to work that way.  At least, that’s what those on the Left would tell us.  Government is good.  Corporations are bad.  Yet here is government being worse than the corporations.

Perhaps state capitalism is not all it’s cracked up to be.  Perhaps government can be just as bad as corporations.  Or even worse.  For corporations clearly state that they protect the interests of their stockholders.  Government is supposed to protect the interests of the people.  So who is worse when people get hurt by smoking?  The government, of course.

So why do they do it?  For the same reason the U.S. government won’t criminalize cigarettes.  They want people to smoke for the same reason the Chinese government wants their people to smoke.  The tax receipts.  Addiction is good.  It fills the government coffers.  And as long as it does people will be smoking.  Governments everywhere will make sure of it.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

FT96: “The Left uses propaganda more effectively than the Right uses the truth.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 16th, 2011

Fundamental Truth

Liberals lie because only about 20% of the People are Liberal Democrats

Politicians lie.  On both sides of the aisle.  Democrats lie because they always want to raise our taxes.  And campaigning to raise your taxes just doesn’t win a lot of votes.  So they lie.  Republicans lie, too.  Especially those that want to act like Democrats.  And join the Washington elite where you go to the best of parties and rub shoulders with the best of A-list celebrities.

So that’s why politicians lie.  To fool you into voting for them.  So they can live a far, far better life than you can ever imagine.  Some have grown pretty adept at it.  In particular liberal Democrats.  Who have taken the lie and elevated it to pure party propaganda.   Again, because they have too.  With only about 20% of the people being liberal Democrats, there aren’t enough people out there buying what they’re selling.  So they have to lie about what they’re selling.

And what, exactly, are they selling?  Privilege.  For themselves.  And their friends.  Which they give themselves after winning elections.  Power, control and money.  The usual things a privileged class covets.  Like in the good old days.  In the Old World.  Where a good last name set you apart from the rabble.  And let you live the good life without working.

The more Wretched and Impoverished the Poor get the Better it is for Big Government

Today’s aristocracy is Big Government.  For those in it have power, control and money.  Just like a Baron in medieval Europe.  Except for one thing.  This nobility never has to put on armor and mount his steed and fight for the king.  So it’s even better.  Of course, in the Old World, there were oaths of fealty.  The price of privilege was the possibility of fighting, even dying, for your king.  A liberal Democrat has no such thing to fear.  Hell, they can break the law even and nine times out of ten they’ll get away with it.  Because their kind takes care of their own.  And doesn’t let a little thing like the law get in the way of their good life.

So how does one get to live better than everyone else?  Even being above the law at times?  Simple.  You champion the little guy.  The poor.  The downtrodden.  Those at the bottom of the ladder.  You take care of these people.  At least, you say you are.  By expanding the size of government to, say, alleviate poverty.  Then you raise taxes and expand government again and again.  And again.  And because you do this with the best of intentions no one ever points out that everything you’ve done has failed.  There’s still poverty.  In fact, it seems that every year more people are living below the poverty line.  At least according to government statistics.  Or should I say Big Government statistics?  Convenient, yes?  A little of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, isn’t it?

Of course, that’s the plan.  Because if you got rid of poverty you’d put Big Government out of a job.  I mean, if everyone was living happily ever what would you need them for?  Happiness is not good for Big Government.  That’s right, the more wretched and impoverished the poor get the better it is for government programs that ‘care’ for them.  And spend more money on them.  Which means more taxes, more control and more positions within the new aristocracy for more of their own.

JFK and Ronald Reagan were both Tax-Cutting Supply-Siders

To keep raising taxes and to keep creating new government programs you have to demonize tax cuts and limited government.  Which is important because history has shown that everyone lives better with lower taxes and a more limited government.  Except, of course, the new aristocracy.

Liberals refer to the Kennedy White House as Camelot.  They absolutely loved JFK.  But they carefully guard his legacy.  Why?  JFK was a tax-cutter.  He believed in supply-side economics.  What the liberal Democrats dismiss snidely as trickle-down economics.  But Kennedy’s tax cuts worked.  They caused an economic boom.  Which the Left is very hush-hush about.  Because they can’t have their hero known as a tax-cutter.  But they have no problem belittling another Kennedy-esque tax-cutter.  Ronald Reagan.

Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate.  The Big Government liberals called him mad.  Out of touch.  Said he hated the poor.  And wanted to starve government programs ‘vital’ for the poor while rewarding rich people.  But like Kennedy, his cut in the tax rates caused an economic boom.  And tax receipts (tax money collected by the IRS) nearly doubled.  None of which was supposed to happen according to the liberals.  So they lied about it.  Said, “yes, there was increased economic activity, but at what cost?  Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts gave us huge deficits that exploded the federal debt.”  Yes, there were huge deficits.  But that’s beside the point.  The cut in the top marginal rate nearly doubled tax receipts.  That’s the key point.  The Reagan tax cuts worked.  The government just spent this new tax revenue faster than they could collect it.

Liberals are such Good Liars that few know the Successful Track Record of Tax Cuts

Cuts in tax rates have a successful track record.  That’s fact.  The Republicans could run on this truth.  But they do such a pathetic job in telling the truth that no one knows about this successful track record.  The liberal democrats, on the other hand, lie through their teeth about this record.  And they’re so good at lying that it’s what most people believe.  Tax cuts explode the deficit.  Grow the debt.  Take money away from the poor.  Gives it to the rich.  While the poor and downtrodden wait for all that wealth to trickle down to them.  But it never comes.  All lies.  But told so well that it’s what most people believe.

JFK was a tax cutter.  A lot like Ronald Reagan.  There were others.  And they all proved that tax cuts increase economic activity.  Which is always good.  Because more economic activity means more jobs.  And more tax receipts.  Which is bad for a caring and nurturing Big Government.  Because if free market capitalism can do this then there is no need for Big Government.  And this is something the new aristocracy just can’t have.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #82: “Too much debt is always a bad thing.” – Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 8th, 2011

Thomas Jefferson hated Alexander Hamilton for his Assumption and Funding Plans 

Thomas Jefferson hated Alexander Hamilton.  For a variety of reasons.  He thought he was too cozy with the British.  And too anti-French.  He also thought Hamilton was too cozy with the merchant class and bankers.  Jefferson hated them, too.  For he thought honest Americans farmed.  Not buy and sell things other people made.  Or loaned money.

But Hamilton was not a bad guy.  And he was right.  George Washington, too.  America’s future was tied to the British.  Trade within their empire benefited the fledging American economy.  And the Royal Navy protected that trade.  For they ruled the seas.  They couldn’t get that from France.  Especially with a France waging war against everyone.

But there was something especially that Jefferson hated Hamilton for.  Assumption.  And funding.  The new nation’s finances were a mess.  No one could figure them out.  There was pre-war debt.  And war debt.  State debt.  And national debt.  The Americans owed their allies.  Neutral nations.  And the former enemy they just won their independence from.  Getting their hands around what they owed was difficult.  But important.  Because they needed to borrow more.  And without getting their finances in order, that wasn’t going to happen.

Thomas Jefferson Understood that a Permanent Debt gave a Government Power 

Hamilton was good with numbers.  And he put America’s financial house in order.  A little too well for Jefferson.  The new federal government assumed the states’ debts (assumption).  And serviced it (funding).  Giving great money and power to the federal government.  Far more than Jefferson believed the Constitution granted.  And this really stuck in his craw.  Because this was the source of all the mischief in the Old World.  Money and power.  The Old World capitals were both the seats of political power.  And the centers of commerce and banking.

Jefferson understood that a permanent debt gave a government a lot of power.  Because debt had to be serviced.  And you serviced debt with taxes.  The bigger the debt the greater the taxes.  Which didn’t sit well with this revolutionary.  I mean, excessive taxation was the cause for rebellion.  Taxes are bad.  And lead to political corruption.  Because the more taxes the government collects the more it can spend on political favors.  Patronage (good paying government jobs for political allies).  Giving rise to a politically-connected ruling class.  Like the Old World aristocracies.  Government grows.  As does their control over the private sector economy.

It’s a process that once started moves in only one direction.  Greater and greater debts.  Paid for by greater and greater taxes.  Until the debt becomes unsustainable.  Like in Revolutionary France.  In present day Greece.  And even in the United States.  Who, in 2011, saw its sovereign debt rating downgraded for the first time in American history.  Because of record deficits.  And record debt.  Caused by excessive spending.  Everything that Jefferson feared would happen.  If government had a permanent debt.

Baseline Budgeting guarantees Permanent Growth in Government Spending

Big Government spending took off in America in the Sixties.  Historically government receipts averaged 17.8% of GDP.  During the Fifties and the Sixties, GDP grew while debt remained flat.  Of course, if GDP grew then so did tax dollars coming into Washington.  For 17.8% of an expanding GDP produced an expanding pile of cash in the government’s coffers.

Liking the taste of this money, government kept spending.  So much so that they adopted baseline budgeting in 1974.  Where current spending is automatically added to for next year’s spending.  Guaranteeing permanent growth in government spending.  To pay for LBJ‘s Great Society.  The Vietnam WarApollo.  And other spending programs.  The spending was so out of control that the debt started to creep up.  And what they didn’t borrow they printed.  Leading to the Nixon Shock.

The Nixon Shock (ending the quasi gold standard) unleashed inflation.  Which Paul Volcker and Ronald Reagan defeated.  With inflation tamed and the Reagan tax cuts, the Eighties saw solid GDP growth.  And record deficits.  The Democrats liked all that cash coming into Washington.  And they spent it faster than it came in.  But to reduce the deficit they made a deal.  For each dollar in new taxes the Democrats would cut three dollars in spending.  Of course they lied.  Because Democrats don’t cut taxes.  They got their new taxes.  But Reagan didn’t get any spending cuts.  In fact, the deal went the other way.  For every dollar in new taxes there were three dollars in new spending.  The deficit grew bigger.  And for the first time the debt grew at a greater rate than GDP.  As shown here:

(Source:  GDP, Debt, Receipts)

The Obama Stimulus gave us Record Deficits and Record Debt

After the 1994 midterm elections, Bill Clinton and the new Republican House compromised.  They reined in spending.  Implemented welfare reform.  And rode the dot-com bubble on the good side.  Before it burst.  It was capital gains galore.  Put all of this together and GDP rose and flooded Washington with tax receipts.  While debt remained flat.  In fact, there were budget surpluses forecast.  But then that dot-com bubble burst.

George W. Bush started his presidency with recession.  A couple of tax cuts later and GDP was tracking up again.  But 9/11 changed things.  And gave us two costly wars (Iraq and Afghanistan).  On top of an expensive Medicare drug program.  Record deficits took debt to new heights.  Then the Housing Bubble burst.  Followed by the subprime mortgage crisis.  And President Obama used this crisis to advance a dormant Democrat agenda.

It was an $800 billion stimulus.  Something he promised would have no pork or earmarks.  Nothing but shovel-ready projects.  Of course, it was nothing but pork and earmarks.  And those shovel-ready projects?  There’s no such thing.  So the stimulus didn’t stimulate anything.  Other than record deficits (surpassing Bush’s).  And record debt.  Debt increasing at a greater rate than GDP.  And equal to or greater than GDP in dollars.  Not seen since World War II.

Hamilton and Jefferson would have United in Opposition against Barack Obama

Debt fell as a percentage of GDP following World War II.  It fell from above 90% to below 40% around the end of the Sixties.  GDP was rising during this period while debt remained flat.  So the flat debt became a smaller and smaller percentage of a growing GDP.  The ‘growing your way out of debt’ phenomenon.  But that process stopped and reversed itself during the Seventies.  When Congress spent with a fury.  As noted above.  Debt grew.  Back to the level of GDP it was during a world war.  Only now there is no world war.  And we’re not spending to save democracy.  We’re spending to end democracy.

(Source:  GDP, Debt $, Debt %)

It is what Jefferson feared most.  Out of control government spending.  Racking up massive debt.  The kind that is impossible to pay off.  And is permanent.  And it was being done not for a war to save democracy from fascism.  But to change America.  To make it a different kind of nation.  No longer one of limited government.  But Big Government.  One with a ruling class.  A ruling class that now has a claim on 100% of GDP.  To pay for everything they gave us.  Where there is no choice but fair-share sacrifice.  Where everyone pays their ‘fair share’ of taxes.  Which is government-speak for raising taxes on everyone.  To flood government coffers with more private sector wealth.

The country is not what it was.  And it will never be what it once was again.  Not with this level of spending.   This is the kind of spending nations see in their decline.  It’s what toppled Louis XVI.  It’s what roiled Greece in riots.  It’s what downgraded U.S. sovereign debt.  For the first time.  Even Alexander Hamilton wouldn’t approve of this.  For his Big Government idea was all about making the nation an economic superpower.  Not bringing back feudalism.

So if you’re not a fan of Barack Obama, here’s something you can credit him for.  His policies would have reconciled two of our most beloved Founding Fathers.  For Hamilton and Jefferson may have hated each other.  But they would have united in opposition against Barack Obama.

 www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Ronald Reagan’s Reaganomics Increased GDP and Tax Revenue, Decreased Unemployment and Tamed Inflation

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 8th, 2011

Ronald Reagan’s Supply-Side Reaganomics caused an Economic Boom

Politics is a struggle.  Between those on the Left.  And those on the Right.  And nowhere is it more partisan than when it is about one subject.  ReaganomicsRonald Reagan‘s supply-side economics.  Of the Austrian School.  That the Left belittles as trickle-down economics. 

His tax cuts during the Eighties sparked an economic boom.  No one denies this.  In fact, life was very good during the Eighties.  So good that the Left denounce those years as the Decade of Greed.  “Yes, a lot of people got rich,” the Left says.  “But at what cost?”  And then they point to those ‘soaring’ Reagan deficits.  Peaking at about $221.2 billion in 1986.  Or about $358.3 billion adjusted for inflation.  (Pretty tame by today’s standards.  Barack Obama has one in the $1.6 trillion neighborhood.)  But did Reagan cause them with his tax cuts?

To answer this question we look at historical GDP (gross domestic product).  And tax receipts.  From the Seventies and the Eighties.  From the heyday of Keynesian economics.  After the Nixon Shock in 1971. That ended the ‘gold standard‘.  When Nixon said, “I am now a Keynesian in economics.”  And through Reaganomics.  All dollar amounts are constant 2005 dollars (shown in billions).  These are graphed along with the top marginal tax rate, inflation and the unemployment rate.

(Sources: GDP, tax revenue, top marginal tax rate, inflation, unemployment)

Inflation Eroded GDP and Raised Unemployment in the Seventies

There are two relatively flat plateaus on the GDP graph.  Flat or falling GDP growth indicates a recession.  One starting sometime after 1972.  The other one around 1979. 

Both of these correspond to a spike in the inflation rate.  This happens because inflation erodes GDP.  By raising prices.  Higher prices mean we buy less.  Which means less GDP.  And higher prices tend to inflate business profits.  Where profit gains are from inflation.  Not from selling more stuff.  Which means less GDP.

Inflation is one half of the business cycle.  Which is a boom-bust cycle.  A booming economy.  And a busting recession.  Inflation.  And deflation.  Growth.  And recession. 

During growth there’s inflation.  Prices go up as more people want to buy the same things.  Bidding up prices.  The unemployment rate falls.  Because businesses are hiring more people.  To expand.  To meet this demand. 

When they expand too much there’s too much stuff on the market.  People can’t buy it all.  So prices go down.  To encourage people to buy.  And businesses cut back.  Lay people off.  With fewer people working there’s fewer people to buy that excess supply.  So prices fall more.  And businesses lay more people off.  To reflect the falling demand.  Which increases the unemployment rate.

The business cycle, then, corrects prices.  And readjusts supply to demand.  Keynesian economics was going to change this, though.  By removing the recession part.   Through permanent inflation.  At least, that was the plan.  The two plateaus in the GDP graph shows that the business cycle is still here despite their best efforts.   

And the Keynesians only made things worse.  By causing double-digit inflation.  By creating more demand than existed in the market.  People used that easy money.  To buy things they wouldn’t have otherwise bought.  Creating ‘bubbles’ of inflated prices.  Which are corrected by recessions.  And the greater the bubble, the greater the recession.

Easy Monetary Policy (i.e., Printing Money) made Inflation Worse in the Seventies

Government spent a lot during the Seventies.  A lot of that was Keynesian spending paid for with easy monetary policy (i.e., printing money).  Something governments can only do.  They are the only ones that can say, “Use these paper bills as legal tender.  We guarantee it.”

Making fiat money is easy.  But there is a cost.  The more you make the more you devalue your currency.  That’s the cost of inflation.  Money loses some of its purchasing power.  The greater the inflation the greater loss of purchasing power. 

They printed a lot of money during the late Seventies.  So much that the dollar lost a lot of its purchasing power.  Hence the double-digit inflation.

Paul Volcker was a Federal Reserve chairman.  He started in the last year of Jimmy Carter‘s presidency.  And remained chairman for about 8 years.  He raised interest rates severely.  To constrict the money supply.  To pull a lot of those excess dollars out of circulation.  This caused a bad recession for Reagan.  But it killed the double-digit inflation beast.  This sound money policy was a tenet of Reaganomics.  Which was an integral part of the Eighties boom.

Reagan’s Tax Cuts Increased both GDP and Tax Revenue

The hallmark of Reaganomics, of course, is low taxes.  Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate.  He dropped it from 70% to 28% in four cuts.  After the first cut GDP took off.   Because rich people reentered the economy. 

They weren’t parking their money in investments that helped them avoid paying the top marginal tax rate.  They were starting up businesses.  Or buying business.  Creating jobs.  Because the lower tax rates provided an incentive to earn business profits.  And not settle for lower interest income.  Or capital gains. 

For business profits can be far greater than interest earned on ‘income tax avoiding’ investments.  Such as government bonds.  And if we don’t penalize rich people for risk-taking they will take risks.  Create another Microsoft.  Or Apple.  But they are less likely to do that if they know we will penalize them for it.  And that’s what a high marginal tax rate is.  A penalty.  Remove this penalty and they will choose risky profits over safe interest every time.  And make a lot of jobs along the way.

And this is what they did during the Eighties.  Their ‘greed’ created a boom in employment.  A rising GDP.  Accompanied with a falling unemployment rate.  Rich people were pulling their money out of tax shelters.  And putting it into businesses.  Where they could make fat profits.  And making fat profits in business requires employees.  Jobs.  Unlike making money with safe tax-sheltered investments. 

Tax revenue increased.  There were more business profits.  And more business income taxes on those profits.  There were more jobs.  More employees in the workforce.  Paying more payroll taxes.  And more personal income taxes

Successful businesses made more rich people.  And more rich people pay more income taxes than fewer rich people.  A lot more.  The top marginal tax rate was lower.  But there were more businesses and people paying taxes.   Because the lower rates created more taxpayers.  And richer taxpayers to tax.  Which increased overall tax revenue.

Tax Revenue Increased under Reaganomics but Government Spending simply Increased More

So to summarize the data during Reaganomics, GDP grew, tax revenue grew, unemployment fell and inflation was tame.  All the things you want in a healthy economy.  And this all happened when the top marginal tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%. 

So, no, the Reagan deficits were NOT caused by the Reagan tax cuts.  That’s a myth created by the Left to revise history.  To recast the successful policies of Ronald Reagan as failures.  So they can continue in their tax and spend ways.

Those deficits were a spending problem.  Not a revenue problem.  For tax revenue increased after the tax cuts.  So why the deficits?  Because government spending simply increased more.

 www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #75: “Lower income tax rates generate more tax revenue by making more rich people who pay more income taxes.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 19th, 2011

The top 1% of Earners pay close to 40% of all Federal Income Taxes

Poor people pay little income taxes.  Rich people pay a lot of income taxes.  Everyone else pays somewhere in between.  The tool to make this happen is the progressive tax system.  Government designed it so that people with more income pay more taxes.   Via progressive tax brackets.  And the current (2010-2011) brackets (for head of household) are:

  • 10% on first $12,150
  • 15% on income from $12,150 – $46,250
  • 25% on income from $46,250 – $119,400
  • 28% on income from $119,400 – $193,350
  • 33% on income from $193,350 – $379,150
  • 35% on income over $379,150

If you earn $8,000 you owe $800.  Simple.  If you earn $83,600 you owe $15,668.  If you earn $450,000 you owe $131,435.  If you earn $2,500,000 you owe $848,935.  See the pattern?  Earn more.  Pay more.  Almost as if you’re penalized for being successful.

Of course, low-income people often don’t pay any federal income taxes.  In fact, a lot of people don’t.  About half.  Thanks to tax credits, deductions and exemptions.  But when you’re a rich CEO earning a multimillion dollar salary there aren’t enough tax credits, deductions and exemptions to avoid your taxes.  That’s why the top 1% of earners pay close to 40% of all federal income taxes.  Something we should thank them for.  Instead of demonizing them.

The higher the Top Marginal Tax Rate is the more the Rich avoid paying Income Taxes

There are no Mom and Pop hardware stores anymore.  The big box home improvement stores like The Home Depot, Lowe’s and, for those of you old enough to remember, Builder’s Square put them out of business.  Because of greedy consumers like you.  And me.  Who want to get the best value while shopping.  And if we can buy something of equal quality at a lower price we do.  We work hard for our money.  We spend it carefully.  Wisely.  And we don’t pay more for something when we can get the same for less elsewhere.

It’s the same for rich people.  When they shop.  And when they invest their wealth.  Or their ability.  They look at their options.  Create a new business?  Work at an established business?  If you’re highly skilled you can earn a lot of income.  Which rich people take into consideration.  But there are costs.  Payroll taxes.  Employee compensation and benefits.  Compliance and regulation costs.  And, of course, the progressive tax system.

The higher the top marginal tax rate the less incentive they have to start or run a business.  The less incentive they have to create jobs.  And the more likely they won’t start or run a business.  Instead they’ll invest their money and pay the simpler and (so far) lower capital gains tax.  And this is what happens.  The higher the top marginal tax rate is the more the rich avoid paying income taxes, leaving the middle class to pick them up.  Just like you avoided that Mom and Pop hardware store on your way to The Home Dept.  And with an abundance of government debt available, the rich can invest and live on interest.  Sitting on the sidelines.  Watching the rest of us struggle to find a job.

You don’t need Employees to live on Interest Income

So, the progressive tax system is a way to make rich people pay more.  To transfer the tax burden to them.  And it does.  To a point.  But if you try to tax them too much they’ll just drop out of the economy.  And take their jobs with them.  Which is a double whammy.  We lose some of that generous 40% of income taxes they pay.  And we lose who knows how many thousands of jobs.  And taxpayers.  Thus transferring the burden the other way.  Away from the rich.  To those less able to afford it.

The progressive tax system is supposed to make paying taxes easier on the poor.  The less you earn the less you pay, leaving you with more money for the necessities of life.  Whereas the rich can afford to pay more so they do.  But a flat tax is a progressive tax, too.  The more you earn the more you pay.  For example, going to a 15% flat tax, our sample earners above would change their taxes owed as follows:

  • $8000:  $800  →  $1,200
  • $83,600:  $15,668  →  $12,540
  • $450,000:  $131,435  →  $67,500
  • $2,500,000:  $848,935  →  $375,000

It’s still progressive.  And, yes, the rich will pay less individually.  But there will be more of them.  For this lower income tax rate changes the dynamic.  It will be more profitable to get off of the sidelines and get back into the economy.  Because a flat 15% income tax rate will beat or equal the capital gains tax.  And the profit from creating or running a business will blow away the earnings on a portfolio of treasury bonds.

Better still are the jobs.  You don’t need employees to live on interest income.  But you need them to run a business.  More jobs mean more taxpayers.  So more rich people are back in the economy earning income and paying income taxes.  And more employees are working.  That’s more payroll taxes.  And more personal income taxes.  In the end, the numbers win.  More jobs.  More GDP.  And more federal tax receipts.

Keeping People Poorer and more Dependent on Government

If the goal of government tax policy is to raise tax revenue, the logical thing to do would be to design a tax code that creates more rich people.  A lower top marginal tax rate does this.  So does a flat tax.  Such a tax policy will create incentives to earn income instead of living on capital gains from investments.  Each rich person will pay less income tax individually but there will be far more of them paying income taxes overall.  And they will create jobs.  The more jobs there are the more payroll taxes and personal income taxes there are.

History has shown that cutting tax rates has done just that.  The Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s.  The JFK tax cuts of the 1960s.  The Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s.  The Bush tax cuts of the 2000s.  So if the record shows that lower tax rates produce more tax revenue, why are we always trying to raise the top marginal tax rates?  Simple.  Politics.

Being in politics is the closest you can get to being part of an aristocracy in the United States.  Unless you’re born a Kennedy.  Whether its ego or the graft, people aspire to be in the privileged few.  Life is better there.  If you have no talent or ability.  Other than being able to tell a pretty good lie.  So you use class warfare to get the masses to support you.  And the progressive tax system.  Which keeps people poorer and more dependent on government.  Like it used to be in the old days when there was an aristocracy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Debt Limit Debacle goes on, Obama and the Democrats unable to Govern Responsibly like Responsible State Governors

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 17th, 2011

An Explosion of Government Spending will require an Explosion of New Taxes, Borrowing and/or Printing

Blah, blah, blah.  And the budget debate goes on.  It is interesting that it is the Republicans that are being intransigent.  They’re the reason why there is no deal.  But the Democrats aren’t intransigent when they’re being intransigent.  Funny how that works.  Well now there’s a fallback plan.  In case the Republicans refuse to compromise and agree to all of the Democrat’s terms.  Here it is (see Five questions on the debt-ceiling debate posted 7/15/2011 on The Washington Post).

The third, and increasingly likely, option is a fallback proposed by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). Congress would allow Obama to raise the debt limit in three increments totaling $2.5 trillion. It would also vote on resolutions disapproving of the debt increases, letting Republicans formally blame the increases on Obama.

To get House Republicans behind the deal, McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are revising it to include $1.5 trillion in cuts to government agencies and a new bipartisan committee to produce a framework for long-term debt reduction. Obama signalled Friday that he could live with the McConnell-Reid fallback.

So they will agree to disagree and let Obama do what is ‘best’ for the country.  And let him have full blame for doing it.  It’s a trap.  So when the nation implodes under unsustainable debt and a destroyed economy, the Republicans can point at Obama and say, “He did it.”  The Republicans may win the battle.  But they will lose the war.

A new bipartisan committee?  Didn’t we already do this?  The president’s own bipartisan committee of Erskine Bowles and former-Sen. Alan Simpson already did this.  And Obama promptly ignored their recommendations.  Then Joe Biden gave it a whirl.  And failed.  Then the president sat in meetings himself.  And failed. 

Another committee?  Why?  It’s just going to fail, too.  They need to cut government spending.  They know it.  All of these bipartisan committees know it.  Even the Chi-Coms know it.  But Obama and the Democrats just aren’t going to do it.  They’ll just keep wasting time with these meetings until they can get the Republicans to cave.  Because that’s their idea of compromise.

A “grand bargain” would mean settling for smaller tax increases on the wealthy than if Obama simply let the George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of 2012. And it could impede the economic recovery by ratcheting back government spending, thus reducing demand.

A bargain implies two competing viewpoints reconciled to best satisfy both sides.  It doesn’t work well when the Democrats simply reject the Republican’s views in toto.  And hold on to failed, dogmatic Keynesian economic policies.  For if government spending worked there would be no recession.  Or a budget debate to raise the debt limit. 

This pervasive view that these Keynesian policies are accepted as the only viable policies by the Democrats is the reason why we’re in the mess we’re in.  It appears that no amount of empirical evidence discrediting Keynesian economics will ever dissuade the Democrats from their reckless spending ways.  Thickheaded, stubborn and imbued with an air of all-knowing condescension and infallibility, they will let the country crash and burn before ever considering the idea that maybe they aren’t as brilliant as they think they are.

But as Obama sees it, the debt-ceiling crisis has offered an opportunity to fulfill his grand if nebulous campaign promise to get serious about attacking the nation’s fundamental problems. Being able to campaign on a major debt deal could outweigh giving up the chance to attack Republicans over Medicare. Settling now for a smaller tax increase on the wealthy would spare Obama a divisive fight over the Bush tax cuts. And getting the nation’s fiscal house in order could make it easier to win support for spending on education, research and infrastructure in a second term.

As for the economy, Obama seems to have adopted, at least to some degree, the Republican theory that businesses will invest more if they see Washington getting a handle on the debt. And a 10-year debt deal could be arranged so that few of the cuts went into effect immediately — there could even be some upfront stimulus included in the deal.

More spending?!?  You’re going to get your fiscal house in order (i.e., reduce the deficit) by spending more?  Well there’s only one way of doing that then, isn’t there?  With massive new taxes.  And not just on the wealthy.  These are going to have to reach deep into the middle class.  Because Obama has increased the deficit by a trillion dollars.  He’s the king of deficit spending.  He’s taken deficit spending to uncharted heights.  And it will take trillions in new taxes to reduce his deficits.  And this is the problem.  He is spending too much.

The Reagan Revolution was animated by “supply side” theory, but Ronald Reagan himself presided over several tax increases after his initial big cuts of 1981. He escaped GOP opprobrium, but George H.W. Bush caught his party’s ire when he signed a 1990 deficit-reduction deal with higher taxes. George W. Bush passed two big tax cuts, which nonpartisan budget experts now say were a major factor in today’s deficits.

Those ‘budget experts’ are no doubt Big Government Keynesian economists who love stroking their egos by advising governments on macroeconomics.  Talk to an Austrian School economist and you will hear a far different story.  And one that better stacks up against history.

Reagan made a deal with Tip O’Neil and the Democrats to cut $3 dollars of spending for every new $1 in taxes.  Of course, the Democrats lied.  They never honored their spending cuts promise.  Still his tax rate cuts nearly doubled tax receipts.  So tax rate cuts can and have increased tax revenue.  It was the out of control spending of Tip and company that gave Reagan those $200 billion deficits.  Chump change by Obama’s deficit standards. 

Bill Clinton fell ass-backwards into an economic boom thanks to the irrational exuberance of the dot-com bubble.  Money from capital gains tax from all those exercised stock options poured into federal coffers.  Then the bubble popped.  And George W. Bush started his presidency with the dot-com recession.  So, in response to the recession, Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 to stimulate the economy.  In 2003 federal tax receipts were $1.782 trillion.  In 2008 they increased to $2.524 trillion.  That’s an increase of $742 billion.  Or an increase of 41.6%. 

So, no, the Bush tax cuts did not cause the deficit.  It was TARP (caused by the Democrat’s poor oversight of, and profiting from, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their great subprime mortgage scam).  Obama’s stimulus.  And Obamacare.  An explosion of federal spending that will require an explosion of federal taxes, borrowing and/or printing to pay for.  No, this isn’t George W. Bush’s deficit.  This is Obama’s deficit.

A Shortage of Health Care Workers in Canada?

And speaking of national health care, let’s take a look at how well it is working in Canada (see Interactive Billboards: Bringing Billboards To Life by Misty Belardo posted 4/24/2011 on Bit Rebels).

An example of a great interactive campaign is this interactive billboard placed at bus stops. The campaign’s objective was to raise awareness about careers in public service. The challenge for the ad agency was to create enough interest in people so that they might seriously consider pursuing a career in public health. The big idea was to give people the feeling that they are capable of saving a life.

The billboard consisted of a huge interactive screen that illustrated a patient dying (as morbid as that may be). When a passerby pushed the hand marks on the sign, the electrocardiogram beeped, indicating that the man came back to life. Right at that moment a message read “Choose a career in public health, visit SaveLives.com.” It would be interesting to find out how many people interacted with the billboard, and even more importantly, how many of those registered and inquired about that career. Usually for campaigns like this it takes a couple months to find out the results.

The ad is apparently to attract health care workers in the province of Québec, Canada.  Which means they must have a shortage of health care workers.  And must be rationing care.  For that is an expensive way to advertise.  And you don’t do that unless the need is critical.  Whereas in America, it is one of the few growing sectors of employment.  Until the government takes it over under Obamacare, that is.  Then the Americans, too, no doubt, will be advertising to get more people to work in the bloated bureaucracy that American health care will become.

And it’s going to be bad in America.  The debate over raising the debt limit so they can pay their current bills?  Those bills don’t even include the explosive costs of Obamacare.  Those costly benefits are yet to kick in.  When they do there will be a whole lot more people covered by the same amount of health care workers, thus creating a shortage of them.  Which will require the rationing of limited health care resources.  (Unless the government finds an extra trillion dollars in some old coat in the closet.)  And then Obamacare will limp along like Medicare.  Chronically in the red.  And forever threatening to cut providers’ pay.

The State Governors know how to Govern

Part of Obama’s grand plan is to pass a lot of costs along to the states.  Because they can.  And states have to bite the bullet and absorb these costs.  Because they can’t pass them onto anyone else.  Or print money.  We call them unfunded mandates.  State governors call them bull [deleted expletive].

You see, states don’t have the options of the federal government.  They can’t be forever silly and irresponsible.  They can’t bluster in hyperbole, thump their chests with pride for a job not done and then just kick the can down the road.  They have to do what Obama and the Democrats in Washington won’t do.  Govern (see For governors, a personal toll from budget battles by Dan Balz posted 7/16/2011 on The Washington Post).

Talk to state executives gathered here at the summer meeting of the National Governors Association and it quickly becomes clear that the budget fights this year have not just left political scars, but some personal ones as well. As Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) put it, “I’ve just come through a session in which I made rotten decisions.”

In Gregoire’s view, those decisions weren’t bad because they failed to solve the state’s budgetary problems or left her budget hopelessly out of balance. To the contrary, Gregoire oversaw cuts of more than $4 billion that balanced her biennial budget.

Like many governors, Gregoire cut pay for state workers, reformed the state pension system, asked state employees to pay more for health care and retirement, eliminated cost-of-living increases for some retired state employees and revamped the state’s worker compensation system.

She cut education spending and raised college tuition.

Now that’s governing.  Doing the right thing no matter how much it pains you.  This is the way it’s supposed to be.  Politics just isn’t a game, a path to riches and a fat pension.  It’s doing what’s best for the people you govern.  Even when it goes against your own personal philosophy.

We’ve come a long way from the Intent of the Founding Fathers

It’s just more of the same from Washington.  And this is what Thomas Jefferson feared.  And why he hated Alexander Hamilton so.  Permanent government debt is a dangerous thing.  It can give you an out of control federal behemoth.  Intruding ever more on our individual liberties to feed it’s appetite for ever more revenue.  Which is what Washington is today.

Jefferson cut federal spending so much he could hardly defend American shipping.  Today the federal government collects in taxes enough to pay for one Apollo moon program each month and it still isn’t enough. 

We’ve come a long way from the intent of the Founding Fathers.  Lucky for them they didn’t live to see what we’ve done to their beloved republic.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries