Federal revenue sharing


[Skip to the end]

Hi Jason,

I have proposed giving states $300 billion in revenue sharing funds on a per capita basis, rather than responding to specific projects and needs.

That way each state is accountable to it’s own voters for how it spends the Federal funds.

What I would not recommend is having the states compete for Federal funds based on specific projects, which puts the accountability on the federal side.

I would also not let this allocation interfere with any other Federal priorities, such as funding an energy policy.

Thanks,
Warren

States Would Get Free Hand in Stimulus Plan to Speed Spending

by Lorraine Woellert and Angela Greiling Keane

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — The economic stimulus package headed to Congress in January would let states and localities, rather than the federal government, decide how to spend the bulk of the money, lawmakers and lobbyists say.

The stimulus measure being worked out by aides to President- elect Barack Obama and congressional staff members calls for much of the cash to be pumped into existing transportation and energy programs without federal directives on how to spend the money.

Advocates of the approach say it would speed congressional approval of Obama’s push to inject into the economy what some senators say may surpass $700 billion over the next two years.

Lawmakers in Congress would forgo their more time-consuming practice of loading the measure with thousands of pork-barrel projects known as earmarks.

The strategy also raises the possibility that state and local officials would use the money to finance their own wish lists of projects that wouldn’t necessarily create the most jobs or serve all of Obama’s goals.

The approach, part of an effort to get the bill to Obama by the time he takes office Jan. 20, sidesteps what could be a protracted negotiation over potentially thousands of specific projects.

Block Grants

“Instead of Congress earmarking funding, I am expecting that we will give block grants to states, giving them discretion over which projects to prioritize,” said Senator Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat and chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Groups representing state highway officials, transit systems and energy agencies say the approach would allow them to break ground on billions of dollars’ worth of projects as soon as the legislation passes.

Among critics, the concern is that writing checks to states and localities could shortchange Obama’s public transit and clean-energy programs in favor of spending on roads, which get the bulk of transportation spending under current formulas.

Closed-Door Talks

Funneling the money into existing programs would keep lawmakers from haggling over the merit of thousands of individual projects.

Energy-saving projects, for example, would be financed through programs at the federal Energy and Interior departments, which would then send the money to states and localities.

“There are a number of state funds and programs that do renewable energy deployment and energy infrastructure retrofits,” said Bracken Hendricks, an Obama campaign adviser and analyst at the Center for American Progress, a policy group in Washington helping with the transition. “It’s an existing spending infrastructure and it’s been very, very effective.”

Billions for Roads

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, a Democrat from Minnesota, wants to allocate at least $45 billion in infrastructure improvements to states based on current highway spending formulas.

Horsley of the state highway and transportation group said state officials would know how best to spend any stimulus funds.

“Congress isn’t going to attempt to earmark these projects,” Horsley said. “If speed is of the essence, the states have documented, ready-to-go projects.”

Mayors met last week with Oberstar and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, to make the case for their $73.2 billion list of projects. The group says these projects could create as many as 848,000 jobs over the next two years in 427 cities.

The projects “will immediately employ people, support small businesses, and stimulate Main Street economies,” said Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, president of the mayors’ conference.


[top]

Re: ECB ending Fed swap lines!


[Skip to the end]

(email exchange)

>   
>   On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Scott wrote:
>   
>   ECB says to discontinue US dollar swap OPS from end Jan.
>   
>   I guess they don’t want euro to strengthen!
>   

Exactly!

This is the new century version of ‘competitive devaluations.’

Paulson moved first by talking foreign CB’s out of buying USD reserves.

Bernanke thought he was helping with rate cuts.

China said ‘no mas’ a while back started ‘letting’ the yuan depreciate, probably via USD purchases.

Japan recently announced ‘no mas’ and that they were prepared to resume USD buying to abort yen appreciation.

If the ECB in fact cuts off its banks ‘cold turkey’ from the Fed’s $ the shock can be enormous.

Ramifications:

Upward pressure on USD LIBOR.

Downward pressure on the euro.

Upward pressure on eurozone credit default premiums.

Falling US equities.

Etc.

ECB to Discontinue Dollar Swap Tenders From the End of January

By Jana Randow

Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) — The European Central Bank said it will discontinue its euro-dollar foreign exchange swap tenders at the end of January due to “limited demand.”

Right! Only $300 billion outstanding.

The ECB will continue to loan banks in Europe as many dollars as they need for terms of 7, 28 and 84 days in exchange for eligible collateral, the Frankfurt-based central bank said in a statement today. Dollar swaps “could be started again in the future, if needed in view of prevailing market circumstances,” the ECB added.

Those circumstances being the strong euro?


[top]

Paulson weak dollar policy ends- MOF to resume intervention


[Skip to the end]

Before the body is cold the MOF has announced they are no longer going to be intimidated by being called ‘currency manipulators’ and ‘outlaws’ by Paulson and are resuming the building of the USD reserves to support their export industries.

Bernanke’s beggar thy neighbor policy is being matched by real action- direct intervention- rather than interest rate rhetoric.

The move in the yuan suggest China has been doing much the same.

This will leave the eurozone all the more vulnerable as they are the only nation not using fiscal policy and ideologically cant buy USD, so the combination of a relatively high euro and weak domestic demand will keep them on the ropes while others recover.

Yen Declines as Nakagawa Says Japan May Take Currency Action

By Kim-Mai Cutler and Stanley White

Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) — The yen weakened from near a 13-year high against the dollar after Japanese Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa signaled the nation is ready to intervene in the foreign-exchange market for the first time in four years.

“We will take necessary steps if needed” to limit the currency’s advance and protect the overseas earnings of Japanese exporters, Nakagawa told reporters in Tokyo. The dollar fell to an 11-week low against the euro on speculation the Federal Reserve’s near-zero interest rate policy will reduce the appeal of U.S. assets.


[top]

Obama package smaller than expected


[Skip to the end]

Obama team dismisses reports of trillion dollar stimulus

ByJessica Yellin

(CNN) – An Obama transition official says reports that the president-elect will release a stimulus plan with a trillion-dollar price tag are overblown, and that the actual figure being discussed is far smaller.

Some outside economists have pushed the trillion-dollar figure. One recent report suggested the transition team was working with an $850 billion plan. But this official describes the amount Obama advisors are currently considering as significantly lower than both.
Obama and his economic team met for four hours yesterday. They are still working on the package, which will not be announced before the president-elect returns from Hawaii later this month.


[top]

Fed’s powers of consequence


[Skip to the end]

Thanks, Jim.

Now consider this- the main thing interest rate policy does is move income between savers and borrowers.

For example, in the last year or so savers have gone from earning maybe 4.5% to something near 0 today. And borrowers (and lenders making larger spreads) have equally benefited.

So what I’m getting at is the Fed has the authority to shift mega sums from savers to borrowers, and vice versa.

That’s like giving the social security commissioner the authority to raise payroll taxes and pay out more benefits, etc.

Not to mention the swap line authority where the fed can lend unlimited sums to foreign governments, and on an unsecured basis as well.

The real ‘power’ of the Fed is with these powers of distribution, which far outweigh the generally perceived power of altering the macro economy via changes in interbank interest rates.


[top]

2008-12-18 USER


[Skip to the end]


Initial Jobless Claims (Dec 13)

Survey 558K
Actual 554K
Prior 573K
Revised 575K

 
Down a bit but 4 week average still moving up.

[top][end]

Continuing Claims (Dec 6)

Survey 4375K
Actual 4384K
Prior 4429K
Revised 4431K

 
Down a touch, but still going parabolic.

[top][end]

Jobless Claims ALLX (Dec 13)

[top][end]

Philadelphia Fed (Dec)

Survey -40.5
Actual -32.9
Prior -39.3
Revised n/a

 
Better than expected, up a touch, but still at very low levels.

[top][end]

Philadelphia Fed TABLE 1 (Dec)

[top][end]

Philadelphia Fed TABLE 2 (Dec)

[top][end]

Leading Indicators (Nov)

Survey -0.4%
Actual -0.4%
Prior -0.8%
Revised -0.9%

 
Still looking soft.

[top][end]

Leading Indicators ALLX (Nov)


[top]

The Fed and Deleveraging, revisited


[Skip to the end]

Deleveraging involves nothing more than ‘reintermediation’ back to the banking system (as described in more detail previous posts).

The government has failed to facilitate this transition back to a banking model to allow it transpire in an orderly fashion.

All that needed to happen was for credit spreads to go to levels that represented competitive returns on equity for banks, as banks picked up loans and securities no longer wanted by the non bank entities.

The move to mark to market from mark to model for banks, however, effectively added ‘spread risk’ to holding longer term loans and securities.

This mark to market risk also effectively raised bank capital requirements (as required by bank investors) in order to invest in the suddenly higher volatility investments.

This also increased the risk to investors of banks already holding securities that were subject to mark to market accounting.

The Fed allowed this risk to interfere with banks ability to fund their liabilities, as the Fed lends to member banks only against specific collateral.

Faced with a potential liquidity crisis, banks were compelled to respond by restricting lending that would otherwise have been considered profitable.

This led to the (continuing) downward spiral of the real economy.

The downward spiral is also characterized by a general (deflationary) inventory liquidation of housing and commodities.

I have been proposing (for the last 15 years) the Fed as Congress to remove the collateral requirement for member bank borrowing (it’s redundant in any case).

I have also proposed they extend their lending to member banks to include longer dated lending to set the term structure of rates as desired.

The Fed continues to slowly move towards this ‘target’ with it’s ‘new lending facilities’ and polices, but it continues to fall short.

The failure to act on the mark to market issue keeps risk for bank shareholders ‘artificially’ elevated which keeps credit spreads wider than otherwise.

I have also stated that while taking the right steps to facilitate the ‘great repricing of risk’ and the reabsorbtion of lending by the banking system would end the ‘financial crisis,’ it does not address the accelerating shortage of aggregate demand that’s been evidenced by rising unemployment and the widening output gap.

The near universal belief that lower interest rates sufficiently add to aggregate demand to restore output and employment and the numerous ‘deficit myths’ have delayed the substantial fiscal adjustment required to sustain aggregate demand at full employment levels in the current environment.

I have therefore proposed a ‘payroll tax holiday’ where the Treasury makes all FICA, medicare, etc. payments for employees and employers, along with a $300 billion revenue sharing program for the States to immediately fund operations and infrastructure programs.

Additionally, any economic recovery not associated with a program to reduce crude oil consumption risks a sudden shortage of supply and re escalation of prices.

Our govt’s ongoing mismanagement of the economy since q2 08 can be entirely attributed to a fundamental lack of understanding of our monetary system by govt, the mainstream financial and academic economic community, and the media that promotes this misunderstanding to the political leadership and general public.


[top]

Quantitative Easing for Dummies


[Skip to the end]

FACTBOX: What is quantitative easing?

Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:30pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The Federal Reserve on Tuesday cut its target for overnight interest rates to zero to 0.25 percent, bringing it closer to unconventional action to lift the economy out of a year-long recession.

“The message is they’re instituting quantitative easing on a fairly large scale,” said Doug Roberts, chief investment strategist at Channel Capital Research.com.

Under quantitative easing, central banks flood the banking system with masses of money to promote lending.

Central banks exchange non or low interest bearing assets- reserve balances- for longer term higher yielding securities.

Since lending is in no case ‘reserve constrained’, the ‘extra’ reserves do nothing for lending.

The purchase of the longer dated securities results in lower longer term rates than otherwise. The lower borrowing rates may or may not alter aggregate demand.

The lower rates for savers definitely lowers aggregate demand.

They usually do this when lowering official interest rates no longer is effective because they already are at or near zero.

True!

The central banks add cash by buying up large quantities of securities — government debt, mortgages, commercial loans, even stocks — from banks’ balance sheets,

Yes.

giving them plenty of new money to lend.

No, they already and always have infinite ‘money to lend’.

Available funds are not a constraint for the banking system.

The constraints are regulated asset quality and capital requirements that are expressed in the rates bank charge.

Not the total quantity of funds available.

It is a tool used by Japan earlier this decade to combat deflation and stimulate the economy.

Didn’t work then either. It was fiscal policy that kept them afloat, though not a large enough deficit to sustain output at full employment levels.


[top]