Tag Archives: Congress

Italian article this am

Posted on by

Misrepresents what I say a bit, but they do have my picture next to JFK!
;)

The IMF: sovereign currency, no longer the monopoly of the banks

Eliminate the public debt of the United States at once, and do the same with Great Britain, Italy, Germany, Japan, Greece. At the same time revive the ‘ economy, stabilize prices and oust the bankers. In a clean and painless, and faster than what you can imagine. With a magic wand? No. With a simple law, but able to replace the current system, in which to create money out of nothing are private banks. We only need a measure requiring the banks to hold a financial reserve real, 100%. To propose two economists at the International Monetary Fund, Jaromir Bene and Michael Kumhof. You, the bank, you want to make money on the loan of money? First you have to prove it really that much money. Too easy to have it by the central bank (which the factory from scratch) and then “extort” families, businesses and entire states, imposing exorbitant interest.

The study of two economists, “The Chicago Plan Revisited,” with “a revolutionary and” scandalous “‘Maria Grazia Bruzzone,” La Stampa “, emphasizes the global resonance of the dossier, that bursts like a bomb on the world capitalist system now jammed. The global debt came the exorbitant sum of 200 trillion, that is 200 trillion dollars, while the world GDP is less than 70 trillion. Translated: the world debt is 300% of gross domestic product of the entire planet. “And to hold this huge mountain of debt – which continues to grow – there are more advanced economies and developing countries,” says the Bruzzone, stressing that “the heart of the problem and the cross” is the highest “power” Japan, Europe and the United States. Hence the sortie “heretical” by Bene and Kumhof: simply write off the debt, it disappears.Sparked the debate was the last IMF report, which points the finger on austerity policies aimed at reducing thepublic debt . Policies that “could lead to recession in the economies ‘, since’ cuts and tax increases depress the ‘economy ‘.

Not only. The IMF would be really worried the crisis that is ravaging the ‘ Europe threatens to be worse than the 2008 financial. The surprise is that even the IMF now thinks that “austerity can be used to justify the privatization of public services,” with consequences “potentially disastrous”. But if the problem is the debt – public, but now “privatized” by finance – you can not delete? Solution already ventilated by the Bank of England, which holds 25% of the British sovereign debt: the Bank of England may reset it by clicking on the computer. Advantages: “You will pay much less interest, it would free up cash and you could make less harsh austerity.” The debate rages on many media, starting from the same “Financial Times”. thread which breaks now the revolutionary proposal of the two IMF economists targati: cancel the debt.

“The Chicago Plan Revisited,” writes Maria Grazia Bruzzone, raises and explores the “Chicago Plan” original, drawn up in the middle of the Great Depression of the ’30s by two other economists, Irving Fisher, Henry Simons of the University of Chicago, the cradle of liberalism . Cancel 100% of the debt? “The trick is to replace our system, where money is created by private banks – for 95-97% of the supply of money – money created by the state. It would mean return to the historical norm, before the English King Charles II put in private hands control of the money available, “back in 1666. It would mean a frontal assault on the “fractional reserve” banking, accused of seigniorage on the issue of currency speculation: if lenders are instead forced to hold 100% of its reserves to guarantee deposits and loans, “pardon the exorbitant privilege of create money out of nothing. ” As a result: “The nation regained control over the availability of money,” and also “reduces the pernicious cycles of expansion and contraction of credit.”

The authors of the first “Plan of Chicago” had thought that the cycles of expansion and contraction of credit lead to an unhealthy concentration of wealth: “They had seen in the early thirties creditors seize farmers effectively bankrupt, grab their lands or comprarsele for a piece of bread. ” Today, the authors of the new edition of this plan argue that the “trauma” of the credit cycle that expands and contracts – caused by private money creation – is a historical fact that is already outlined with Jubilees Debt ancient Mesopotamia, as well as in ancient Greece and even Rome. Sovereign control (the state or the Pope) on currency, recalls Bruzzone, Britain remained so throughout the Middle Ages, until 1666, when it began the era of the cycles of expansion and contraction. With the “bank privatization” of money, add the “Telegraph”, “opened the way for the agricultural revolution, and after the industrial revolution and the biggest leap Economic ever seen “- but it is not the case of” quibbling, “quips the newspaper.

According to the young economists of the IMF, is just a myth – disclosed “innocently” by Adam Smith – that the money has been developed as a medium of exchange based on gold, or related to it. Just as it is a myth, the study points out the IMF, what you learn from books: that is the Fed, the U.S. central bank, to control the creation of the dollar. “In fact, money is created by private banks to 95-97% through loans.” Private banks, in fact, do not lend as owners of cash deposits, the process is exactly the opposite. “Every time a bank makes a loan, the computer writes the loan (plus interest) and the corresponding liability in its balance sheet. But the money that pays the bank has a small part. If it does borrow from another bank, or by the central bank. And the central bank, in turn, creates out of nothing that lends the money to the bank. ”

In the current system, in fact, the bank is not required to have its own reserves – except for a tiny fraction of what it provides. Under a system of “fractional reserve”, each money created out of nothing is a debt equivalent: “Which produces an exponential increase in the debt, to the point that the system collapses on itself.” The economists of the IMF hours overturn the situation. The key is the clear distinction between the amount of money and the amount of credit between money creation and lending. If you impose banks to lend only numbers covered by actual reserves, loans would be fully funded from reserves or profits accrued. At that point, the banks can no longer create new money out of thin air. Generate profits through loans – without actually having a cash reserve – is “an extraordinary and exclusive privilege, denied to other business.”

“The banks – says Maria Grazia Bruzzone – would become what he mistakenly believed to be, pure intermediaries who have to get out their funds to be able to make loans.” In this way, the U.S. Federal Reserve “is approprierebbe for the first time the control over the availability of money, making it easier to manage inflation.” In fact, it is observed that the central bank would be nationalized, becoming a branch of the Treasury, and now the Fed is still owned by private banks. “Nationalizing” the Fed, the huge national debt would turn into a surplus, and the private banks’ should borrow reserves to offset possible liabilities. ” Already wanted to do John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who began to print – at no cost – “dollars of the Treasury,” against those “private” by the Fed, but the challenge of JFK died tragically, as we know, under the blows of the killer of Dallas , quickly stored from “amnesia” of powerful debunking.

Sovereign coin, issued directly by the government, the state would no longer be “liable”, but it would become a “creditor”, able to buy private debt, which would also be easily deleted. After decades, back on the field the ghost of Kennedy. In short: even the economists of the IMF hours espouse the theory of Warren Mosler, who are fighting for their monetary sovereignty as a trump card to go out – once and for all – from financial slavery subjecting entire populations, crushed by the crisis , the hegemonic power of a very small elite of “rentiers”, while the ‘ economic reality – with services cut and the credit granted in dribs and drabs – simply go to hell. And ‘the cardinal assumption of Modern Money Theory supported in Italy by Paul Barnard: if to emit “money created out of nothing” is the state, instead of banks, collapsing the blackmail of austerity that impoverishes all, immeasurably enriching only parasites of finance . With currency sovereign government can create jobs at low cost. That is, welfare, income and hope for millions of people, with a guaranteed recovery of consumption. Pure oxygen ‘s economy . Not surprisingly, adds Bruzzone, if already the original “Chicago Plan”, as approved by committees of the U.S. Congress, never became law, despite the fact that they were caldeggiarlo well 235 academic economists, including Milton Friedman and English liberal James Tobin, the father of the “Tobin tax”. In practice, “the plan died because of the strong resistance of the banking sector.” These are the same banks, the journalist adds the “Print”, which today recalcitrano ahead to reserve requirements a bit ‘higher (but still of the order of 4-6%) required by the Basel III rules, however, insufficient to do deterrent in the event of a newcrisis . Banks: “The same who spend billions on lobbying and campaign contributions to presidential candidates. And in front of the new “Chicago Plan” threaten havoc and that “it would mean changing the nature of western capitalism. ‘” That may be true, admits Bruzzone: “Maybe but it would be a better capitalism. And less risky. ”

Share

Michael Bloomberg: Best Economic Stimulus is Now Fiscal Responsibility

Posted on by

So much for his legacy…

Mayor Bloomberg Outlines Specific Actions For Super Committee

By Michael Bloomberg

November 8 (Moment of Truth Project) — Mayor: Best Economic Stimulus is Now Fiscal Responsibility – Super Committee Must Break Partisan Deadlock and Take Bold Action.

The following are Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s remarks as prepared for delivery today at a forum hosted by the Center for American Progress and the American Action Forum at the Center for American Progress’ headquarters in Washington, DC. Please check against delivery.

Share

News recap comments

Posted on by

The news flow from last week was so voluminous it was nearly impossible to process. For good measure I want to start today’s commentary with a simple recap of what happened.

On the negative side –

· Greece called a referendum and threw bailout plans up in the air taking Greek 2yrs from 70% to 90% or +2000bps.
· Italian 10yr debt collapsed 40bps with spreads to Germany out 70bps. The moves were far larger in the 2yr sector.
· France 10y debt widened 25bps to Germany. At one point spreads were almost 40 wider.
· Italian PMI and Spanish employment data were miserable.
· German factory orders plunged 4.3 percent on the month.
· The planned EFSF bond for 3bio was pulled.
· Itraxx financials were +34 while subs were +45.
· Draghi predicted a recession for Europe along with disinflation.
· The G20 was flop – there was no agreement on IMF involvement in Europe.
· The US super committee deadline is 17 days away with no clear agreement.
· The 8th largest US bankruptcy in history took place.
· US 10yr and 30yr rallied 28bps, Spoos were -2.5%, the Dax was -6% and EURUSD was -3%.
· German CDS was up 16bps on the week.

On the positive side –

· The Fed showed its hand with tightening dissents now gone and an easing dissent in place.

Too bad what they call ‘easing’ at best has been shown to do nothing.

· The Fed’s significant downside risk language remained intact.

Downside risks sound like bad news to me.

· In the press conference Ben teed up QE3 in MBS space.

Which at best have been shown to do little or nothing for the macro economy.

· US payrolls, claims, vehicle sales and productivity came in better than expected.

And the real output gap if anything widened.

· S&P earnings are coming in at +18% y/y with implied corporate profits at +23 percent q/q a.r.

Reinforces the notion that it’s a good for stocks, bad for people economy.

· Mortgage speeds were much faster than expectations suggesting some easing refi pressures.

And savers holding those securities saw their incomes cut faster than expected.

· The ECB cut 25bps and indicated a dovish forward looking stance.

Which reduced euro interest income for the non govt sectors

· CME Margins were reduced.

Just means volatility was down some.

· There was a massive USDJPY intervention which may be a precursor to a Swiss style Japanese policy easing.

Which, for the US, means reduced costs of imports from Japan, which works against US exports, which should be a good thing for the US as it means for the size govt we have, taxes could be lowered to sustain demand, but becomes a bad thing as our leadership believes the US Federal deficit to be too large and so instead we get higher unemployment.

· The Swiss have indicated they want an even weaker CHF – possibly EURCHF 1.40.

When this makes a list of ‘positives’ you know the positives are pretty sorry

· The Aussies cut rates 25bps

Cutting net interest income for the economy.

Share

WSJ- Boehner pulls out of debt talks….

Posted on by

As previously discussed, the President is no longer involved, and if Congress does get a bill to his desk he’ll sign it.

Grand Bargain Talks Collapse

By Carol E Lee and Janet Hook

July 22 (WSJ) — A high-stakes effort by President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner to hatch a landmark deficit reduction deal collapsed in anger Friday, sending Washington into a weekend of negotiations over how the world’s top financial power can make good on its debt obligations.

In a letter to his colleagues, Mr. Boehner said he called off talks with the president. He informed Mr. Obama Friday night he planned to start negotiations with the Senate to seek what would likely be a smaller deal.

“In the end we couldn’t connect. Not because of different personalities, but because of different visions for our country,” Mr. Boehner wrote in the letter. Later, at a press conference, Mr. Boehner accused the president of “moving the goal post.”

Mr. Obama, visibly frustrated in his own news conference before Mr. Boehner’s, was critical of the GOP. He summoned Congressional leaders back to the White House Saturday morning where “they have to explain to me how it is we are going to avoid default.”

The president also sounded less optimistic than he has in recent weeks that congressional leaders could strike a deal that would avoid a government default. He said he has consulted with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner about the consequences of default.

Mr. Boehner said talks broke down because Mr. Obama came back at the last minute and asked for $400 billion in additional revenues on top of the $800 billion he thought they had agreed to. “Dealing with this White House is like dealing with a bowl of Jell-O,” Mr. Boehner said.

Senior White House officials said Mr. Obama called Mr. Boehner Thursday and sought more revenues, saying they were needed to win Democratic votes. They said the president was willing to negotiate the matter. Mr. Obama followed up with two more phone calls to the speaker, the White House said, and they weren’t returned until Friday evening when Mr. Boehner called to say the talks were off.

The demise of the grand bargain, the latest twist in Washington’s months-long search for an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, left the next steps uncertain. Congressional aides say the outlines of a deal must be clear by Monday if Congress is to approve a deal that would prevent the U.S. government from defaulting Aug. 2.

Treasury Department officials say that without more borrowing authority by that date, the government will run out of cash to pay all its bills, including Social Security benefits, military pensions and payments to contractors.

Several smaller options have been discussed that would cut the deficit between $1 trillion and $2.5 trillion. Changes to big government programs and the tax code won’t likely be tackled. That could solve the debt-ceiling problem, but create a new one if credit-rating firms think the agreement doesn’t justify their triple-A ratings on U.S. debt.

A debt downgrade, while not as serious as a default, could send interests rates higher and cause investors to panic. Mr. Obama raised that prospect Friday night in making the case for a larger deal.

“If we can’t come up with a serious plan for actual deficit and debt reduction, and all we’re doing is extending the debt ceiling for another six, seven, eight months, then the probabilities of downgrading U.S. credit are increased, and that will be an additional cloud over the economy and make it more difficult for us and more difficult for businesses to create jobs that the American people so desperately need,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama also said as leaders work through the weekend, they should keep in mind that the stock markets will be opening Monday.

The debt ceiling whiplash, with lawmakers lurching from one proposal to the next, has put financial markets on edge. Bond investors still appear to believe a deal will be inked, but others are bracing for volatile markets if the weekend’s negotiations don’t produce results.

“If I were, particularly, a foreign holder of U.S. debt, I’d be asking myself, ‘Who is running that country,'” said John Fath, managing partner for BTG Pactual, a Brazil-based investment bank. “This is like riding on a motorcycle and going right in front of an 18-wheeler. Are they out of their minds?”

Messrs. Obama and Boehner had incentives to push for more. They were thinking in part about their legacies, while many of their followers were focused on sticking to what they saw as their parties’ basic principles. Mr. Obama may have been willing to accept changes to programs such as Medicare, and Mr. Boehner may have countenanced tax-revenue increases.

Liberal groups Friday called Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign and Democratic congressional offices attacking the grand bargain. Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org, said it would “betray the core Democratic commitment to the middle class.”

Senior Republican aides said disagreements over taxes and changes to entitlement programs became too large to overcome.

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R., Ohio), a close friend of Mr. Boehner’s, said after an afternoon meeting of the GOP caucus: “The speaker was the most melancholy I’ve ever seen him. He’s always been a tremendous optimist. He feels he’s getting nowhere fast.”

Messrs. Obama and Boehner were discussing a deal that would set the stage for $2.7 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years and $800 billion in revenues generated through the tax code—a figure Mr. Obama suggested increasing to $1.2 billion, both sides agree. The plan would have included some of the spending cuts up front, while deferring other cuts and a tax overhaul until later.

Senior White House officials said the first part of the package, which would have immediately become law, also included an extension of unemployment insurance and the payroll tax break for employees.

A hurdle that emerged Thursday was the mechanism that would ensure Congress made good on its promise. Republicans wanted the so-called trigger to be elimination of the individual mandate in Mr. Obama’s health-care law, people familiar with the matter said. The White House refused to include that as a trigger, but said Mr. Obama would consider other options.

A smaller deal cut between congressional leaders would be a poor political outcome for both parties. The cuts likely wouldn’t be deep enough to satisfy conservatives, but would be big enough to irk liberals, and neither could claim credit for putting the U.S. on a path to long-term fiscal stability.

Senior Republican aides said they don’t know what shape a deal will ultimately take, but they said they need to present House members with an agreement by Monday to have time to pass legislation in both chambers by Aug. 2.

House Republicans will not back down from their demand for dollar–for–dollar spending cuts accompanying the debt limit increase. They have increasingly discussed a short-term debt increase, accompanied by the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts identified by budget negotiators. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.,Va.) said the GOP would offer such a plan for avoiding default “in the coming days.”

“America will pay its bills and meet its obligations, and in coming days we will offer a path forward that meets the president’s request for a debt-limit increase, manages down the debt and achieves serious spending cuts,” Mr. Cantor said.

Getting a substantial deal matters as much for financial markets as the political fate of the nation’s leaders. Standard & Poor’s has said it could lower its AAA rating on U.S. government debt if it believes any deficit-reduction agreement is inadequate or the triggers put in place aren’t credible. A lower rating would boost borrowing costs for the government, businesses and households, possibly harming the recovery and roiling financial markets.

“What we mean by credible is something that we think people are actually going to do,” David T. Beers, managing director of sovereign and public finance ratings, said in a recent interview.

Share

Economy Faces a Jolt as Benefit Checks Run Out

Posted on by

When there is a lack of aggregate demand due to high ‘savings desires’ as the unemployed take jobs when benefits expire, it just means someone else loses a job, and then some, as govt deficit spending falls as well, further reducing aggregate demand. It also serves to drive down wages, as per the latest jobs report.

Economy Faces a Jolt as Benefit Checks Run Out

By Motoko Rich

July 11 (NYT) — An extraordinary amount of personal income is coming directly from the government.

Close to $2 of every $10 that went into Americans’ wallets last year were payments like jobless benefits, food stamps, Social Security and disability, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. In states hit hard by the downturn, like Arizona, Florida, Michigan and Ohio, residents derived even more of their income from the government.

By the end of this year, however, many of those dollars are going to disappear, with the expiration of extended benefits intended to help people cope with the lingering effects of the recession. Moody’s Analytics estimates $37 billion will be drained from the nation’s pocketbooks this year.

In terms of economic impact, that is slightly less than the spending cuts Congress enacted to keep the government financed through September, averting a shutdown.

Unless hiring picks up sharply to compensate, economists fear that the lost income will further crimp consumer spending and act as a drag on a recovery that is still quite fragile. Among the other supports that are slipping away are federal aid to the states, the Federal Reserve’s program to pump money into the economy and the payroll tax cut, scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

“If we don’t get more job growth and gains in wages and salaries, then consumers just aren’t going to have the firepower to spend, and the economy is going to weaken,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, a macroeconomic consulting firm.

Job growth has remained elusive. There are 4.6 unemployed workers for every opening, according to the Labor Department, and Friday’s unemployment report showed that employers added an anemic 18,000 jobs in June.

In Arizona, where there are 10 job seekers for every opening, 45,000 people could lose benefits by the end of the year, according to estimates from the state Department of Economic Security. Yet employers in the state have added just 4,000 jobs over the last 12 months.

Some other states will also feel a disproportionate loss of income unless hiring revives. In Florida, where nearly 476,000 people are collecting unemployment benefits, employers have added only 11,200 jobs in the last year. In Michigan, employers have added about 40,000 jobs since May 2010, but about 267,000 people are claiming jobless benefits.

Throughout the recession and its aftermath, government benefits have helped keep money in people’s wallets and, in turn, circulating among businesses. Total government payments rose to $2.3 trillion in 2010, from $1.7 trillion in 2007, an increase of about 35 percent.

While some of that growth was in Social Security and disability benefits as the population aged, the majority resulted from payments to people continuing to suffer from the recession, said Mr. Zandi. Unemployment benefits, including emergency and extended benefits, are more than three times their prerecession level, he said. The nearly 20 percent of personal income now provided by the government is close to a record high.

Approved by Congress last December, the final extension of jobless benefits — for a maximum of 99 weeks for each unemployed person — is scheduled to conclude at the end of this year. A handful of states, like Wisconsin and Arizona, have already cut off weeks 80 through 99 for their residents. Meanwhile, more of the long-term unemployed are bumping up against the 99-week limit.

Consumers account for an estimated 60 to 70 percent of the country’s economic activity, but two years into the official recovery, businesses are still complaining that people simply are not spending enough.

“Regardless of why people have less money to spend, it affects all retailers in all industries,” said Michael Siemienas, spokesman for SuperValu, which operates grocery chains including Cub Foods, Shop ’n Save and Save-A-Lot. Mr. Siemienas said that the number of SuperValu’s customers using electronic benefit transfers to pay bills had grown over the last year.

Because benefit payments tend to be spent right away to cover basic needs like food and rent, they provide a direct boost to consumer spending. In a study for the Labor Department, Wayne Vroman, an economist at the Urban Institute, estimated that every $1 paid in jobless benefits generated as much as $2 in the economy.

For many of the nearly 7.5 million people collecting unemployment benefits, those payments are keeping them afloat. Laura Metz, 42, was laid off from a clerical job paying $15.30 an hour at a home health care provider near her home in Commerce, Mich., nearly 15 months ago. She has been collecting $362 a week in unemployment insurance and about $50 a month in food stamps.

That covers the basics. But Ms. Metz stopped making her mortgage payments last year on the modest home she shares with her 19-year-old son. A program that allowed her to make a lower monthly payment has expired, and she is waiting to see if the lender will modify her loan. She can no longer make her student loan payments for her bachelor’s degree or master’s in business administration, and she has downgraded her Internet and cable service and cut back on car trips and snacks.

Ms. Metz, who has been applying for administrative jobs, has been shocked at the dearth of opportunities. A decade ago, when she applied for clerical jobs, “as soon as I walked up, there was a sign saying ‘We’re hiring,’ but it’s not like that now,” she said. “It’s really, really difficult.”

Businesses that rely heavily on low-income shoppers worry that their customers will have little to spend. Najib Atisha, who co-owns two small grocery stores in Detroit, said people receiving government assistance made up about a third of his customers downtown and as much as 60 percent at his store on the west side of the city.

“Of course, we’re hoping that things will turn around, but it’s always easier to lose jobs than it is to gain jobs,” Mr. Atisha said. “I think it’s going to take twice as long to rebound as it took to get where we are now.”

Some business groups argue that extending unemployment benefits has had deleterious effects on employers and potential workers.

“It’s having a chilling effect on hiring,” said Wendy Block, director of health policy and human resources at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. “At one point, our unemployment taxes were just a blip on the balance sheet, but when you’re talking over $500 a head, this is significant.” Last year, Michigan spent $6.2 billion on jobless benefits, according to the National Employment Law Center.

Some economic studies show that people who collect unemployment benefits are less likely to look for or accept work until their benefits are close to running out.

“Unemployment insurance extends the typical amount of time that people will spend off the job and not looking for work,” said Chris Edwards, an economist at the Cato Institute, a libertarian organization.

In Michigan, Ms. Metz said that if all else failed, she would have to move in with her parents, who live on a fixed income. But she is determined to find work before her benefits run out and plans to expand her search to include light industrial manufacturing. “It’s getting close to the end,” she said. “And I got to do what I got to do.”

Share

CBO Congressional Report- U.S. Could Face European-Style Debt Crisis

Posted on by

How about the accounts sticking to accounting.

Just in case you thought there was any hope:

But most ominously, the CBO report warns of a “sudden fiscal crisis” in which investors would lose faith in the U.S. government’s ability to manage its fiscal affairs. In such a fiscal panic, investors might abandon U.S. bonds and force the government to pay unaffordable interest rates. In turn, the report warns, Washington policymakers would have to win back the confidence of the markets by imposing spending cuts and tax increases far more severe than if they were to take action now.

U.S. Could Face European-Style Debt Crisis: Congressional Report

June 22 (AP) — The rapidly growing national debt could soon spark a European-style crisis unless Congress moves forcefully, the Congressional Budget Office warned Wednesday in a study that underscores the stakes for a bipartisan group working on a plan to reduce red ink.

Republicans seized on the non-partisan report to renew their push to reduce costs in federal benefit programs such as Medicare — the federal government health care program that benefits the elderly.

The report said the national debt, now $14.3 trillion, is on pace to equal the annual size of the economy within a decade. It warned of a possible “sudden fiscal crisis” if it is left unchecked, with investors losing faith in the U.S. government’s ability to manage its fiscal affairs.

Democrats and Republicans have been stepping up budget talks aimed at averting what could be the disastrous first-ever default on U.S. government debt. A bipartisan group led by Vice President Joe Biden tasked with reaching an agreement has not made the politically difficult compromises on the larger issues, such as changes in Medicare, or tax increases.

The study reverberated throughout the Capitol as Biden and negotiators and senior lawmakers spent several hours behind closed doors. The talks are aimed at outlining about $2 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade, part of an attempt to generate enough support in Congress to allow the Treasury to take on new borrowing.

Biden made no comment as he departed, except to say the group would meet again on Thursday and probably Friday as well.

The CBO, the non-partisan agency that calculates the cost and economic impact of legislation and government policy, says the nation’s rapidly growing debt burden increases the probability of a fiscal crisis in which investors lose faith in U.S. bonds and force policymakers to make drastic spending cuts or tax increases.

“As Congress debates the president’s request for an increase in the statutory debt ceiling, the CBO warns of a more ominous credit cliff — a sudden drop-off in our ability to borrow imposed by credit markets in a state of panic,” said Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

The findings aren’t dramatically new, but the budget office’s analysis underscores the magnitude of the nation’s fiscal problems as negotiators struggle to lift the current $14.3 trillion debt limit and avoid a first-ever, market-rattling default on U.S. obligations. The Biden-led talks have proceeded slowly and are at a critical stage, as Democrats and Republicans remain at loggerheads over revenues and domestic programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

With Republicans insisting that the level of deficit cuts at least equal the amount of any increase in the debt limit, it would take more than $2 trillion in cuts to carry past next year’s elections. House Republican leaders have made it plain they only want a single vote before the elections.

That $2 trillion-plus goal is proving elusive. And a top Senate Democrat warned Wednesday that it would be insufficient anyway.

“While I am encouraged by the bipartisan nature of the leadership negotiations being led by Vice President Biden, I am concerned by reports the group may be focusing on a limited package that will not fundamentally change the fiscal trajectory of the nation,” said Senate budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a Democrat. “That would be a mistake.”

Democratic leaders, however, held a news conference Wednesday to argue for more economic stimulus measures such as a proposal floated by the White House to extend a payroll tax cut enacted last year. The move demonstrates the continuing appeal of deficit-financed policy solutions — suggested even as warnings of the dangers of mounting debt grow louder and louder.

“We absolutely need to reduce our deficit. We know that,” said Demoratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “But economists tell us that reducing spending is only half the equation. The other half is measures to create jobs.

President Barack Obama planned to meet with House Democratic leaders Thursday to discuss the status of the deficit reduction talks. The meeting comes as Democrats want the president to rule out Medicare benefit cuts as part of any budget deal.

The White House said the meeting will address deficit reduction through a “balanced framework,” a term the White House uses to describe cuts in spending coupled with increased tax revenue.

With the fiscal imbalance requiring the government to borrow more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends, the CBO predicts that without a change of course the national debt will rocket from 69 percent of gross domestic product this year to 109 percent of GDP — the record set in World War II — by 2023.

The CBO’s projections are based on a scenario that anticipates Bush-era tax cuts are extended and other current policies such as maintaining doctors’ fees under Medicare are continued as well. The debt would be far more stable under the budget office’s official “baseline” that assumes taxes return to Clinton-era rates and that doctors absorb unrealistic fee cuts.

Economists warn that rising debt threatens to devastate the economy by forcing interest rates higher, squeezing domestic investment, and limiting the government’s ability to respond to unexpected challenges like an economic downturn.

But most ominously, the CBO report warns of a “sudden fiscal crisis” in which investors would lose faith in the U.S. government’s ability to manage its fiscal affairs. In such a fiscal panic, investors might abandon U.S. bonds and force the government to pay unaffordable interest rates. In turn, the report warns, Washington policymakers would have to win back the confidence of the markets by imposing spending cuts and tax increases far more severe than if they were to take action now.

Share

Congress to Act If SEC Doesn’t

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

One by one they are finally getting around to doing what they should have done long ago.

In my opinion, it’s all gotten ‘over the hump’ and the Obamaboom is underway with new fiscal measures adding fuel to the fire as they kick in.

Most recessions are inventory cycles of one kind or another.

Q2 08 was up 2.8% real when the Great Mike Masters Interplanetary Inventory Liquidation hit with a vengeance in July.
Supply from inventory liquidation took away demand for new production, triggering an unprecedented downward spiral in the real economy that brought the already stressed world financial sector/equity markets as well.

The automatic stabilizers of falling tax revenue and rising transfer payments increased the deficit to something over 5% of GDP annualized by year end.

This process directly adds nominal income and ‘savings’ of financial assets to the non govt sectors, until it reverses.

The inventory liquidation seemed to end in late December, as savings was reported to have leaped to over 5% of income (annualized) with the budget deficit doing much the same.

Personal income/spending turned up in January as Federal pay raises kicked in as well.

Core retail sales firmly up January and February- Q1 GDP estimates being revised up.

The unprecedented damage to the real economy and our standard of living could have been avoided by a proactive fiscal response soon after commodity prices broke and GDP forecasts were being revised down.

But that was not to happen.

Instead we got the fiscal response the ‘ugly way’ via falling revenues and rising transfer payments from the collapse in the real economy.

But now that process looks like it may have run its course, with the federal deficit (ex TARP which doesn’t count for this purpose- it’s just a shifting around of financial assets) annualizing at well over 5% of GDP for Q1 09.

And, as in previous cycles, the long delayed political response kicks in after the bottom and the Obamaboom begins!

Also, as previously discussed, there has been no action taken to reduce fuel consumption in the near term, so expect any demand to give the Saudis cover to raise prices to any level they want without ‘blame.’

And, with employment and wages improving only with a considerable lag, and the outsized support directed to banking and the financial sector, watch for the transfer of wealth to the upper income groups quickly surpass the extremes of the previous administration.

Kanjorski: Congress May Need To Act On Mark-to-market Rules

by Jesse Westbrook

Mar 12 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Representative Paul Kanjorski said Congress will revise an accounting measure that banks blame for exacerbating the financial crisis if regulators don’t act “quickly” to give companies more leeway in applying the rule.

“If the regulators and standard setters do not act now to improve the standards, then the Congress will have no other option,” Kanjorski, the Pennsylvania Democrat who leads a House financial services subcommittee, said at a hearing today. So- called mark-to-market accounting has “produced numerous unintended consequences.”


[top]

Share

Galbraith/Wray/Mosler submission for February 25

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

This is the paper being presented next week in DC.

Please distribute.

Comments welcome!

This is how it begins:

Comments on the FASB Exposure Drafts relating to “Comprehensive Long-term Projections for the U.S. Government (ED 1)” and to “Accounting for Social Insurance. (ED 2)”



Testimony Submitted by:

James K. Galbraith, Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr., Chair in Government/Business Relations, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin
TX 78712 and Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute.

L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics, the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute.

Warren Mosler, Senior Associate Fellow, Cambridge Center for Economic and
Public Policy, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, and Valance Co., St Croix, USVI.

Date: February 25, 2009

In this testimony we supplement our earlier letter, which responded to specific questions on the first exposure draft. Here we set out general principles of federal budget accounting, and then we offer specific comments on the proposed reporting procedures in both of the exposure drafts.

General Principles of Federal Budget Accounting

Even though some principles of accounting are universal, federal budget accounting has never followed and should not follow the exact procedures adopted by households or business firms. There are several reasons why this is true.

First, the government’s interest is the public interest. The government is there to provide for the general welfare, and there is no correlation between this interest and a position of surplus or deficit, nor of indebtedness, in the government’s books.

Second, the government is sovereign. This fact gives to government authority that households and firms do not have. In particular, government has the power to tax and to issue money. The power to tax means that government does not need to sell products, and the power to issue currency means that it can make purchases by emitting IOUs. No private firm can require that markets buy its products or its debt. Indeed taxation creates a demand for public spending, in order to make available the currency required to pay the taxes. No private firm can generate demand for its output in this way. Neither of these statements is controversial; both are matters of fact. Nor should they be construed to imply that government should raise taxes or spend without limit. However, they do imply that federal budgeting is different from private budgeting, and should be considered in its proper, public context.

While it is common to regard government tax revenue as income, this income is not comparable to that of firms or households. Government can choose to exact greater tax revenues by imposing new taxes or raising tax rates. No firm can do this; even firms with market power know that consumers will find substitutes if prices are raised too much. Moreover firms, households, and even state and local governments require income or borrowings in order to spend. The federal government’s spending is not constrained by revenues or borrowing. This is, again, a fact, completely non-controversial, but very poorly understood.

The federal government spends by cutting checks – or, what is functionally the same thing, by directly crediting private bank accounts. This is a matter of typing numbers into a machine. That is all federal spending is. Unlike private firms, the federal government maintains no stock of cash-on-hand and no credit balance at the bank. It doesn’t need to do so. There are surely limits of wisdom and prudence on federal spending, as well as numerous checks, balances, and self-imposed constraints, but there is no operational limit. The federal government can, and does, spend what it wants.

Tax receipts debit bank accounts. So does borrowing from the public. These are operationally distinct from spending. There is no operational procedure through which federal government “uses” tax receipts or borrowings for its spending. If, perchance, one chooses to pay taxes in cash, the Treasury simply issues a receipt and shreds the cash. It has no need for the income in order to spend. This is why it is a mistake to look at federal tax receipts as an equivalent concept to income of households or firms.

As we discuss below, federal government spending has exceeded tax revenues, with only brief exceptions, since the founding. There is no evidence, nor any economic theory, behind the proposition that federal government spending ever needs to match federal government tax receipts—over any period, short or long. The deficit per unit time is the difference between taxing and spending over that time. To repeat, the taxing on the one hand and the spending on the other are operationally independent. Any reasonable observer should conclude that federal government spending is not, and need not be, dependent on, constrained by (or even related to) tax revenues in the way that the spending of households or firms is related to their incomes.

The difference between microeconomic and macroeconomic accounting is also pertinent. An individual household or firm has a balance sheet that consists of its assets and liabilities. The spending of that household or firm is constrained, in a fairly concrete sense, by its income and by its balance sheet— by its ability to sell assets or to borrow against them. It is meaningful to say that its ability to deficit-spend is constrained: a household must get the approval of a bank before spending can exceed income, and therefore its borrowing is subject to banking norms. But if we take households or firms as a whole, the situation is different. The private sector’s ability to deficit-spend, to spend more than its income, depends on the willingness of another sector to spend less than its income. For one sector to run a deficit, another must run a surplus. This surplus is called saving – claims against the deficit sector. In principle, there is no reason why one sector cannot run perpetual deficits, so long as at least one other sector wants to run surpluses.


[top]

Share

Why it matters how the 700 billion is accounted for

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

It would be counter productive to add the $700 billion to the budget deficit calculation if the proposal goes through and is executed, since Congress is likely to take measures to somehow constrain spending or increase revenues to try to ‘pay for it’. This would be highly contractionary at precisely the wrong time.

Note that if the Fed buys mortgage securities it doesn’t add to the deficit, while the Treasury buying the same securities does? And in both cases treasury securities are sold to ‘offset operating factors’; either way, Fed or Treasury, the government exchanges treasury securities for mortgage securities.

When any agent of the government buys financial assets, that particularly spending per se doesn’t add to aggregate demand, or in any way or directly alter output and employment.

Yet here we are listening to the Fed Chairman, the Treasury Secretary, and members of Congress talking about $700 billion of ‘taxpayer money’ and a potential increase in the deficit of $700 billion.
And no one argues with statements like ‘it is even more than we spent in Iraq’ and ‘that much money could better spent elsewhere’. Unfortunately for the US economy, this supposed addition to the deficit is likely to negatively impact future spending, perhaps at the time when it’s needed most to support demand.

I recall something like this happened in 1937, when revenues collected for social security weren’t ‘counted’ as part of the Federal budget, and the millions collected to go into the new trust fund
were in fact simply a massive tax hike. Unemployment went from something like 12% to maybe 19% (and stayed about that high until WWII deficit spending brought unemployment down to near zero). After that happened much was written regarding public vs private accounting and the cash flow from social security and other programs was subsequently counted as part of the federal budget calculation, as it is today, and for the same reason.


[top]

Share

On the floor of the Senate today

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

From the last two paragraphs it looks like another fiscal package is on the way?

Interesting how little damage to the real economy it takes to trigger a fiscal response – GDP last printed at 3.3% and the relatively modest job losses are not nearly enough to have triggered a fiscal response in the past from either party?

So it seems behind the rhetoric the Democrats in Congress are in fact reacting more to financial sector needs.

Probably because, like the Republicans, most of their constituents are also shareholders.

The move to broaden shareholdings has had profound political ramifications that has undercut the previous agendas of both parties.

A few months ago the far left in Congress was congratulating the Fed chairman for keeping inflation expectation well contained even as other prices were rising, after it was explained that this meant keeping wages in check.

Since when doe the ‘far left’ praise a Fed chairman for suppressing wages, especially when the cost of living is on the rise???

Having a nation of shareholders seems to have redirected overall public purpose?

The 30% corporate income tax means the government already ‘better than ownes’ 30% off all the US based equity- it’s the direct pipe, and easily increased or decreased by decree.

Equity held at this level has very different political effects than individual ownership of shares.

Yet there is no discussion of any of this, anywhere in the public debate.

Meanwhile, crude seems to be acting like the ‘Master’s inventory liquidation’ may have run its course and the Saudis are again moving prices back up as demand for their output remains firm and their excess capacity is too thin for comfort.

This drives down the USD, making our stocks ‘cheaper’ to foreigners, so look for more foreign takeovers, which will be spun as the US ‘needing’ foreign borrowers and being ‘rescued’ by them.

Reid: While Financial Markets Reel, Bush-McCain Republicans Call For More Of The Same

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

“On the morning of October 30, 1929, President Herbert Hoover awoke the day after the biggest one-day stock market crash in American history, surveyed the state of the U.S. economy and declared, ‘The fundamental business of the country, that is production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis.’

“In the coming weeks and months, President Hoover remained in an economic bubble, unaware of the extreme suffering of ordinary Americans – even declaring that anyone who questioned the state of the economy was a ‘fool.’ For Herbert Hoover, ignorance was bliss. And it wasn’t until the American people replaced this out of touch Republican president with a Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt, that our nation’s economic recovery began.

“Yesterday, nearly 80 years after the Hoover Administration took America with blissful ignorance into depression, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 500 points – the biggest one-day decline since trading opened after the attacks of 9/11. With one major investment bank headed for bankruptcy, another sold at a bargain-basement price, and one of the world’s largest insurance companies teetering, investors rushed to sell their shares.

“With our financial markets reeling, the American people are wondering whether they will lose their jobs, whether they will be able to pay their child’s next tuition bill, whether their pension and retirement savings will be safe.

“There is no reason to think we are headed into an economic depression. There is no reason to panic. Yet one Senator – John McCain – woke up yesterday morning, surveyed the state of the U.S. economy, summoned the ghost of his fellow Republican, Herbert Hoover, and declared, ‘The fundamentals of our economy are strong.’

“For whom are the fundamentals of our economy strong? Not for the 606,000 Americans who have lost their jobs this year alone. Not for the commuters and truckers who are sending more and more of their hard-earned dollars to pay for fuel. Not for all those struggling to make one pay check last until the next, with record hme heating prices looming in the coming winter months. Not for cities and towns that have been forced to cut back on police, schools and firefighters because their tax base is shrinking. And certainly not for the millions of families who have or may soon lose their homes, or for the tens of millions who are seeing their home equity plummet.

“No matter what George Bush, John McCain or the ghost of Herbert Hoover may think, this economy is not strong, and the American people deserve better.

“This is not a time for panic. But it is a time to look back on the past eight years of Bush-Hoover-McCain economics and figure out what brought us to this point so that we don’t repeat the same mistakes. And the tragic truth is that this disaster was avoidable. In its palpable disdain for all things relating to government, the Bush/Cheney Administration willfully neglected the government’s most important function: to safeguard the American people from harm.

“In their simplistic philosophy of ‘big business equals good, government equals bad,’ the Administration and the Republican Congress failed to conduct oversight and let the financial sector go wild. Without anyone regulating their actions, market excess destroyed the financial prudence that allowed a firm like Lehman Brothers to prosper for 158 years. Vast fortunes were made virtually over night, and now vast fortunes have been lost literally over night.

“The unfortunate irony is that the Bush Administration’s zeal to favor big business has now crippled it – and left the American people to pay the price. President Bush did nothing to stop this disaster, and now it’s clear he’ll leave the mess to the next president.

“Now our nation must decide who is better suited to end Bush-Hoover economics and return sanity and security to our economy. Senator McCain says the economy is not his strong suit, so he went searching for an economic advisor who could bolster his weakness. Who did he choose? Former Senator Phil Gramm. The same Phil Gramm who, as a Senator, was responsible for deregulation in the financial services industries that paved the way for much of this crisis to occur.

“A respected economist at the University of Texas, James K. Galbraith, said that Gramm was ‘the most aggressive advocate of every predatory and rapacious element that the financial sector has’ and that ‘he’s a sorcerer’s apprentice of instability and disaster in the financial system.’

“It was Phil Gramm who pushed legislation through a Republican Senate that allowed firms like Enron to avoid regulation and destroy the life savings of its employees, and it was Phil Gramm’s legislation that now allows Wall Street traders to bid up the price of oil, leaving us to pay the bill. Warren Buffet called the result of Gramm’s legislation ‘financial weapons of mass destruction.’ And now, the architect and leading cheerleader for every mistake and neglect that created the Bush/Cheney financial nightmare is whispering into the ear of John McCain – who says he doesn’t know much about the economy.

“Whether you call it Hoover economics, Bush economics, or McCain economics, it is not a recipe for change – it’s a recipe for more of the same.

“For all of the college students worried about finding a job, the working families who don’t know how they’ll pay the bills, and the fixed-income senior citizens trying to figure out how to pay for medicine, we must do better.

“We can’t afford another Republican president who will follow his party’s ghosts down the path of recession, depression and more suffering. We desperately need a president who understands that working people, not industry titans, are the backbone of our economy. We need a president who will cut taxes for working people and senior citizens; end the windfall profits of oil companies and put that money back into the pockets of those who are paying record prices at the pump; and put millions of Americans back to work by investing in jobs on Main Street, not Wall Street.

“In November, we can elect that President who will break from the past and invest in the future. Until then, the Senate should pass a second economic stimulus plan that funds infrastructure projects that will create jobs; prevents cuts in desperately-needed state services; and invests in renewable energy, expanded unemployment benefits for victims of the Bush-McCain economy, and helps working people and senior citizens afford the costs of energy.

“I expect the House of Representatives to pass a stimulus bill in the coming days. When it arrives in the Senate, I hope it will be embraced by Senators from both parties as a critical first step on the long road from economic ruin toward economic recovery.”


[top]

Share