Category Archives: Government Spending

Greg Walden to introduce bill to stop U.S. Treasury from creating trillion dollar platinum coins

Posted on by

More of the blind leading the blind. Either way Treasury only spends what’s authorized by Congress. And all the coin does is shift interest expense from the Treasury to the Fed.

Illogic is clearly a adaptive trait for holding office. As they say in Church, it’s another mysteriously rushed contradiction wrapped in an enema…

Greg Walden plans to introduce bill to stop U.S. Treasury from creating trillion dollar platinum coins to pay bills and expand debt

U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) today announced plans to introduce a bill to stop a proposal to mint high-value platinum coins to pay the federal government’s bills.

“Some people are in denial about the need to reduce spending and balance the budget. This scheme to mint trillion dollar platinum coins is absurd and dangerous, and would be laughable if the proponents weren’t so serious about it as a solution. I’m introducing a bill to stop it in its tracks,” Rep. Walden said.

“My wife and I have owned and operated a small business since 1986. When it came time to pay the bills, we couldn’t just mint a coin to create more money out of thin air. We sat down and figured out how to balance the books. That’s what Washington needs to do as well. My bill will take the coin scheme off the table by disallowing the Treasury to mint platinum coins as a way to pay down the debt. We must reduce spending and get our fiscal house in order,” Rep. Walden said.

Within the last week, numerous media reports (example here) have suggested that the U.S. Mint could create trillion dollar platinum coins, which would then be deposited into the Federal Reserve to be used to pay the federal government’s bills or avoid hitting the debt ceiling. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, touted the proposal last week (story here). New York Times columnist and Princeton professor Paul Krugman suggested the idea in an article as well (click here). Other leaders in Washington, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have urged the President to raise the debt limit unilaterally without permission from Congress.

Representative Walden, a member of the House Republican leadership, represents the Second District of Oregon, which includes 20 counties in the southern, central and eastern regions of the state.

Share

ecb getting there?

Posted on by

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Jan 6, 2013 6:41 AM, Andrea wrote:
>   
>   Some interesting points made by Ulrich Bindseil and Adalbert Winkler (ECB) in
>   their October 2012 paper
>   
>   How about these authors rethinking fiscal policy in the light of this?
>   ;-)
>   

The results of our analysis are as follows:

• A central bank that operates under a paper standard with a flexible exchange rate and without a monetary financing prohibition and other limits of borrowings placed on the banking sector is most flexible in containing a dual liquidity crisis.

• Raising interest rates to attract funding / capital inflows, while being the standard economic mechanism in normal times, may fail to equilibrate demand and supply in a confidence crisis as higher interest rates make it less likely that borrowers will be able to serve the debt. As a result, within any international monetary system characterized by some sort of a fixed exchange rate, the availability of inter-central bank credit determines the elasticity of a crisis country’s central bank in providing liquidity to banks and financial markets, notably government bond markets. Thus, the sustainability of fixed exchange rate systems depends on the elasticity of inter-central bank credit, i.e. the ability and willingness of the central banks of “safe haven countries” to provide loans to central banks of countries in financial distress (gold standard and peg to another country’s currency) and on the elasticity of liquidity provision by the common central bank (monetary union).

• In a monetary union, like the euro area, international arrangements are replaced by a common central bank that provides lender-of-last-resort lending to banks. In the institutional set-up of the euro area where national central banks are in charge of the actual conduct of central bank operations with a country’s banking system, this provision of liquidity is reflected in the “TARGET2 balances”. At the same time, the comparison of a central bank of a euro area type monetary union with a country central bank operating under flexible exchange rates and a paper standard, like the US Federal Reserve, shows that central banks under the former framework have a similar capacity in managing dual liquidity crises as long as the integrity of the monetary union is beyond any doubt.

• Collateral constraints matter systematically under all monetary frameworks. As a result, a central bank confronted with a dual liquidity crisis has to be in a position to adjust collateral constraints in order to enhance the elasticity of its liquidity provision and to limit bank defaults and a deepening of the crisis. If done prudently, this may actually reduce central bank risk taking.

• Banks and securities markets can be subject to a liquidity crisis. However, while lender of last resort activities vis-à-vis banks are a widely accepted toolkit of a central bank, outright purchases of securities have been a controversial tool of central bank liquidity provision in financial crisis since the days of the real bills doctrine. Monetary financing prohibitions (regarding Governments) are a specific case of banning direct lending or primary market purchases of securities, namely securities issued by governments. If the central bank is either not allowed, or it is unwilling to conduct outright purchases of securities, the banking sector – supported by the central bank – can in principle act as the lender of last resort for debt securities markets. However, this is subject to additional constraints, i.e. the banks’ ability and willingness to perform this role. Moreover, it has specific drawbacks as, for instance, the possibility of diabolic solvency loops between banks, the issuers of debt securities, including the government and the real economy may arise.

• Borrowing limits of banks, i.e. quantitative credit constraints deliberately imposed by the central bank to limit the borrowing of banks from the central bank, accelerate a crisis because – if enforced – they signal to banks and markets that at those limits the central bank’s elasticity of liquidity provision ends. As a result, those limits push all banks (potentially) affected into a state of fear of becoming illiquid and hence into a state of strict liquidity hoarding.

Share

UK remains hopelessly out of paradigm

Posted on by

U.K. Labour to Strip Benefits From Unemployed If Job Refused

By Kitty Donaldson

January 4 (Bloomberg) — The U.K.’s opposition Labour Party called for a compulsory jobs guarantee for the long-term unemployed, making state welfare payments dependent on paid employment.

The party’s treasury spokesman, Ed Balls, said the guarantee would initially be for adults who are out of work for 24 months or more, though Labour would seek to reduce this to 18 or 12 months over time. The party said there are currently 129,400 adults over the age of 25 who have been out of work for two years or more, a rise of 88 percent in a year.

To pay for the jobs guarantee, which Balls estimates would cost 1 billion pounds ($1.6 billion), he would restrict tax relief on pension contributions for people earning more than 150,000 pounds a year.

“A One Nation approach to welfare reform means government has a responsibility to help people into work and support those who cannot, but those who can work must be required to take up jobs or lose benefits as a result — no ifs or buts,” Balls wrote in an article for the Politics Home website today. “Britain needs real welfare reform that is tough, fair and that works, not divisive, nasty and misleading smears from an out-of- touch and failing government.”

‘Squeezed Middle’

Labour and Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservatives are battling to attract what the premier calls the “strivers” and opposition leader Ed Miliband the “squeezed middle” of voters whose wages aren’t rising in line with inflation and who are suffering from cuts in public services.

An overhaul of the welfare system is at the heart of the debate, with the Tories seeking to portray themselves as defenders of hard-working families by cutting the welfare bill, and Labour saying it is protecting the most vulnerable in society. Today’s announcement by Balls seeks to show Labour will also be tough on the long-term unemployed.

The Conservative Party said Balls had already pledged in March last year to spend the 1 billion pounds from pension tax relief to increase tax credits for low-paid workers and families with children.

“We are taking firm action to help the long-term unemployed Labour left behind get back into work,” Conservative Party Chairman Grant Shapps said in an e-mailed statement. “Ed Balls is trying to spend the same money twice. That means more borrowing and more debt — exactly how Labour got us into this mess in the first place.”

Share

post cliff notes

Posted on by

So the main thing that happened was my payroll tax holiday expired (I read that this was the only bipartisan bill passed into law in the last 4 years), which will reduce the average family’s take home pay (both working) by over $200/month.

That’s a lot, and its highly regressive. And about as high multiple as you can get, with a lot of that income is leveraged into car payments
and mtgs. and other debt service.

It all brings us back to very modest GDP growth, maybe a bit of (population adjusted) employment growth, and a bit of top line revenue growth for corporations.

Ok for stocks, not so ok for people trying to work for a living.

And more deficit reduction to come.

Share

Growth Impact from Yesterday’s Deal

Posted on by


Karim writes:

The straight Keynsian impact (i.e., assume multiplier of 1) of the measures announced yesterday work out to a 1.25% drag on GDP, mostly felt in the first few months of the year. This reflects the payroll tax rise (about 0.7%), the rise in taxes and tighter rules on deductions for higher incomes (about 0.4%) and Obamacare fees (about .05%).

What remains unknown and could remain a drag just based on uncertainty effects are the 2mth delay in deciding on sequestration cuts (which may or may not happen), and obviously the debt ceiling. Both of these deadlines are likely to occur within 2weeks of each other in late Feb/early March.

Uncertainty has been removed in making lower and middle income tax rates permanent as well as the permanent patch for the AMT.

The current structure for unemployment benefits was extended by a year.

Share

quick look ahead for the euro zone

Posted on by

After describing since inception how the euro zone was going to get to where it is, here’s my guess on what’s coming next.  

First, to recap, it took them long enough and it got bad enough before they did it, but they did decide to ‘do what it takes’ to end the solvency issues and, after the Greek PSI thing, make sure the markets stopped discounting defaults as subsequently evidenced by falling interest rates for member nation debt.

But it’s solvency with conditionality, and so while they solved the solvency and interest rate issue, the ongoing austerity requirements have served to make sure the output gap stays politically too wide.  The deficits are high enough, however, for an uneasy ‘equilibrium’ of
near/just below 0% overall GDP growth and about 11% unemployment.

However, all of this is very strong euro stuff, where the euro appreciates at least until the (small) trade surplus turns to deficit.  This could easily mean 1.50+ vs the dollar (and worse vs the yen) for example. This process at the same time further weakens domestic demand which supports a need for higher member govt deficits just to keep GDP near 0.

So at some point next year I can see deficits that refuse to fall resulting in more demands for austerity, while the strong euro results in demands for ‘monetary easing’ from the ECB.  Of course with what they think is monetary easing actually being monetary tightening (lower rates, bond buying, everything except direct dollar buying, etc.) the fiscal and monetary just works to further support the too strong euro stronger.  

All this gets me back to the idea that the path towards deficit reduction in this hopelessly out of paradigm region keep coming back to the unmentionable PSI/bond tax.  Seems to me we are relentlessly approaching the point where further taxing a decimated population or cutting what remains of public services becomes a whole lot less attractive than taxing the bond holders.  And the process of getting to that point, as in the case of Greece, works to cause all to agree there’s no alternative.  With the far more attractive alternative of proactive increases in deficits that would restore output and employment not even making it into polite discussion, I see the walls closing in around the bond holders, along with the argument over whether the ECB writes down it’s positions back on page 1. And just the mention of PSI in polite company throws a massive wrench (spanner) into the gears.  For example, if bonds go to a discount, they’ll look towards ECB supported buy backs to reduce debt, again, Greek like.  And if prices don’t fall sufficiently, they’ll talk about a forced restructure of one kind or another, all the while arguing about what constitutes default, etc.

The caveats can change the numbers, but seems will just make matters worse.  

The US going full cliff is highly dollar friendly, much like austerity supports the euro.  In fact, the expiration of my FICA cut- the only bipartisan thing Obama has done- which apparently both sides have agreed to let happen, will alone add quite a bit of fiscal drag.  This means less euro appreciation, but also lower US demand for euro zone exports.  So the cliff does nothing good for the euro zone output gap.  

And Japan seems to be targeting the euro zone for exports with it’s euro and dollar buying weakening the yen, as evidenced by Japan’s growing fx reserves (where else can they come from?).

The price of oil could spike, which also makes matters worse.

In general, I don’t see anything good coming out of the current global political leadership.

Please let me know if I’m missing anything!

Share

Professor Stephanie Kelton in the LA Times!!!

Posted on by

Forget the ‘fiscal cliff’

By Stephanie Kelton

Dec 21 (LA Times) — Look, up in the sky! It’s a “fiscal cliff.” It’s a slope. It’s an obstacle course.

The truth is, it doesn’t really matter what we call it. It only matters what it is: a lamebrained package of economic depressants bearing down on a lame-duck Congress.

This hastily concocted mix of across-the-board spending cuts and tax increases for all was supposed to force Congress to get serious about dealing with our nation’s debt and deficit. The question everyone’s asking is this: On whose backs should we balance the federal budget? One side wants higher taxes; the other wants spending cuts. And while that debate rages, the right question is being ignored: Why are we worried about balancing the federal budget at all?

You read that right. We may strive to balance our work and leisure time and to eat a balanced diet. Our Constitution enshrines the principle of balance among our three branches of government. And when it comes to our personal finances, we know that the family checkbook must balance.

So when we hear that the federal government hasn’t balanced its books in more than a decade, it seems sensible to demand a return to that kind of balance in Washington as well. But that would actually be a huge mistake.

History tells the tale. The federal government has achieved fiscal balance (even surpluses) in just seven periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, 1920-30 and 1998-2001. We have also experienced six depressions. They began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.

Do you see the correlation? The one exception to this pattern occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the dot-com and housing bubbles fueled a consumption binge that delayed the harmful effects of the Clinton surpluses until the Great Recession of 2007-09.

Why does something that sounds like good economics balancing the budget and paying down debt end up harming the economy? The answers may surprise you.

Spending is the lifeblood of our economy. Without it, there would be no sales, and without sales, no profits and no reason for any private firm to produce anything for the marketplace. We tend to forget that one person’s spending becomes another person’s income. At its most basic level, macroeconomics teaches that spending creates income, income creates sales and sales create jobs.

And creating jobs is what we need to do. Until the fiscal cliff distracted us, we all understood that. Today, we have roughly 3.4 people competing for every available job in America. The unemployment rate is like a macroeconomic thermometer when it registers a high rate, it’s an indication that the deficit is too small.

So in our current circumstance a growing but fragile economy policymakers are wrong to focus on the fact that there is a deficit. It’s just a symptom. Instituting tax increases and spending cuts will pull the rug out from under consumers, thereby disrupting the income-sales-jobs relationship. Slashing trillions from the deficit will only depress spending for year to come, worsening unemployment and setting back economic growth.

Conveying this is an uphill battle. The public has been badly misinformed. We do not have a debt crisis, and our deficit is not a national disgrace. We are not at the mercy of the Chinese, and we’re in no danger of becoming Greece. That’s because the U.S. government is not like a household, or a private business, or a municipality, or a country in the Eurozone. Those entities are all users of currency; the U.S. government is an issuer of currency. It can never run out of its own money or face the kinds of problems we face when our books don’t balance.

The effort to balance the books that’s at the heart of the fiscal cliff is simply misguided. Instead of butting heads over whose taxes to raise and which programs to cut, lawmakers should be haggling over how to use the tool of a federal deficit to boost incomes, employment and growth. That’s the balancing act we need.

Stephanie Kelton is an associate professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and the founder and editor of New Economic Perspectives. @deficitowl

Share