Category Archives: Government Spending

post debt ceiling crisis update

Posted on by

With the debt ceiling extended, the risk of an catastrophic automatic pro cyclical Treasury response, as previously discussed, has been removed.

What’s left is the muddling through with modest topline growth scenario we’ve had all year.

With a 9% budget deficit humming along, much like a year ago when markets began to discount a double dip recession, I see little chance of a serious collapse in aggregate demand from current levels.

It still looks to me like a Japan like lingering soft spot and L shaped ‘recovery’ with the Fed struggling to meet either of its mandates will keep this Fed ‘low for long’, and that the term structure of rates is moving towards that scenario.

With the end of QE, relative supply shifts back to the curve inside of 10 years, which should work to flatten the long end vs the 7-10 year maturities. And the reversal of positions related to hedging debt ceiling risks that drove accounts to sell or get short the long end work to that same end as well.

The first half of this year demonstrated that corporate sales and earnings can grow at reasonable rates with modest GDP growth. That is, equities can do reasonably well in a slow growth, high unemployment environment.

However, a new realization has finally dawned on investors and the mainstream media. They now seem to realize that government spending cuts reduce growth, with no clarity on how that might translate into higher future private sector growth. That puts the macroeconomic picture in a bind. The believe we need deficit reduction to ward off a looming financial crisis where we somehow turn into Greece, but at the same time now realize that austerity means a weaker economy, at least for as far into the future as markets can discount. This has cast a general malaise that’s been most recently causing stocks and interest rates to fall.

With crude oil and product prices leveling off, presumably because of not so strong world demand, the outlook for inflation (as generally defined) has moderated, as confirmed by recent indicators. As Chairman Bernanke has stated, commodity prices don’t need to actually fall for inflation to come down, they only need to level off, providing they aren’t entirely passed through to the other components of inflation. And with wages and unit labor costs, the largest component of costs, flat to falling, it looks like the the higher commodity costs have been limited to a relative value shift. Yes, standards of living and real terms of trade have been reduced, but it doesn’t look like there’s been any actual inflation, as defined by a continuous increase in the price level.

However, the market seem to have forgotten that the US has been supplying crude oil from its strategic petroleum reserves, which will soon run its course, and I’ve yet to see indications that Lybia will be back on line anytime soon to replace that lost supply. So it is possible crude prices could run back up in September and inflation resume. For the other commodities, however, the longer term supply cycle could be turning, where supply catches up to demand, and prices fall towards marginal costs of production. But that’s a hard call to make, until after it happens.

With the debt ceiling risks now behind us, the systemic risk in the euro zone is now back in the headlines. Unlike the US, where the Treasury is back to being counter cyclical (unemployment payments can rise should jobs be lost and tax revenues fall), the euro zone governments remain largely pro cyclical, as market forces demand deficits be cut in exchange for funding, even as economies weaken. This means a slowdown to that results in negative growth and rising unemployment can accelerate downward, at least until the ECB writes the check to fund counter cyclical deficit spending.

China had a relatively slow first half, and the early indicators for the second half are mixed. Manufacturing indicators looked weak, while the service sector seemed ok. But it’s both too early to tell and the numbers can’t be trusted, so the possibility of a hard landing remains.

Japan is recovering some from the earthquake, but not as quickly as expected, and there has yet to be a fiscal response large enough to move that needle. And with global excess capacity taking up some of the fall off in production, Japan will be hard pressed to get it back.

Falling crude prices and weak global demand softening other commodity prices, looks dollar friendly to me. And, technically, my guess is that first QE and then the debt ceiling threats drove portfolios out of the dollar and left the world short dollars, which is also now a positive for the dollar.

The lingering question is how US aggregate demand can be this weak with the Federal deficit running at about 9% of GDP. That is, what are the demand leakages that the deficit has only partially offset. We have the usual pension fund contributions, and corporate reserves are up with retained earnings/cash reserves up. Additionally, we aren’t getting the usual private sector borrowing to spend on housing/cars as might be expected this far into a recovery, even though the federal deficit spending has restored savings of dollar financial assets and debt to income ratio to levels that have supported vigorous private sector credit expansions in past cycles.

Or have they? Looking back at past cycles it seems the support from private sector credit expansions that ‘shouldn’t have happened’ has been overlooked, raising the question of whether what we have now is the norm in the absence of an ‘unsustainable bubble.’ For example, would output and employment have recovered in the last cycle without the expansion phase of sub prime fiasco? What would the late 1990’s have looked like without the funding of the impossible business plans of the .com and y2k credit expansion? And I credit much of the magic of the Reagan years to the expansion phase of what became the S and L debacle, and it was the emerging market lending boom that drove the prior decade. And note that Japan has not repeated the mistake of allowing the type of credit boom they had in the 1980’s, accounting for the last two decades of no growth, and, conversely, China’s boom has been almost entirely driven by loans from state owned banks with no concern about repayment.

So my point is, maybe, at least over the last few decades, we’ve always needed larger budget deficits than imagined to sustain full employment via something other than an unsustainable private sector credit boom? And with today’s politics, the odds of pursuing a higher deficit are about as remote as a meaningful private sector credit boom.

So muddling through seems here to stay for a while.

Share

The danger is from the spending cuts, not the potential downgrade

Posted on by

The headlines are all about the risks of default or a too small deficit reduction package causing a downgrade of US debt.

And while markets react to those issues, they all miss the point.

The consequences of a downgrade to US govt debt are minor at best.
Note that when Japan was downgraded below Botswana,
with a debt/GDP ratio nearly triple that of the US,
interest rates remained the lowest in the world

The real risk comes from the spending cuts.

No debt ceiling extension is the worst case-
Government spending falls by some $150 billion/month as expenses can’t exceed revenues
Fed Chairman Bernanke mentioned that might reduce GDP by a full 6%
And that’s just the first order effect, as a falling economy means falling tax revenues,
Which means further reductions in Treasury spending in a pro cyclical nightmare.

And if they do extend the debt ceiling it will be with prescribed spending cuts.
This too adds drag to the economy.
The more the cuts are meaningful and immediate, the more the drag on the economy increases.

Because the markets don’t yet understand this,
the feedback they are giving is misleading policy makers,
and encouraging them to make deeper, more meaningful cuts.

Share

Kelton responds to the Progressive Caucus Co-chair

Posted on by

Maddening! The Clinton surpluses were driven by the dot.com bubble and unsustainable private sector deficits. When the bubble burts, stocks crashed, the economy went into recession, and the surplus quickly reversed itself. It was only AFTER the government’s budget moved sharply into deficit that the private sector was able to get out of the red. All of this would happened even without 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the subprime crisis, etc. We cannot keep relying on asset bubbles (stocks, housing, whatever) to drive economic growth.

The simple fact is this: A GOVERNMENT SURPLUS IMPLIES A DEFICIT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. And the private sector, unlike the public sector, cannot survive when it’s running a deficit. Anyone who does not recognize this simple fact (intuitively or empirically) should not offer commentary on matters of such significance.

Government Deficits allow the private sector to net save financial assets. Balance the budget, and the private sector loses financial assets. Run a government surplus, and you drive the private sector into deficit.

Someone in Washington better figure this out pretty damn quick, or our children and grandchildren are going to be burdened like never before.

The Ph.D. Economists who blog here understand:

This Is Our Moment

By Rep. Keith Ellison

July 28 — America has an historic opportunity. We have the chance to address our budget deficit in a manner not seen since President Bill Clinton created a budget surplus in 1999. And if we do it right, we could pave the way for a vibrant American economy based not on gimmicks like giveaways for special interests, but on job creation for working Americans. As co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, I urge us to avoid a default on the faith and credit of the United States while protecting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

At every step of the way, Republicans in Washington have blocked a fair plan. The American people are demanding that our government resolves deficits while maintaining our promises to the middle class. Yet, an uncompromising political faction is stonewalling and ignoring the clarion call of this historic moment.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus stands with the American people. Long before Republicans took our economy hostage, we introduced the People’s Budget, the most fiscally responsible deficit plan introduced this year. The People’s Budget would eliminate the deficit in 10 years. Economists across the political spectrum have called it courageous and responsible. Introducing this budget was one of my proudest moments as a Member of Congress, because it shows the power of Progressive policies and values. Creating an economy that reduces deficits and creates jobs is a progressive value, not just a slogan as it is for the Tea Party.

As the People’s Budget has proposed, and the president has affirmed, our solution must reflect the same values that have motivated us historically. We believe in a fiscally healthy America because it leads to an economically healthy America. A balanced budget is critical precisely because it allows us to maintain the services that the middle class depends on. Any deficit deal that takes money away from seniors and American workers who rely on Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid undermines the original goal of deficit reduction. Any deficit deal that cuts food stamps but pampers the wealthy is not only bad for the most vulnerable Americans, but damages our fiscal health.

Progressive economic policies lead to a sustainable economy. Americans understand this and history confirms it. Progressive policies implemented since the early 1900s launched America into the modern age and created a vibrant, middle class. Yet, for 10 years, Republicans have given more money to special interests, while the middle class has footed the bill. They passed the biggest tax cut ever for millionaires and billionaires, without paying for a dime of it. They passed a giveaway to the pharmaceutical lobbyists that will cost $1 trillion over 10 years. And it was George W. Bush, not President Obama, who ran roughshod into two unfunded wars, which alone are estimated to have cost us $4 trillion, more than 20% of the deficit.

The stakes are too high now. Republicans have taken us to the brink of default, and it is already hurting our economy. If we do default, the pain our middle class feels would be even worse. Retirement investments would be threatened by plummeting stock prices; higher interest rates would make it more expensive for Americans to pay off credit bills; and the unemployment rate would skyrocket in the face of decreased consumer spending. House Speaker John Boehner’s proposal is less a good-faith effort to avoid a default than an appeal to a narrow sliver of his political base. As Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote yesterday, “[Boehner’s plan] could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern US history.” Most worrisome of all, it wastes our opportunity for a long-term solution and stalls progress for another six months. Credit agencies have already hinted Boehner’s plan would not convince them that America is able to pay its bills.

Progressives know this is America’s moment to lead. The deadline is upon us – but so is the opportunity.

Share

DeMint and Erickson to Boehner : HOLD THE LINE

Posted on by

Says it all:

Boehner-Reid Debt Plan

By Sen. Jim DeMint

July 26 — I have troubling news. I’m very careful about criticizing my party’s leaders, but what is happening in Washington right now cannot be ignored.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has abandoned the Cut-Cap-Balance Act and is now pushing a new plan that is nearly identical to the one proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

The Boehner-Reid plan gives the President an immediate increase in the debt limit and only promises to cut spending in the future. It violates all three principles of the Cut-Cap-Balance Pledge because it does not substantially cut current spending, it does not truly cap future spending, and it does not require the passage of a strong Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the debt limit.

In short, I oppose the Boehner-Reid plan because it won’t balance the budget and stop the debt that is destroying our country.

The Boehner-Reid Plan

You will hear many claims about this plan over the next few days as it is pushed through the House and Senate. Some of these claims will be true, but many will be false. Here are the facts. The Boehner-Reid plan:

Provides two increases in the debt limit — $900 billion and $1.6 trillion — totaling $2.5 trillion. It gives the President an immediate $900 billion increase given that Congress does not vote to disapprove it. It gives the President another $1.6 trillion increase next year if a bill written by a new Super Committee passes both houses and becomes law.

Reduces spending by only $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. This amount won’t even come close to balancing the budget, as the debt is expected to grow by as much as $10 trillion over the next decade. The plan also reduces spending by only $6 billion in 2012. Considering that our government currently spends $10 billion a day, $6 billion is far too little to cut over the first year of the plan.

Calls for a vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment but does not require its passage. Without passage of a strong Balanced Budget Amendment, Congress will never break its addiction to spending.

Makes it virtually impossible to stop the debt limit from going up. The debt ceiling increases can only be stopped if Congress passes a resolution of disapproval and then votes to override the President’s veto with two-thirds support in the House and Senate.

Creates a new, 12-member Super Committee to write another “grand bargain” to reduce the deficit by at least $1.6 trillion. It does not, however, prohibit the Super Committee from writing a bill to raise taxes and destroy jobs. The bill can then be fast-tracked through the House and Senate with no amendments.

Why It Should Be Rejected

After reviewing the details of Boehner-Reid plan, I cannot support it.

It won’t balance the budget and stop the debt. Even if the cuts called for in the plan were real, the debt will still increase by $7 trillion over the next ten years.

It won’t protect our AAA bond rating. According to financial reports, this plan will not reduce long-term spending by enough to prevent a downgrade. If we lose our AAA rating, it will create higher interest rates and cause our debt to grow even faster.

It will likely result in higher taxes that will destroy even more jobs. The unemployment rate is over 9 percent. We cannot afford to lose more jobs when so many Americans are struggling to find work.

There are some in my party who think I should ignore the flaws of the Boehner-Reid plan, bite my tongue, and support my party’s leaders. If I thought this were a political game, that might make sense. But the future of our country is at stake, I don’t believe this plan will save it, and I have a moral obligation to say so.

The Way Forward

Fortunately, there is a much better solution.

The Cut-Cap-Balance Act would balance the budget, stop the debt, and protect our AAA bond rating. This legislation passed the House with bipartisan support but was blocked by Democrats in the Senate.

The votes in the Senate for Cut-Cap-Balance are there if Republicans stand firm. 23 Democrats in the Senate have expressed support for the Balanced Budget Amendment at some point in their careers. They’re blocking it now because they believe Republicans will blink and agree to something much less.

And that’s exactly what will happen if the Boehner-Reid plan is passed. It gives the big spenders in Washington everything they wanted — an increase in the debt limit, phony spending cuts, and a mechanism to pass tax increases.

Please call your senators today and urge them to oppose the Boehner-Reid plan and to demand passage of the Cut, Cap, Balance Act.

Respectfully,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator
Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund

In Defense of Holding the Line

By Erick Erickson

July 26 — I’m getting beat to hell and back by conservatives for insisting the GOP hold the line on Cut, Cap, and Balance. Even here at RedState, I’m getting accused of “ideological intransigence.” Yeah, here at RedState. There’s a first time for everything.

People want a deal. People want John Boehner’s deal. People are upset with me for not liking John Boehner’s deal. People are telling me, “They only have one house, Erick. You can’t expect them to not compromise. They control nothing.”

I’ve said all along I expect a deal and a compromise. Here’s the problem and I need you to understand this from perspective, whether you agree with me or not.

See, I worked to send people to Washington, DC to solve problems, to make things right, to fix the things that were broken, and to send power back to the states. They are not doing that.

We all saw Democrats go to Washington in 2008 and take the whole thing. They controlled everything and they made everything worse. They passed a stimulus bill that killed or ruined hundreds of thousands of jobs in the private sector while growing the government. They increased dependency on the federal government. And then they passed Obamacare and socialized American healthcare. But it doesn’t fully take effect until 2014. We saw Democrats willing to lose their positions to lurch the nation left.

So we sent to Washington an army of conservatives to Washington to defund Obamacare and stop the White House. And now they’ve gotten there and have refused to fight. They promised and put in writing that they’d cut $100 billion from the federal government budget in 2011 and they ultimately cut only $38 billion. The Congressional Budget Office, when it was done scoring it, said they really were only cutting about $500 million and it would cost more money that it was worth it to actually cut those dollars.

So they said, “But we”ll stand firm on the debt ceiling. We’ll hold the line.” Everybody gave them a pass and said, “Okay, hold the line on the debt ceiling.”

Now here we are the week before the deadline. John Boehner laments they should have done it sooner, but he refused to do it sooner. The Speaker has prevented the Republicans from submitting legislation to ensure we would not default so that he would have leverage over his own members to force them to take a deal. And now they are dealing.

What is their deal?

Their deal creates another committee to look at spending — the 18th in the past 30 years. These 18 committees have never done anything except raise taxes. Their spending cuts are put off a decade and future congresses ignore them.

Boehner’s spending caps are easily waived as they’ll be rules, not laws. And they punt.

A lot of you are emailing and getting on twitter saying to take the deal. Take the compromise. Why should we compromise? That’s what we always do. Even when in the majority we compromise. The Democrats didn’t compromise on healthcare. But you people want to compromise. Republicans, whether in the majority or minority, are always compromising in favor of bigger government and imaginary spending cuts.

To make matters worse, why the hell are the Republicans the ones coming up with the plans if they only control one house of one branch of the federal government? Why are they doing it? We’re on the third damn plan. They aren’t even compromising with the Democrats. They are compromising with themselves.

The Democrats are holding their line. The GOP is splitting conservatives. The Democrats are saying “Raise the debt ceiling. Don’t cut anything.” And Boehner is saying okay and putting in cuts that take affect in year eight of ten so none of them will be around to be held accountable. Why?

The GOP came up with Paul Ryan’s plan. They passed it. They took bullets. The GOP put him in a witness protection program and dropped it like a hot potato.

So then the GOP passed Cut, Cap, and Balance and the Democrats beat them up and again accused the GOP of killing grandma. The leadership was lukewarm to it and never fought for it. And immediately after voting for it, the leadership said, “Now, let’s move on to the third plan.”

Are these all just symbolic votes? If so, I’d rather some substance. This symbolism is getting the GOP killed with nothing to show for it.

Why the hell are we on our third plan when the Democrats haven’t even come up with one plan? They haven’t even passed a budget in over 800 days. We’re in this mess because Harry Reid, in December of 2010, refused the raise the debt ceiling so the GOP could own the problem. The GOP fell into the trap with eyes wide open.

And the Republicans are falling for it yet again.

And now I’m being accused of thinking this is all a game even by long time RedState readers. I do not think this is all a game.

I know the credit rating is going to be downgraded and I don’t want it to happen. You people who want the deal are so worked up in emotion that you are ignoring all the facts. Here are the facts:

1. S&P says we need a deal of at least $4 trillion in cuts to avoid a credit rating drop.

2. Neither Boehner nor Reid get us there.

3. The only plan that gets us there is Cut, Cap, and Balance and the GOP is running away from it as fast as they can. The GOP already passed it and it just four votes shy of a majority in the Senate.

No one wants to fight. “No, we’ve already had that vote. It can’t pass the Senate,” they say.

There will be no default on August 2nd. We know it will not happen. How do we know? Because we have more money coming in each month than is needed to pay principle and interest on our national debt. And we have had multiple prior occasions where we have gone passed the deadline and the world did not suddenly end. It is all political rhetoric. Shame on you for succumbing to fear.

Barack Obama does not want to be remembered as the President on whose watch the nation defaulted. His leverage goes away on August 3rd and the GOP holds all the cards. We won’t default. We can improve our negotiating position.

The GOP could hold the line. And because they won’t hold the line, they are tanking our credit behind a bunch of smoke and mirrors. If the Democrats blame the GOP when the credit rating drops, the GOP will damn well deserve the blame if they stick with Boehner’s plan.

They could at least fight to turn the tide. They could at least hold the line.

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

Debt ceiling dynamics: President Obama now irrelevant

Posted on by

It now seems to me the President will sign anything Congress sends to him for final approval.

So the question is whether the Senate and House can agree to anything they can both pass and send to the President.

And there is no point in further discussion with the President.

It’s all up to the Congress and it’s not looking promising.

Especially when deep down most probably think:

“It’s a good thing for the govt, like a drug addict, to get it’s credit card taken away and go cold turkey and be forced to limit spending to current tax revenue.

Yes, bad things might happen- stocks might go down, interest rates and unemployment might go up, and tens of thousands of businesses fail as GDP falls.

But with govt out of the way, the pain will pass and the private sector then flourish as never before.
Best to take that medicine now, suffer that pain now, and get by it to the promised land.

Not getting the debt under control will mean far worse consequences for all of us and especially for our posterity.”

So it’s the entire mindset that’s working against getting any bill to the President’s desk.

The last time I felt this was was during the Cuban Missile crisis.
Fortunately, back then, Russia blinked.

Obama

July 22 (Bloomberg) — House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner broke off talks with President Barack Obama on Friday and said he will begin negotiations with Senate leaders aimed at meeting an Aug. 2 deadline to avert an unprecedented U.S. debt default.

In a dramatic turn of events with the deadline to raise the U.S. debt ceiling just 11 days away, a stern-faced Obama expressed frustration at the Republican leader’s move, saying it was “hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from this kind of deal.”

In a letter to congressional colleagues, Boehner, the top U.S. Republican, said talks with the Democratic president had become futile, citing Obama’s demand to raise taxes.

Putting the onus on Obama, Boehner said: “The president is emphatic that taxes have to be raised. As a former small businessman, I know tax increases destroy jobs.

In a press conference, Boehner said the White House “moved the goal posts” at the last minute. He said, “Dealing with the White House is like dealing with a bowl of Jell-O.”

“We put plan after plan on the table,” Boehner said, adding that the president never brought a plan to the table.

Still, he said he’ll attend the Saturday morning meeting President Obama called of all the congressional leaders, adding that he doesn’t believe the relationship with the White House is permanently damaged.

“I’m confident that Congress can act next week,” he told reporters.

Lawmakers will need to have a deal in place by early next week in order to make sure it can be passed by both houses by the Aug. 2 deadline.

President Obama held a press conference to announce the news. He said Boehner’s decision came after the president offered to cut discretionary spending by $1 trillion. He said he thought he was offering an “extraordinarily fair” deal.

The president said the talks broke down over tax revenue but that both sides had been only about $10 billion apart on spending cuts.

Obama told reporters “there does not seem to be a capacity” for Republicans to agree to a debt limit deal.

Obama said he has summoned Boehner and other congressional leaders—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi—to the White House for a meeting at 11 a.m. ET Saturday.

“We have run out of time and they are going to have to explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default and ask them to do the tough thing but the right thing,” the president said.

Both the president and Rep. Boehner said they were confident that the U.S. wouldn’t default on its obligations.

“We have never defaulted on our debt and we’re not about to do it now,” Obama said.

Obama said he was confident the $14.3 trillion limit on U.S. borrowing would be raised by the Aug. 2 deadline.

Mohamed El-Erian, co-chief investment officer at Pacific Investment Management Co., which oversees $1.2 trillion in assets, told Reuters: “If not reversed within the next few days through crisis negotiations, this breakdown will be highly detrimental to the already-fragile health of both the US and global economies.”

Obama has faced increasingly vocal complaints from his own Democrats on a deal-in-the-making that could mean painful curbs in popular health and retirement programs but no immediate increase in taxes.

“I’ve never seen frustration higher,” Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said after a week of sometimes chaotic efforts to sort through conflicting options and stave off a potentially devastating default on the nation’s financial obligations.

Republicans and many Democrats are refusing to raise the debt limit unless it is accompanied by steep spending cuts to tackle rising budget deficits.

Attention now turns to the Senate, where negotiations are likely to resume on a convoluted plan put forth by Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell that intended as a fallback option if all else failed.

An unprecedented national default could push the United States back into recession and trigger global financial chaos.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner met Friday with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and New York Fed President William Dudley to talk about the implications for the U.S. economy if Congress failed to raise the debt.

They remained confident Congress would act in time, they said in a joint statement.

The hope in Washington is that a wide-ranging, 10-year package of deficit cuts being worked out will be enough to save America’s triple-A credit rating.

Rating agencies have threatened a U.S. bond downgrade without a comprehensive deficit-cutting deal.

Seeking to ratchet up pressure on lawmakers, Obama said the consequences if they failed to act on the debt limit would include higher interest rates and greater reluctance by businesses to hire and invest.

“If we don’t solve it, every American will suffer,” he said.

Casting himself as a centrist in the bitter debate, Obama is trying to appeal to moderate independent voters he needs to win re-election in 2012.

Still the two sides remain far apart on the main issues.

Obama and Boehner took discussions on a so-called “grand bargain” behind closed doors this week.

Talks have whipsawed and stalled over raising tax revenue, which Democrats insist must be a part of any spending cut deal while Republicans reject tax increases.

Share

Edit: Quote from Scott Sumner

Posted on by

I wasn’t able to fully grasp how MMTers (“modern monetary theorists”) think about monetary economics (despite a good-faith attempt), but a few things I read shed a bit of light on the subject. My theory is that they focus too much on the visible, the concrete, the accounting, the institutions, and not enough on the core of monetary economics, which I see as the “hot potato phenomenon.”

Note: this post initially falsely credited Lawrence Summers with the quote, apologies.

Share

Debt ceiling dynamics revisited

Posted on by

First, I’d guess the President will sign anything Congress passes, including short term measures.

But he might not.

And yes, there are options that allow the executive branch to continue to deficit spend if it wanted to, ranging from issuing a multi trillion dollar platinum coin to spending under cover of the 14th amendment.

However, there’s a real possibility Congress won’t pass anything for the President to sign, or that the President vetos what they do pass, and that the Treasury honora the current debt ceiling and limits spending to tax revenue.

Should that be the case, the US govt, as widely discussed, immediately goes to a ‘balanced budget’ mode, prioritizing interest payments, so there is no default by the US Treasury.

That means a lot of other bills won’t get paid.

Chairman Bernanke said that this could cut 6% off of GDP and send the US into a recession with GDP going from positive to negative.

However, falling GDP means falling revenues which means more spending cuts, and revenues falling further.

It also means the automatic fiscal stabilizers of rising transfer payments will not be funded by deficit spending and therefore not provide the support they have provided in all prior downturns.

In other words, for the first time the US would experience an unchecked downward spiral, which could make the downturn that much more severe than the Fed Chairman suggested.

And as difficult as it might be for the US, the euro member nations may be looking at something even more catastrophic.

The drop in US consumer, business, and govt spending will mean a drop in sales for euro zone exporters, possibly sending that region into negative GDP growth and falling govt revenues.

This means their current solvency and funding issues further deteriorate as the entire euro zone could experience a funding barrier and general default.

While the ECB can, operationally, write any size check required to fund the entire region, it doesn’t want to do that, and can be expected to wait until things deteriorate sufficiently to the point were there is no other choice.

Ironically, the US debt ceiling, a seemingly innocuous relic of the gold standard, where it once served to protect the nation’s gold supply and should have been eliminated when the US dollar ceased to be officially convertible into gold, could now bring down the entire world economy, and threaten the world social order as well.

Share

GS: Downgrading our Q2 and Q3 GDP forecasts

Posted on by

As previously suspected, the soft patch looks to be continuing, making things all the more vulnerable to a govt spending interruption in August.

Following another week of weak economic data, we have cut our estimates for real GDP growth in the second and third quarter of 2011 to 1.5% and 2.5%, respectively, from 2% and 3.25. Our forecasts for Q4 and 2012 are under review, but even excluding any further changes we now expect the unemployment rate to come down only modestly to 8¾% at the end of 2012.

Share

Business doesn’t create jobs, consumers do/more debt ceiling comments

Posted on by

Business doesn’t create jobs – consumers do!

It is an article of faith by all parties involved that businesses are the job creators, particularly small businesses, and hence their every move is predicated on helping businesses create jobs.

Mercy! Can’t they get anything right?

Businesses hire to service consumers. A restaurant that’s full doesn’t layoff anyone, no matter how much he hates the government, and the same goes for department stores, engineering firms, etc.

And when stores are empty, there’s no way they will or should hire. It’s a waste of human endeavor. In fact, business serves public purpose best by producing and selling its output with as few employees as possible. That’s called productivity, which is what makes us rich in real terms.

Labor is inherently a scarce resource. There are only so many of us to get all the work done. We lost eight million jobs in 2008. Why? Because eight million people all of a sudden decided they’d rather go on the dole than work?

No. It’s because sales collapsed. In a heartbeat, car sales went from near 17 million/yr to just over 9 million/yr. And why did sales collapse? Because we all lost our credit cards.

How do we get back sales and all the lost jobs, and then some? How about we stop taking FICA (Social Security and Medicare taxes) out of the paychecks of people who work for a living, so sales can resume from income rather than from consumer debt? What’s wrong with that?

And how about suspending FICA for businesses as well, to lower their costs and help keep consumer prices from rising. That would also be a good thing.

So why don’t our fearless leaders just do it? Because they think they need those taxed dollars for Social Security and Medicare.

Can’t they get anything right?

Federal taxes regulate demand (our spending), they don’t ‘bring in’ anything. The federal government ‘collects taxes’ simply by lowering the balance in our bank account. No gold coin drops into some government bucket. It’s just data entry, just the Federal Reserve changing numbers on their spreadsheets.

Chairman Bernanke has told us repeatedly how the federal government actually spends, including Social Security and Medicare spending: they just use their computer to mark up the numbers in our bank accounts. They don’t call China for a loan and they don’t check with the IRS to see how collections are going.

Federal government spending doesn’t ‘come from’ anywhere. Everyone inside the Federal Reserve knows it, and has always known it. They know that suspending FICA taxes does not alter their ability to make Social Security and Medicare payments. They all laugh off the idea that FICA actually funds anything – a ‘useful fiction’ as it’s been called since the program began in the 1930’s.

That ‘useful fiction’ is no longer seems very useful, unless you’re trying to destroy the US economy.

Even with sky-high unemployment we can easily afford to both suspend FICA and truly strengthen Social Security and Medicare by increasing the minimum benefits and closing the donut holes.

This is not ‘adding stimulus’. It’s removing drag by removing massively regressive and punishing taxes. And it allows consumers to drive sales until they’ve created all the private sector jobs we need.

And I see no harm, along the way, in sustaining the public infrastructure that serves public purpose, and tossing the states a per capita payment to make up for what the federal government did to them in 2008. And, as should go without saying, there should be an $8/hr federally funded transition job for anyone willing and able to work, to facilitate the transition from unemployment to private sector employment.

But that’s not what’s going to happen.

It looks to me like there are too many members of Congress who can’t vote for any package, due to prior pledges: Democrats who can’t vote for cuts in Social Security benefits or eligibility, Republicans pledged not to ever vote to raise taxes, and some pledged to never vote to raise the debt ceiling for any reason. The compromise packages lose votes from both sides from those who are pledged to never compromise.

This means a partial federal shutdown is a high probability, with a sudden cut in spending cutting into sales and therefore jobs, as just described.

Treasury rates will stay low and probably fall further, with the Fed rates presumed to stay low for a lot longer. Energy and commodities will deflate, the dollar will get stronger, stocks will fall as top line growth forecasts fall, Europe and Asian stocks will fall as their largest export market becomes at-risk. And, as sales fall and unemployment rises, the US deficit will rise via the automatic stabilizers of falling tax revenues and increased transfer payments – if the government pays them…

And if, alternatively, a compromise package is reached, the deficit reduction plan will cause the same things to happen, only not as severely, and it’s back to death by a thousand cuts.

Share