Tag Archives: economics

Magical Thinking

Posted on by
1

Well, that didn’t take long.  President Barack Obama already has failed his test.

The Progressives’ idea of a budget is out of the Senate Budget Committee, now, and on the Senate floor, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) will do his best to thrust it home with as little debate allowed as he can achieve.  Here’s the summary table (and scroll down a bit to this table; sorry you have to crane your neck); the whole thing can be viewed, in piecemeal form, on the Senate’s site:

Notice that.  Aside from continuing to gut Defense, overall spending continues apace, President Barack ObamaSenator Patty Murray (D, WA), the Budget Committee’s Chair, demands even more taxes from working Americans than he got in January, and our national debt explodes.

The Democrats want, with an absolutely straight face, to increase spending every year–$3.6 trillion in FY 2014, $4.05 trillion in FY 2016, and so on to $5.7 trillion in FY 2023, a 62% increase over the current level for FY 2013.

Reading the fine print in one of those piecemeal parts at the Senate site, we see that the Progressives want to create a(nother) $100 billion program aimed at generating new jobs, again by funding infrastructure work.  Of course, we know Obama already tried this, repeatedly, throughout his first term.  As he’s already confessed, “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,” and as those earlier programs demonstrated, the jobs aren’t there at any time in his government programs.  This is magical thinking.

And it turns out Murray lied about those taxes, too, cynically understating them at “only” an additional $975 billion.  The Weekly Standard has this table, provided by a staffer for the Senate Budget Committee’s (Murray’s committee) minority membership:

Murray cynically understated Obama’s tax demands by fully one-third.  These $1.5 trillion in new taxes, combined with the $600 billion in new taxes Obama got at the start of the year, adds up to $2.1 trillion in new taxes being demanded in just these two and a half months.

Progressives just can’t stand to not raise taxes.  Their addiction to OPM is palpable.

And that debt.  The Progressives fully intend to explode it to $24 trillion by 2023, with annual interest payments running nearly to $800 billion.  This also assumes the market would be willing to buy such risky debt at those rates.  But then Obama denies, ostrich-like, that there’s any urgency to our debt fiasco.  This is more magical thinking.

All of this is predicated, too, on Obama’s/Murray’s pipedream of a GDP annual growth rate over the next 10 years of 4.2%-6.6% each year—rates we’ve never sustained in any 10 year period in our history.  With all of this taxing and spending taking money out of the private economy—the economy in which Americans actually live, work, and die—positing such rates is…wrong.

Matched with the $975 billion in claimed spending cuts, this isn’t even the balance about which he’s been yammering.  This is more…magical thinking.

This proposal is a disaster waiting to happen.

Out of Touch, or Doesn’t Care?

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama has said about our national debt, “What, me worry?”  Actually, that’s not quite what he told Republicans when he deigned visit their caucus earlier this week; what he actually said was that there was no

immediate crisis in terms of debt.

He’s also said he’s not interested in a balanced budget.

He had this exchange with Congressmen Kevin Brady (R, TX) and Dave Camp (R, MI, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman) at that same meeting with the Republican caucus:

Brady said that Camp  asked the president  to move now on Medicare means-testing and the new inflation calculation [to which Obama had already agreed earlier], among other measures.

According to Mr. Brady, Mr. Camp said, “Look, if we agree on baby steps on Medicare and Social Security, why wait, let’s take them now.  The president gracefully declined.”  Mr Camp confirmed the exchange.

In what fantasy world is he living?

Obama’s Other Face

Posted on by
1

President Barack Obama is giving the appearance of wanting a bipartisan, compromise deal on our budget, deficit, and debt.  Is this real, this time, or just another version of the idle chit-chat and outright lies he’s passed off for the last five years?

The Wall Street Journal offers some metrics for assessing his behavior this time around.

  • Will he drop his demand for a tax increase outside of tax reform?  This has no chance of passing, and his continued insistence will poison the chance of any budget deal.  On tax reform he has willing GOP partners in Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp and Ohio Senator Rob Portman, but the formula has to be lower rates in exchange for fewer loopholes.  Any additional revenue will have to come from the faster economic growth that will follow.
  • Will he agree to a flexible, generous guest-worker program on immigration?  The AFL-CIO wants a restrictive program with a political body determining when there is a labor shortage and how many visas can be granted in specific industries.  Anything close to the AFL-CIO plan won’t stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming to the US for work, but it ought to kill reform in Congress.
  • Will he put more than token entitlement reforms on the table?  As we wrote last week (“Obama’s Not So Grand Offer,” March 8), the President’s Medicare proposals don’t begin to solve the health-care spending problem.  Short of Paul Ryan’s premium-support plan, the only chance for reform worth the name is “comprehensive cost-sharing” that forces individuals to confront at least some of the costs of their own care.

These sound like a pretty good test to me.  It looks, from the Senate Democrats’ budget proposal, like he’s failed the test.

More Regulation Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

This one isn’t as egregious as the idiocy described at Coyote Blog‘s place, but it’s bad enough.

Think about the expanse of…something…between the sidewalk in front of your house and the curb of the street.  Some towns have the sidewalk and the curb immediately adjacent to each other, but in most urban areas, this is a three- to five-foot wide strip in which most folks plant grass as an extension of their yard.  Ron Finley, though, plants a garden in his strip (parkway, as it’s known in Los Angeles) in LA, and he advises others on how to do the same.

Except that there are LA regulations against just up and doing that.

City code forbids residents without special permits to plant much of anything besides grass in curbside areas, making many of the gardens illegal.

After receiving citations from the city, Mr Finley persuaded officials to waive the $400 permit fee he was supposed to pay to install drought-resistant, aesthetically pleasing plants up to 36 inches tall outside his own home.  But he is still trying to get the city to approve a greater variety of plants for these spaces.

Never mind that such gardens are highly patriotic,

Urban farming isn’t new, dating back at least to World War I, when the government encouraged Americans to become more self-sufficient by planting “liberty gardens[,]”

they’re against the rules.

In fairness to LA, though, there is an effort to get a little bit more sensible here.

A spokesman for the district’s city councilman, Herb Wesson, said city staffers are working on revising current policy to let residents make more use of the parkways [those strips] “where appropriate.”

It remains to be seen, though, what the city’s definitions of “where,” “appropriate,” and “more use” will turn out to be, as well as the rationale for same.

Federal Government’s Current Policies

Posted on by
Reply

…and our future.  David Greenlaw, James D Hamilton, Peter Hooper, and Frederic Mishkin, in an op-ed in last Friday’s Wall Street Journal had some thoughts.

Research we have recently presented at the US Monetary Policy Forum leads us to conclude that, as debt grows relative to GDP, rising interest rates could bring the debt-to-GDP ratio up to 176% in 25 years, and even higher under less favorable assumptions about unemployment and the current-account deficit.

They explain:

[C]ountries with gross debt above 80% of GDP and persistent current-account deficits—as is currently the case in the United States—face sharply increasing risk of escalating interest payments on their debt.  This means even higher budget deficits and debt levels and could lead to a fiscal crunch—a point where government bond rates shoot up and a funding crisis ensues.

And

Given the Federal Reserve’s greatly expanded balance sheet…more than $3 trillion today, there is an additional factor that could exacerbate inflation expectations—Fed remittances to the US Treasury.  If interest rates climb higher over the next few years, this could lead to substantial losses on the Fed’s holdings of Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities, losses that could approach several times the size of Fed capital.

Never mind that this bust of capital would violate the Fed’s own rules imposed on non-government banks.  And it would violate Dodd-Frank rules.

But President Barack Obama wants to keep borrowing and to keep inflating private lending—the housing market “recovery,” you see.

Which brings up another risk that Greenlaw, et al., didn’t mention—all that pushed-for private/commercial lending at today’s artificially low rates.  That’s generally long-term lending (those mortgages, and business lending for construction and plant expansion). But when interest rates rise, as they must, those private/commercial lenders will be forced to borrow at tomorrow’s rising interest rates while still locked into today’s low rates on the loans they’ve let.  Can you say, “S&L collapse?”

We really need adult leadership in the White House.