Break out the bubbly, because there will be celebrations today on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms and mansions all across America. Why? Because today is the 10th anniversary of the big Bush tax breaks for bankers and billionaires and the businesses that bankroll their big-budget campaigns.
Today is an opportunity to ponder these questions: If the Bush tax cuts are so great, why has the economy been so bad since they became law 10 years ago? And how about this brain teaser: If the GOP theology of cutting taxes for the rich brings in more revenue, why is Democratic President Bill Clinton the only president in the last generation to leave a surplus behind for the next president?
In 1980, President George H.W. Bush called it voodoo economics. Bush 41 conveniently changed his position when he became Ronald Reagan’s running mate that year. But the first President Bush was right the first time. The idea that tax revenues will go up when you cut taxes has cast an evil spell over the U.S. economy going all the way back to Ronald Reagan. In 1981, the new GOP math became 1 + 1 = 3. With this kind of fuzzy math, it’s no wonder that President Reagan left behind a massive budget deficit.
George W. Bush may have had George H.W. Bush for a father, but Ronald Reagan was his role model. The latest incarnation of voodoo economics was the creation of the second President Bush. The tax cuts for bankers and billionaires that became law in 2001 quickly turned the Clinton surplus into the Bush budget deficit as big as Donald Trump’s ego. Voodoo is what Republicans do so well.
But Bush 43 did not stop there in handing out goodies to Wall Street. In 2008, the president asked his Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, to bail out Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment firms to the tune of three quarters of a trillion dollars. Of course, President Bush never even considered an attempt to rescue the millions of working Americans who first lost their jobs and then their homes because of malfeasance on Wall Street.
Last month, the Center for Budget Priorities released a study that demonstrated that the two biggest reasons for the current budget deficit were the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So what do the Republicans do? Do they vote to cut Pentagon spending or end dole welfare for wealthy Americans? Of course they don’t. They gut Medicare. Genius!
Yesterday, Frank Patitucci, CEO and Chairman of NuCompass Mobility Service, called on Republican Speaker John Boehner to increase taxes on Americans making more than $1 million a year. Patitucci explained his position by saying businesses need a strong middle class to prosper.
But I don’t want to be a party pooper or rain on Wall Street’s parade, so party hardy, guys. Don’t scrimp on the Dom Perignon and the caviar. Santa Claus comes only once a year. Let’s worry about the GOP cuts in healthcare for seniors and nutrition programs for women and their infant children another day.
By: Brad Bannon, U. S. News and World Report, June 7, 2011
June 7, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Banks, Budget, Businesses, Conservatives, Consumers, Corporations, Debt Crisis, Deficits, Economic Recovery, Economy, Financial Institutions, GOP, Government, Health Care, Ideologues, Ideology, Jobs, Medicare, Middle Class, Politics, Republicans, Right Wing, Seniors, Taxes, Wall Street, Wealthy, Women | Bill Clinton, Billionaires, Bush 41, Bush Tax Cuts, Children, Goldman Sachs, GWB, Investment Firms, Ronald Reagan, Speaker John Boehner, Tax cuts, Tax Revenues, Voodoo Economics, Wars |
Leave a comment
The news out of House Speaker John Boehner’s speech to the New York Economic Club was his demand for “cuts of trillions, not just billions” before the debt ceiling can be raised. Not just broad deficit-reduction targets, the Ohio Republican insisted, but “actual cuts and program reforms.”
That’s alarming enough. It is all but impossible to get this done in the available time. It certainly can’t be accomplished on Boehner’s unbending, no-new-taxes terms. And if the speaker truly believes that it would be “more irresponsible” to raise the debt ceiling without instituting deficit-reduction measures than not to raise it at all, we’re in a heap of trouble.
Even more alarming, because it has consequences beyond the debt-ceiling debate, is the incoherent, impervious-to-facts economic philosophy undergirding Boehner’s remarks.
Reporters naturally tend to ignore this boilerplate. Journalistically, that makes sense. Boehner’s economic comments were nothing particularly new. Indeed, they reflect what has become the mainstream thinking of the Republican Party. But that’s exactly the point. We become so inured to hearing this thinking that we neglect to point out how wrong it is.
My argument with Boehner is not that he believes in a more limited role for government than I do, not that he is more skeptical of government intervention and regulation, and not that he is more worried about the economically stifling implications of tax increases. Those are legitimate ideological differences. American politics is better off for them.
I’m talking about statements that are simply false.
“The recent stimulus spending binge hurt our economy and hampered private-sector job creation in America.”
Reasonable economists can disagree about the effectiveness of the stimulus spending and whether it was worth the drag of the additional debt, but no reasonable economist argues that it hurt the economy in the short term.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the stimulus added, on average, about one percentage point annually to economic growth and reduced the unemployment rate by half a point between 2009 and 2011. And that’s the low-end estimate. The high-end numbers show the stimulus spending adding more than 2 percentage points annually to economic growth and cutting the unemployment rate by more than 1 percentage point.
The CBO is not alone. Economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi estimated in a July 2010 paper that without the stimulus spending, the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points higher.
“The massive borrowing and spending by the Treasury Department crowded out private investment by American businesses of all sizes.”
Crowding out occurs when government spending drives up interest rates and makes borrowing unattractive to the private sector. As economist Joseph Minarik of the Committee for Economic Development explains, “When interest rates are on the floor, you can’t say federal government borrowing is crowding out business investment.” The lackluster investment climate reflects low consumer demand and underutilized capacity. You can’t be crowded out of a room you’re not trying to enter.
“The truth is we will never balance the budget and rid our children of debt unless we cut spending and have real economic growth. And we will never have real economic growth if we raise taxes on those in America who create jobs.”
Never? Under President Clinton, taxes were raised, primarily on the wealthy. During the eight years of his administration, the economy grew by an average of close to 4 percent.
“I ran for Congress in 1990, the year our nation’s leaders struck a so-called bargain that raised taxes as part of a bipartisan plan to balance the budget. The result of that so-called bargain was the recession of the early 1990s. It wasn’t until the economy picked back up toward the end of that decade that we achieved a balanced budget.”
Boehner blames the budget deal for tanking the economy, but the recession actually started in July 1990, two months before the agreement was reached. And that revived economy? It came despite the supposed dead weight of the Clinton tax increase.
“A tax hike would wreak havoc not only on our economy’s ability to create private-sector jobs, but also on our ability to tackle the national debt.”
During the early 1980s, taxes were cut and public debt ballooned, from 26 percent of GDP in 1980 to 40 percent by 1986. In 1993, taxes were increased (and spending cut); debt as a share of the economy fell, from 49 percent to 33 percent. In 2001 and 2003, taxes were cut. By the time President Obama took office, debt had climbed to 40 percent of GDP.
Listening to Boehner, I began to think the country suffers from two deficits: the gap between spending and revenue, and the one between reality and ideology. The first cannot be solved unless we find some way of at least narrowing the second.
By: Ruth Marcus, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, May 10, 2011
May 15, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Budget, Class Warfare, Congress, Conservatives, Debt Ceiling, Debt Crisis, Deficits, Economic Recovery, Economy, GOP, Government, Government Shut Down, Ideologues, Ideology, Income Gap, Journalists, Lawmakers, Media, Middle Class, Politics, President Obama, Press, Regulations, Republicans, Right Wing, Tax Increases, Taxes, Unemployment, Wealthy | Balanced Budget, CBO, Economists, Government Default, Interest rates, Spending Cuts, Stimulus, Tax Revenues, Treasury |
Leave a comment
In what appears to be an attempt to influence the political debate in Washington over federal government deficits, Standards & Poor’s rating firm downgraded U.S. debt to negative from stable. Yes, the raters who blessed virtually every toxic waste subprime security they saw with AAA ratings now see problems with sovereign government debt.
The best thing to do is to ignore the raters — as markets usually do when sovereign debt gets downgraded — but this time stock indexes fell, probably because of the uncertain prospects concerning government budgeting. After all, we barely avoided a government shutdown earlier this month, and with S&P. joining the fray who knows whether the government will continue to pay its bills?
Mind you, this has nothing to do with economics, government solvency or involuntary default. A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts — something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks.
Similarly Chairman Alan Greenspan said that Social Security can never go broke because government can meet all its obligations by “creating money.”
Instead, sovereign government spending is constrained by budgeting procedure and by Congressionally imposed debt limits. In other words, by self-imposed constraints rather than by market constraints.
Government needs to be concerned about pressures on inflation and the exchange rate should its spending become excessive. And it should avoid “crowding out” private initiative by moving too many resources to our public sector. However, with high unemployment and idle plant and equipment, no one can reasonably argue that these dangers are imminent.
Strangely enough, the ratings agencies recognized long ago that sovereign currency-issuing governments do not really face solvency constraints. A decade ago Moody’s downgraded Japan to Aaa3, generating a sharp reaction from the government. The raters back-tracked and said they were not rating ability to pay, but rather the prospects for inflation and currency depreciation. After 10 more years of running deficits, Japan’s debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio is 200 percent, it borrows at nearly zero interest rates, it makes every payment that comes due, its yen remains strong and deflation reigns.
While I certainly hope we do not repeat Japan’s economic experience of the past two decades, I think the impact of downgrades by raters of U.S. sovereign debt will have a similar impact here: zip.
By: L. Randall Wray, The New York Times, April 18, 2011
April 19, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Bankruptcy, Banks, Congress, Debt Ceiling, Debt Crisis, Deficits, Economic Recovery, Economy, Federal Budget, Financial Institutions, Financial Reform, Government, Government Shut Down, Ideology, Politics, Social Security, Standard and Poor's | Ben Bernanke, Debt, Debt Limit, Defaults, Financial Ratings, Inflation, Japan, Markets, Solvency, Sovereign Governments, Stocks, Subprime Securities |
Leave a comment
What does Standard & Poor’s action lowering the U.S. outlook to “negative” mean? What are the likely ramifications of the U.S. deficit and debt? I do not want to conflate two completely different issues, so let’s take each in turn.
First, I have stopped paying any attention to anything that S&P says or does. Its performance over the past decade has revealed it to be incompetent and corrupt – it sold its AAA ratings to the highest bidder. It is the broker who lost all your money, the girlfriend who cheated on you, the partner who stole from you. Since the portfolios we run never rely on its judgment or analysis, we simply do not care what it says about credit ratings.
But big bond managers like Bill Gross of Pimco do matter – he invests hundreds of billions of dollars. We pay close attention when smart managers like him announce they are out of the Treasury market, which he did last month.
Many people misunderstand the U.S. deficit. First, it is stimulative to both the economy and the markets. Look at what happened under Reagan and Obama and most of Bush II – the economy recovered from recession and the markets rose along with the deficit.
Second, Social Security is fine. Sure, the retirement age will go higher, there will be means testing, and the income cutoff for contributions ($106,000) will likely double. But it will remain solvent. Medicare is much trickier, as the United States pays two times what most countries pay for health care but gets lesser care.
The current debate about deficits looks like more politics. Look at the voting records of those posturing about the debt. The “deficit peacocks” voted for new entitlements (the prescription drug benefit — Medicare Part D), went along with a trillion-dollar war of choice in Iraq, and supported (for the first time in U.S. history) a major tax cut during wartime. I find it hard to take their deficit noise as a bona fide fiscal concern.
After Standard & Poor’s missed the greatest collapse in history – indeed, they helped create it by rating junk mortgage backed securities Triple AAA – they are now over-compensating. As I mentioned on The Big Picture, there is an old Wall Street joke about analysts: “You don’t need them in a Bull Market, and you don’t want them in a Bear Market.” That especially seems apt with regard to S&P.
The deficit has been with us for a long time. Since investors are continuing to lend money to Uncle Sam at exceedingly low rates, there does not appear to be any real fear of a default. That is what matters most to bond buyers — and it’s why I never care what S&P thinks on this.
By: Barry Ritholtz, The New York Times, April 18, 2011
April 19, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Congress, Consumers, Debt Ceiling, Debt Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economy, Federal Budget, Financial Institutions, Financial Reform, Government, Government Shut Down, Lawmakers, Medicare, Politics, Social Security, Standard and Poor's, Wall Street | Bonds, Contributions, Deficit Hawks, Entitlements, Financial Crisis, Financial Ratings, Investors, Markets, Mortgages, Retirement, Treasury |
Leave a comment
The United States is simply not at risk of default. Default is impossible for a sovereign currency issuer.
The Standard & Poor’s rating firm should be embarrassed. If there is any political judgment at work here, it is S&P. falling for politically motivated scare mongering. But given its track record with mortgage securities and collateralized debt obligations, why should we be surprised to see a rating agency relying on conventional wisdom rather than analysis?
The whole premise of the rating is incorrect. The U.S. may eventually experience unacceptable levels of inflation, but the experience of Japan shows that stop-and-start fiscal stimulus is more likely to result in protracted near-term deflation.
Every time Japan tried to lower its public-debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio by cutting spending, the resulting drop in economic activity actually made that ratio worse. We are seeing the same results in Ireland and Latvia. The United Kingdom tried the same experiment 10 times in the last 100 years, and every time it got the same results: cutting spending to reduce budget deficits results in a fall in G.D.P. that makes the debt burden worse, not better.
The remedy should be to get private sector debt loads down via encouraging debt restructuring and write-offs, and using well targeted fiscal stimulus to offset the impact of those efforts. But S&P instead would have us do the economic equivalent of trying to cure an infection by using leeches.
Misguided cures killed a lot of patients and are killing a lot of economies.
By: Yves Smith, Writer for Naked Capitalism. Original article appeared in The New York Times, April 18, 2011
April 19, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Capitalism, Congress, Conservatives, Corporations, Debt Ceiling, Debt Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economy, Federal Budget, Financial Institutions, Financial Reform, Government, Government Shut Down, Ideology, Lawmakers, Lobbyists, Media, Mortgages, Politics, Pundits, Standard and Poor's | Debt, Debt Default, Financial Institutions, Financial Ratings, GDP, Inflation, Japan, Markets, Private Sector Debt, Securities, United Kingdom |
Leave a comment
Unknown Feed
mykeystrokes.com 