0

Eugene Robinson Is Wrong

Eugene Robinson’s Investor’s Business Daily article It’s Clear GOP Had Its Fingers In Downgrade demonstrates within itself how ridiculous his titled proposition is. The thrust of his piece was that the GOP’s threat not to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts is what caused S&P to downgrade the U.S.’s credit rating.

However, he states in the body of the column that “There is no plausible scenario under which the U.S. would be unable to service its debt.” His assertion is correct, unless President Obama decided not to pay the bondholders. If you recall, it is Obama that screwed the G.M. bondholders in favor of the unions with his shills on the bankruptcy court tagging along. How one could ever prioritize the union claims over secured bondholders flies in the face of commercial dealings? On to that, stack Obama’s 60-Minutes interview wherein he says “we won’t be able to pay our bills…” you then have a credible threat of non-payment.

Without a debt ceiling increase, the U.S. Treasury would have had to make choices about who to pay and who not to pay since the cash coming in does not exceed the planned expenditures. Commercially, one would prioritize bondholders ahead of other creditors, but, with this administration, you’re not really sure what might happen. Again, this raises the specter of non-payment.

The fact of the matter is that S&P knows that the “cuts” really are not reductions in spending, but simply reductions in the increase in spending. Their downgrade really is a shot across the bow of the CBO, congress and the administration in how it does its accounting. Only in government would not spending one dime more than last year be characterized as a cut. S&P is laughing at the CBO’s scoring of the plan and the purported trillions of cuts. In fact, had congress arrived at a plan not to raise spending at all over the next ten years, the CBO would have scored this as a $9 trillion cut. When in fact, there was no cut at all.

S&P knows that the only thing the government can control is the amount of money it spends. If it raises tax rates and people make less, the take to the treasury might be lower than under the lower tax rates. You’re seeing this all the time with the tobacco tax increases which continue to raise less money as people are forced to quit. What happens to the program once the funding is dried up? Instead of the program going away, the program ends up being funded by the general fund. S&P knows this.

S&P also understands that the current pact does not bind congress next year. Who can forget Democrat promises to Reagan to cut spending if he went along with their tax rate increases? He agreed to the tax rate increase, but the Democrats never came through with the spending cuts. As a matter of fact, spending went up. History repeated itself under Bush 1, and Mr. Robinson wonders why any credit rating agency would believe anything coming from a government official’s mouth.

Mr. Robinson also quotes Mr. Greenspan’s comment that we “can always print more money.” It is true that we could print our way out. However, there is nothing that requires our trading partners to take our devalued currency. How would we trade? Further, the inflating the supply of our currency should cause interest rates on the treasury bongs to rise substantially thereby exasserbating the problem. S&P knows this.

As can be reasoned from the above, the U.S. is not AAA rated and hasn’t been for some time. The only thing I will give S&P credit for is the guts enough to state what most of us already know: The U.S. government is nothing but a ponzi scheme paying off old investors with new investor’s money.

One is left either believing that Mr. Robinson has very little understanding of accounting, economics and budgeting, or he was simply trying to prey on traditional Democrat Party constituencies putting fear in their hearts. Either way, he’s wrong.

0

Why Does the US Still Have a AAA Credit Rating?

That is a question I have asked myself for a long time. While it is hard to get a clear picture of the U.S. government’s financial position (i.e. it’s balance sheet), you can make a bunch of assessments simply by looking at its operating statements over the past 100 years.

One thing has become obvious, our political class continues to spend and make promises to pay benefits to citizens far beyond its ability to generate income to pay for them. While the majority of the promises are “off balance sheet,” they do represent future commitments that will require the government to pay money to its citizens or the citizens will have to do without a promised benefit.

Add to this the fact that government operations continue to run at a deficit, and you have what I believe is a looming default. I’m not sure when, or where, but this cannot be sustained into perpetuity. So, the U.S. government is left paying off and providing returns to existing investors with new investors’ money. Don’t people go to jail for that? Isn’t that called a ponzi scheme? Oh wait, that’s only if you’re in the private sector.

Once again, the credit rating agencies are late to the dance. They continue supporting their puppet masters by saying the U.S. must raise its debt ceiling to maintain its credit rating. While not raising the debt ceiling might cause a default earlier than if we had raised the debt ceiling, the legal authority to float more debt does not mean our credit is AAA. As a matter of fact, the fact that we can’t pay our bills as they are coming due without additional financing proves we’re technically insolvent.

While Bernie Madoff is characterized as a villain, he is no different than the politicians and bureaucrats over the last 100 years who promised benefits without a clear means to pay for them and without truly reflecting the cost of providing these benefits over the life time of the beneficiaries. Just as wrong were the inflated assumptions used in the models demonstrating the worth of the spending and programs.

In the private sector, these are considered crimes and you go to jail for them. In the public sector, you’re paid a nice income and benefits for life.

One thing is for sure, you don’t need to be a Harvard MBA to figure out something is wrong. You also don’t need a degree to figure out the U.S. government is not AAA rated. The rating agencies will get there one day, but, as was the case with Enron and others, it will be too late.

0

Spending Cuts vs. Tax Increases

The media is playing up the current debt cieling debate with the Dems and their media sycophants claim that you need to increase taxes to solve the problem. Well, let’s look at the two extremes of the argument.

As is quoted on a lefty blog Alternet, the net worth of the 400 wealthiest citizens was estimated to be $1.57 trillion. This would lead to a ONE TIME inflow to the Treasury of $1.57 trillion. The 2009 budget deficit was $1.4 trillion. This means that after barely covering the deficit for one year, the income taxes paid by these individuals would be $0 from that point forward. This would reduce the Treasury’s receipts increasing the deficit after year one.

Compare this to spending. If you did not spend anything, then current tax revenues coming into the Treasury was approximately $2.5 trillion which would be used to pay down the debt already incurred.

Obviously, by measuring the problem at the two extremes to determine where the problem is, we have a spending problem, because income is what it will be. There is very little control the government has over how much it will receive in taxes in any one year. There are many varilables that go into the equation. Spending is something that can be controlled.

Easy solution, we should limit spending in any year to the prior year’s tax receipts.

0

Solvency v. Liquidity

Michael Barone has an article in which he articulates a belief I have long held: We weren’t as rich as we thought we were prior to the current depression. The government tried all the tricks in the playbook to reinflate the bubble, the the good old market would have none of that. I submit that had we not tried all of those old tricks and just let the market fix the problems, we would be in a better position today and not another $5 trillion in debt.

We don’t have a liquidity problem. We have a solvency problem. Until the balance sheets of consumers and the federal/state/local governments get trued up, we won’t get out of this mess. Sellling this solution is difficult, especially with the economic illiterates on the Left and their voting block.

0

Too Many Laws & Regulations

Glenn Reynolds has a great Op-Ed in today’s Washington Examiner. His premise is that if you need a lawyer to figure out how to operate in a country’s economic environment, in all likelihood, the country will have limited economic upside. He cites Greece and the number of lawyers per capita and the 19th centry laws still on the books there.

I would extend this further to say this leads to black markets operating outside the legal and tax systems affording the participants therein with no protection from the very laws and regulations of the political establishment. It sets up the classic legal conundrum: how to I get my government/legal system to help me resolve an illegal contract?

0

The End Game to Democrat’s Healthcare Reform

If you needed any evidence that those of us who claimed the end game was to get rid of private insurance companies, you now have it. Bernie Sanders was on MSNBC, and the host asked: “Senator, how frustrating is this for you to see the bill tied up in a constitutional argument when the provisions that could have been in place, like the public option and other versions of the legislation that were rejected early on by the Democrat leadership, would not have posed any constitutional difficulties?”

Mr. Sanders responded “One of the ways I want to see it improved is to give states flexibility to provide health care to all people, maintaining very, very high standards but doing it in a more cost effective way. And in the state of Vermont, we are moving forward toward a Medicare for all single-payer system. And I hope very much to be able to get waivers from Congress and the White House in order to allow us to do so. Because I think at the end of the day if you’re gonna provide health care to all of our people in a cost effective way you’re gonna have to get rid of the private health insurance companies and put our money into health care, not profiteering, not administration, not bureaucracy.”

Mr. Sanders, instead of getting rid of, as you call it, profiteering, administration, and bureaucracy, you will instead get a bureaucracy that has no cost constraints, is politicized, is not responsible to anyone, can not be fired, and will reduce the quality of care. The healthcare insurance industry has a profit margin of only 6 percent.

Sorry, but I’ll stick with the private insurers. I can fire one and go to another anytime I want. Can’t do that when the government is in charge.

0

Green Jobs = No Jobs

Edward Glaeser has a column in the NY Times blogs discussing green jobs. This is a surprise? The exporting of manufacturing jobs for established products has been going on for years. Peter Drucker wrote extensively about it in his book Managing for the Future.

We can decide to develop IP or we can decide to manufacture products already developed. I believe there is an advantage to IP, and we should focus on math and engineering to maintain our standing as an economic power.

0

Get Ready….Inflation is coming

Daniel Oliver has a great article on Forbes wherein he likens the late 1960s today. He goes on to document some of the similarities between those times and today and the outcomes from the monetary policies of the time. All anecdotal to be sure. However, many of us have been saying for the last 10 years that the path the federal government is on will lead us to economic ruin. Well, I don’t think we’re too far away from that day. Keep an eye on commodity prices.

0

I Support Tax Increases….On Politicians

Since the political class is so insistent on raising our taxes, I would support the following tax increase:

– 55% of the increase in a politician’s wealth between his first financial filing at the time he was elected and that at his death is taken and used to pay for retirement and health care costs of all the current and retired politicians thereby keeping their costs off the government’s balance sheet and out of operating costs.

Since the politicians see their wealth increase so much during their tenure, why shouldn’t those of us who put them there actually benefit from this?