national_debt

The Third Conception: Growing the Debt

/ L. M. Walker / Leave a comment

From an Extreme Radical Independent Centrist

– By: Larry Walker II –

In his 1943 study entitled, The New Philosophy of Public Debt, U.S. economist, founder and 1st president of Brookings Institution (1927-1952), Harold G. Moulton expounded on the two conflicting debt philosophies of that era. First was the traditional view, that “a continuously unbalanced budget and rapidly rising public debt imperil the financial stability of the nation.” And, second, the new conception of the day, that “a huge public debt is a national asset rather than a liability and continuous deficit spending is essential to economic prosperity of the nation.”

At the conclusion of Moulton’s study, it was determined that under the latter theory, continuous deficit spending would lead to constant money printing, and thus runaway inflation, culminating in a depression. And, the only way such inflation could be curbed would be through the use of totalitarian methods of control.

“We should have to control wage rates and farm incomes; we should have to regulate corporate earnings; we should have to control investment; we should have to ration commodities; we should have to control rents; we should have to license foreign trade; we should have to supervise, and possibly close the security and commodity markets. Given regimentation of virtually every phase of economic life, the process of inflation might be held in leash.”

However, even advocates of continuous deficit spending rejected such totalitarian control policies, as did the entire nation. Thus following World War II the new philosophy was cast aside, and the United States’ Debt-to-GDP ratio, which had increased from a modest 45.4% in 1941, to a peak of 122.0% in 1946 at the close of the Second World War, was eventually reduced to just 31.8% by 1981 (see chart above).

Jumping forward to today, we find the nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio once again above 100%, currently resting at around 106.5%, as we are lectured by Potus 44 on a completely new conception of public debt. At an Oct. 8, 2013 press conference, Potus 44 broke away from the two prevailing philosophies, debated in Washington D.C. for more than 70 years.

He proffered that there really is no such thing as a debt ceiling, and that even if there were, raising it would not increase the national debt. He declared, “Raising the debt ceiling is a lousy name, which is why members of Congress in both parties don’t like to vote on it, because it makes you vulnerable in political campaigns.” He continued, “Raising the debt ceiling does not increase our debt. It does not grow our deficits. It does not allow for a single dime of increased spending. All it does is allow the Treasury Department to pay for what Congress has already spent.”

Under what we shall term the Third Conception, what federal law calls the debt ceiling is likely just a misnomer, for raising this alleged ceiling won’t increase the nation’s debt, nor increase budget deficits, nor allow for even a single dime of increased spending. In other words, according to Potus 44, scholars of bygone days, including those who once favored unlimited government borrowing and spending, were misguided. Come to find out, there really is no national debt, and even if you choose to call it such, it carries no negative consequences, no matter how high it should climb.

So what are we to make of this? Could it be that the totalitarian control policies required to keep inflation in check are already secretly in place? Or have we drifted so far from reality that we no longer believe what we see with our own eyes? In Budgeting 201: An Immediate Debt Crisis, we saw how the tiny nation of Cyprus buckled as recession hit its economy while its debt-to-GDP ratio stood at around 93%, and we know that this led to the confiscation of funds from private citizen’s bank accounts. Yet our leaders turned a blind eye, as our own debt-to-GDP ratio edged above 100%.

Now, what we hear from Potus 44 is that “all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists and the bloggers and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do.” Yes, and what perchance is that, to grow the size of government, and along with it the National Debt?

To rephrase this, what Potus is saying is that since the final popular vote totals were 65,899,660 for Obama-Biden (51.1%) and 60,932,152 (47.2%) for Romney-Ryan, nearly half of us, or 47.2%, need to stop focusing on what we believe in, and in many cases would give our very lives for, and instead focus on whatever he, the person whom the other 51.1% of America voted for, says, no matter how preposterous, and no matter how much damage it may inflict on the nation as a whole. But who’s to say the other 51.1% actually co-signed on the concept of unlimited increases to the national debt? After all, when campaigning, didn’t Potus 44 himself promise to place the debt in check?

If it be not a debt ceiling, then what shall we call it – a debt sky, or maybe a debt horizon? Perhaps we should begin referring to it as simply “not the debt ceiling”. The truth is, no matter what we choose to call it, as soon as Congress voted to temporarily suspend the thing, the national debt catapulted above the $17 trillion milestone.

Thus, the Third Conception fails the reality test. Sorry, but we don’t compromise on principles merely to satisfy the insane whims of any and every brain-dead person around us. Try that in your own life, if you wish. In fact, Potus 44, himself, once voted against raising the debt ceiling while serving in the U.S. Senate.

As a side-note, Hell will freeze over before I ever purchase a commercial health insurance policy through the federal government. Are you kidding me? You thought people would flock to a federal government owned and operated website to purchase commercial health insurance policies from private insurance companies? Uh, what’s wrong with this picture? Do we really need the middleman? Good luck with that scam.

You see, there’s truth, and then there’s politics. One is real, the other make-believe. Does anyone out there know the difference between danger and fear? Danger is real; fear is imagined. So here’s how one can know the difference. Over the last 26 years, the United States has spent a total of $8.9 trillion on interest payments to service its national debt; $2.0 trillion of that since 2009 alone (see chart above).

Yet, according to the U.S. Treasury, the gross national debt was only $10.0 trillion at the close of fiscal year 2008, and it stands at $17.1 trillion today (see chart below). Herein is our dilemma: Unless interest rates hover near zero-percent forever and ever, this adjustable-rate, interest-only, debt bomb will one day explode, and the annual interest payments thereon will eventually consume every dime of tax revenue. Is this real, or imagined? I guess it doesn’t matter to some, as long as it’s not their money.

If the next generation doesn’t care about the size of the national debt, today, then it will reap the rewards of negligence. Those who care now won’t be around forever to warn of the perils of unlimited government debt, so if that’s how you want it, have it your way. But, don’t say you were never warned about the 70% to 90% income tax rates you’ll eventually enjoy, and don’t forget to send my generation every dime we’re due in Social Security and Medicare entitlements while you figure it all out. Have a great future! I’ll leave you with the following words of wisdom.

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” ~ Sir Winston Churchill

Related: #Debt

U.S. Debt Ceiling | World War Infinity

/ L. M. Walker / Leave a comment

Excerpt from: GAO: “No Opinion” on U.S. Financial Audit

– By: Larry Walker II –

World War Infinity ::

“Prior to 1917, the Congress approved each debt issuance. In 1917, to facilitate planning in World War I, Congress established a dollar ceiling for Federal borrowing. With the Public Debt Act of 1941 (Public Law 77-7), Congress and the President set an overall limit of $65 billion on Treasury debt obligations that could be outstanding at any one time. Since then, Congress and the President have enacted a number of debt limit increases. Most recently, pursuant to the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, the debt limit was raised by $400 billion in August 2011 to $14.694 trillion, by $500 billion in September 2011 to $15.194 trillion, and by $1.2 trillion to $16.394 trillion in January 2012.”

Let’s make this clear. Prior to 1917, Congress approved each and every debt issuance request made by the Treasury Department. It was with the outbreak of the 1st World War that a debt ceiling was first established. This gave the Treasury some latitude in keeping the government afloat without impairing wartime activities. So it would make sense that after the end of World Wars I and II, Congress would resume its role of approving each debt issuance. But instead, the U.S. government has morphed into a permanent war mentality.

Now, a small minority of borderline insane pundits are actually advocating for complete removal of any form of debt ceiling. It’s World War Infinity, they surmise. Like spoiled little children, they have conned themselves into believing that the role of government is to borrow and spend our way into a Utopian entitlement paradise. Where are the adults?

Reference:

GAO: “No Opinion” on U.S. Financial Audit

Give Up 300,000 Federal Workers… and then we’ll talk.

/ L. M. Walker / 2 Comments

U.S. Government Shutdown: Negotiation 101

– By: Larry Walker II –

“Treasury Secy. Jack Lew warns the country will run out of money later this month. Actually, that’s another lie. The country ran out of money $17 trillion ago. It’s all borrowed since then, much of it by this administration.” ~ Andrew Malcolm *

The United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996 was the result of conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress over funding for Medicare, education, the environment, and public health in the 1996 federal budget. The government shut down after Clinton vetoed the spending bill the Republican Party-controlled Congress sent him. The federal government of the United States put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services from November 14 through November 19, 1995 and from December 16, 1995 to January 6, 1996, for a total of 28 days. The major players were President Clinton and Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in November of 1995, near the beginning of the shutdown, there were 2,152,900 federal government employees, excluding postal workers. By January 1996, at the end of the shutdown, this number had been trimmed by 110,300, to 2,042,600. After the parties reached an agreement, the number of federal workers was further slashed, by an additional 184,900, falling to it’s lowest point in more than 30 years, all the way to 1,857,700 by October of 2000 (see chart below).

Looking back a bit farther, there were 2,309,200 federal employees in December of 1992, so the number had already been slashed by 254,600 from the time Bill Clinton entered office until the shutdown. All in all, the federal government was able to rid itself of 451,500 non-essential employees between the years 1993 and 2000. Simply amazing!

Unfortunately, since October of 2000, the number of federal employees has grown by 291,200, reaching 2,148,900 by August of 2013. How quickly we forget. But the situation today is even more dire. According to the Cato Institute, “Total wages and benefits paid to executive branch civilians will be about $248 billion in 2013, indicating that compensation is a major federal expense that can be trimmed. During the last decade, compensation of federal employees rose faster than compensation of private-sector employees. As a consequence, the average federal civilian worker now earns 74 percent more in wages and benefits than the average worker in the U.S. private sector.” What’s up with that?

Keeping in mind that the only time the federal budget has balanced in our lifetimes was between the years 1996 and 2000, and putting aside partisan B.S. for a moment, what does that tell you? Was it just a coincidence that balancing the federal budget during this time-frame entailed slashing the number of federal workers to the lowest level in more than three decades? No it wasn’t.

The Bottom Line: What this should tell us is that among the 900,000 (or so) non-essential federal workers just placed on furlough, at least 300,000 need to be sent packing – permanently. There’s no way the federal budget will ever balance again, until the federal government takes serious measures to reduce its own size. The private sector is not the problem; government is the problem. Now is not the time to add new entitlement programs, and ever more federal employees, rather like 1995 it’s time to slash and burn. Give up 300,000 federal workers, then, and only then, may we engage in an adult conversation regarding the remainder of the federal budget.

References and Related:

Chart: Overpaid Federal Workers – Cato Institute

If 900,000 federal workers can be furloughed as ‘non-essential,’ why employ them? – Investor’s Business Daily

Make the Shutdown of Undesirable Federal Departments and Agencies Permanent: A Continuing Resolution is an abomination. – Ideal Taxes Association

U.S. Government Manufactures 469,000 Jobs – Natural Born Conservative

Watcher’s Council Nominations – Storming The Barrycades Edition – Watcher of Weasels

Budgeting 201: An Immediate Debt Crisis

/ L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

USA vs. Cyprus: Gross Government Debt to GDP

– By: Larry Walker, II –

According to Speaker of the House John Boehner, “We do not have an immediate debt crisis.” No, then what would you call it? Seems to me it was immediate in 1995, and again in 2008, so what is it now? Are we just screwed? And according to Barack Obama, “We don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next 10 years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place.” Yeah, what place is that, Wonderland? Have you people lost your minds?

The chart above is from data published by the International Monetary Fund in its World Economic Outlook Database, October 2012. Based on what’s happening in Cyprus, for some reason I don’t believe either of them. We had an immediate debt crisis in 1995 when our debt-to-GDP ratio reached 71%, insomuch that the government was shut down. And another in 2008 when it reached 76%, just before all hell broke loose. And now suddenly, as gross U.S. debt has surged beyond 100% of GDP, the problem is no longer immediate. If the debt isn’t an immediate problem, when will it become one? Let me answer that for you.

The debt will become an immediate crisis when our economy inevitably dips into recession, a phenomenon which has occurred historically about once every 5 years since World War II. In fact, recession is exactly what’s happening in Cyprus right now. But surely recession will never reoccur in the U.S., because government fixed that problem once and for all, right? I mean it cost us around $6.7 trillion over the last four years, but the problem is solved, right? With GDP surging at a robust growth rate of 0.4% (revised) in the 4th Quarter of 2012, how can our government possibly be wrong? Oh give me a break!

I believe part of what exacerbated the crisis of 2008 was an excessive amount of government debt. So what do you think is going to happen with our debt hovering above 100% of GDP, as the next crisis hits? Is the U.S. government prepared for another recession? Is there anything left in the tank? It sure doesn’t look like it. Well, we’re not going to sit around and let the government continue to tax us to death, and we’re definitely not going for the unlawful seizure of our money and property, so I suggest you government guys get your act together and get serious about your spending problem, and that means now.

Instead of loosening standards and letting everyone who wants to – go on disability, welfare and food stamps; granting any illegal alien who desires – a free pass; and subsidizing any and everyone’s health insurance bill, while the other half of us and our grandchildren get stuck with the bill, now is the time to tighten standards and cut the slack. The sequester is right! Reducing the size of government is right!

Government needs to learn how to say, “No”. It should be, ‘Sorry, you’re going to have to go back to work, and you’re going to have to go back to your own country, and you’re going to have to chip in on taxes, because we can’t have 50% of the populace taking care of everyone else.’ If our government doesn’t learn how to say no, it’s going to destroy this nation and along with it our freedom. Yes, the debt is an immediate crisis, and it is an imminent threat to the survival of the Republic.

The chart above is from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. I’ll ask again. Does this look like it might be an immediate crisis, or just a tiny little problem years and years from now? It sure looks immediate to me, but maybe I’m just a bit more focused on surviving the unknowns, than sitting around fooling myself into thinking everything is going to be rosy ten years from now, if I just fold my hands, play a little more golf, and trust that someone else will handle it for me. Yeah, just like Cyprus, right? It’s time to stop playing politics and face reality.

References:

My Data – USA vs. Cyprus: Debt to GDP

IMF: World Economic Outlook Database, October 2012

Related:

Budgeting 101: A Balanced Approach

What Does Sequestration Mean To You?

From AAA to AA- in Four Years

Uncorrelated: GDP and National Debt

#Debt

Budgeting 101: A Balanced Approach

/ L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

I do believe that at some point government has borrowed enough. Although tax revenue is directly tied to economic growth, government spending is not.

– By: Larry Walker, II –

How does one balance a budget? Let me count the ways. Spend less than you take in annually, and you’ll live within your means. But how can governments comply? Why that’s easy. Simply calculate the rate of revenue growth in the previous year, then adjust the prior year’s spending level by this multiple for the current year. If a deficit ensues, trim spending back into balance. If a surplus results, pass it back to taxpayers in the form of tax rate reductions. Most of us would call this a balanced approach.

Of course proponents of big-government will retort, “It doesn’t work like that. We must spend around 50% or more than we take in, to stimulate revenue; so that we can spend around 50% more than we take in, to stimulate even more revenue; so that we can spend around 50% more than we take in, stimulating ever more revenue, ad infinitum…” Yet, it’s rather obvious that the modern day extreme left-wing’s touted correlation between government borrowing and economic growth is nonexistent, as we proved in – Uncorrelated: GDP and National Debt.

It might be helpful for far left-wingers to remember the words of the Original Democrat, Andrew Jackson, who once said, “I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.” For more, see my post entitled, From AAA to AA- in Four Years.

You see, “For Jackson politics was very personal,” says H.W. Brands, an Andrew Jackson biographer at the University of Texas. “He hated not just the federal debt. He hated debt at all.” Before he was president, Jackson was a land speculator in Tennessee. He learned to hate debt when a land deal went bad and left him with massive debt and some worthless paper notes. Thus, unlike POTUS #44, Jackson brought practical business experience to the White House.

When he ran for president, Jackson knew his enemy: banks and the national debt. He called it “the national curse”. In Jackson’s mind, debt was “a moral failing”, says Brands. “The idea you could somehow acquire stuff through debt almost seemed like black magic.” But now days, if you listen closely to the Democratic Party, its enemy is no longer the national debt, but rather the average, anti-debt, fiscally responsible, Tea Party patriot.

The Balanced Approach

What would the federal government’s surpluses and deficits look like had it followed a balanced approach since 1929? Per the chart below, having begun with a surplus of $1 billion in 1929, the federal government would have realized a surplus of $835 billion in the 3rd quarter of 2012, compared to an actual deficit of around $1.1 trillion. Of course, all surpluses along the way could have been returned to taxpayers through periodic tax rate reductions, making income tax compliance at least somewhat worthy of the effort.

Under the balanced approach, when all spending is totaled from 1929 through 2012, the federal government would have spent a total of $39.4 trillion, versus the $66.9 trillion actually spent, for savings of $27.5 trillion. That means instead of a national debt fast approaching $17 trillion, we could be sitting on a national surplus of around $10.5 trillion.

The Unbalanced Approach

In contrast, what has the federal government’s unbalanced approach yielded? Per the second chart (below), having begun with a surplus of $1 billion in 1929, the federal government wound up running a budget deficit of approximately $1.1 trillion in the 3rd quarter of 2012. As you can see, the main imbalance has occurred since the year 2008, which is when the federal government adopted its current philosophy, where expenditures are completely decoupled from revenue growth – as if spending is suddenly a function of an imaginary 22nd Century economic boom. Meanwhile, approximately $6.7 trillion has been added to the debt since 2008, and the economy grew at a paltry annual rate of 0.4% (revised) in the 4th Quarter of 2012.

Conclusion

Although federal tax revenue is a function of economic growth, government spending is not. In other words, as the economy grows, tax revenue increases; and as it shrinks, tax revenue declines. Anyone who doesn’t understand this should return to the 6th grade for a refresher in basic math. On the other hand, government spending is a function of revenue. That is to say, as tax revenue rises and falls, so follows the amount available for government expenditures. Surpluses and deficits are directly linked to the level of government spending. When government spends less than it takes in, there is a surplus; when it spends more than it takes in, a deficit. It’s really that simple.

If the federal government is to ever regain control over spending, it must start with the rate of revenue increase (or decrease) in the previous year, since this is the only reasonable way of projecting the amount available for the current year, and then adjust its current year spending level accordingly (up or down). As soon as a deficit appears, the role of government is to trim spending back into balance. When a surplus results, government’s role is to pass the savings back to taxpayers, in the form of tax rate reductions. This we call, “the balanced approach” – and there is none other. Don’t patronize me. There is really only one question, Will the Democratic Party ever recover its bygone common sense?

Reference:

My Worksheet on Google Drive

BEA: Table 3.2. Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures

Related:

From AAA to AA- in Four Years

Uncorrelated: GDP and National Debt

#Debt

What Does Sequestration Mean To You?

/ L. M. Walker / 3 Comments

Government is the Problem

– By: Larry Walker II –

“Originally passed as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 on the heels of the debt ceiling compromise, the sequester was intended to pressure the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “Supercommittee”) to agree on a budget of $1.5 trillion by way of spending cuts and revenue increases over the next decade.”

The above excerpt is from the National Council on Disability’s webpage entitled, What Will Sequestration Mean for People with Disabilities? A similar blurb may now be found on about every other government agency website, followed by a breakdown of how many disabled, homeless, widows and orphans will be left for dead, unless the federal government repeals its week-old budgetary cuts and instead raises taxes by around 40.7% across-the-board, which is about what it would take to come anywhere close to balancing the federal budget without such cuts.

But, the real question is what does the sequestration mean to you? I can’t answer that, but I can tell you what it means to me. What the sequestration means to me is that the U.S. government has decayed to the point of passing dummy laws, solely for the purpose of pressuring the very lawmakers who pass them, to enact real laws. In other words, government enacted the Sequester as law; solely as a means of pressuring itself into repealing it, and when its attempt failed, the mock law remained permanent.

I mean it’s akin to me signing a blood covenant stating that, “In my household, we will do without cable television, cell phone data plans, dining out, movies, snacks, and all other non-necessities, until such time as we actually have the money to pay for it,” but doing so, solely for the purpose of pressuring myself into deciding which we are going to do without – cable television, cell phone data plans, dining out, movies, snacks, or all other non-necessities. However, since there already wasn’t enough money to go around, and since I had already signed the covenant in my own blood, there was really nothing else to decide. So why didn’t I just make that decision from the get go? Actually, I did. “To thine own self be true.” ~ Anonymous

The lesson for government: Don’t pass a law you don’t intend to enforce. And for the public: Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. Signing a bill into law, solely for the purpose of pressuring lawmakers to repeal it, and then whining about it when they refuse, is indicative of the kind of leadership emanating from the White House these days. “In America you have a right to be stupid – if you want to be.” ~ John Kerry, Secretary of State (2/26/2013). Yeah, so who’s looking stupid now?

GAO: “No Opinion” on U.S. Financial Audit

/ L. M. Walker / 3 Comments

Comments on 2012 Financial Statements of the U.S. Government

– By: Larry Walker II –

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is required to audit financial statements for the U.S. government each year. What the GAO found in its Fiscal Year 2012 Audit published on January 17, 2013 is clearly unacceptable. If you take a few moments to read the report, what you’ll discover is that not only has the U.S. government been operating without a budget for the last three years, but even worse its books and records are so out of order that financial auditors were unable to render an opinion. You can bet that all the major credit rating agencies are paying attention and will render an opinion when judgment day arrives, and that day should be right around the corner. Following are some highlights from the latest report (in italics) along with a brief commentary.

Disclaimer of Opinion

“Because of the federal government’s inability to demonstrate the reliability of significant portions of the U.S. government’s accompanying accrual-based consolidated financial statements for fiscal years 2012 and 2011, principally resulting from limitations related to certain material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and other limitations on the scope of our work, we are unable to, and we do not, express an opinion on such accrual-based consolidated financial statements. As a result of these limitations, readers are cautioned that amounts reported in the accrual-based consolidated financial statements and related notes may not be reliable.”

Based on the auditor’s inability to express an opinion on the federal government’s financial statements, it is my opinion that any request to raise the debt ceiling should be summarily denied. Were the federal government a private entity, its creditors would be cashing out now and asking questions later. But since the federal government has a seeming unlimited ability to borrow without ever reducing its debt principal, perhaps my personal perceptions are overly rational. Then again, any decision based upon uncertainty or unreliable information can later come back to bite. If the federal government’s financial statements are so unreliable that auditors are unable to express an opinion, my gut instinct is to limit exposure, cut losses and move on.

“While significant progress has been made in improving federal financial management since the federal government began preparing consolidated financial statements 16 years ago, three major impediments continued to prevent GAO from rendering an opinion on the federal government’s accrual-based consolidated financial statements over this period: (1) serious financial management problems at DOD that have prevented its financial statements from being auditable, (2) the federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and (3) the federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.”

The Department of Defense (DOD) is no longer the largest drag on the federal budget; the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) came in at number one last year, while the Social Security Administration (SSA) clocked in at number two, responsible for 23% and 22% of net federal costs, respectively. DOD now represents the 3rd largest item in the federal budget, consuming 21% of the government’s $3.8 trillion in net costs for FY 2012, yet its financial statements are currently not auditable. That means we really have no idea what DOD is buying, what it already owns, or the true nature of its future liabilities.

Further, according to GAO, most of the increase in DOD’s cost during FY 2012 was attributed to its Military Retirement Fund and other benefits programs. Since at the same time, the bulk of HHS and SSA costs come from major social insurance and postemployment benefits programs administered by those agencies (e.g., Medicare for HHS, and Social Security for SSA), that means better than 50% of federal spending (more than $1.9 Trillion) is directed towards retirement security, medical care, and other social welfare programs, which technically account for the entire $1.3 trillion shortfall realized by the federal government in FY 2012, and then some.

Intragovernmental Insanity

The national debt is comprised of debt held by the public and intragovernmental holdings. Intragovernmental holdings are debts the federal government owes to itself, a phenomenon only possible within the realm of the criminally insane. For example, as of the end of FY 2012, the Treasury has borrowed a total of $2.7 trillion from the Social Security Administration (its entire Trust Fund), and more recently from federal employee pension funds in order to meet its unmanageable over-inflated obligations. The total debt outstanding has grown from $5.7 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2000 to $16.4 trillion as of January 17, 2013. Included within this figure, intragovernmental debt has grown from $2.3 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2000 to $4.9 trillion as of January 17, 2013 (see table below).

As if the sheer weight of its total debt isn’t bad enough, according to GAO, the federal government can no longer adequately account for and reconcile its intragovernmental activity or the balances owed between federal agencies. Here’s an example. Back on June 28, 2010, the United States Postal Service, Office of Inspector General (OIG) discovered that the Postal Service had made a $75 billion overpayment to the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). However, since according to Note 24 of the GAO report (page 120), the Civil Service Retirement and Disability, and Civil Service Health Benefits Program Trust Funds are currently $849.1 billion and $240.0 billion in the hole, respectively, why would CSRS care?

USPS to CSRS: “Hey, you guys owe us $75 billion.”

CSRS to USPS: “Hey, give us a break; we’re already over a trillion dollars in the hole.”

USPS to CSRS: “My bad, we keep forgetting.”

World War Infinity

“Prior to 1917, the Congress approved each debt issuance. In 1917, to facilitate planning in World War I, Congress established a dollar ceiling for Federal borrowing. With the Public Debt Act of 1941 (Public Law 77-7), Congress and the President set an overall limit of $65 billion on Treasury debt obligations that could be outstanding at any one time. Since then, Congress and the President have enacted a number of debt limit increases. Most recently, pursuant to the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, the debt limit was raised by $400 billion in August 2011 to $14.694 trillion, by $500 billion in September 2011 to $15.194 trillion, and by $1.2 trillion to $16.394 trillion in January 2012.”

Let’s make this clear. Prior to 1917, Congress approved each and every debt issuance request made by the Treasury Department. It was with the outbreak of the 1st World War that a debt ceiling was first established. This gave the Treasury some latitude in keeping the government afloat without impairing wartime activities. So it would make sense that after the end of World Wars I and II, Congress would resume its role of approving each debt issuance. But instead, the U.S. government has morphed into a permanent war mentality. Now, a small minority of borderline insane pundits are actually advocating for complete removal of any form of debt ceiling. It’s World War Infinity, they surmise. Like spoiled little children, they have conned themselves into believing that the role of government is to borrow and spend our way into a utopian entitlement paradise. Where are the adults?

Material Weaknesses

“In addition to the material weaknesses underlying these major impediments, GAO identified four other material weaknesses. These are the federal government’s inability to (1) determine the full extent to which improper payments occur and reasonably assure that appropriate actions are taken to reduce improper payments, (2) identify and resolve information security control deficiencies and manage information security risks on an ongoing basis, (3) effectively manage its tax collection activities, and (4) effectively monitor and report loans receivable and loan guarantee liabilities.”

While a minority within the realm of the spoiled and irresponsible are vying for total removal of any limits on the national debt, we have just been informed that the federal government has no control over improper payments, no ability to manage information security risks, cannot effectively manage its tax collections, and is unable to effectively monitor and report its loans receivable and its ballooning loan guarantee liabilities. It seems to me that the federal government should get a grip on its internal infrastructure before another dime is borrowed or spent. However, even if the federal government were able to show improvement in these areas, there are other issues on the horizon threatening to derail its entire operation.

Risks and Uncertainty

According to GAO, there are risks that other factors could affect the federal government’s financial condition in the future, including the following:

  • The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is facing a deteriorating financial situation as it reached its borrowing limit of $15 billion in fiscal year 2012 and finished the year with a reported net loss of almost $16 billion.

  • The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) reported that its liabilities exceeded its assets by about $15 billion as of September 30, 2012, and that the capital ratio for its Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund fell below zero during the fiscal year. In addition, the ultimate roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage market may further affect FHA’s financial condition.

  • Several initiatives undertaken during the last 4 years by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to stabilize the financial markets have led to a significant change in the composition and size of reported securities on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. The value of these securities, which include mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Government National Mortgage Association, is subject to interest rate risk and may decline or increase depending on interest rate changes. Therefore, if the Federal Reserve sells these securities at a loss, future payments of Federal Reserve earnings to the federal government may be reduced.

The USPS, FHA, and Federal Reserve are in over their heads, and either technically bankrupt, or soon to be. Yet, the only answer proffered by our so-called leaders in Washington, DC is to keep borrowing. Is this really the only viable solution? The Post Office borrowed $15 billion and then lost almost $16 billion last year. Does that sound like an entity worthy of another loan? Not in my world. It seems to me that instead of continuing to prop it up, it’s time for the USPS to go the way of the dinosaurs. The FHA and Federal Reserve can follow suit.

Also according to GAO, examples of assets and liabilities reported by the federal government that are subject to substantial uncertainty include the following:

  • The federal government’s consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2012, include approximately $109 billion of investments in two government-sponsored enterprises—the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (reported net of about $85 billion in valuation losses). In addition, as of September 30, 2012, the financial statements include about $9 billion of liabilities for future payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and disclose a projected maximum remaining potential commitment to these entities of about $282 billion under agreements between Treasury and the entities. The future structures of these two government-sponsored enterprises and the roles they will serve in the mortgage market must still be determined.

  • The federal government reported Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) direct loans and equity investments of approximately $40 billion as of September 30, 2012 (reported net of about $23 billion in valuation losses), of which approximately $20 billion related to loans to and equity investments in certain entities in the automotive industry.

  • The federal government reported that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s (PBGC) liabilities exceeded its assets by about $34 billion as of September 30, 2012. PBGC is subject to further losses if plan terminations that are reasonably possible occur.

In other words, the federal government “invested” $109 billion into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which resulted in $85 billion in valuation losses, yet it plans to invest another $291 billion going forward. Another $63 billion was invested in loans made to TARP, which reported $23 billion in valuation losses ($20 billion of which is attributable to loans made to the auto industry). And the PBGC’s liabilities now exceed its assets by around $34 billion and it may be subject to further losses going forward. And what’s the federal government’s solution? Raise the debt ceiling, borrow more, and keep propping up failed entities, otherwise it fears the whole house of cards may come crashing down. Perhaps it’s time to get real and just go ahead and begin dismantling the entire criminal enterprise, one failed agency, entity and fund at a time.

Conclusion

The GAO was not able to express an opinion on the U.S. government’s financial statements, but that doesn’t stop us from reading between the lines. Either we deal with our fiscal problems now, or later. Leaving my granddaughter’s a legacy of failure is not something I’m willing to support. It’s time to grow up, and demonstrate it by cutting the federal government down to its bare bones. Do this today and we might have a chance; wait until tomorrow, and according to GAO, the U.S.A.’s debt-to-GDP ratio will reach 395% by fiscal year 2087 and rise continuously thereafter. If Congress raises the federal government’s debt ceiling without fundamental fiscal reform, then we all deserve everything we’ve got coming to us, nothing. Until such reform takes place, government ilk can count me out. Don’t call me, don’t write me, don’t ask me to invest in federal debt issues, and don’t dare ask me for another dime.

References:

Financial Audit: U.S. Government’s Fiscal Years 2012 and 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements

What GAO Found

Related:

War on Wealth III | National Debt Review

Postal Service OIG Discovers $75 Billion Overpayment, Again

Social Security: A Breach of Trust – Notes on 2010 Financial Statements of the U.S. Government

Debt Ceiling: Evidence of Absence

/ L. M. Walker / Leave a comment

“Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending. It simply allows the country to pay for spending that Congress has already committed to.” ~ POTUS ::

:: By: Larry Walker II ::

Wow, that was enlightening. I really had no idea. Now I get it. He must be talking about last year, when Congress voted unanimously in favor of the president’s budget, then walked it over to the Senate, which also unanimously approved. That’s when Congress committed to another trillion dollars of deficit spending, right?

Too bad that never happened. In reality, the president’s budget failed to attain a single vote in Congress.

“Before taking up their own budget plan for next year, House Republicans pushed a version of President Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget to the floor for a vote, and it was it was unanimously defeated, 414-0.” ~ Fox News (March 28, 2012)

“President Obama’s budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.” ~ Washington Times (May 16, 2012)

Well, perhaps he meant this year, when Congress approved an across-the-board tax hike on every American, and at the same time delayed the previously committed automatic spending cuts for two months? But wasn’t that less about spending and more about fairness (or something)?

“President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act (H.R. 8) late Jan. 2, permanently extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for individuals earning up to $400,000 and postponing automatic, across-the-board spending cuts for two months.” ~ Bloomberg BNA (January 7, 2013)

Now I’m confused. Exactly when did Congress commit to another trillion dollars in deficit spending?

Evidence of Absence

Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. For example: If it’s raining outside, then the streets will be wet. So it may be assumed that if the streets are not wet, then it is not raining outside. Does that make sense? If so, then so should the following:

The national debt increases when government spending is out of control, so if the national debt does not increase, then government spending is under control.

So what is a debt ceiling? Is it not a limit which prevents the nation from incurring additional debt, beyond a level which Congress has already committed to? If so, then POTUS may have it backwards (as usual). If raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending, as POTUS so stated, then it may also be said that, not raising the debt ceiling does not authorize less spending. But that’s just nonsense.

I hate to spoil the party, but since the previous increase to the debt ceiling has already been spent, we must conclude that government spending is indeed out of control. Thus, the real issue is not whether Congress should raise the debt ceiling (once again), but rather who, or what, keeps authorizing the federal government’s blatantly obvious spending problem.

Let us be clear. The absence of positive action to increase the debt ceiling will cause the size of government to decrease. Contrariwise, the act of raising the debt ceiling leads to increased spending, more indebtedness, higher taxes and bigger government. If the debt ceiling is not raised, then the federal government must live within its means. So what’s it going to be? Shall we begin living within our means, or will we trudge forward, wantonly borrowing, seemingly without limit?

References:

Evidence of Absence

Appeal to Ignorance (Shifting the Burden of Proof)

Argument from Ignorance

List of Fallacies

There is No Platinum Bullet

/ L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

But there is plenty of Gold ::

Here are my recently edited Google+ comments on, “Hey, let’s avoid the debt-ceiling standoff by minting a trillion-dollar platinum coin instead.”

Yeah, let’s borrow another trillion dollars, and then use it to buy a trillion dollars worth of platinum. Then we can mint it into a gigantic non-marketable, non-negotiable coin, deposit it into the Treasury, and use it as collateral for the cost of buying the Platinum and minting it into a gigantic coin. That sounds like a real winner, eh? Yeah, it’s a dumb idea, and not even possible since there isn’t a trillion dollars worth of platinum lying around anywhere for the taking.

On the practical side, why not just take the 261,498,900 troy ounces of Gold sitting in the Treasury, which is something the federal government already owns, then sell it all for $433 billion? This would raise $422 billion net, since the government would first have to redeem the gold certificates held by the FRB for $11 billion, which the gold currently stands as collateral. Then we can use the proceeds to cover 40% of this year’s budget deficit. Once this has been accomplished, then next year we can _ _   _ _ _ _   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (you fill in the blanks).

One of the commenter’s admitted that the idea was crazy, but then went on to say that he thinks eliminating the debt ceiling is a good idea. His reasoning was that the government is constitutionally mandated to pay its debts, or something. To this I replied, “You just said the government has to pay its debts, and then said there should be no debt ceiling because the government must pay its debts. So how is the federal government’s act of continuing to borrow more on an unlimited basis synonymous with paying its debts?” He continued to repeat the same foolishness without stopping to try to understand my point, so my interest in the conversation waned.

My creditors have extended to me credit within certain limits. If I exceed those limits I will be forced to pay a penalty, and the extension of credit will cease. If I don’t bring the debt balance below the limit quickly enough, my accounts may be closed at the lenders discretion. Even an unlimited credit line has an implied limit. That is the point at which the debtor can no longer reasonably make principal and interest payments while meeting its basic obligations.

Having worked in the past as a corporate credit manager, I can state that when extending credit, one of the considerations is whether the debtor has enough annual income to cover principal and interest payments on all of its outstanding debt, while at the same time being able to cover its basic obligations. Using the same logic, it doesn’t take a degree in accounting or finance to understand that the U.S. government is already well beyond this capability. It is not setting aside monies to pay its debt principal, and is in fact not making principal payments at all. It is basically continuing to borrow more in order to meet its basic obligations, including the interest it pays on the debt.

Like it or not, the U.S. government has an implied credit limit, which has already been surpassed. It is currently borrowing to meet its basic obligations including interest paid on its “interest only” credit line. At this point, if the federal government were to raise income tax rates by 50% on everyone, it still wouldn’t be enough to cover principal and interest payments and to meet its basic obligations. To get there, on its current trajectory, would take better than a 100% across-the-board tax hike. Until the federal government balances its budget, there’s really nothing to look forward to or even discuss.

When creditors stop issuing credit, or begin to demand higher interest rates to compensate for the risk of default, that’s when the house of cards comes crashing down. When it comes to the federal debt, there is no platinum bullet. This government must either cut spending dramatically, or raise taxes by more than 100% across-the-board, it’s either that or face extinction.

Related: Solving the Debt Crisis | A Catch-22; From AAA to AA- in Four Years

Photo Via: The Most Expensive Journal

Taxing Inflation, Part 3 | Romney vs. Nothing

/ L. M. Walker / 1 Comment

“We are in the midst of yet another great American discussion about taxation. Perhaps no policy area has become more sensitive or controversial. At stake are two vital concerns for the American future: How will we generate sufficient revenue to balance our budget without discouraging economic activity, and will the burden of taxation fall equitably on all Americans?” ~ Mitt Romney

Faith vs. Hopelessness | Independence vs. Dependence

– By Larry Walker, Jr. –

Under Mitt Romney’s tax proposal, no one making less than $200,000 a year is taxed on interest income, dividends or capital gains. For more on why this is just, see Parts One and Two, but to be brief, when investments are losing purchasing power at a faster pace than current returns, a tax on investment income merely acts as a second tax on top of inflation. In addition, under Romney’s plan, income tax rates are cut by 20% across the board, with the bottom tax bracket reduced from 10% to 8%, and the top bracket from 35% to 28%. The last President to lower top tax rates to 28% was Ronald Reagan, and we all know what happened back in the 1980’s. Romney’s game plan also eliminates the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which deserves to die, since Congress has failed to peg its exemptions to inflation.

Aside from the above, Romney eliminates the death tax and caps corporate tax rates at 25%. Altogether Romney’s strategy is pro-growth, one fully capable of giving our stagnant economy the boost it needs to reach a full recovery, and place us back on the right track. Although Romney’s proposal isn’t perfect, it’s far better than the alternative, which can be pretty much summed up as nothing to less than nothing. That’s right! Barack Obama’s scheme omits economic growth as a viable possibility, instead settling on sanctimonious indignation against high achievers, especially business owners who would be hit by his proposed tax hikes.

Obama’s blueprint offers nothing for 98% of Americans, those making less than $157,197 in 1993 dollars (the equivalent of $250,000 today). In other words, you won’t see your taxes rise or fall by one dime, except of course for those new health care taxes. And for the remaining 2%, those making more than $157,197 in 1993 dollars (the equivalent of $250,000 today), Obama offers to hike tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, and to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 30% or more. In short, under Obama’s outline, 100% of the 51% of Americans who pay income taxes will either receive nothing, or less than nothing. But the most glaring flaw in Obama’s program is that it omits incentives capable of stimulating private sector investment, and thus growth. And without private sector growth, there will be even fewer jobs to go around, and only more of the same — temporary, deficit-financed, government boondoggles.

A Dearth of Gross Private Domestic Investment

Gross Private Domestic Investment is one of the four components of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In the United States, real gross private domestic investment currently represents just 14.1% of real GDP, or $1.9 trillion. But after the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill in 1997, real gross private domestic investment subsequently peaked at 17.5% of GDP in the year 2000. The 1997 bill lowered the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%, which induced greater levels of private domestic investment, leading to a higher rate of GDP growth, and increases in economic activity, employment and tax collections. Contrary to popular opinion, it was actually the 1997 tax cuts, not the 1993 Clinton tax hike, which produced the boom of the 1990’s (see chart below).

In the year 2000, the Dot-Com Bubble burst, wiping out a great deal of private capital and reducing gross private domestic investment back to 15.6% of GDP by 2002. So Republicans passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. The 2003 Act slashed capital gains rates once again, this time to 5% and 15%. This attracted capital investment back into the economy, boosting gross private domestic investment to 17.2% of GDP in the years 2005 through 2006. Then in 2007, global credit markets went haywire, the housing bubble burst, and the Great Recession commenced. Lasting until June of 2009, the most recent downturn dragged gross private domestic investment to a 20-year low of 11.4% of GDP. Although there has since been a mild rebound to 14.1% of GDP, gross private domestic investment remains hopelessly mired in the same doldrums faced in the mid-1990s. Private investors, perhaps with good reason, are still reluctant to place new capital at risk domestically.

The Perils of Government Investment

There is a strong correlation between gross private domestic investment and real GDP growth (see table). Which came first, the investment or the growth? Well, without investment, there is no growth. And investment can only come from two sectors, private or government. Federal government consumption has remained constant, representing 7.7% of GDP in 1995 and 7.6% currently, while state and local government consumption has declined from 13% of GDP in 1995 to 10.6% currently (see table). The federal goverment’s contribution to GDP is already deficit financed, and state and local governments have bankrupted themselves through commitments to union induced pension schemes and Medicaid. So which is likely to succeed, more deficit-financed government investment, or higher levels of private sector investment?

The reason gross private domestic investment remains retarded is due to the policies of Barack Obama. Under Obama’s program, government spending has spiraled completely out of control, resulting in a glut of low interest U.S. Treasury securities, which are siphoning off capital from the private sector, via the lure of a government guarantee. This is doing a great deal of harm to the American economy, since government is incapable of building anything on its own. As a matter of fact, the only accoutrement the federal government has built by its lonesome is a $15.8 trillion mountain of debt, which now amounts to $139,500 for each U.S. taxpayer (subject to increase every millisecond). What’s ironic is that a taxpayer investing in U.S. government securities is also responsible for making interest payments on the same, through income taxes. After all, it’s not like the government has its own private stash with which to pay. Thus, the notion of government investment is but a farce.

The Obama administration’s latest presumption involves purchasing aviation biofuel through the U.S. Air Force at $59 per gallon, while straight avgas is selling for $3.60 a gallon. This they surmise is somehow a good use of taxpayer monies. The Obama administration, in its wisdom, fully expects the price of biofuels to fall by 2015, even if solely through the demand of a single customer – the U.S. taxpayer. Apparently, no private sector airline is dumb enough to join the gala. The major flaw in this design is that the recipient of this generous subsidy, Gevo, Inc., relies heavily on corn in the manufacture of its patented isobutanol fuel. And since day corn prices have jumped by more than 52% in the last month, due to the severe drought, this puppy is liable to go bankrupt by the end of the year, along with the rest of the Obama administration’s not-so-green, government financed, ventures. But at least we can say, “We didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen.” Is converting the food supply into fuel ever a good idea? Hello!

By the way, Gevo’s stock peaked on the NASDAQ exchange at $25.55 per share in April of 2011, but since the end of June has been trading below $5.00 per share. The fact that the stock had already lost over 80% of its value before the drought tells us all we need to know about the current administration’s due diligence. Relying on government investment to make up for a shortfall in private investment is kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Barack Obama’s parting shot, proposing to raise income taxes in the middle of an economic quandary, is about twice as dopey. By now it should be clear that Obama’s big-government dream isn’t the solution to our problems, it is the problem. Government doesn’t know best. In fact, but for the $2.4 trillion a year it collects in taxes from the private sector, the federal government wouldn’t exist.

The Verdict

Raising real gross private domestic investment back to 17.5% of GDP would add as much as 3.4% to real GDP, or the equivalent of $455.6 billion. And since according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, per capita personal income is currently $37,500, that means rebalancing the economy in favor of gross private domestic investment could translate into as many as 12.2 million new jobs.

Mitt Romney’s proposal, to eliminate the tax on interest, dividends, and capital gains for those making less than $200,000, is the only serious plan on the table capable of boosting gross private domestic investment back to 2000 levels, and beyond. And the creation of 12.2 million new jobs through Romney’s strategy is just the tip of the iceberg. Additional jobs are created through increases in personal consumption as the result of cutting income tax rates by 20% across the board, eliminating the AMT, eliminating the death tax, and capping corporate taxes at 25%.

In contrast, Barack Obama’s inflation tax raises taxes on the most productive Americans, those making more than $157,197 in 1993 dollars (the equivalent of $250,000 today), and does nothing for the other 98% of Americans, the combination of which will result in the loss of as many as 12.7 million jobs. So Obama’s notion offers nothing to less than nothing in terms of economic growth.

Mitt Romney’s proposal, on the other hand, leads to higher levels of gross private domestic investment, GDP, economic activity, employment, and tax collections. It’s the best hope for improving America’s economic condition. It’s economic independence versus dependence. It’s faith versus hopelessness. It’s pro-growth versus nothing. Thus, you may place me in the decided column. Was there ever a doubt?