What You Don't Understand About the Debt Ceiling Debate

What you don't understand is that spending is already at or near record levels. According to the White House, spending has more than doubled since 2000 and is due to increase yet again in 2011 to a record 3.8 trillion. If this isn't stimulus spending, I don't know what is. Yet I and many other common people, have absolutely no faith that this record spending is being spent wisely and will lead to future economic growth.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Year Receipts Total Outlays Deficit

2000 2,025,191 1,788,950 236,241
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489
2011 estimate 2,173,700 3,818,819 -1,645,119

The government sector is too large and needs to be restructured. People need to be shifted to jobs in the private sector, government needs to stop trying to be everything to everyone. The fact is that even with Boehner's plan, we would still have record levels of spending along with record projected deficits. That's why his plan is a huge compromise plan that is a win for Democrats already, asking for more is plain insulting. Look at the numbers and take $90 billion off of the outlays and off of the deficit. Does it even matter? Does it change the big picture? Be reasonable.

If these small cuts can't be enacted, what chance is there of real cuts in the future? No, people have been pushed against a wall and can't back up anymore. The fact that Boehner can't even get an agreement to freeze spending at 2011 levels shows how much he's backed down and enough is enough.

Government Today Incapable of Wise Spending

Government today is simply incapable of good spending, that is spending on projects that will produce a positive net benefit in the future. Projects are approved and denied for political reasons, not economic reasons, here's a good example...

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/06/federal-governments-solution-to-non.html

Megabus provides low-cost, non-stop express bus service twice daily between Iowa City and Chicago for fares as low as $10 each way for service on some days, and $18 and $23 on other days. The single and double decker luxury buses offer free wireless Internet, convenient power outlets for laptops and cell phones, and panoramic windows (see photo above), and the one-way trip takes less than four hours. To provide this affordable, convenient, dependable and low-cost daily bus service between Iowa City and Chicago, Megabus receives no taxpayer funding, federal or state subsidies, loan guarantees, support payments, etc.

So what's the federal government's response to the "non-problem" of affordable public transportation between Iowa City and Chicago? At New Geography, Wendell Cox writes:

"The federal government is again offering money it does not have to entice a state (Iowa) to spend money that it does not have on something it does not need. The state of Iowa is being asked to provide funds to match federal funding for a so-called "high speed rail" line from Chicago to Iowa City. The new rail line would simply duplicate service that is already available (Megabus).

Perhaps most surprisingly, the luxury buses make the trip faster than the so-called high speed rail line, at 3:50 hours. The trains would take more than an hour longer (5:00 hours). No one would be able to get to Chicago quicker than now. Only in America does anyone call a train that averages 45 miles per hour "high speed rail."

The state would be required to provide $20 million in subsidies to buy trains and then more to operate the trains, making up the substantial difference between costs and passenger fares. This is despite a fare much higher than the bus fare, likely to be at least $50 (based upon current fares for similar distances). By contrast, the luxury bus service charges a fare of $18.00 (or less, see above), and does not require a penny of taxpayer subsidy.

Here in Los Angeles, we have the worst subway system in the world yet it was the most costly to build per mile. I have used the Shanghai, Paris, Hong Kong, Beijing, New York, and Bay Area subway systems more than I have used the LA one even though I have lived in LA for more than 30 years. The system could be made better if it went to more areas. Right now, the entire West Side and beaches are uncovered. Instead of spending money on projects that would reduce traffic and increase living standards, we have ridiculous projects like the one above along with another "high speed" rail project that proposes to link LA with San Francisco at some point. Yet this project will begin by linking two communities I've never heard of in the Central Valley. This is only the tip of the iceberg though.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/16/opinion/la-ed-bullettrain-20110516

The train's biggest problems can be laid at the feet of the High Speed Rail Authority, which is overseeing its construction. Inexperienced board members appointed by the governor and Legislature on the basis of political patronage rather than expertise have made a host of poor decisions. Not the least boneheaded of these is the board's plan to take a circuitous route from Los Angeles to Bakersfield by veering through Palmdale and Lancaster. Compared with the more direct route along Interstate 5 through the Grapevine, this would add 30 miles to the trip plus $1 billion in construction costs, and make it all but impossible for the train to meet its promised travel time of 2 hours and 40 minutes from L.A. to San Francisco.

Instead of these stupid projects that will produce ongoing legacy costs forever, a better idea might be just to give people money to spend in the form of debit cards. These projects not only do not produce a positive net future benefit, they produce a NEGATIVE benefit as they will be in the red and cost government resources to maintain for as long as they operate. These are only some of the reasons why more government spending is so opposed at this time.

Our Current Low Inflation Environment

There is no inflation right now because people are deleveraging by cutting down their debt loads. Credit is still very very hard to get for the average person, I just applied for a mortgage and the fees alone are outrageous, but credit is limited and those who offer credit can charge whatever they want to. Most banks aren't interested in lending.

Americans understand that they can't spend like they used to, debt loads cannot continue to go up like they did before, the banks/credit lenders won't allow it and people don't want more debt anyway. So instead of spending and bidding up prices by demand, people are paying off debt as they can. We won't see inflation until the average American's balance sheet is repaired.

That means government fiscal policy will not be able to increase aggregate demand. As soon as government stops spending, demand will fall back to levels Americans find appropriate. However, should government continue to spend and spend, a new crisis will emerge pertaining to government debt loads. We'll be in the same position as Japan, the spending having accomplished nothing but with a huge debt weighing on our heads. Unlike what MMT proponents say, government cannot finance its debt and interest payments by itself, any attempt to do so will cause a collapse in confidence and bring about a crisis, much like the one we're witnessing in Europe.

The European crisis is one of the reasons for such low Treasury yields. Investors are pulling money out of Europe, selling their bonds, and investing in US Treasuries instead, causing a decline in yields. If there is one thing to be learned, it's that the financial landscape can change very very quickly once a tipping point is reached. Once confidence is lost and fear takes over, a stampede for the exits ensues. The collapse of the Euro from $1.50 to $1.23 was as quick as lightning. And it only took a matter of months for Greece to find out that their debt could only be sold at incredibly high interest rates, that is if it could be sold at all.

A similar tale awaits the US should it continue on with reckless spending, especially the useless pork barrel spending that the Congress is accustomed to. Once it becomes evident that the debt load is too large to finance, yields will rise very quickly and capital will flee the scene. Confidence once lost, is hard to regain. Draconian cuts to government spending will be demanded and government will have to surrender to the bond vigilantes and speculators as they have done in Greece, Spain, and even France.

We don't have to go down that road. And it bothers me that what money is being spent is not being spent well. At the very least spend money for productive projects that has some chance of paying off in the future, not on cars for clunkers or any of the crap that has so far been proposed. Tax breaks for corporations to buy equipment? No thanks. How about extending the Bush tax cuts permanently if you insist on continued stimulus? Allowing Americans to deleverage faster by taking less from them is the quickest way out of this crisis. The economy cannot heal until Americans are in better financial shape and are ready to spend again.

Commentary on Deficit Debate

The issue at hand isn't with the current budget and the huge deficits that may not be possible to cut in this time of crisis. It is with the continuation of these deficits for as far as the eye can see. Furthermore, the administration has attempted to enact additional programs that would be permanent and add to that already endless morass of large deficits. This is what people are concerned about.

There would be no issue if we ran -10%GDP deficits for 3 or so years, but the problems are structural and the current administration and congress refuse to acknowledge or deal with the long term problems that will impact us as soon as more Boomers begin to retire. No one wants to deal with tough issues and choices, but our leaders were elected for that purpose. The country has every right to be pissed, the buck has been passed for long enough, it can no longer be delayed for the next administration to handle.

We don't want to play the blame game. Fine past administrations and congresses put us in this place, but the current crop of officials were elected because we needed change. We needed people who would deal with the buildup of debt and crap and obligations. We didn't elect these officials just so they can whine and continue ignoring the problems of the country like past administrations. We expected real change, and change is difficult. These people who ran on change have failed to be different from the people we wanted to change. Enough excuses, it's time to deal with the situation at hand. Americans do not like whiners in our leadership, they expect decisive actions, not more finger pointing!

It's the Details Stupid! Wisdom of a Second Stimulus

It's the details that are important! Government spending can only be good NET DEFICIT if the spending produces long term benefits that will outweigh the costs. In other words, it has to be a good value or else the spending will be a hindrance.

It's like someone at age 18 with a host of choices. Going into debt $80,000 or more can be worthwhile if they are able to get something, like an education, that allows them to more than make up for what they've spent. But if they blow $80,000 on girls and drugs, there'll be a temporary lift, but after the money is spent, their future will be even more bleak being $80,000 in debt.

Obama's problem is that he doesn't seem interested in the details. He let Congress waste the first stimulus instead of crafting his own stimulus plan. That's why there is no support for a second stimulus. The 18 year old has shown himself to be irresponsible by blowing the first installment of his loan. Why bother loaning him more money? There are consequences to waste and ineffective legislation!

Fake Job Creation Numbers

More on the wastefulness of the $787 first stimulus. And we're told we need another? No thank you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704204304574544063776158046.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r2:c0.122208:b28961300

At least funny bones are being stimulated by the Obama Administration's $787 billion economic stimulus bill.

To wit, how many Americans does it take to make nine pairs of work boots? According to the White House's recovery.gov site, an $890 shoe order for the Army Corps of Engineers, courtesy of the stimulus package, created nine new jobs at Moore's Shoes & Services in Campbellsville, Kentucky.

The job-for-a-boot plan may not be American productivity at its best. But such stories go a ways toward explaining how the Administration has come up with 640,329 jobs "created/saved" by the American Recovery Act as of October 30.

Jonathan Karl of ABC News deserves credit among Beltway reporters for committing journalism and actually fact-checking White House claims. Head Start in Augusta, Georgia claimed 317 jobs were created by a $790,000 grant. In reality, as Mr. Karl reported this week, the money went toward a one-off pay hike for 317 employees.

Other media outlets and government watchdog groups have also found numerous errors in the stimulus filings. Jobs have been overstated or counted multiple times. One Alabama housing authority claimed that a $540,071 grant would create 7,280 jobs. The Birmingham News reports that only 14 were created. In some cases, Recovery Act funds went to nonexistent Congressional districts, such as the 26th in Louisiana or the 12th in Virginia. Up to $6.4 billion went to imaginary places in America, according to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.

Asked by the New Orleans Times-Picayune why so many recipients would misstate their districts, Ed Pound, the director of communications for the Obama Administration's recovery.gov, said, "Who knows, man, who really knows."

Creating Government Jobs Through Stimulus

The problem with government job creation is that most are hired on a permanent basis. Union rules either prevent layoffs or make it extremely costly due to buyout provisions and similar measures. Since government jobs are not downwardly elastic, over-hiring beyond the optimal level required to provide services would represent a persistent burden long after the stimulative effects are no longer needed. That would hamper recovery and stifle economic growth.

Why? Because these jobs have to be paid for and so eventually higher taxes will have to be levied to pay for the extra government employees. Most state governments must run a balanced budget and can't run long term deficits, and the federal government which can, must eventually pay back the debt with interest. Even assuming some debt never has to be paid back, the federal government still has a market imposed debt ceiling beyond which it becomes increasingly more difficult and costly to finance.

It's the stickiness of government jobs that has to be taken into consideration. An increase in taxes has a negative effect on the economy, and because the outlook for the budget looks so bad already with total debt increasing faster than GDP (thus an increasing debt/GDP ratio) for the foreseeable future, there simply isn't any room for more.

As with any spending, the issue of value is important. Excess government jobs provide very little value, some of the worst bang for the buck available. Mish, I think, has a very credible analysis on the issue of "wasteful" stimulus, though the quote below is from HB.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/us-faces-second-lost-decade-because-of.html

"In reality, the entire inflationary mini-boomlet-within-the-depression was simply an illusion. 'GDP growth' that is bought with monetary pumping and feckless fiscal spending only misdirects and ultimately consumes even more scarce capital.

Fiscal stimulus may temporarily give the impression of a recovery, but it is not a genuine recovery. It makes things worse. The moment the pumping is abandoned, the true state of affairs is simply unmasked. That is what happened in 37/38 - a slight tightening of monetary policy revealed the fact that the mini-boomlet was as unsound as its predecessor boom in the years prior to the '29 crash."

In theory, these recessions and depressions happen because of mis-allocated resources. Mis-allocating more resources will only prolong the recession, not make it better. We need to allocate resources to productive uses, in other words, hiring people to dig holes and fill them up again just to create jobs isn't going to get us out of recession. As soon as the spending stops and the workers are laid off, we end up back where we started, but on even worse terms because of the added debt required to pay for those workers in the first place. Value seems to be the most important aspect missing from the discussion.