Tag: government borrowing

–Britain’s grand experiment: The debt hawk agenda

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

This should be interesting.

Here are some quotes from The Economist:
“The budget, unveiled by George Osborne, the new chancellor of the exchequer, in June: To balance the books, he raised some taxes, notably VAT, but three-quarters of the savings will come from spending cuts. Most government departments will shrink by a quarter, though Mr Osborne excluded the National Health Service from his savagery. In the heated debate between Keynesian economists (who worry that a weak world economy needs more government spending) and fiscal hawks (who believe deficits must be tackled now to stave off Grecian disaster), Britain is the prime exhibit for tough love.”

“Mr Osborne plans to get the job essentially done by 2014-15. If all goes to plan, the deficit will fall from 11% of GDP in 2009-10 to 2.1% in 2014-15. The structural deficit, which strips out the effects of the economic cycle, will drop from 8.7% of GDP to 0.8%. On a similar basis, the government will by then be running a small surplus on the current budget, which excludes net investment (due to be slashed anyway over the next couple of years). This is a much faster retrenchment than the previous Labour government envisaged. It planned to return the cyclically-adjusted current budget to balance in 2016-17. Labour’s fiscal consolidation would have amounted to 4% of GDP by 2014-15; Mr Osborne is aiming at 6.3%.”

Never mind that Britain can’t have a “Grecian disaster.” Britain is monetarily sovereign. Greece is not. Completely different situations. Raise taxes; cut spending. Government runs a surplus. That is the debt hawk mantra. If Britain actually follows through on these steps (doubtful), it will suffer terribly.

All you debt hawks out there; what is your prediction?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Why Medicare and Social Security are not “adequately financed”

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

Soon you will read about this new report:

2010 Social Security Trustees Report, August 6, 2010: “. . . the Medicare HI Trust Fund is adequately financed until 2029, and the Social Security OASI and DI Trust Funds are adequately financed until 2040 and 2018, respectively. . . significant longer term financial imbalances of the programs still need to be addressed .”

By:
Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, and Managing Trustee
Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor, and Trustee
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Trustee
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, and Trustee

For Mr. Geithner et al, “adequately financed,” means tax revenues will equal or exceed spending. When, spending exceeds taxes, Medicare and Social Security will be “inadequately financed,” i.e insolvent.

To put it gently, Mr. Geithner et al do not know what they are talking about.

Visualize a scenario where there are zero federal taxes. The federal government has no income, not even any money, yet sends you a check for $10 trillion dollars. You deposit the check in your bank. Will the check bounce? No. Your bank will send the check to the Treasury, which will credit your bank and debit its own balance sheets for $10 trillion. The bank now has $10 trillion, which it credits to your account, allowing you to buy a few thousand Rolls Royces or the State of Montana, whichever you prefer.

The government can send you checks endlessly, in any amount. With each check, the government merely debits its balance sheet and credits your bank account. The government balance sheet is just a score sheet, though it misleadingly is called “debt.” Whether that score sheet reads $10 trillion or $100 trillion makes no difference to the score sheet. The only limit is the artificial “debt limit,” on which Congress votes periodically. There is no functional limit on what any balance sheet can read. The government can write a check of any size, despite zero taxes, credit your account for any amount, and enter any amount into its score sheet.

Taxes may be levied for several social reasons (cigarette and liquor taxes are examples), but supplying the government with spending money is not one of them. The government creates money by spending. It does not use tax money. Therefore, all federal debt is sustainable, endlessly.

Because Social Security and Medicare are federal agencies, the government can support them endlessly, without any FICA taxes at all, merely by mailing checks. Sadly, the wrongheaded beliefs of Mr. Geithner et al have led to the deterioration of Social Security and Medicare benefits.

At one time, the “normal retirement age for Social Security benefits was 65. Today, it is age 67 for people born after 1969. Mr. Geithner’s kind of reasoning has cost Americans two years worth of benefits. Further, these benefits are subject to income tax. Thus, you pay tax on your FICA payments and pay tax again on your benefits – a double tax. Finally, despite paying FICA taxes for years, the day you die all benefits cease. You could pay FICA for 40 years, and if you die at age 60, your estate will receive nothing – all because of the false belief that taxes pay for federal spending.

Medicare payments also are so restricted many Americans purchase supplementary insurance to cover what Medicare does not – all because of the false belief that taxes pay for federal spending.

We pay penalties for believing taxes support federal spending. We pay penalties for believing Medicare and Social Security could go bankrupt unless FICA is increased or benefits reduced. We pay penalties for believing the federal deficits are “unsustainable.” We pay penalties for the misinformation coming from our leaders. We pay penalties for believing them.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–There is no wasteful federal spending

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

As usual, some stimulus spending has been criticized because it is “wasteful” and doesn’t create jobs. Here are a couple examples published recently:

“ $1.9 million spent to photograph ants has created two jobs.. Other ant research stimulus projects: $451,000 has created one job, $276,000 created six one-hundredths of a job, and $800,000 created no jobs. The $144,000 spent to study the behavior of monkeys on cocaine created four-tenths of a job. To study why monkeys respond to unfairness cost $677,000 – and has created no jobs yet.”

I am reminded of former Wisconsin Democratic Sen. William Proxmire, who published his monthly “Golden Fleece” awards for what he considered wasteful spending. He often was criticized for opposing basic research he did not understand, for instance NASA, SETI and the Aspen Movie Map. Many worthwhile, federal research projects have been killed because some politician thought they were frivolous. This is especially true of basic research, where the ultimate benefits are yet to be determined.

The notorious Mansfield Amendment prohibited the Defense Department from carrying out “any research project or study unless such project or study has a direct and apparent relationship to a specific military function.” Such Congressional meddling in research virtually eliminates discoveries based on serendipity.

Whether or not you consider ant research to be wasteful, it is highly unlikely that $1.9 million created only two jobs. Let’s speculate on where that $1.9 million might have gone. Photographers, photographic equipment, rent, researchers, travel, computers, chemistry equipment – all of which helped various businesses and people. Then those businesses and people spent the money they received on things like food, clothing, shelter and transportation, all of which helped more people and businesses. And on and on and on. In a similar vein, the monkey research expenses were paid to people and businesses.

In short, when the government spends money, that money costs you nothing. (Taxes do not pay for the spending of a monetarily sovereign nation.) In fact, that spending adds money to the economy, and that money circulates throughout the economy, stimulating as it goes. Every time the federal government spends, people and businesses benefit, and in turn these people and businesses spend, which benefits more people and businesses. Ultimately, all federal spending creates jobs.

There always will be a politician who tries to look heroic and prudent, by pointing out what he considers to be wasteful spending. While state and local governments, which do not have the unlimited ability to create money, can spend wastefully, it almost is impossible for any federal spending to be wasteful, even in cases where the original expenditure seemed frivolous in some eyes. Even spending for the notorious Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” would have benefitted the economy by pumping money into the hands of people and businesses.

Good rule of thumb: The more federal spending, the healthier the economy. Reduced growth in federal spending has resulted in nearly every recession and depression, and increased federal spending dragged this economy out of the recession.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Debt is bad; debt is good. Take your pick.

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

There is no functional difference between a federal tax cut and a federal spending increase. Some might argue that federal spending is superior or inferior to private spending, though evidence for either is slim, and either has the same result. They both increase the amount of federal money in the economy. (Mistakenly called the federal “debt.”)

Further, increasing the federal money supply stimulates the economy, and decreasing the money supply depresses the economy. So it is both laughable and sad to see how debt hawks squirm between wanting a lower debt, higher taxes and lower taxes, along with less federal spending, more spending and improved GDP. As the song says, “Something’s gotta give.”

Here are quotes from the always confused editors of the Chicago Tribune, in the editorial dated 8/1/10, titled “Out of debt.”

“. . . Democrats and Republicans are very good at doing one thing: running up the debt. That’s the reason for the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility . . . to find ways to stem the red ink.” O.K., so federal deficits are bad.

“. . . at this stage (a tax increase) would be a terrible mistake, not only for the health of the economy, but for the nation’s long-term fiscal health.” O.K., so federal deficits are good, in both the short term and in the long term.

“More likely, Congress and the president would spend every nickel (from a tax increase) – and then spend some more.” Oh, oh. Now federal deficits are bad, again.

“Nor does it make sense to place a new (tax) weight on the economy when it is already struggling to grow.” Woops, deficits are good, again.

“Congress can’t afford to indulge the notion that endless borrowing is a sustainable strategy.” So deficits are bad.

“The wisest option is to extend tax cuts for a year . . . “ Deficits are good

“. . . then see what the deficit commissions proposes to curtail our addiction to debt.” Deficits are bad.

“ . . . Erskine Bowles suggests a healthy ratio of $3 dollars in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases . . . it’s essential if we hope to foster lasting prosperity . . . “ Deficits now are awful. Mr. Bowles “scientific” suggestion equals $4 in spending cuts or $4 in tax increases, or anywhere in between. Guarantee: He has zero data to support his 3/1 ratio, but hey, who need facts?

“ . . . while sparing the taxpayers of tomorrow an unsupportable debt burden.” Deficits are bad.

And here is my favorite: “Coupled with spending discipline, revenue measures can be on leg of the journey back to fiscal sanity. But if they are the first and only leg, they will be a fatal detour.” Huh? They are saying spending cuts and tax increases are good, but first we should have spending increases and tax cuts!

All of the above is classic debt hawk double talk. Federal debt is a taxpayer “burden,” but necessary to grow the economy, but “unsupportable,” even though taxpayers don’t pay for federal debt, and the government has the unlimited ability to service its debt.

That kind of muddy thinking is what needlessly has extended this recession and the unemployment that goes with it. Ignorance may be bliss, but it sure is harmful. As the theme at the top of this post reads, “The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity