It is official. The CBO in its January 4 press statement (The “Fiscal Cliff” Deal)
declared that Congress’s January 1 agreement will “produce (ten year)
deficits that are smaller— but only by $0.7 trillion to $0.8 trillion.”
Thus we face annual deficits of $920 to $930 billion even, in the
unlikely case, that sequestered spending cuts go into effect and Obama
Care’s costs come in on target. Continuing as is means trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
Even five years of trillion dollar deficits are unsustainable: At
normal interest rates of 5 percent, almost all personal income tax
revenues would go to pay interest, which would exceed expenditures on
social security! Only the Fed’s Bernanke’s incessant quantitative easing
conceals the mess we are in.
As we barrel down the road to fiscal ruin, Obama shows no interest in
reforming the entitlements that are driving the crisis. He demagogues
those who propose to control discretionary outlays, and he diverts blame
to others: “Everything would be fine if the rich pay their fair share,”
he repeats, while knowing the U.S. taxes its rich more heavily than any
other country.
Obama’s indifference to the looming debt catastrophe could have two
explanations (We rule out that Obama cannot do arithmetic. He claims he
“can do the math.”)
go to forbes.com
Paul R. Gregory's writings on Russia, the world economy, and other matters that he finds of interest.
Showing posts with label fiscal cliff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fiscal cliff. Show all posts
Monday, January 7, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Republicans Must Play to Win the Long Game
If Obama had come clean with the American public on his intentions, Mitt Romney would be President of the United States.
Obama won the election by falsely claiming, among other things, that our fiscal problems would be resolved if the rich just paid their fair share. The fiscal cliff skirmish showed otherwise, to no one’s surprise. To cite an influential Obama supporter: “Raising rates on the top 2 percent was never going to be enough anyway.” (I thought taxing the top 2 percent was supposed to solve our problems.)
go to forbes.com
Monday, December 31, 2012
Republicans Should Walk Away Until Obama Acts as a Grown Up President
Members of Congress have made it a practice to treat the opposition
with courtesy and respect even during the most heated of disputes.
President Obama took to the airways today to humiliate and degrade the
opposition party with untoward politicized remarks. Republicans should
simply refuse to deal with him until he learns the decorum of a
statesman rather than acting like a Chicago back alley Pol. The Republican Party would be better off as would the country as a whole. There is no need to mince words.
The media complain of a dysfunctional government. They should look closely at its source – a president in constant campaign mode ready to demagogue any issue.
Outsiders, like this writer, are not privy to the fiscal-cliff offers and counter offers that are being circulated, but a general knowledge of the basic numbers and of Obama’s style of negotiating lead me to conclude that the Republicans are being stampeded into an unacceptable deal that raises taxes on top earners by $180 billion between now and 2015 while cancelling almost a half trillion of scheduled spending cuts over the same period.
go to forbes.com
The media complain of a dysfunctional government. They should look closely at its source – a president in constant campaign mode ready to demagogue any issue.
Outsiders, like this writer, are not privy to the fiscal-cliff offers and counter offers that are being circulated, but a general knowledge of the basic numbers and of Obama’s style of negotiating lead me to conclude that the Republicans are being stampeded into an unacceptable deal that raises taxes on top earners by $180 billion between now and 2015 while cancelling almost a half trillion of scheduled spending cuts over the same period.
go to forbes.com
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
President Obama’s Legacy: $20 Trillion in Deficits for 2016 Victor
The fiscal-cliff negotiations have deteriorated into an
embarrassing travesty of competing press conferences, off-the-record remarks, closed meetings, and sound bites. The Republican side is
frustrated and flabbergasted by the absence of
a concrete proposal from the President
that can be scored by the Congressional Budget Office and then “marked
up” by Congress according to standard procedures. Vague offers of so and so many trillions of
revenue increases and spending cuts spread over a decade are just words, not
real proposals.
The last serious fiscal-cliff projections date back to the
Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) August 2012 assessment of the budgetary
effects of various fiscal policy alternatives. In its August study, the CBO
– the “gold standard” of budget
projections -- calculated the budgetary consequences of going over the fiscal
cliff in its “baseline projection.” It then projected the budgetary effects of
alternative fiscal policies, among them, extending the Bush tax cuts and
shelving the sequestered spending cuts.
We may agree or disagree with the CBO’s projections, but
they are the most authoritative we have. President Obama has been vocal with
respect to the fiscal policies he wants,
and each item on his wish list can be scored using the CBO’s August study.
Therefore, we can approximate the five-year deficits that would result if
President Obama gets what he wants. This is not rocket science. Anyone can do
this using the CBO’s excel files.
go to forbes.com
Labels:
ACA,
CBO,
entitlement reform,
fiscal cliff,
Obama deficits,
social security
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
We Have Met the Left and It's Obama
“What is motivating (Obama) primarily is ideology. And an
ideological opening. He doesn’t like the malefactors of great wealth. He
wants to “spread the wealth around.” Peggy Noonan
Anyone who dares to characterize Barack Obama as a leftist radical is heaped with scorn and outrage. Only crazy, hateful talk-show entertainers like Rush Limbaugh stoop so low, but reasonable people do not listen anyway. Whether Obama harbors socialist views is a valid topic for intellectual conversation, but, other than errant bloggers (Is President Obama Truly a Socialist?), polite people avoid it.
Many moderate Republicans bought into the media narrative that Obama is a centrist, who moves left only to placate his base. Were it not for them, the true Obama would govern from the center, or tilt only ever so slightly to the left.
Indeed, the carefully scripted Obama masterfully masqueraded as a centrist during his two presidential campaigns, while governing from the left. The complicit media characterized him as a softy, too ready to yield to the obstructionist Republicans. But if the Left would only “Watch what I do, not what I say,” Obama already delivered for them the moon, and now wants the stars as well.
go to forbes.com
Anyone who dares to characterize Barack Obama as a leftist radical is heaped with scorn and outrage. Only crazy, hateful talk-show entertainers like Rush Limbaugh stoop so low, but reasonable people do not listen anyway. Whether Obama harbors socialist views is a valid topic for intellectual conversation, but, other than errant bloggers (Is President Obama Truly a Socialist?), polite people avoid it.
Many moderate Republicans bought into the media narrative that Obama is a centrist, who moves left only to placate his base. Were it not for them, the true Obama would govern from the center, or tilt only ever so slightly to the left.
Indeed, the carefully scripted Obama masterfully masqueraded as a centrist during his two presidential campaigns, while governing from the left. The complicit media characterized him as a softy, too ready to yield to the obstructionist Republicans. But if the Left would only “Watch what I do, not what I say,” Obama already delivered for them the moon, and now wants the stars as well.
go to forbes.com
Labels:
Barack Obama,
fiscal cliff,
media bias,
Peggy Noonan,
positive rights,
socialism
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
The Liberal Left's Dirty Little Secret: The Middle Class and Poor Pay For the Entitlement State
Europe’s more than half century experience shows that, no
matter hard you squeeze them, the rich cannot pay for a big government that
guarantees all its citizens “positive rights” to income, employment, health,
and retirement. Such an entitlement state – some call it a nanny state -- is
funded primarily by repressive taxes on the middle class and the working poor.
This conclusion is based on hard statistical facts that neither the right nor
left dispute. America’s
Left has kept this fact under wraps and out of sight of voters. It should have
been the focus of the 2012 Republican campaign, but it was not.
Barack Obama has been busy creating and expanding an American
entitlement state that he promises will be paid for by the rich. The middle
class and poor need not worry about tax increases. For the time being, Obama can rely on lenders
(and the Fed) to finance the annual $850 deficits projected under the most likely
CBO scenario. But the day of reckoning will come. At some point, the “bond vigilantes” will
refuse to finance the deficit at sustainable rates, and the government will be
forced to cut entitlement spending or vastly raise taxes. When that time comes, then ex-President Obama expects
the entitlement mentality to be so deeply ingrained that the middle class and working
poor will accept their higher taxes with little protest.
If we continue down the road to Obama’s Big Government,
everyone watch their wallets. The taxman commeth, big time! Judging from Europe’s experience, we must dramatically raise income
taxes on the middle class, triple social security taxes, introduce a 20 percent
federal sales tax, and raise the gasoline tax by $4.00. These taxes are all regressive, which
means they fall most heavily first on the poor and then on the middle class.
If you do not believe me, an influential member of the media
elite (from the New York Times
editorial board, no less), let this secret slip in a remarkably candid
admission. (Note his article appeared after the election):
go to Forbes.com
Thursday, November 29, 2012
The Fiscal Cliff Bargain is Peanuts
The internet and print media are full of accounts of an
evolving bargain in the fiscal cliff negotiations. The Republicans will accept
$1.2 trillion in tax hikes on the “rich,” and the Democrats will accept $400
billion of spending cuts. (Past experience shows the spending cuts never occur
other than for defense). These increases and cuts are to be spread over a ten
year period. Annualized, taxes are supposed to increase $120 billion ($.12
trillion) per year and spending cuts by $40 billion ($.04 trillion) per year.
Citizens are supposed to be impressed by figures such as
$1.2 trillion or $400 billion. News accounts mention the “over ten years” in
passing or not at all.
To see how small these figures are, we apply them to 2012
federal spending and revenues. If this agreement had been in place for 2012
(and had gone as planned), federal revenues would have gone up from $2,468
billion to $2,588 billion. Expenditures would have fallen from $3,795 billion
to $3,755 billion. The deficit would have decreased from $1,327 billion to
$1,167.
In a word, the fiscal cliff deal yields, at best, small,
marginal, and even trivial changes.
In reality, the “rich” will alter their behavior, and tax
revenues will rise (if at all) by a fraction of the “agreed upon” change. (Remember
Congress can only set rates and rules. It cannot dictate what taxpayers
actually pay). As Obama Care’s price tag becomes evident, federal expenditures
will exceed expectations, and if interest rates rise, soaring interest payments
on the federal debt will send Congress back to the drawing boards.
The fiscal cliff negotiations do not touch the looming
disaster of almost $100 trillion in unfunded federal government liabilities
under its existing entitlement programs. The Obama administration will leave
that problem for the next administration to tackle. The next administration
must decide whether to cut the welfare state or tax the middle class at European
levels, which requires doubling social security taxes, applying the top
marginal rates to the upper middle class, a 20 percent national sales tax, and
$10 gasoline.
Such draconic measures will likely prove too much for the
next administration and it will try to kick the can down the road to the next
administration. Greece:
We are not that far behind you unless we get a truly transformational President.
go to forbes.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)