Will The Debt Ceiling Compromise Actually Reduce The Deficit?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

With typical Washington hysterics, Congress struck a last-minute deal to raise the US debt ceiling, enabling the Treasury to continue borrowing and, supposedly, avoid defaulting on payments to our creditors.

The deal included neither the level of spending cuts the Republicans wanted, nor the tax increases the Democrats were looking for. Conventional wisdom says that since both sides were unsatisfied with the deal, it must have some redeeming qualities. But, since when is wisdom in Washington conventional?

The deal immediately increases the US debt ceiling by $400 billion, and allows the President to request another $500 billion increase which Congress could vote down (by attaining a veto-proof a two thirds margin). An additional increase of $1.5 trillion becomes available after a special committee identifies matching levels of spending cuts.

The agreement also calls for spending cuts of more than $900 billion over ten years, with discretionary spending being decreased by $21 billion in 2012 and $42 billion in 2013. The compromise does not include any tax increases.

The deal also creates a 12-person House and Senate special committee to identify further spending cuts. The committee must make its recommendations to Congress, which will hold an up-or-down vote (Congress cannot modify the committee’s recommendations). If the special committee fails to reach an agreement or if Congress rejects its recommendations, automatic spending cuts of at least $1.2 trillion (50% defense/50% non-defense) would go into effect.

So, will this compromise solve our debt crisis? The numbers aren’t promising.

For fiscal years 2008, 09 and 10, Congress recorded budget deficits of $1 trillion, $1.9 trillion and $1.7 trillion, respectively. The $4.6 trillion debt incurred during these three years is equivalent to total debt the US accumulated from its founding in 1789 through 1994.

Further, this agreement raises the debt ceiling from $14.3 trillion (which is 98.6% of our 2010 GNP) to $16.7 trillion. Plus, the spending cuts are “back-loaded” (discretionary spending is reduced by a mere $21 billion – 0.6% of the $3.8 trillion budget – in 2012), and can be waived in the future.

Clearly, the fact that these outrageous spending levels are up to Congress’ “discretion” is the problem.

Fortunately, the debt ceiling agreement also requires that the House of Representatives and the Senate vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Though passage neither assured nor likely, such an amendment is our only option for reclaiming fiscal sanity.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Ron Paul on Economic Bailouts

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Ron Paul on bailouts

Ron Paul’s statement regarding the current economic crisis:

“Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, the government’s preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.

Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.

These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand.

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate. When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically.

This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand. This economic adjustment means, however that there are some winners — in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products, and some losers — builders and other sectors connected to real estate that suffer setbacks.

The government doesn’t like this, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially inflated. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was.

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.

Additionally, the government’s actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.

The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.

It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.

The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.

Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.”

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)