Fiscal Cliff Notes

Some of my (somewhat well-educated) thoughts on the fiscal cliff:

1) The fiscal cliff is NOT the point at which the government runs out of money. Somehow this has become the widespread notion of what the Fiscal Cliff is, descriptively. Remember, the issuer of a currency cannot run out of that currency. The U.S. government, as issuer of the dollar cannot run out of dollars.

2) The fiscal cliff IS the point at which spending cuts kick in and tax cuts expire so that the deficit closes. That is, (G - T) becomes smaller. Every economist understands that this will hurt the economy because it contracts overall spending in the economy. GDP = C + I + G + (X-M). So if Taxes go up, our spending (Consumption and Investment) will go down and if government spending goes down, overall GDP will drop unless somehow we miraculously become a large net exporting nation.

3) Knowing this, we still think we have to shrink the deficit. I detailed this a couple of weeks ago, so I recommend reading that piece. IF we let the fiscal cliff happen, the economy will shrink quickly. If we reach a deal, the economy will sputter and will likely fall some if not a lot--it depends on the magnitude of the deal.

4) We need a larger deficit! This can be accomplished through spending increases or tax cuts, but the only way to actually shrink the deficit is to increase GDP. The private sector is still deleveraging, the foreign sector--our trading partners--is in poor shape, and so the only institution that can help is the government. Otherwise we're in for a long, slow deleveraging period--see The Great Depression. This is needless because the government has policy tools to prevent it, and it doesn't necessarily have to mean a concentration of government power.

5) What we spend money on matters! Some spending has a higher multiplier effect or employs more workers. Much spending is extremely wasteful and so wouldn't do much to help our society or our economy. All spending will benefit some more than others. Some spending is immoral. We need to make these decisions as a society in the political arena, but note these decisions have economic effects--see my most recent post on this.

6) We have a particular duty to look out for those left behind or trampled on by the system. We can do this personally and through institutions--including Churches, non-profit organizations, local governments, and the federal government. All have advantages and disadvantages, but all are needed according to the principle of subsidiarity, which is not a limiting principle (thinking of it solely as a principle that limits the size of government), but is rather a cooperative principle (thinking of it in terms of all institutions of all sizes working together to accomplish the common good).

Debt Ceiling and Balanced Budget Amendment

What would happen if the government doesn't raise the debt ceiling in time?

To avoid default, the Treasury would prioritize interest payments, which means a lot of other bills won't get paid.

Chairman Bernanke said that this could cut 6% off of GDP and send the US into another recession with GDP going from positive to negative. How does that help boost sales or business confidence?

However, falling GDP means falling revenues which means more spending cuts, and revenues falling further.

It also means the automatic fiscal stabilizers of rising transfer payments will not be funded by deficit spending and therefore not provide the support they have provided in all prior downturns.

For the first time the US would experience an unchecked downward spiral, which could make the downturn that much more severe than the Fed Chairman suggested.

This likely would transfer to other nations for the drop in US consumer, business, and govt spending will mean a drop in sales for euro zone exporters, possibly sending that region into negative GDP growth and falling govt revenues.

This means their current solvency and funding issues further deteriorate as the entire euro zone could experience a funding barrier and general default.

While the ECB can, operationally, write any size check required to fund the entire region, it doesn’t want to do that, and can be expected to wait until things deteriorate sufficiently to the point were there is no other choice.

Ironically, the US debt ceiling, a seemingly innocuous relic of the gold standard, where it once served to protect the nation’s gold supply and should have been eliminated when the US dollar ceased to be officially convertible into gold, could now bring down the entire world economy, and threaten the world social order as well.

Paraphrased and quoted from here.


Similar effects could be expected with a Balanced Budget Amendment. House Republicans and even Senate Republicans (at least my senator, Jerry Moran, sent out an email saying he approved a BBA) are championing a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) as the solution to our fiscal woes.

I don't know what they think will happen if such an amendment were to pass, which is very highly unlikely, but it seems they believe that consumer and business confidence will go up and the crowding out (that they think is happening) will stop and businesses will begin to invest again; or I could be even more pessimistic and think that they are intentionally tanking the economy so as to win elections in 2012 ala Paul Krugman, but I really don't think that's the case.

Taking away a large chunk of deficit spending through a BBA would likely result in a large drop in GDP, followed by further drops in revenue, which would then require a further drop in spending...and you see how this cycle is self-defeating right? It would certainly accomplish the goal of a smaller goverment, but I don't know what good it would do for the common good. It would take away many needs of millions of people. Social order would be very difficult to maintain. Many evil regimes came to power amidst times of economic turmoil.

I also don't think that those who champion balanced budgets and deficit cutting understand that doing so would undermine their efforts to balance the budget. The government would certainly be reduced in size, but would the private sector take up the task of providing for the needs of those who aren't provided for by the market? What business invests when consumers aren't buying their products/services because a chunk of their income was taken away?

We could have a smaller government as the Republicans desire, but we can't have a smaller deficit (or no deficit) and not expect to face economic turmoil. We must have a deficit and we must raise the debt ceiling, or better yet abolish such a concept altogether (what's the point of a debt ceiling?). We can decrease government by reducing spending and taxes by more than spending or increase government by increasing spending and taxes by less than spending, and that should be the debate!. But the debate has been about how to reduce the deficit and on that note I disagree greatly with both sides.

The truth is, neither side gets it...

The debate surrounding deficits is still very misplaced and our nation's understanding of government finance is so terribly inadequate. Actually, it's not inadequate, it's downright wrong.

Both sides are calling for a reduction is deficits, but in reality, the government does not need to balance its budget and there need not be any harmful effects of not balancing the budget. In fact, there are very harmful effects of attempting to balance the budget or reduce the deficit.

We have massive unemployment and underutilization of resources needlessly RIGHT NOW and are doing the opposite of what can and should be done. This is why it is so important to understand how our monetary system works.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE remember that:

The government can NEVER go bankrupt, to declare it voluntarily is just pure insanity. It's simply saying "I have the money but I ain't gonna pay you."

The government doesn't need our tax dollars or funds raised by bonds to spend! Our tax dollars and their bond sales drain the economy of reserves (money)! Their spending injects our economy with reserves! (If you're worried about inflation, I can explain why that won't be a problem either in another post).

Taxes function to create a demand for our currency and to allocate REAL resources to the government. Bonds simply function as a monetary policy tool, to adjust the federal funds rate to the level the central bank has chosen.

Borrowing and spending now does NOT hurt or put the burden on our children in the form of raised taxes in the future! The government does not need to ever pay off its debt! It doesn't even have to make the interest payments on the bonds (though not doing so would have an effect on interest rates).

Not deficit spending now WILL/DOES have an effect on us now, in the form of unemployment and underutilized resources, and on our children, in the form of lost potential output.


If you want to challenge me on ANY of these I welcome it and strongly encourage you to do so! Knowing all of this is so very important and teaching it to family and friends so that they can pass it on and eventually demand it from our politicians is imperative! WE DO NOT HAVE TO REMAIN UNEMPLOYED AND UNDERUTILIZED!




Here's more from Marshall Auerback:

Deficit control and deficit reduction [is the aim], despite the fact that at present, the US has massive excess capacity including millions of unemployed and underemployed, a negative contribution from net exports, and a stagnant private spending growth horizon. Yet the President marches on, oblivious to the harm his policies would introduce to an already bleeding economy, using the tired analogy between a household and a sovereign government to support his tired arguments.

Discussion of government budget deficits often begins with an analogy to a household’s budget, and the President continues that horrible pattern of misinformation. Obama challenged the view that the government might side-step the debt ceiling constraint by just paying “interest on the debt” and said:

"This is the equivalent of me saying, you know what, I will choose to pay my mortgage, but I’m not going to pay my car note. Or I’m going to pay my car note but I’m not going to pay my student loan. Now, a lot of people in really tough situations are having to make those tough decisions. But for the U.S. government to start picking and choosing like that is not going to inspire a lot of confidence. "

Let’s state it again: households do not have the power to levy taxes, to issue the currency we use, and to demand that those taxes are paid in the currency it issues. Rather, households are users of the currency issued by the sovereign government. Here the same distinction applies to private businesses, which are also users of the currency. There’s a big difference, as all us on this blog have repeatedly stressed: Users of a currency do face an external constraint in a way that a sovereign issuer of its currency does not.

Typical is this statement from the President:

"I do think that the steps that I talked about to deal with job growth and economic growth right now are vitally important to deficit reduction. Just as deficit reduction is important to grow the economy and to create jobs — well, creating jobs and growing the economy also helps reduce the deficit. If we just increased the growth rate by one percentage point, that would drastically bring down the long-term projections of the deficit, because people are paying more into the coffers and fewer people are drawing unemployment insurance. It makes a huge difference."

The President has the causation here totally backward. A growing economy, characterized by rising employment, rising incomes and rising capacity utilization causes the deficit to shrink, not the other way around. Rising prosperity means rising tax revenues and reduced social welfare payments, whereas there is an overwhelming body of evidence to support the opposite – cutting budget deficits when there is slack private spending growth and external deficits will erode growth and destroy net jobs.

Consider the comments of Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell:

"What Republicans want is simple: We want to cut spending now, we want to cap runaway spending in the future and we want to save our entitlements and our country from bankruptcy by requiring the nation to balance its budget. We want to finally get our economy growing again at a pace that will lead to significant job growth."

Like the President, McConnell evidently also feels that the US government can run out of dollars or, at the very least, computer keyboards to mark up or down the numbers in our national accounts. This is the only way one could make sense of his nonsensical bankruptcy comments. This perverse inability to distinguish between issuers and users of currencies is a disease which afflicts members of both parties and largely explains the willingness to hack away at what’s left of the American social welfare net (the President unilaterally disarming his party on Medicare before securing a single concession from the GOP). Change you can believe in! And the President wonders why his base is totally dispirited!

Let’s be clear: the government creates 'money' whenever it spends; it destroys 'money' whenever it taxes. The issue, which the President should be out and front explaining, is whether or not its spending too much or taxing too little. With a rising unemployment rate, and a huge reserve of underemployed and disadvantaged workers, it is the height of insanity to cut spending overall which is what the US President is claiming is an important and urgent policy goal when there is so much idle productive capacity. Yet both the President and his Republican negotiators on the other side of this issue take it as a given that public debt per se is an unalloyed evil that should be eliminated as a long term policy goal. That is only possible if the external surplus is large enough. Otherwise, if you attempt to achieve that stage via fiscal cutbacks the policy strategy will undermine employment and growth. The upshot is that the budget deficit is likely to rise because the slowing economy will undermine tax revenue.

Will we raise the debt ceiling in time? Do Republicans care?

The latest on the debt ceiling talks from Ezra Klein:

A bit more information has trickled out over the last few days detailing the exact state of the budget negotiations when they collapsed. Both sides, as they often said, were shooting for about $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. They'd already agreed on around $1 trillion in spending cuts and were making good progress on the rest of it. But Democrats insisted that $400 billion -- so, 17 percent -- of the package be tax increases. And that's when Republicans walked.

Specifically, the Obama administration was looking at a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy.

It's almost not worth going into the details on those particular tax changes because the Republican position has held that the details don't matter: well-designed tax increases won't be looked at any more favorably than poorly designed tax increases. The point, Republicans say, is that there can't be any tax increases, full stop.

For now, Democrats are holding their ground. "Do we perpetuate a system that allows for subsidies in revenues for oil and gas, for example, or owners of corporate private jets, and then call for cuts in things like food safety or weather services?" Press Secretary Jay Carney asked. But at some point, this will cease to be a clean choice between two budget plans and begin to be a question over whether we can raise the debt ceiling. And that, Republicans are betting, is when the Democrats will stop holding their ground.

SERIOUSLY?!

First of all, not raising the debt-ceiling would be economic suicide. Second, reducing the deficit now is not going to reduce it later. It will only cause more economic hardship which will cause revenues to fall. Third, if you are going to reduce the deficit anyway, why on earth would you walk out because of a tax break for those who own private jets?! I understand the Republicans want smaller government, which means no tax increase on anyone, but that means cutting important programs (such as TANF) for the less well off.

Obama is even comprising on the budget talks, something I haven't seen from Republicans who continue to hold their ground and flirt with disaster counting on the Dems to change their stance. From Sam Youngman:

President Obama, seeking a Republican agreement to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug 2, will not insist that any deal include an end of President Bush's controversial tax rates on the wealthy.

Obama's tactics are coming into clearer focus: they involve seeking higher taxes not on a broad swath of high income earners but on a narrower band of the super rich, such as owners of private jets. This means that those who earn $250,000 have got a reprieve.

Why would a bunch of social conservatives, who I assume care deeply about human life at all stages because they oppose abortion and euthanasia, rather cut assistance to those in need in favor of a tax break for the super rich?