Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts

Sunday, August 19, 2012

The Real Meaning of the Deficit

I think there is a lot of confusion about the real meaning of the deficit. There is a lot of talk about the need to balance the budget, the need to pay down the deficit, to make the 'hard choices' – but no-one really talks about the why. There is some ambiguous talk about deficit vis a vis the future, but no specifics at what is at stake.

In simple terms, as long as others are willing to purchase and hold U.S. Dollars, thereby funding the deficit (or holding it in terms of bonds), the dollar remains strong, e.g., its purchasing power remains great. However, if conditions were to change, if others' confidence starts to falter, and U.S. Bonds are not seen as the low risk instruments that they are today, it would signal a weakening of the U.S. Dollar, and the purchasing power of the dollar would likewise fall.

A falling dollar translates, here at home, to inflation, as the amount of goods or services that can be purchased with a given amount drops. Everything starts to cost more, from food to clothing, services to labor.

Inflation isn't necessarily good, although it impacts different people differently. To truly understand the demagoguery surrounding the deficit, one needs to ask the question: Who will be most impacted by inflation?

The answer, of course, is lenders. Bankers. Wall Street tycoons. Anyone who lends money and derives their income from the resultant payments sees their income fall. And, if their money is tied up in a long-term, fixed rate instrument (think a 30-year fixed rate loan at 4%), there is a huge risk that such an instrument's yield will drop to near (or possibly, below) zero if inflation climbs high enough – that the payment flow is actually negative.

Now, a debtor or borrower is in almost the opposite position. While there was likely some initial pain as their income dropped relative to the goods and services they wished to purchase, since labor (i.e., wages) are a form of service and hence increase their cost along with inflation, labor typically sees their income keep pace with inflation, and the resultant pain is from the fact that there is no growth in their wages. Conversely, as inflation takes hold, the amount relative to their pay that their long term debts require is dropping, laborers are seeing an actual increase in their standard of living as a greater amount is free to purchase other goods and services!

So, who really cares about the deficit? Not likely you or I. In fact, it has been suggested that one of the best ways forward would be for America to gradually inflate her way out of the problem of a high deficit, and that the consequences are orthogonal to the current horror stories told about a high deficit.

So, the next time someone tells you it is imperative that we balance the budget and begin serious efforts to reduce the deficit, ask them “Why?”

And if the answer isn't because they have substantial money tied up lending to others at low interest rates and a future inflation risk may lower their income, they either have no clue or are lying to you.

And in either case, they have no credibility. So why listen to them?

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Taxing Capital

With the election season beginning, I think there is a question that needs to be clearly answered:

Is there any legitimate reason why the tax schedules for capital (investment return) should be any different than the tax schedules for labor (wages)?

When the marginal tax rate for labor rises above 15%, shouldn't the marginal rate for capital income do the same? And shouldn't the total tax rate for an individual begin with the simple sum of labor and capital income, without distinction between them?

If one individual were to earn $75,000 from labor, and another $75,000 from investment return, is there any good argument that they should not pay the same taxes? Ditto if the amounts were $100k, $200k, etc?

Playing with the tax codes appears to be the most prominent campaign rhetoric of our candidates, a favorite tactic to gain acceptance from voters. So, it's only fair if we, the voters, really start having a conversation and determine beforehand what a good, fair tax code would look like, then we lessen the chance that we'll be hoodwinked into voting for a design that is unfair, and worse, damages our society.


Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Senate Spending Bill Loaded with Earmarks?

According to the Bloomberg report on the $1.2 Trillion Senate Omnibus Spending bill, it is a monstrosity loaded with spending earmarks. Senate Republicans are indicating that they will vote to kill the bill, a “porked-up monstrosity [who's supporters] would forfeit any claim to fiscal responsibility and economic conservatism”.

So, just what constitutes a 'loaded' or 'packed' spending bill? Well, reading a little deeper, it means that more than 88 of the 100 Senators have obtained earmarks for their projects. Which means that at least 29 of the Republicans now vowing to kill the bill worked to gain earmarks for their pet projects! (I'm not picking on Republicans per se here, I'm not so naive as to believe Democrats have never pulled this same tactic.) What a win-win for them: They can posture that they are fiscally conservative, denounce the earmarking practice, but just in the off-chance that the bill succeeds, their home state gets some dough, and they can go home, and in a political two-face, tell their constituents about how much money they brought home to them to create jobs!

And, how much money are we talking here? What does 'porked-up' mean? Well, it means that the bill contains....wait for it.....

....wait for it....

$8 billion dollars in earmarks!

Stop. The entire bill is $1200 billion dollars. That means that without the earmarks, it would still be roughly $1200 billion dollars. $8 billion comprises just 2/3rds of 1% of the total.

Wow. Definitions in DC just don't match how we define words in the rest of the country. Like porker. If you were 1% overweight, I wouldn't refer to you as a porker, I probably wouldn't even notice (you'd be, what, 1.5 lbs heavier than you should be? Maybe 2 lbs?)

Like monstrosity. As Utah Senator Bob Bennett points out, the earmarks (300 pages of the 1294 page document), by indicating where some money is to go, provide transparency and prevent the White House from diverting that money to its pet projects. Maybe not a best practice, but certainly far from anything monstrous.

Like Integrity. Out here, integrity means you do and say the same thing everywhere, to everyone - that you can be trusted. In DC, however, it appears that you stand up for your ideology when you can be heard and seen, all the while sneaking some extra money in for your folks back home under the pretense that...hell, we don't actually know what pretense those hacks would make! But, do you suppose that when they are congratulating themselves about the $91 million (on average) each brought home to their state, that they are admitting that they did it via the very process they claim to loathe?


Like Bias. Due to media bias towards conflict and sensationalism*, the real details of the bill, things that really matter (how much for Defense? how much for Medicaid/Medicare? How much for Federal government? How much for Education? How much for roads/bridges/infrastructure?) aren't even mentioned.

Like Honesty. Doesn't have a separate meaning to folks back home, because it is a word that has been stripped of all meaning within our governing chambers.

*Borrowed from my friend Cameron who, correctly, pointed out that the media doesn't really have a left/right bias, but is biased towards whoever is creating the most strife.

Bibliography (just in case you can't follow the link above)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-15/trillion-dollar-bill-packed-with-earmarks-in-u-s-senate.html