Category Archives: Cato Institute

Buffett wants the rich soaked but that will not solve our problem in the budget

August 16, 2011 – 11:27 pm

Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:

Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than that of many of the working people in his office on account of preferences for investment income. Candidates such as U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin believe — with election results to support them — that Americans support such a tax system.

In the article below, Jeffrey Miron gives figures that show that Buffett is wrong about soaking the rich to solve our budget problem. However, he also shows how the federal government has acted in such a way

Why Warren Buffett Is Wrong

by Jeffrey A. Miron

This article appeared on CNN.com on August 16, 2011.

In a recent New York Times op-ed article, Warren Buffett asserts that the super-rich do not pay enough taxes. He suggests that any new budget deal should raise rates on the super-rich, especially on their “unearned” income from interest, dividends and capital gains.

Buffett is wrong. Bad government policies play a major role in generating inappropriately high incomes, but singling out the super-rich is misguided. And the policy Buffett criticizes most — low tax rates on capital income — should be expanded, not eliminated.

The first problem with Buffett’s view is that the number of super-rich is too small for higher rates to make much difference to our budget problems.

In 2009, the income earned by the 236,833 taxpayers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income was about $727 billion. Imposing a 10% surcharge on this income would generate at most $73 billion in new revenue — only about 2% of federal spending. And $73 billion is optimistic; the super-rich will avoid or evade much of the surcharge, significantly lowering its yield.

Bad government policies play a major role in generating inappropriately high incomes, but singling out the super-rich is misguided.

Focusing on the super-rich also fosters a counterproductive attitude toward material success. The way to promote a hard-working, entrepreneurial and innovative society is to celebrate great wealth so long as it has been earned by legitimate means. When this is not the case, policy should target the wrongdoing directly, not demonize everyone who hits it big.

Most importantly, singling out the super-rich distracts from the real problem: the myriad policies that make no sense in the first place because they inhibit economic growth and that simultaneously redistribute from low-income households to the middle and upper classes.

The deductibility of home mortgage interest encourages excess investment in housing. High-income taxpayers get the benefits, since low-income taxpayers own little or no housing and do not itemize deductions in any case.

The favorable tax treatment of employer-paid health insurance generates overconsumption of health care and contributes to rising health care costs. The benefits go mainly to middle- and upper-income households, since those without jobs get no employer-provided benefits.

Numerous loopholes for favored industries in the corporate tax code distort the market’s investment decisions and reward the well-funded and politically connected.

And it is not just the tax code that harms the economy while favoring the better off.

Excessive licensing requirements, permitting fees, restrictive examinations and other barriers to entry into medicine, law, plumbing, hair styling and many other professions are bad for economic productivity because they artificially restrict the supply of these services. And these barriers redistribute income perversely by raising incomes for those protected and raising prices for everyone.

Crony capitalism — the special treatment of favored industries like autos — runs counter to economic efficiency because it protects businesses that would otherwise fail, and it maintains high incomes for executives and shareholders.

The too-big-to-fail doctrine, exhibited most recently in the TARP bailout of Wall Street banks, distorts efficiency by encouraging excess risk-taking. Meanwhile, bailouts generate huge incomes for the lucky few who keep gains in good times and pass losses to taxpayers in bad times.

In contrast to these and other policies, the one Buffett criticizes — low tax rates on capital income — is beneficial for the economy, including lower-income households.

Jeffrey Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. He is the author ofLibertarianism, from A to Z.

More by Jeffrey A. Miron

Economists agree broadly that an efficient tax system should avoid taxing income, dividends and capital gains to promote savings, investment and growth. Tax rates on capital income should therefore be low or even zero. The U.S. is far from this ideal, especially given the high tax rate on corporate income and the additional taxation at the personal level.

Buffet asserts that taxing capital income has never deterred anyone from investing. Well, then he has never discussed the issue with me or many of my friends.

More importantly, taxing investment returns plays a huge role in what kinds of investments occur, and where, even if it has minor effects on the amounts. These tax-induced distortions in investment choices then reduce economic growth. High U.S. taxation on capital income drives investment overseas.

So raising capital tax rates will not make the super-rich pay their “fair” share; it will encourage capital flight, driving factories and innovation abroad. The rich will still get their high returns, but U.S. workers will have fewer jobs and lower wages.

Buffett errs, most fundamentally, by focusing on outcomes rather than policies. The right question is which policies promote differences in incomes that reflect hard work, energy, innovation and creativity, rather than reward the unethical, the politically connected and the tax-savvy.

In economics, as in sports, we should adopt good rules and insist that everyone play by them. Then we should stand back and applaud the winners.

Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Taxes | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Brummett touts Buffett’s math, but it is wrong

August 16, 2011 – 6:48 am

Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy

Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:  

Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than that of many of the working people in his office on account of preferences for investment income. Candidates such as U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin believe — with election results to support them — that Americans support such a tax system.

There is one huge problem with this math. Taxes on dividends and corporate taxes and the death tax are all DOUBLE TAXATION.

Warren Buffett’s Fiscal Innumeracy

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Warren Buffett’s at it again. He has a column in the New York Times complaining that he has been coddled by the tax code and that “rich” people should pay higher taxes.

My first instinct is to send Buffett the website where people can voluntarily pay extra money to the federal government. I’ve made this suggestion to guilt-ridden rich people in the past.

But I no longer give that advice. I’m worried he might actually do it. And even though Buffett is wildly misguided about fiscal policy, I know he will invest his money much more wisely than Barack Obama will spend it.

But Buffett goes beyond guilt-ridden rants in favor of higher taxes. He makes specific assertions that are inaccurate.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

His numbers are flawed in two important ways.

  1. When Buffett receives dividends and capital gains, it is true that he pays “only” 15 percent of that money on his tax return. But dividends and capital gains are both forms of double taxation. So if he wants honest effective tax rate numbers, he needs to show the 35 percent corporate tax rate.Moreover, as I noted in a previous post, Buffett completely ignores the impact of the death tax, which will result in the federal government seizing 45 percent of his assets. To be sure, Buffett may be engaging in clever tax planning, so it is hard to know the impact on his effective tax rate, but it will be significant.
  2. Buffett also mischaracterizes the impact of the Social Security payroll tax, which is dedicated for a specific purpose. The law only imposes that tax on income up to about $107,000 per year because the tax is designed so that people “earn” a corresponding  retirement benefit (which actually is tilted in favor of low-income workers).Imposing the tax on multi-millionaire income, however, would mean sending rich people giant checks from Social Security when they retire. But nobody thinks that’s a good idea. Or you could apply the payroll tax to all income and not pay any additional benefits. But this would turn Social Security from an “earned benefit” to a redistribution program, which also is widely rejected (though the left has been warming to the idea in recent years because their hunger for more tax revenue is greater than their support for Social Security).

If we consider these two factors, Buffett’s effective tax rate almost surely is much higher than the burden on any of the people who work for him.

But this entire discussion is a good example of why we should junk the corrupt, punitive, and unfair tax code and replace it with a simple flat tax. With no double taxation and a single, low tax rate, we would know that rich people were paying the right amount, neither too much based on class-warfare tax rates nor too little based on loopholes, deduction, preferences, exemptions, shelters, and credits.

So why doesn’t Buffett endorse this approach? Tim Carney offers a very plausible answer.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Taxes | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

David Boaz of Cato Institute: “Is Obama worse than Carter and Bush?

August 14, 2011 – 10:14 am

 

 

Is Obama Worse Than Carter and Bush?

Posted by David Boaz

Conservatives have become so furious with President Obama that they forget just how bad some of his predecessors were. One Jeffrey Kuhner, whose over-the-top op-eds in the Washington Times belie the sober and judicious conservatism you might expect from the president of the “Edmund Burke Institute,” writes most recently:

A possible Great Depression haunts the land. Primarily one man is to blame: President Obama.

Mr. Obama has racked up more than $4 trillion in debt.

Yes, he has. And that’s almost as much as the $5 trillion in debt rung up by his predecessor, George W. Bush. True, on an annual basis Obama is leaving Bush in the dust. But acceleration has been the name of the game: In 190 years, 39 presidents racked up a trillion dollars in debt. The next three presidents ran the debt up to about $5.73 trillion. Then Bush 43 almost doubled the total public debt, to $10.7 trillion, in eight years. And now the 44th president has added almost $4 trillion in two years and seven months.  (Here’s an online video depicting each president’s debt accumulation as driving speed.) So Obama is winning the debt war, but it’s not like he caused the debt crisis or the unemployment crisis all by himself.

And then, trying to prove that Obama is even worse than Jimmy Carter — even worse than Jimmy Carter! — Kuhner makes this curious claim:

Most importantly, Mr. Carter had respect for the dignity and integrity of the presidency. He never trashed his opponents the way Mr. Obama does.

Really? Maybe Mr. Kuhner is too young to remember Carter, and didn’t bother to check his claim, or maybe he just got carried away. But I can remember October 1980, when President Carter repeatedly said that the election of Ronald Reagan would be “a catastrophe” that would mean an America

separated, black from white, Jew from Christian, North from South, rural from urban.

Liberal columnist Anthony Lewis asked in the New York Times, “Has there ever been a campaign as vacuous, as negative, as whiny? Probably so — somewhere back in the mists of the American Presidency. But it would take a good deal of research to come up with anything like Jimmy Carter’s performance in the campaign of 1980.” The venerable Hugh Sidey wrote in Time magazine, “The wrath that escapes Carter’s lips about racism and hatred when he prays and poses as the epitome of Christian charity leads even his supporters to protest his meanness.”

Obama is a big spender who portrays himself as a “beyond left and right” above-the-fray president trying to work with everyone while demonizing his opponents. But let’s not forget the meanness of Jimmy Carter and the spendthrift record of George W. Bush in seeking to establish Obama’s uniqueness.

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Obamacare going down?

August 12, 2011 – 10:28 pm

It is a great day if Obamacare ends up going down through the courts. Is there anyway in the world if the Founding Fathers were on the court that Obamacare would have any chance at all to become law. 

In Obamacare Case, Constitution Is Victor

Posted by Ilya Shapiro

Today is a great day for liberty.  By striking down the individual mandate, the Eleventh Circuit has reaffirmed that the Constitution places limits on the federal government’s power.  Congress can do a great many things under modern constitutional jurisprudence, but, as the court concludes, “what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.”  Indeed, just because Congress can regulate the health insurance industry does not mean it can also require people to buy that industry’s products.

One of the striking things about today’s ruling is that, for the first time in one of these cases, a Democrat-appointed judge, Frank Hull, has ruled against the government.  Just as the Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton made waves by being the first Republican appointee to rule in the government’s favor, today’s 300-page ruling shows that the constitutional issues raised by the healthcare reform—and especially the individual mandate—are complex, serious, and non-ideological.

Supporters of limited constitutional government need to temper their celebrations—just as they wisely tempered their sorrows after the last ruling—because we must all now realize that this will not end until the Supreme Court rules.  Nevertheless, today’s decision gives hope to those who believe that there are some things beyond the government’s reach and that the judiciary cannot abdicate its duty to hold Congress’s feet to the constitutional fire.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Healthcare | Comments (0)

Cutting spending is the way to balance the budget despite what liberals say

August 11, 2011 – 8:49 am

President Obama really believes that we must raise taxes in order to balance the budget. Nevertheless, conservatives argue that the bloated federal spending should come down to a level where he can balance the budget. Take a look at the excellent article “Unbalanced,” by Michael D. Tanner 

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Added to cato.org on August 10, 2011

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on August 10, 2011

During his brief media appearance on Monday responding to S&P’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and the subsequent stark market plunge, Pres. Barack Obama once again renewed his call for a “balanced approach” to debt reduction, combining modest entitlement reform with tax increases. This was the same formulation repeated endlessly by the president, Democrats in Congress, and much of the media throughout the recent negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.

But beyond raw ideology, there is no reason to believe that coupling tax hikes with spending cuts would solve our debt problems.

President Obama usually couches his call for tax hikes in terms of fairness. How, he asks, can we cut programs that help people without also asking the wealthy to “sacrifice” something as well? Setting aside the fact that this formulation establishes a false moral equivalence between giving less to people who have not earned it and taking more from the people who have, this ignores the fact that the wealthy in America already pay a disproportionate share of taxes.

The richest 1 percent of Americans earn 20 percent of all income in America but pay 38 percent of income taxes. The top 5 percent earn slightly more than one-third of U.S. income while paying nearly 59 percent of income taxes. At the same time, roughly half of Americans pay no federal income tax. One might suggest, therefore, that the wealthy already pay their fair share, and then some.

Of course other taxes, such as payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and the like, tend to be more regressive. But even if you include all types of federal, state, and local taxes, the wealthy pay a considerably higher proportion of taxes than their share of income would warrant.

Others less prone to moral posturing argue for including tax hikes along with spending reductions on the grounds that it is “impossible to balance the budget through cuts alone.” But the evidence strongly suggests that cutting spending alone may be the only way to really balance the budget. Indeed, by including tax hikes, we slow economic growth, thereby making it harder to balance the budget.

Simply look to those European countries today that have adopted such a “balanced” approach to debt reduction. Britain, Greece, Portugal, and Spain have all included major tax hikes as part of their austerity packages. The result across the board has been anemic economic growth and scant progress toward debt reduction. Britain, for instance, imposed a new 50 percent top income-tax rate, hiked the capital-gains tax rate from 18 percent to 28 percent, and increased the VAT rate from 17.5 percent to 20 percent. The result: During the first quarter of 2011, the British economy grew at just 0.5 percent, barely enough to offset the 0.5 percent decline during the last quarter of 2010.

Paul Krugman and others have argued that it was the spending cuts, not the tax hikes, that slowed economic growth. Others more plausibly have suggested that the continuing shocks that are buffeting the world economic system have reduced economic growth generally and made it difficult to judge the effectiveness of any particular policy or group of policies.

But the body of evidence from outside the current economic crisis tends to confirm the hypothesis that additional taxes would slow economic growth, making it harder to reduce the debt. For example, a study by Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna looked at more than 100 debt-reduction efforts in 21 countries between 1970 and 2007. They found that a combination of spending cuts and revenue reductions was actually more likely to result in debt reduction than a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.

History shows us that countries as divergent as Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and Slovenia successfully reduced the size of their governments relative to their economies and lowered their debt burden substantially. They did so by controlling spending, not by raising taxes.

In this country, look to the end of World War II. The U.S. government cut spending by nearly two-thirds, from $84 billion in 1945 to just $39 billion in 1946. While the country ran a budget deficit of nearly 21 percent of GDP in 1945, it was running a surplus by 1947. At the time, many economists predicted that cuts of that magnitude would destroy the U.S. economy and bring about Depression-era levels of unemployment. Instead, civilian employment actually grew, and an era of economic expansion began that would last throughout the 1950s.

All this implies that we should find a way to cut spending. And that brings us back to President Obama’s press briefing. At the end of his remarks, the president once again laid out his plans for the future, and called for more spending: more spending on education, more spending on unemployment insurance, more spending for an infrastructure bank, more, more, more.

Perhaps that, and not a mythical “balance,” is what really lies behind his calls for higher taxes.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama, spending out of control | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Congress fails to deal with spending problem as we head to Greece

August 11, 2011 – 8:29 am

Steve Brawner in his article, “Congress’ failure not just the debt ceiling,” Arkansas News Bureau, August 10, 2011 noted:

And now, an embarrassing debt ceiling debate that resulted in our country losing its sterling credit rating while China justifiably wagged its finger in our direction. It’s time for voters to get their pink slips ready.

It was embarrassing because THERE ARE NO MEANINGFUL CUTS IN THIS DEBT DEAL. THIS MEANS WE WILL BE WHERE GREECE IS NOW IN A FEW YEARS!!!! If nothing is done about entitlements then federal spending could consume as much as 50% of economic output by the time the Baby Boom generation is fully retired. In 2001 it was 18.2% and currently it has risen to about 25%.

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute rightly noted:

The hard-core conservatives are upset that the deal is mostly smoke and mirrors on the spending side and that there may be a tax-increase trap on the revenue side.

Take a look at this excellent article:m “The Next Greece” by Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a think-tank based in Washington.

Added to cato.org on August 4, 2011

This article appeared in National Poston August 4, 2011.

America is on a path to becoming a Greek-style welfare state. Thanks to the Bush-Obama spending binge, the burden of federal spending has climbed to about 25% of national economic output, up from only 18.2% of GDP when Bill Clinton left office.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Because of a combination of demographic forces and poorly designed entitlement programs, federal spending could consume as much as 50% of economic output by the time the Baby Boom generation is fully retired.

One symptom of all this excessive spending is that Washington is awash in red ink. The United States is now in its third consecutive year of trillion-dollar deficits and the politicians just had to increase the nation’s US$14.3-trillion debt limit.

But it wasn’t easy getting there. Just as happened with the “government shutdown” debate in March, Republicans and Democrats had fierce disagreements over the right approach. They bickered until the last minute and then finally agreed to more than US$900billion of supposed spending cuts and the creation of a “super-committee” charged with proposing another US$1.5-trillion of deficit reduction.

So which side won this fight? Republicans are bragging that they got spending cuts today, a promise of spending cuts in the future, and no tax increases. Democrats, meanwhile, are chortling that they took the debt issue off the table until after the 2012 elections, protected their favourite programs and created a super-committee that will seduce the GOP into a tax increase.

Ignore that bragging. The easy answer is that politicians of both parties were the victors and taxpayers are the ones left in the cold.

In other words, the budget deal was a victory for the political establishment.

Here’s why Republicans are winners. They get to tell their Tea Party activists that they forced Obama to cut spending. It doesn’t matter that federal spending will actually be higher every year and that the cuts were based on Washington math (a spending increase becomes a spending cut if outlays don’t climb as fast as some artificial benchmark).

They also get to tell their anti-tax activists that they held the line. Perhaps most important, the super-committee must use the “current law” baseline, which assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire at the end of 2012. But why are GOPers happy about this, considering they want those tax cuts extended? For the simple reason that Democrats on the super-committee therefore can’t use repeal of the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” as a revenue raiser.

This means that most Republican incumbents are well-positioned to win re-election.

Here’s why Democrats are winners. Thanks to the magic of government math, despite all the talk of budget cuts, discretionary spending will be more than US$100-billion higher in 2021 than it is this year. And since defence spending in Iraq and Afghanistan presumably is winding down, this means even more money will be available for domestic programs.

In addition to telling the pro-spending lobbies that the gravy train is still on the tracks, they also get to tell the classwarfare crowd that there’s an improved likelihood of higher taxes for corporate jet owners and other “rich” people. Notwithstanding GOP assertions, nothing in the agreement precludes the supercommittee from meeting its US$1.5-trillion target with tax revenue. The 2001 and 2003 tax legislation is not an option, but everything else is on the table.

This means that most Democratic incumbents are well-positioned to win re-election.

It’s worth pointing out that this doesn’t mean all Republicans and all Democrats are happy about the deal. The hard-core conservatives are upset that the deal is mostly smoke and mirrors on the spending side and that there may be a tax-increase trap on the revenue side.

The hard-core liberals, by contrast, are angry that there are any spending cuts, even ones based on Washington math. Moreover, they want higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers today, not a super-committee that may or may not follow through on soak-the-rich policies in the future.

One group of people, however, unambiguously got the short end of the stick in this budget deal. Ordinary Americans are caught in the middle. They’re not poor enough to benefit from the federal government’s plethora of income-redistribution programs. But they’re not rich enough to have the clever lobbyists and insider connections needed to benefit from the highdollar handouts like ethanol subsidies and bank bailouts.

Instead, middle-class Americans play by the rules, pay ever-higher taxes, and struggle to make ends meet while the establishment of both parties engages in posturing as America slowly drifts toward a Greek-style fiscal meltdown.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in spending out of control | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Brummett: Across-the-board spending cuts will not work

August 8, 2011 – 1:17 pm

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 
By Michael Ramirez – July 28, 2011
_________________
John Brummett in his article, “Neither trickle-down or tax-and-spend,” Arkansas News Bureau, August, 8, 2011, asserted, “…simple and non-strategic across-the-board spending cuts could well push an economy from idle to reverse.”
 
I disagree because our problem is overspending. We need to dramatically cut back on our spending. 100 years ago the federal government spent less than 3% every year unless it was during war time. In fact, it had been that way since the founding of our nation. Then why do we think it would crush our nation to reverse our spending trend?
 
If we do not start balancing our budget soon then we will be where Greece is in a few years. Take a look at this video and article below.

What Are the Consequences of the Downgrade?

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Even though I predicted it had to happen at some point because of the Bush-Obama spending binge and America’s giant long-run entitlement crisis, I confess that I’m somewhat surprised that the United States has suffered a debt downgrade for the first time.

That being said, I don’t think the downgrade will matter. Everyone knew the U.S. was heading in the wrong direction before the announcement by Standard & Poor. Moreover, big investors have very few attractive options for where to place their money – thanks to a weak global economy. As such, I suspect the federal government will still be able to borrow money at very low rates.

What does matter, however, is that the American economy is burdened with a bloated public sector that is sapping the nation’s economic vitality. And this problem will get worse every year because of a toxic combination of poorly designed entitlement programs and demographic change.

As the government gets bigger, this hinders growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy. The damage is then compounded by the fact that the two main ways of financing the public sector – taxes and borrowing – both have additional adverse economic consequences.

In other words, the United States has fiscal cancer. Yet rather than try to cure the disease, politicians are – at best – kicking the can down the road.

The only glimmer of hope, as I wrote yesterday, is that House Republicans have made serious efforts to restrain the burden of federal spending.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in spending out of control | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Downgrade of US credit rating because of growing spending

August 8, 2011 – 12:49 pm

This clip above and the article below really helped my understanding of the issue.

What’s Next After the S&P Downgrade

by Jagadeesh Gokhale

Jagadeesh Gokhale is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, member of the Social Security Advisory Board, and author of Social Security: A Fresh Look at Policy Options University of Chicago Press (2010).

Added to cato.org on August 8, 2011

This article appeared on The Huffington Post on August 8, 2011

What now, in the wake of Standard & Poor’s downgrade of U.S. debt?

Well, the real answer is: nothing much.

Though the agency’s downgrade is being reported apocalyptically by news media — and had a corresponding effect on markets early Monday — the fact is that the S&P rating should be treated as but one datum in a vast sea of information about the financial sector and the overall economy.

Jagadeesh Gokhale is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, member of the Social Security Advisory Board, and author of Social Security: A Fresh Look at Policy Options University of Chicago Press (2010).

 

More by Jagadeesh Gokhale

S&P is only one of three major agencies whose credit ratings are widely used by individual and institutional investors to set their asset portfolios. Despite S&P’s downgrade, the other two major ratings agencies — Moody’s and Fitch — affirmed their AAA rating of U.S. Treasury bonds.

S&P’s own suggested interpretation is that ratings are “one of several tools that investors can use when making decisions about purchasing bonds and other fixed income investments.” Indeed, S&P’s language here hints at a double standard: it issues the ratings, but then describes them as not very useful — suggesting a desire on the part of S&P to evade accountability when their ratings turn out to be misleading, as happened with mortgage-backed securities during the recent recession.

S&P’s ratings measure “relative risk,” informing investors about whether one financial asset is more (or less) likely to default compared to another. Thus, with the recent downgrade, U.S. Treasuries are now more risky than the sovereign debt of several other countries: Australia, Sweden, Canada and six others. However, none of those countries is large enough, with capital markets sufficiently deep or liquid, to replace U.S. Treasuries as the destination of choice for investors wishing to shield their capital from risks.

Moreover, because accruing federal revenues are considerably larger than federal debt service costs, the likelihood of an outright default on U.S. public debt remains remote. The only other way to default on U.S. Treasuries is through higher inflation — to erode the real value of federal debt, most of which is denoted in nominal (rather than inflation-adjusted) terms. The potential for rising inflation in the long-term remains high with banks, non-bank financial intermediaries, and regular private sector firms sitting on large hoards of liquid reserves. But the likelihood of an inflationary spiral in a sluggish economy with a high rate of unemployment appears to be very low. Therefore, a broad-based exit from U.S. Treasuries appears unlikely.

S&P says that its ratings do not amount to investment advice — to purchase, sell or hold particular financial instruments. They are simply one of many factors — such as companies’ business models, their revenue potentials, input costs, sector outlook, technologies in development, and so on — that should be considered when selecting financial investments. Indeed, this view was strongly emphasized by S&P and other ratings agencies after the financial sector collapse from exposure to sub-prime mortgages. Those loans were financially engineered to construct derivative financial assets — mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations — that were rated AAA, but which later failed spectacularly and still toxically infest many financial institutions’ portfolios.

That episode has cast considerable doubt upon the ability and reliability of ratings agencies’ risk evaluation methods. By S&P’s own admission, establishing ratings is not a science. Well, then: it must be an art at which the agencies have proved particularly inept. The $2 trillion error in S&P’s projections of U.S. federal debt — an error S&P admitted — is clear evidence that these agencies are unworthy of worship on a pedestal.

Finally, the ratings downgrade provides no new information about the fiscal condition of the U.S. federal government. Our aging population — increasing longevity, and the retirement of 76 million baby boomers — will boost government spending on entitlement benefits unless those programs are reformed to cut costs. Politicians’ unwillingness to reform them is well known. And it just happened again, as Congress and President Obama settled on a small budget deal that’s likely to leave the government’s finances in a deeper hole by the end of the decade. Investors and others knew it as soon as the budget deal was announced, as indicated by the almost universally negative market commentary on the adequacy of the deal. The recent market decline must be interpreted as a clear response to the disappointing outcome.

The S&P ratings downgrade only rubber-stamps the negative outlook on the federal government’s finances that markets have already expressed. This ratings downgrade, by itself, is unlikely to make much additional difference to market outcomes in the short term; markets had clearly decided on their own not to rely too much on S&P’s rating of U.S. Treasuries.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in spending out of control | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Standard & Poor’s downgrades US credit rating

August 6, 2011 – 11:32 am

Over and over conservatives have warned that a US default was not the main thing we needed to fear but not cutting our budget enough to avoid a downgrade of the US credit rating. Now it has happened just as we feared!!!

Standard & Poor’s downgrades US credit rating

Standard & Poor’s has downgraded the credit rating for the US from AAA for the first time in US history.

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, Associated Press / August 5, 2011

Credit rating agency Standard & Poor‘s on Friday downgraded the United States‘ credit rating for the first time in the history of the ratings.The credit rating agency said that it is cutting the country’s top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country’s debt situation.

A source familiar with the discussions said that the Obama administration feels the S&P’s analysis contained “deep and fundamental flaws.”

S&P said that in addition to the downgrade, it is issuing a negative outlook, meaning that there was a chance it will lower the rating further within the next two years. It said such a downgrade to AA would occur if the agency sees less reductions in spending than Congress and the administration have agreed to make, higher interest rates or new fiscal pressures during this period.

S&P first put the government on notice in April that a downgrade was possible unless Congress and the administration came up with a credible long-term deficit reduction plan and avoided a default on the country’s debt.

After months of wrangling and negotiations with the administration, Congress passed this week a debt reduction package at the 11th-hour that averted a possible default.

In its statement, S&P said that it had changed its view “of the difficulties of bridging the gulf between the political parties” over a credible deficit reduction plan.

S&P said it was now “pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics anytime soon.”

Despite Dow ending the day up, it was a roller coaster all day at one point down 170 points. With the S&P downgrade, the release of the jobs report, and the roller coaster week on Wall Street, many are just holding their breath to see how the markets flesh out.

Debt Deal: Politicians Win, Middle Class Loses

by Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington.

Added to cato.org on August 2, 2011

This article appeared on CNN.com on August 2, 2011.

America is on a path to becoming a Greek-style welfare state. Thanks to the Bush-Obama spending binge, the burden of federal spending has climbed to about 25% of national economic output, up from only 18.2% of GDP when Bill Clinton left office.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Because of a combination of demographic forces and poorly designed entitlement programs, federal spending could consume as much as 50% of economic output by the time the baby boom generation is fully retired.

One symptom of all this excessive spending is that Washington is awash in red ink. We’re now in our third consecutive year of trillion-dollar deficits and the politicians just had to increase the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit.

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington.

 

More by Daniel J. Mitchell

But it wasn’t easy getting there. Just as happened with the “government shutdown” debate in March, Republicans and Democrats had fierce disagreements over the right approach. They bickered until the last minute and then finally agreed to more than $900 billion of supposed spending cuts and the creation of a “supercommittee” charged with proposing another $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction.

So which side won this fight? Republicans are bragging that they got spending cuts today, a promise of spending cuts in the future, and no tax increases. Democrats, meanwhile, are chortling that they took the debt issue off the table until after the 2012 elections, protected their favorite programs and created a supercommittee that will seduce the GOP into a tax increase.

Ignore that bragging. The easy answer is that politicians of both parties were the victors and taxpayers are the ones left in the cold.

In other words, the budget deal was a victory for the political establishment.

Here’s why Republicans are winners. They get to tell their tea party activists that they forced Obama to cut spending. It doesn’t matter that federal spending will actually be higher every year and that the cuts were based on Washington math (a spending increase becomes a spending cut if outlays don’t climb as fast as some artificial benchmark).

They also get to tell their anti-tax activists that they held the line. Perhaps most important, the supercommittee must use the “current law” baseline, which assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire at the end of 2012. But why are GOPers happy about this, considering they want those tax cuts extended? For the simple reason that Democrats on the supercommittee therefore can’t use repeal of the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” as a revenue raiser.

This means that most Republican incumbents are well-positioned to win re-election.

Here’s why Democrats are winners. Thanks to the magic of government math, despite all the talk of budget cuts, discretionary spending will be more than $100 billion higher in 2021 than it is this year. And since defense spending in Iraq and Afghanistan presumably is winding down, this means even more money will be available for domestic programs.

In addition to telling the pro-spending lobbies that the gravy train is still on the tracks, they also get to tell the class-warfare crowd that there’s an improved likelihood of higher taxes for corporate jet owners and other “rich” people. Notwithstanding GOP assertions, nothing in the agreement precludes the supercommittee from meeting its $1.5 trillion target with tax revenue. The 2001 and 2003 tax legislation is not an option, but everything else is on the table.

This means that most Democratic incumbents are well-positioned to win re-election.

It’s worth pointing out that this doesn’t mean all Republicans and all Democrats are happy about the deal. The hard-core conservatives are upset that the deal is mostly smoke and mirrors on the spending side and that there may be a tax-increase trap on the revenue side.

The hard-core liberals, by contrast, are angry that there are any spending cuts, even ones based on Washington math. Moreover, they want higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers today, not a supercommittee that may or may not follow through on soak-the-rich policies in the future.

One group of people, however, unambiguously got the short end of the stick in this budget deal. Ordinary Americans are caught in the middle. They’re not poor enough to benefit from the federal government’s plethora of income-redistribution programs. But they’re not rich enough to have the clever lobbyists and insider connections needed to benefit from the high-dollar handouts like ethanol subsidies and bank bailouts.

Instead, middle-class Americans play by the rules, pay ever-higher taxes, and struggle to make ends meet while the establishment of both parties engages in posturing as America slowly drifts toward a Greek-style fiscal meltdown.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events, spending out of control | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Dan Mitchell on Debt Deal: drifting to Greek-style fiscal meltdown

August 2, 2011 – 4:44 pm

It is sad that they passed this debt deal. They just kicked the can down the road.

Debt Deal: Politicians Win, Middle Class Loses

by Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington.

Added to cato.org on August 2, 2011

This article appeared on CNN.com on August 2, 2011.

America is on a path to becoming a Greek-style welfare state. Thanks to the Bush-Obama spending binge, the burden of federal spending has climbed to about 25% of national economic output, up from only 18.2% of GDP when Bill Clinton left office.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Because of a combination of demographic forces and poorly designed entitlement programs, federal spending could consume as much as 50% of economic output by the time the baby boom generation is fully retired.

One symptom of all this excessive spending is that Washington is awash in red ink. We’re now in our third consecutive year of trillion-dollar deficits and the politicians just had to increase the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit.

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington.

 

More by Daniel J. Mitchell

But it wasn’t easy getting there. Just as happened with the “government shutdown” debate in March, Republicans and Democrats had fierce disagreements over the right approach. They bickered until the last minute and then finally agreed to more than $900 billion of supposed spending cuts and the creation of a “supercommittee” charged with proposing another $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction.

So which side won this fight? Republicans are bragging that they got spending cuts today, a promise of spending cuts in the future, and no tax increases. Democrats, meanwhile, are chortling that they took the debt issue off the table until after the 2012 elections, protected their favorite programs and created a supercommittee that will seduce the GOP into a tax increase.

Ignore that bragging. The easy answer is that politicians of both parties were the victors and taxpayers are the ones left in the cold.

In other words, the budget deal was a victory for the political establishment.

Here’s why Republicans are winners. They get to tell their tea party activists that they forced Obama to cut spending. It doesn’t matter that federal spending will actually be higher every year and that the cuts were based on Washington math (a spending increase becomes a spending cut if outlays don’t climb as fast as some artificial benchmark).

They also get to tell their anti-tax activists that they held the line. Perhaps most important, the supercommittee must use the “current law” baseline, which assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire at the end of 2012. But why are GOPers happy about this, considering they want those tax cuts extended? For the simple reason that Democrats on the supercommittee therefore can’t use repeal of the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” as a revenue raiser.

This means that most Republican incumbents are well-positioned to win re-election.

Here’s why Democrats are winners. Thanks to the magic of government math, despite all the talk of budget cuts, discretionary spending will be more than $100 billion higher in 2021 than it is this year. And since defense spending in Iraq and Afghanistan presumably is winding down, this means even more money will be available for domestic programs.

In addition to telling the pro-spending lobbies that the gravy train is still on the tracks, they also get to tell the class-warfare crowd that there’s an improved likelihood of higher taxes for corporate jet owners and other “rich” people. Notwithstanding GOP assertions, nothing in the agreement precludes the supercommittee from meeting its $1.5 trillion target with tax revenue. The 2001 and 2003 tax legislation is not an option, but everything else is on the table.

This means that most Democratic incumbents are well-positioned to win re-election.

It’s worth pointing out that this doesn’t mean all Republicans and all Democrats are happy about the deal. The hard-core conservatives are upset that the deal is mostly smoke and mirrors on the spending side and that there may be a tax-increase trap on the revenue side.

The hard-core liberals, by contrast, are angry that there are any spending cuts, even ones based on Washington math. Moreover, they want higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers today, not a supercommittee that may or may not follow through on soak-the-rich policies in the future.

One group of people, however, unambiguously got the short end of the stick in this budget deal. Ordinary Americans are caught in the middle. They’re not poor enough to benefit from the federal government’s plethora of income-redistribution programs. But they’re not rich enough to have the clever lobbyists and insider connections needed to benefit from the high-dollar handouts like ethanol subsidies and bank bailouts.

Instead, middle-class Americans play by the rules, pay ever-higher taxes, and struggle to make ends meet while the establishment of both parties engages in posturing as America slowly drifts toward a Greek-style fiscal meltdown.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)