My Unfinished Essay on the Pending Collapse of the United States

Bob Jensen at Trinity University

Looking ahead is difficult, especially when the future is concerned.
Old Chinese saying

Whether or not you love or hate the scholarship and media presentations of the University of Chicago's Milton Friedman, I think you have to appreciate his articulate response on this historic Phil Donohue Show episode. Many of the current dire warnings about entitlements were predicted by him as one of the cornerstones in his 1970's PBS Series on "Free to Choose." We just didn't listen as we poured on unbooked national debt ($60 trillion and not counting) for future generations to deal with rather than pay as we went so to speak! . And yes Paul and Zafer, I know there may be better alternatives than capitalism as a basis for optimization of economies in theory. But all economic systems must deal with inherent greed in practice.
The Grand Old Scholar/Researcher on the subject of greed in economics
Video:  Milton Friedman answers Phil Donohue's questions about capitalism.--- http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/temp/MiltonFriedmanGreed.wmv

A BRIC nation at the moment is a nation that has vast resources and virtually no entitlement obligations that drag down economic growth --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC

In economics, BRIC (typically rendered as "the BRICs" or "the BRIC countries") is an acronym that refers to the fast-growing developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The acronym was first coined and prominently used by Goldman Sachs in 2001. According to a paper published in 2005, Mexico and South Korea are the only other countries comparable to the BRICs, but their economies were excluded initially because they were considered already more developed. Goldman Sachs argued that, since they are developing rapidly, by 2050 the combined economies of the BRICs could eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world. The four countries, combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40% of the world's population.

When I was in college at Iowa State University in 1957 Ronald Reagen was an activist who gave a speech for the Democratic Party on campus.
The finest and most predictive speech ever given by Ronald Reagen was in 1964 when he explained why he was bolting from the Democratic Party ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt1fYSAChxs&playnext=1&list=PLA8EA9621FEBBD294 

But in reality, Republicans were almost as much at fault as Democrats for deficit spending.. George W. Bush was one of the worst offenders in history while he was President of the United States. Unlike President Reagen, President Bush did not use his veto pen to challenge wild deficit spending.

The booked National Debt on January 1, 2012 was over $15 trillion ---
U.S. National Debt Clock --- http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Also see http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

How to lie with statistics

"Four Deficit Myths and a Frightening Fact:   We don't have a generalized overspending problem. We have a humongous health-care problem," by Alan S. Binder, The Wall Street Journal, January 19, 2012 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577164820504397092.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

Here's the clinker in Binder's liberal economics analysis:

According to the CBO, if nothing is done, the primary deficit will bottom out at 2.6% of GDP in 2018 and then rise to 7.4% of GDP by 2040. Where will the additional 4.8% of GDP come from? Remarkably, every penny will come from health-care spending, which balloons from 6.6% of GDP to 11.4% in the projections, or 4.8% more of GDP. This exact match is just a coincidence, of course. If we use 2050 as the endpoint instead of 2040, the projected primary deficit increases by 6% of GDP, of which health-care spending accounts for 6.6 percentage points. Yes, you read that right: Apart from increased health-care costs, the rest of the primary deficit actually falls relative to GDP.

The CBO projects federal spending on all purposes other than health care and interest to be roughly stable as a share of GDP from 2015 to 2035, and then to drift lower. So no, America, we don't have a generalized overspending problem for the long run. We have a humongous health-care problem.

 

The clinker is that health care and interest on the National Debt will soon become the overwhelming, really overwhelming, components of federal spending. What will the deficit's share of GDP be after factoring in health care and interest be Professor Binder? Liberal economists like Princeton's Binder and Krugman conveniently factor out the big clinkers in the deficit.

This is analogous to saying that household pending on all purposes other than food, rent, utilities, and transportation to be roughly stable as a share of GDP from 2015 to 2035, and then to drift lower.

Our Pentagon is now in the process of shifting military from other parts of the world to the vicinity of China.
Did you hear about the scenario that says the only way we can go to war with China is to borrow the money from China?

I think I'm going to be sick!

Why the Canadians never built an $80 trillion Titanic that lies deep in the ocean.
"Expect higher payroll taxes in 2012, taxpayers group says," by Joanna Smith, The Star, December 28, 2011 --- Click Here
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1107876--expect-higher-payroll-taxes-in-2012-taxpayers-group-says?bn=1

Canadians will see the biggest increase in payroll taxes in a decade next year, according to a Canadian Taxpayers Federation analysis of how many of your dollars will go to federal government coffers.

Employment insurance premiums will increase 5 cents per $100 of insurable earnings as of Jan. 1. That’s half of what the Conservative government originally planned but the analysis shows employees will still see a $53 jump to $840 in EI premiums in 2012

Combine that with the federal pension plan contributions and it means employees will have to give up a total of $3,147 in payroll taxes next year — an increase of about $142 over this year.

Employers will have to shell out about $164 more in payroll taxes next year, for a total of $3,483.

The combined net increase of 4.84 per cent is the highest since 2002.

“Finance Canada tells us that we should be thanking the government because they are not going to be raising payroll taxes as much as they promised,” said Derek Fildebrandt, national research director for the advocacy group.

A spokeswoman for the federal finance department suggested exactly that.

“The Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board is responsible for setting premium rates to ensure that the program just breaks even over time and managing a cash reserve — including adjustments in rates,” Suzanne Prebinski wrote in an email.

“However, to protect the economy and jobs, we cut any potential increases in half for 2012 — keeping EI premiums near their lowest level since 1982. This change is expected to save employers and employees $600 million in 2012.”

Prebinski noted there is no change to the Canada Pension Plan contribution rate, which has been at 9.9 per cent of pensionable earnings since 2003, but there will be an increase in the maximum contribution to account for inflation.

Continued in article

Video
"Debt: The First 5,000 Years," by Paul Kedrosky , Kedrosky.com, September 10, 2011 --- Click Here
http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/09/debt-the-first-5000-years.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InfectiousGreed+%28Paul+Kedrosky%27s+Infectious+Greed%29

Jensen Questions
How did the accounting system account for debt 5,000 years ago?
Does care and nurturing human children create debt to parents?

"When Debt Gets in the Way of Growth," Harvard Business Review Blog, September 13, 2011 --- Click Here
http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hbreditors/2011/09/when_debt_gets_in_the_way_of_g.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date

Bob Jensen's threads on accounting history ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Theory01.htm#AccountingHistory

The booked National Debt over $14 trillion ---
U.S. National Debt Clock --- http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The January 2010 Booked National Debt Plus Unbooked Entitlements Debt
The GAO estimated $76 trillion Present Value in January 2010  unless something drastic is done.
Click Here |
 http://www.pgpf.org/~/media/PGPF/Media/PDF/2010/03/fiscalsustainabilityGAONationsLongTermFiscalOutlook03032010.ashx?pid={97E10657-8193-4455-871C-4E7A6A9EE084}
 

There are many ways to describe the federal government’s long-term fiscal challenge. One method for capturing the challenge in a single number is to measure the “fiscal gap.” The fiscal gap represents the difference, or gap, between revenue and spending in present value terms over a certain period, such as 75 years, that would need to be closed in order to achieve a specified debt level (e.g., today’s debt to GDP ratio) at the end of the period.2 From the fiscal gap, one can calculate the size of action needed—in terms of tax increases, spending reductions, or, more likely, some combination of the two—to close the gap; that is, for debt as a share of GDP to equal today’s ratio at the end of the period. For example, under our Alternative simulation, the fiscal gap is 9.0 percent of GDP (or a little over $76 trillion in present value dollars) (see table 2). This means that revenue would have to increase by about 50 percent or noninterest spending would have to be reduced by 34 percent on average over the next 75 years (or some combination of the two) to keep debt at the end of the period from exceeding its level at the beginning of 2010 (53 percent of GDP).

This report looks at the federal government as if it were a business, with the goal of informing the debate about our nation’s financial situation and outlook.
"About USA Inc.," by Mary Meeker, Scribd, February 2011 ---
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49434520/USA-Inc-A-Basic-Summary-of-America-s-Financial-Statements

This report looks at the federal government as if it were a business, with the goal of informing the debate about our nation’s financial situation and outlook. In it, we examine USA Inc.’s income statement and balance sheet. We aim to interpret the underlying data and facts and illustrate patterns and trends in easy-to-understand ways. We analyze the drivers of federal revenue and the history of expense growth, and we examine basic scenarios for how America might move toward positive cash flow.

Thanks go out to Liang Wu and Fred Miller and former Morgan Stanley colleagues whose contributions to this report were invaluable. In addition, Richard Ravitch, Emil Henry, Laura Tyson, Al Gore, Meg Whitman, John Cogan, Peter Orszag and Chris Liddell provided inspiration and insights as the report developed. It includes a 2-page foreword; a 12-page text summary; and 460 PowerPoint slides containing data-rich observations. There’s a lot of material – think of it as a book that happens to be a slide presentation.

We hope the slides in particular provide relevant context for the debate about America’s financials. To kick-start the dialogue, we are making the entire slide portion of the report available as a single work for non-commercial distribution (but not for excerpting, or modifying orcreating derivatives) under the Creative Commons license. The spirit of connectivity and sharing has become the essence of the Internet, and we encourage interested parties to use the slides to advance the discussion of America’s financial present and future. If you would like to add yourown data-driven observations, contribute your insights, improve or clarify ours, please contact usto request permission and provide your suggestions. This document is only a starting point for discussion; the information in it will benefit greatly from your thoughtful input

Jensen Comment
The high quality graphs are especially frightening.

Bob Jensen's threads on entitlements ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Entitlements.htm

Watch for the other possible solutions in the 30-minute summary video ---
http://www.pgpf.org/newsroom/press/IOUSA-Solutions-Premiers-on-CNN/
(Scroll Down a bit)

Here is the original (and somewhat dated video that does not delve into solutions very much)
IOUSA (the most frightening movie in American history) ---
(see a 30-minute version of the documentary at www.iousathemovie.com )

Now the IOUSA Bipartisan Solutions
I suggest that as many people as possible divert their attention from the Tiger Woods at the Masters Tournament today (April 11) to watch bipartisan proposals (‘Solutions”) on how to delay the Fall of the United States Empire. By the way, Bill Bradley was one of the most liberal Democratic senators in the History of the United States Senate.

Watch the World Premiere of I.O.U.S.A.: Solutions on CNN
Saturday, April 10, 1:00-3:00 p.m. EST or Sunday, April 11, 3:00-5:00 p.m. EST

Watch for the other possible solutions in the 30-minute summary video ---
http://www.pgpf.org/newsroom/press/IOUSA-Solutions-Premiers-on-CNN/
(Scroll Down a bit)

CBS Sixty minutes has a great video on the enormous cost of keeping dying people artificially alive:
High Cost of Dying --- http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5737437n&tag=mncol;lst;3
(wait for the commercials to play out)

"The Looming Entitlement Fiscal Burden," by Gary Becker, The Becker-Posner Blog, April 11, 2010 ---
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/beckerposner/2010/04/the-looming-entitlement-fiscal-burdenbecker.html

"The Entitlement Quandary," by Richard Posner, The Becker-Posner Blog, April 11, 2010 ---
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/beckerposner/2010/04/the-entitlement-quandaryposner.html

The "Burning Platform" of the United States Empire
Former Chief Accountant of the United States, David Walker, is spreading the word as widely as possible in the United States about the looming threat of our unbooked entitlements. Two videos that feature David Walker's warnings are as follows:

• IOUSA (the most frightening movie in American history) ---
  (see a 30-minute version of the documentary at www.iousathemovie.com )
   
• David Walker on CBS Sixty Minutes
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml

David Walker claims the U.S. economy is on a "burning platform" but does not go into specifics as to what will be left in the ashes.

The US government is on a “burning platform” of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon.
David M. Walker, Former Chief Accountant of the United States --- http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2009/0218.html
 

U.S. Debt/Deficit Clock --- http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The $61 Trillion Margin of Error, and What "Empire Decline" Means in Layman's Terms
This is a bipartisan disaster from the beginning and will be until the end

David Walker --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walker_(U.S._Comptroller_General)

Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

Harvard Profession Video:   Niall Ferguson: Empires on the Edge of Chaos ---
http://fora.tv/2010/07/28/Niall_Ferguson_Empires_on_the_Edge_of_Chaos

Paul Johnson --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_%28writer%29

Eminent United Kingdom historian Paul Johnson on the roots and outcomes of U.S. deficit spending
Modern Times:  1920s to the 1990s, by Paul Johnson
There's a paperback version for $13.90 --- Click Here

"SOCIAL SECURITY IS A PONZI SCHEME," by Anthony H. Catanach and J.Edward Ketz, Grumpy Old Accountants, September 27, 2011 ---
http://blogs.smeal.psu.edu/grumpyoldaccountants/archives/321#more-321

Jensen Comment
Many state worker pension systems and many private sector systems are funded so badly that they are indeed Ponzi schemes unless they are bailed out. However, the federal government pension systems and medical benefits are not Ponzi schemes because the federal government has the power to create as much money for itself as it wants. This is sometimes called printing more money whenever the central government needs it, but technically governments do not usually create money be simply printing more money. Instead they simply create more credit in a way that is tantamount to printing more money. However, governments that do so without economic constraints become highly inflationary. One million Zimbabwe dollars to day will not buy one chicken egg. Because of unfunded obligations for Social Security, Medicare, Military Pensions, Medicaid, and other entitlements we may well reach a stage where $1,000 will not even buy a cup of coffee. But federal pensions will be paid under contract even if the amount of dollars deposited in a retirees bank won't buy two cups of coffee.

The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
Taylor Caldwell, A Pillar of Iron (wrongly attributed to Cicero in 55 B.C.)

The Rising Burden of Government Debt [Flash Player] --- http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/1101_government_debt_prasad.aspx

Entitlements Warnings --- http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/temp/Entitlements7-21-10%20-%20EOTM%20-%20Twilight.pdf
Thank you for giving me permission to post this Michael Cembalest [michael.cembalest@jpmorgan.com]
Michael Cembalest, Chief Investment Officer, J.P. Morgan Private Banking

Peter G. Peterson Website on Deficit/Debt Solutions ---
http://www.pgpf.org/

The Government' Recipe for Off-Budget Debt
"US Government 'hiding true amount of debt'," by Gregory Bresiger, news,com ---
http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/us-government-hiding-true-amount-of-debt/story-e6frfkur-1225926567256#ixzz106MjZzOz 

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the debt will be at $US16.5 trillion in two years, or 100.6 per cent of GDP.

But these numbers are incomplete.

They do not count off-budget obligations such as required spending for Social Security and Medicare, whose programs represent a balloon payment for the Government as more Americans retire and collect benefits.

In the case of Social Security, beginning in 2016, the US Government will be paying out more than it is collecting in taxes.

Without basic measures - such as payment cuts or higher payroll taxes - the system could be on the road to bankruptcy,

Jensen Comment
Governments don't declare bankruptcy that would leave allow them to default on debt obligations. Instead they print money wholesale an pay off their debts in hyper-inflated dollars.

Bob Jensen's threads on the sad state of government accounting and accountability ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/theory01.htm#GovernmentalAccounting

"Downhill With the G.O.P.," by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, September 25, 2010 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24krugman.html?src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB
Jensen Comment
I agree with some of Krugman's assessment, but I strongly disagree that the solution to saving the United States is to massive more deficit financing. Does this Nobel Laureate know how to compute interest cash flow on the nearly $100 trillion of debt?

Video on IOUSA Bipartisan Solutions to Saving the USA

If you missed Sunday afternoon CNN’s two-hour IOUSA Solutions broadcast, you can watch a 30-minute version at
http://www.pgpf.org/newsroom/press/IOUSA-Solutions-Premiers-on-CNN/   (Scroll Down a bit)
Note that great efforts were made to keep this a bipartisan panel along with the occasional video clips of President Obama discussing the debt crisis. The problem is a build up over spending for most of our nation’s history, It landed at the feet of President Obama, but he’s certainly not the cause nor is his the recent expansion of health care coverage the real cause. 

One take home from the CNN show was that over 60% of the booked National Debt increases are funded off shore (largely in Asia and the Middle East).
This going to greatly constrain the global influence and economic choices of the United States.

By 2016 the interest payments on the National Debt will be the biggest single item in the Federal Budget, more than national defense or social security. And an enormous portion of this interest cash flow will be flowing to foreign nations that may begin to put all sorts of strings on their decisions  to roll over funding our National Debt.

The unbooked entitlement obligations that are not part of the National Debt are over $60 trillion and exploding exponentially. The Medicare D entitlements to retirees like me added over $8 trillion of entitlements under the Bush Presidency.

Most of the problems are solvable except for the Number 1 entitlements problem --- Medicare.
Drastic measures must be taken to keep Medicare sustainable.

I thought the show was pretty balanced from a bipartisan standpoint and from the standpoint of possible solutions.

Many of the possible “solutions” are really too small to really make a dent in the problem. For example, medical costs can be reduced by one of my favorite solutions of limiting (like they do in Texas) punitive damage recoveries in malpractice lawsuits. However, the cost savings are a mere drop in the bucket. Another drop in the bucket will be the achievable increased savings from decreasing medical and disability-claim frauds. These are is important solutions, but they are not solutions that will save the USA.

The big possible solutions to save the USA are as follows (you and I won’t particularly like these solutions):

• Extend retirement age significantly (75 years maybe?).
  When Social Security was enacted, life expectancy was slightly over 65 years of age.
  Now it is well over 75 years of age.
   

• Hit Medicare retirees like me with higher fees for physicians, hospital services, and Medicare D drug payments.
  Perhaps this should be on a scale based upon wealth/income levels such that people, like me, who can afford to pay more must pay more.
   

• Greatly curb the biggest cost of Medicare --- keeping dying people alive in expensive hospitals for a few weeks or maybe even a few months. Sometimes dying people must be kept alive in ICU units costing over $10,000 per day when there is no hope of recovery. There was not any hint of suggesting euthanasia as an alternative. But dying people can be allowed to die more naturally and pain free.
  http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5737437n&tag=mncol;lst;3
  (wait for the commercials to play out)
   

• Limit the National Debt is some way. It’s now more common in Europe to limit national debt to 60% of GDP. Various other means of constraining our National Debt were discussed in the CNN longer version of the IOUSA Solutions video.

"The Road to a Downgrade:  A short history of the entitlement state," The Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2011 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576470551476951590.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

Even without a debt default, it looks increasingly possible that the world's credit rating agencies will soon downgrade U.S. debt from the AAA standing it has enjoyed for decades.

A downgrade isn't catastrophic because global financial markets decide the creditworthiness of U.S. securities, not Moody's and Standard & Poor's. The good news is that investors still regard Treasury bonds, which carry the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, as a near zero-risk investment. But a downgrade will raise the cost of credit, especially for states and institutions whose debt is pegged to Treasurys. Above all a downgrade is a symbol of fiscal mismanagement and an omen of worse to come if we continue the same habits.

President Obama will deserve much of the blame for the spending blowout of his first two years (see the nearby chart). But the origins of this downgrade go back decades, and so this is a good time to review the policies that brought us to this sad chapter and $14.3 trillion of debt.

FDR began the entitlement era with the New Deal and Social Security, but for decades it remained relatively limited. Spending fell dramatically after the end of World War II and the U.S. debt burden fell rapidly from 100% of GDP. That changed in the mid-1960s with LBJ's Great Society and the dawn of the health-care state. Medicare and Medicaid were launched in 1965 with fairy tale estimates of future costs.

Medicare, the program for the elderly, was supposed to cost $12 billion by 1990 but instead spent $110 billion. The costs of Medicaid, the program for the poor, have exploded as politicians like California Democrat Henry Waxman expanded eligibility and coverage. In inflation-adjusted dollars, Medicaid cost $4 billion in 1966, $41 billion in 1986 and $243 billion last year. Rather than bending the cost curve down, the government as third-party payer led to a medical price spiral.

LBJ launched other welfare programs—public housing, food stamps and many more—that have also grown over time. Last year, the panoply of welfare programs spent about $20,000 for every man, woman and child in poverty, according to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation.

Social Security's fiscal trouble began in earnest in 1972 with bills that increased benefits immediately by 20%, added an annual cost of living adjustment, and created a benefit escalator requiring payments to rise with wages, not inflation. This and other tweaks by Democrat Wilbur Mills added trillions of dollars to the program's unfunded liabilities. Believe it or not, these 1972 amendments were added to a debt-ceiling bill.

None of these benefit expansions were subject to annual budget review and thus they grew by automatic pilot. They are sometimes called "mandatory spending" because Congress is required by law to make payments to those who meet eligibility standards, regardless of other spending needs or tax revenues.

According to the most recent government data, today some 50.5 million Americans are on Medicaid, 46.5 million are on Medicare, 52 million on Social Security, five million on SSI, 7.5 million on unemployment insurance, and 44.6 million on food stamps and other nutrition programs. Some 24 million get the earned-income tax credit, a cash income supplement.

By 2010 such payments to individuals were 66% of the federal budget, up from 28% in 1965. (See the second chart.) We now spend $2.1 trillion a year on these redistribution programs, and the 75 million baby boomers are only starting to retire.

We suspect that in the 1960s as now—with ObamaCare—liberals knew they had created fiscal time-bombs. They simply assumed that taxes would keep rising to pay for it all, as they have in Europe.

On Monday night Mr. Obama blamed President George W. Bush's "two wars" for the debt buildup. But national defense spending was 7.4% of GDP and 42.8% of outlays in 1965, and only 4.8% of GDP and 20.1% of federal outlays in 2010. Defense has not caused the debt crisis.

Many on the left still blame Ronald Reagan, but the debt increase in the 1980s financed a robust economic expansion and victory in the Cold War. Debt held by the public at the end of the Reagan years was much lower as a share of GDP (41% in 1988 and still only 40.3% in 2008) compared to the estimated 72% in fiscal 2011. That Cold War victory made possible the peace dividend that allowed Bill Clinton to balance the budget in the 1990s by cutting defense spending to 3% of GDP from nearly 6% in 1988.

Mr. Bush and Republicans did prove after 9/11 that the Washington urge to spend and borrow is bipartisan. Republicans launched a Medicare drug benefit, record outlays on education, the most expensive transportation bill in history, and home ownership aid that contributed to the housing bubble. The GOP's blunder was refusing to cut domestic spending to finance the war on terrorism. Guns and butter blowouts never last.

Then came Mr. Obama, arguably the most spendthrift president in history. He inherited a recession and responded by blowing up the U.S. balance sheet. Spending as a share of GDP in the last three years is higher than at any time since 1946. In three years the debt has increased by more than $4 trillion thanks to stimulus, cash for clunkers, mortgage modification programs, 99 weeks of jobless benefits, record expansions in Medicaid, and more.

The forecast is for $8 trillion to $10 trillion more in red ink through 2021. Mr. Obama hinted in a press conference earlier this month that if it weren't for Republicans, he'd want another stimulus. Scary thought: None of this includes the ObamaCare entitlement that will place 30 million more Americans on government health rolls.

Continued in article

Jensen Comment
In my opinion the most spendthrift president was George W. Bush, He was too chicken to veto lavish spending bills put forth by Congress, including the outrageously expensive and underfunded entitlement program for Medicare Drug subsidies for seniors and disabled people.

A BRIC nation at the moment is a nation that has vast resources and virtually no entitlement obligations that drag down economic growth --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC

In economics, BRIC (typically rendered as "the BRICs" or "the BRIC countries") is an acronym that refers to the fast-growing developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The acronym was first coined and prominently used by Goldman Sachs in 2001. According to a paper published in 2005, Mexico and South Korea are the only other countries comparable to the BRICs, but their economies were excluded initially because they were considered already more developed. Goldman Sachs argued that, since they are developing rapidly, by 2050 the combined economies of the BRICs could eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world. The four countries, combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40% of the world's population.

From the Crazy Economist Who Wants No Limit on Government Borrowing Supposedly to Get Us Out of the Deficit
That's analogous to digging deeper into the whole to get yourself out of the hole
Eat Drink and Make Merry Without Fiscal Responsibility
The question is how long the Chinese will keep lending for lavish and unrestrained spending by Congress?

""Paul Krugman on Ryan's Budget Plan : Ludicrous and Cruel," by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, April 7, 2011 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=3&hp

Many commentators swooned earlier this week after House Republicans, led by the Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, unveiled their budget proposals. They lavished praise on Mr. Ryan, asserting that his plan set a new standard of fiscal seriousness.

Well, they should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all. Instead, it’s simultaneously ridiculous and heartless.

How ridiculous is it? Let me count the ways — or rather a few of the ways, because there are more howlers in the plan than I can cover in one column.

First, Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo economics — the claim, refuted by experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Specifically, the Ryan proposal trumpets the results of an economic projection from the Heritage Foundation, which claims that the plan’s tax cuts would set off a gigantic boom. Indeed, the foundation initially predicted that the G.O.P. plan would bring the unemployment rate down to 2.8 percent — a number we haven’t achieved since the Korean War. After widespread jeering, the unemployment projection vanished from the Heritage Foundation’s Web site, but voodoo still permeates the rest of the analysis.

In particular, the original voodoo proposition — the claim that lower taxes mean higher revenue — is still very much there. The Heritage Foundation projection has large tax cuts actually increasing revenue by almost $600 billion over the next 10 years.

A more sober assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. It finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade the plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law.

And about those spending cuts: leave health care on one side for a moment and focus on the rest of the proposal. It turns out that Mr. Ryan and his colleagues are assuming drastic cuts in nonhealth spending without explaining how that is supposed to happen.

How drastic? According to the budget office, which analyzed the plan using assumptions dictated by House Republicans, the proposal calls for spending on items other than Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — but including defense — to fall from 12 percent of G.D.P. last year to 6 percent of G.D.P. in 2022, and just 3.5 percent of G.D.P. in the long run.

That last number is less than we currently spend on defense alone; it’s not much bigger than federal spending when Calvin Coolidge was president, and the United States, among other things, had only a tiny military establishment. How could such a drastic shrinking of government take place without crippling essential public functions? The plan doesn’t say.

And then there’s the much-ballyhooed proposal to abolish Medicare and replace it with vouchers that can be used to buy private health insurance.

The point here is that privatizing Medicare does nothing, in itself, to limit health-care costs. In fact, it almost surely raises them by adding a layer of middlemen. Yet the House plan assumes that we can cut health-care spending as a percentage of G.D.P. despite an aging population and rising health care costs.

The only way that can happen is if those vouchers are worth much less than the cost of health insurance. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2030 the value of a voucher would cover only a third of the cost of a private insurance policy equivalent to Medicare as we know it. So the plan would deprive many and probably most seniors of adequate health care.

And that neither should nor will happen. Mr. Ryan and his colleagues can write down whatever numbers they like, but seniors vote. And when they find that their health-care vouchers are grossly inadequate, they’ll demand and get bigger vouchers — wiping out the plan’s supposed savings.

In short, this plan isn’t remotely serious; on the contrary, it’s ludicrous.

And it’s also cruel.

In the past, Mr. Ryan has talked a good game about taking care of those in need. But as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, of the $4 trillion in spending cuts he proposes over the next decade, two-thirds involve cutting programs that mainly serve low-income Americans. And by repealing last year’s health reform, without any replacement, the plan would also deprive an estimated 34 million nonelderly Americans of health insurance.

So the pundits who praised this proposal when it was released were punked. The G.O.P. budget plan isn’t a good-faith effort to put America’s fiscal house in order; it’s voodoo economics, with an extra dose of fantasy, and a large helping of mean-spiritedness.

"Paul Krugman: The Prophet of Socialism A prophet who has been consistently wrong," by Donald Luskin )Editor’s Note: This article is excerpted from Donald Luskin’s new book, I Am John Galt,, National Review, June 13, 2011 ---
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269428/paul-krugman-prophet-socialism-donald-luskin

Christiane Amanpour’s eyes darted back and forth in fear, and her mouth twisted in disgust, because she could see where this was going. A guest on her Sunday-morning political talk show, ABC’s This Week, was getting dangerously overexcited, and something very regrettable was about to happen.

She could see that he was winding himself up as he talked about how a recent deficit-reduction panel hadn’t been “brave enough” — because it failed to endorse the idea of expert panels that would determine what medical services government-funded care wouldn’t pay for. When Obamacare was still being debated in Congress, Sarah Palin had created a media sensation by calling them “death panels,” causing most liberals who supported Obamacare to quickly distance themselves from any idea of rationing care as being tantamount to murder.

The guest said, “Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”

It was all the more horrifying because the guest was not a conservative, not an opponent of Obamacare. This guest was an avid liberal, a partisan Democrat, and an enthusiastic supporter of government-run health care. He was endorsing death panels, not warning about them. He was saying death panels are a good thing. And it was even more horrifying because of who this guest was. This was no fringe lefty wearing a tinfoil hat, churning out underground newspapers in his parents’ basement. This was an economics professor at Princeton, one of the country’s most prestigious universities. This was the winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, the highest honor the profession can bestow. This was a columnist for the New York Times, the most influential newspaper in the world. This was Paul Krugman, live, on national television, endorsing government control over life and death. And while we’re at it, let’s raise taxes on those who are permitted to live.

Who exactly does Paul Krugman think he is? He’d like to think he’s John Maynard Keynes, the venerated British economist who created the intellectual framework for modern government intervention in the economy. Keynes is something of a cult figure for modern liberal economists like Krugman, who read his texts with exegetical fervor. But Krugman will never live up to Keynes. However politicized his economic theories, Keynes’s predictions were so astute that he made himself wealthy as a speculator. Economics is called “the dismal science,” but as we’ll see, Krugman’s predictions are so laughably bad his economics should be called the abysmal pseudo-science.

Most critiques of Krugman as a public intellectual begin with what is apparently an obligatory disclaimer, usually in the very first sentence — something to the effect that Krugman is a very accomplished and well-respected economist. Then comes the “But . . .” and the critique proceeds in earnest, often scathingly.

But why concede this honor to Krugman? So what if he won the Nobel Prize? The real test of Krugman’s mettle as an economist is the accuracy of his economic forecasting. The fact is that, with about three decades of evidence now in, Krugman’s track record, to use a technical term favored by economists, sucks.

He’s not always candid about this. But once, under the pressure of a televised debate with conservative talk-show host Bill O’Reilly, Krugman blurted out an understated if truthful self-evaluation: “Compare me . . . compare me, uh, with anyone else, and I think you’ll see that my forecasting record is not great.”

The most egregious example of “not great” is Krugman’s utterly incorrect 1982 prediction that inflation would soar. He made this prediction from no less lofty a perch than the White House, as staff member of the Council of Economic Advisers in the first Reagan administration. In a memo titled “The Inflation Time Bomb” Krugman wrote with co-author Lawrence Summers, “We believe that it is reasonable to expect a significant reacceleration of inflation . . . at least 5 percentage points to future increases in consumer prices. . . . This estimate is conservative.”

It also turned out to be hilariously, side-splittingly, knee-slappingly, rolling-on-the-floor wrong. Except for a tiny uptick the very next month, inflation didn’t rise; it fell. Four years later, it had fallen to 1.18 percent, a rate so low as to border on deflation.

In late February 2000, two weeks before the peak of the dot-com stock bubble at Nasdaq 5,000, Krugman wrote in his Times column that the Dow Jones Industrial Average was overvalued, saying, “Let the blue chips fall where they may.” As for the Nasdaq — which at that point had almost doubled over the prior year, and more than tripled over the prior three years — Krugman said soothingly, “I’m not sure that the current value of the Nasdaq is justified, but I’m not sure that it isn’t.”

We all know what happened. As of this writing, the Dow is about 20 percent higher than when Krugman wrote those words — and that’s not including a decade of dividends. The Nasdaq is about 42 percent lower. It hit bottom in October 2002, a 75.7 percent loss from where Krugman said not to worry about it. After something of a recovery, stocks fell again. They hit a real bottom — about a week after Krugman wrote a Times column asking the rhetorical question, “Is there any relief in sight?” His wrong answer: “No.”

Perfect bookends: He missed the top, and then three years later, he missed the bottom. But then he outdid himself. In June 2003, with the Nasdaq up 20 percent since Krugman’s “No,” did he recognize his error and reverse course? Again, no. Krugman wrote that “the current surge in stocks looks like another bubble.” From there the Nasdaq was to rally another 75 percent.

At around the same time, afraid of what he called a “fiscal train wreck” that would lead to disastrously high interest rates, he announced in the lead paragraph of a March 2003 Times column: “So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I’m terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.” In fact, rates didn’t rise, even when budget deficits skyrocketed beyond anything he could have imagined then, driven by government “stimulus” spending that he himself urged. Nowadays, on his New York Times blog, he regularly chides deficit-wary Republicans by using today’s low interest rates to prove that the U.S. faces no financial difficulties.

In 2003, I set out to expose Krugman’s various distortions, and to force the New York Times to correct them. I started first on my blog, and soon afterward in a series of columns for National Review Online called “The Krugman Truth Squad” (KTS). The inaugural KTS column appeared on March 20, 2003. The series of columns was structured as what is now called “crowdsourcing”: Within several hours of a Krugman column’s appearing on the Times website, I and a network of fellow bloggers would put it under a microscope and discover all the filthy microbes hiding in every crack. We’d fact-check every claim, confirm every quotation, run down every source, and compare every statement for consistency with statements made in the past. The KTS called Krugman “America’s most dangerous liberal pundit,” and our promise to readers was: “We’ll read Paul Krugman so you don’t have to.”

I won’t cite here very many of the dozens upon dozens of prevarications that my Krugman Truth Squad exposed in 94 columns over five years. If you are interested, look up my name in the NRO author archives, where most of the KTS columns can still be seen. Or you can download a PDF file with the entire collection of KTS columns here.

Continued in article

Jensen Comment
Of course Professor Krugman has no solution other than to keep printing money and borrowing, borrowing, and ultimately printing money like Zimbabwe. Yeah right! Zimbabwe's inflationary economic policies have not been cruel to its people!

Let 'em eat cake!

Bob Jensen's threads on the entitlements disaster ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Entitlements.htm

"America's Deeper Debt Crisis," by Hamair Qaeue, Harvard Business Review Blog, July 26, 2011 --- Click Here
http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2011/07/americas_deeper_debt_crisis.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date

How big would America's "debt crisis" be if we looked not merely at (largely artificial) financial costs, but at real economic — social, human, natural, personal, emotional, and more — costs? You probably don't want to know.

But grit your teeth and let's do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation just for fun.

To begin with, America's gross public debt as a percentage of its GDP is around 98ish (aka, its debt/GDP ratio). But there's a whole lot of costs that measure doesn't begin to count. They're the costs of restoring and rebooting the bare beginnings of an authentic, meaningful prosperity. They mean we might begin to have meaningful work and play (instead of work that destroys our souls and leisure that dumbifies us), a thriving environment (instead of one that's withering), markets that work (instead of blow up), society that connects (instead of fractures and polarizes) and infrastructure that works (instead of crumbling airports, battered buildings, and roads that, at this point, look like the set for an end-of-days zombie apocalypse flick). How high would America's debt/GDP ratio be if we added these costs?

Here are some mildly educated guesses (please note: since this isn't a 300-page book or even a 5,000 word article, I won't fully explicate them, but leave them open for discussion and for future blog posts. You're more than welcome to challenge them, add your own, or even add or subtract entire categories).

• My hunch, based on roughly comparable costs across the globe, is that the costs of the full spectrum of environmental damage would clock in around 10% of GDP.
• A very incomplete set of human costs — stuff like marginally declining gains in life expectancy, education, and experience; depreciation in talent, skills, and creativity ̬ would probably, based on rough unit costs per person, clock in around 5% of GDP.
• A limited number of social costs — financial markets that blow up regularly and get bailed out, fueling moral hazard and malinvestment, industries like autos, energy, and agriculture that receive hidden subsidies, pure rent-seeking and deadweight loss that leads to foregone efficiency in industries like law, lobbying, retail, and banking — I'd say come in close to 15% of GDP.
• A basic conception of what you might call emotional costs — at a bare minimum, the toll a sense of meaninglessness, pointlessness, what management thinkers call "disengagement" and "apathy" takes on real productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness; the toll of a rising tide of poor and ill mental health on the same — I'd say, considering American levels of productivity, probably clocks in around 15% of GDP. (In other words, I think you could get 15% more from your employees if you tapped into their inspiration and imagination, and set them to work on stuff that actually mattered.)

Now, let me emphasize that I've made plenty of simplifications on the quick and dirty napkin of a worksheet above. But the not-so-secret dirty secret is that, well, so does GDP itself. The point is in the thought experiment itself: you can swap in or out whatever categories you like, but the point is that the "debt" we owe, if real prosperity is the destination we seek, is bigger than we think. For the above are essentially off-balance-sheet liabilities — a set of hidden costs brushed under the rug in the economic equivalent of a ginormous, ongoing national Enron.

By these rough estimates, while the official debt to GDP ratio is approaching 100%, our debt-to-prosperity ratio is probably higher — maybe much higher. Just by considering an incomplete set of real economic costs very imperfectly, we've arrived at a number closer to 145%. I'd say just a slightly fuller, more nuanced, less conservative take could easily the push "the number" closer to 200% — if not past it.

America's real economic crisis is one of what, in the Manifesto, I call deep debt.

Think about it this way. 100% debt as a percentage of GDP is a number that's got the (mostly) old (mostly) dudes that run the world in brow-beating hysterics, crying: "Armageddon!!" But they're missing the point. A large portion of the 100% of GDP that's financial debt is public debt — which for all its many sins, is mostly covered.

While there's talk of America "defaulting," no one takes seriously the idea that America's going to leave financial creditors without a penny on the dollar — just that it might have liquidity issues for a brief while. Yet, real default — a few pennies on the dollar of debt — is exactly what America's been doing to its economic creditors, parties who I'd argue should have, at least in some cases, self-evident priority over financial markets: people, communities, society, and tomorrow's generations. For the very real, human, natural, and social costs owed them — at least if a higher level of prosperity is what you're after — have been pushed aside and left largely unfunded and underpaid, when they're paid for at all. Result? This Great Stagnation: not merely a financial crisis, but deep in it's heart, a crisis of squandering and underinvesting in human potential itself.

Consider it a tiny, imprecise exercise in what I call "eudaimonics" — the art and science of rebuilding a prosperity that matters in human terms: the pursuit not merely of mass-made, lowest-common-McDenominator, faux-designer opulence, but of lives meaningfully well lived. If we conceive of "debt" not merely as an accounting device meaningless in human terms, a financial fiction owed to nominal creditors — but as a real economic burden owed to the eudaimonic promise of a meaningfully good life, then our economy isn't just underperforming: it's dysfunctional.

Igniting eudaimonic prosperity isn't about paying off financial debt. We can manage that perfectly for decades and never get any closer to mastering the art of lives lived meaningfully well. Rather, it's about the ability of a nation to pay down and pay off its deep debt to the authentic creditors that create and sustain that nation.

So here's my conclusion — and my catch.

America might never master eudaimonics. But here's what's for certain: there are nations, perhaps wiser, perhaps just hungrier — who will. It's to them that a meaningful prosperity will accrue — and from them the lion's roar of advantage will be heard.

Continued in article

Population Growth --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
Population Growth from 10000 BC to 2000 AD

Population Growth from 10000 BC to 2000 AD

 

The 1970s has many ugly legacies. Surely, however, the cruelest was this leading Western export: the idea that the Earth has reached its limit with us, and that the solution is to persuade other folks who don't yet have what we do to lower both their populations and their expectations.
"The Return of the Population Bomb: When the experts tell you there are too many people, they don't mean too many Swedes," by William McGurn, The Wall Street Journal, June 13, 2011 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303714704576383764019676614.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

When Marx wrote that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, he had it half correct. In our day, it comes back as the 1970s.

All around us we see its manifestation in the revival of floppy hats, platform shoes and maxi dresses. We can, however, also detect this same retro fashion sense on the op-ed page of the New York Times. There last week Tom Friedman's column carried one of the sentiments most in vogue in the 1970s: "The Earth Is Full."

Mr. Friedman invokes the usual grim specters so beloved of a certain kind of intellectual: natural disasters (tornadoes, floods and droughts); rising prices (food and energy); the threat to stability; and of course the kicker—that there are just too many darn people around these days.

It's a familiar meme, and it comes bearing the familiar scientific credentials. In this case the authority is, Mr. Friedman tells us, "an alliance of scientists" called the Global Footprint Network, "which calculates how many 'planet Earths' we need to sustain our growth rates." Right now they say it is 1.5. Which can mean only one thing unless we cut way, way back: We're doomed.

Back in the days of bad hair and Jimmy Carter, this kind of report was a staple of enlightened thought. Here is but a tiny sampling:

• On the eve of that decade, Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich opened his best-selling book "The Population Bomb" with this sunny declaration: "The battle to feed all humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Of course, nothing of the kind happened.

• The Club of Rome, an international group of academics, scientists and global citizens, commissioned a now-infamous 1972 report called "The Limits to Growth." Like so many others, these scientists informed us that we were running out of . . . well . . . everything.

• Or take Robert McNamara, the "whiz kid" president of Ford Motor Co. Later, as chief of the World Bank, he would throw tens of millions of development dollars into population control because he said—sounding much like Mr. Friedman—the alternative was a world no one would want. If voluntary methods failed, he warned, nations would resort to coercion.

All these things were the received orthodoxies of their day, endorsed by the experts, sustained by the scientists, and challenged by only a few brave souls such as economist Julian Simon. From these pet orthodoxies two clear implications flowed.

First, when the experts tell you there are too many people, they don't mean too many Swedes. They mean too many poor people, mostly brown or black or yellow. In Hong Kong, I stumbled across a 1959 book written by an American entitled "Too Many Asians." Today the focus has shifted from Asia—but the theme remains. Early last month, the New York Times ran a page-one story citing United Nations warnings about the growing population of Africa.

Second, if the experts continue to tell countries they need to control their population or else, Mr. McNamara is absolutely right: That "or else" is going to mean coercion.

We saw that throughout the 1970s as well.

In India, the government of Indira Gandhi launched a massive and brutal sterilization campaign. In China, women's monthly periods were charted on blackboards at their places of work—and even today women are sometimes hunted down and forced to abort if they become pregnant without permission. Meanwhile, in the early 1980s, black women in Namibia complained about being forcibly injected with contraceptives after having their first babies. From Peru to the Philippines, the poor and vulnerable were subject to similar outrages.

Continued in the article

"Current World Population," by Matt Rosenberg, About.com Geography, May 11, 2011 ---
http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm

World Population Growth

Year	Population
1	200 million
1000	275 million
1500	450 million
1650	500 million
1750	700 million
1804	1 billion
1850	1.2 billion
1900	1.6 billion
1927	2 billion
1950	2.55 billion
1955	2.8 billion
1960	3 billion
1965	3.3 billion
1970	3.7 billion
1975	4 billion
1980	4.5 billion
1985	4.85 billion
1990	5.3 billion
1995	5.7 billion
1999	6 billion
2006	6.5 billion
2009	6.8 billion
2011	7 billion
2025	8 billion
2043	9 billion
2083	10 billion

World Population Information

• Population Growth
• Most Populous Countries Today
• 20 Most Populous Countries in 2050

Related Articles

• How fast is the world's population growing?
• USA Population - The Current Population of the USA
• India Population - The Population of India
• Largest Urban Areas in the World
• Largest Cities in the World - List of the Largest Cities

Bob Jensen's threads on the entitlements bomb ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Entitlements.htm

Cash Flow versus Accrual Accounting
A Secret That Will Never Be Revealed on MSNBC
"Cooking the Books: The 2010 Deficit Was $2.1 trillion," by Bruce Bartlett, The Fiscal Times, December 24, 2010 ---
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Budget-Impact/2010/12/24/Cooking-the-Books-The-2010-Deficit-Was-2trillion.aspx

When federal finances are discussed, it is almost always in terms of the difference between expenditures and revenues. Usually, the former exceed the latter and we have a deficit. The cumulative total of deficits less the occasional surpluses is what we call the national debt. When we analyze the debt in terms of its burden, it is usually by looking at it in terms of the gross domestic product. Presently, debt held by the public, the most common measure of federal debt, is $9.3 trillion, or about 60 percent of GDP.

If the federal government was a corporation and one was contemplating buying shares of its stock, however, one would certainly want to know much more about its finances. One would want to know about the government’s assets as well as its liabilities. And one would want to know whether there are any liabilities other than those included in the figures for debt held by the public, among other things.

These data are not easy to come by. For many years they appeared only in an obscure mimeographed document called the Statement of Liabilities and Other Financial Commitments of the United States that the Treasury Department produced only because it was required by a 1966 law to do so. The reason is that the financial statement showed vast government liabilities not included in the usual figures for the national debt. Since 1998, these data have been published in a document called the Financial Report of the U.S. Government. The fiscal year 2010 edition was released on Dec. 21.

The most important difference between the Financial Report and the federal budget is that the former calculates costs on an accrual basis, whereas the latter only measures cash flow. Thus if the federal government incurred a debt that would not be paid until some time in the future, that cost would not be part of the conventionally measured national debt. It would only add to the debt when cash had to be expended to cover the expense that had been incurred. It’s worth remembering that private corporations are required to use accrual accounting and corporate executives would be jailed for using the sort of accounting that the federal government routinely uses.

The difference in accounting methods is most easily grasped in terms of Social Security. It has a liability over the next 75 years of $8 trillion more than the projected revenue from payroll taxes and interest on the Social Security trust fund. In every meaningful sense of the term, this is part of the national debt, but is excluded from the official debt figures.

Another consequence of ignoring future liabilities in calculating the national debt is that programmatic changes that save money in the future are similarly ignored. Thus, according to the Financial Report, Medicare had estimated liabilities in excess of future revenues over the next 75 years of $38 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2009. However, in the meantime, Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, which contains significant cost controls on future Medicare spending. As a consequence, Medicare’s long-term liabilities fell by $15 trillion in 2010.

 

Financial Report of the U.S. Government --- http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html

Bob Jensen's threads on the sad state of governmental accounting ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Theory02.htm#GovernmentalAccounting

"The Only Reform That Will Restrain Spending:  All 47 Senate Republicans now support changing the Constitution to balance the federal budget," by Olympia Snowe and Jim Demint, The Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2011 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576428273248743348.html#mod=djemEditorialPage_t

Whatever happens when President Obama meets with congressional leaders of both parties at the White House today, no long-term solution is on the table for the spending habits in Washington that have endangered the prosperity of future generations. With our federal debt exceeding $14 trillion—nearly 100% of our gross domestic product—fiscal calamity is jeopardizing our standard of living and undermining our national security. And President Obama recently requested that we add an additional $2.4 trillion to our debt.

There has to be another way, and there is. Republicans in the Senate are united in our concern about our nation's fiscal future. Before we consider saddling our children with even more debt, we must enact significant spending cuts and enforceable caps on future spending. For the long term, to prevent both this Congress and its successors from hijacking the promise of American prosperity, we also need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, like the one we and all 47 Senate Republicans have introduced.

The American people who will vote on such an amendment understand the basic financial rules that Washington has been breaking. In the real world, if a household brought in $44,000 annually but spent $74,000 by borrowing $30,000 each year to sustain its spending habits, such behavior would be considered reckless and irresponsible.

Nonetheless, the federal government is doing exactly that on an unimaginable scale, running historic deficits in excess of a trillion dollars for three consecutive years and borrowing 40 cents for every dollar spent. Our government has balanced its budget only five times in half a century.

The U.S. currently spends an astounding $200 billion per year just to pay interest on its debt, an annual amount projected to reach nearly $1 trillion by 2021. Money spent on debt-interest payments is money not invested in our economy, jobs, infrastructure or education. Economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have found that gross debt levels above 90% of GDP slow economic growth by 1% per year. First-quarter GDP growth this year was already abysmal at 1.9%. At that rate, China would surpass the U.S. economy in size even before 2016, the year recently forecast by the International Monetary Fund.

If Congress increases our national debt ceiling next month without permanent, structural budget reforms, we will signal to taxpayers and bond markets alike that Washington is still in denial. Whatever agreement is reached, everyone will know that future Congresses are not obligated to follow it. As a result, the only way to compel lawmakers to maintain their responsibility forever is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Why will this approach work where others have failed? For one single reason: As senators and representatives, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution. By amending the Constitution, Congress will be forever bound to match our nation's expenditures with our revenues. Toothless resolutions and statutory speed bumps have proven easy to evade or ignore. Indeed, the reason many lawmakers don't want a balanced budget amendment is the exact reason why we need it: It would permanently end the types of legislative trickery that have now brought our country to the fiscal brink.

The last time the Senate considered a balanced budget amendment was on March 4, 1997—and it failed to pass by one vote. On that day 14 years ago, the nation's outstanding debt was $5.36 trillion. Today it is $14.3 trillion, or nearly three times that amount.

Continued in article

Jensen Comment
Even if the the GOP wins a majority of seats in the Senate and the House, an amendment like this has zero chances of being passed among the liberal states like California, New York, and Vermont.

How Accountants Hide the Pension Bomb in the Public Sectors

"The Hidden State Financial Crisis:  My latest research into opaque state financial statements suggests taxpayers will be surprised by how much pensions are underfunded.," by Meredith Whitney, The Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2011 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329134261805612.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

Next month will be pivotal for most states, as it marks the fiscal year end and is when balanced budgets are due. The states have racked up over $1.8 trillion in taxpayer-supported obligations in large part by underfunding their pension and other post-employment benefits. Yet over the past three years, there still has been a cumulative excess of $400 billion in state budget shortfalls. States have already been forced to raise taxes and cut programs to bridge those gaps.

Next month will also mark the end of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's $480 billion in federal stimulus, which has subsidized states through the economic downturn. States have grown more dependent on federal subsidies, relying on them for almost 30% of their budgets.

The condition of state finances threatens the economic recovery. States employ over 19 million Americans, or 15% of the U.S. work force, and state spending accounts for 12% of U.S. gross domestic product. The process of reining in state finances will be painful for us all.

The rapid deterioration of state finances must be addressed immediately. Some dismiss these concerns, because they believe states will be able to grow their way out of these challenges. The reality is that while state revenues have improved, they have done so in part from tax hikes. However, state tax revenues still remain at roughly 2006 levels.

Expenses are near the highest they have ever been due to built-in annual cost escalators that have no correlation to revenue growth (or decline, as has been the case recently). Even as states have made deep cuts in some social programs, their fixed expenses of debt service and the actuarially recommended minimum pension and other retirement payments have skyrocketed. While over the past 10 years state and local government spending has grown by 65%, tax receipts have grown only by 32%.

Off balance sheet debt is the legal obligation of the state to its current and past employees in the form of pension and other retirement benefits. Today, off balance sheet debt totals over $1.3 trillion, as measured by current accounting standards, and it accounts for almost 75% of taxpayer-supported state debt obligations. Only recently have states been under pressure to disclose more information about these liabilities, because it is clear that their debt burdens are grossly understated.

Since January, some of my colleagues focused exclusively on finding the most up-to-date information on ballooning tax-supported state obligations. This meant going to each state and local government's website for current data, which we found was truly opaque and without uniform standards.

What concerned us the most was the fact that fixed debt-service costs are increasingly crowding out state monies for essential services. For example, New Jersey's ratio of total tax-supported state obligations to gross state product is over 30%, and the fixed costs to service those obligations eat up 16% of the total budget. Even these numbers are skewed, because they represent only the bare minimum paid into funding pension and retirement plans. We calculate that if New Jersey were to pay the actuarially recommended contribution, fixed costs would absorb 37% of the budget. New Jersey is not alone.

The real issue here is the enormous over-leveraging of taxpayer-supported obligations at a time when taxpayers are already paying more and receiving less. In the states most affected by skyrocketing debt and fiscal imbalances, social services continue to be cut the most. Taxpayers have the ultimate voting right—with their feet. Corporations are relocating, or at a minimum moving large portions of their businesses to more tax-friendly states.

Boeing is in the political cross-hairs as it is trying to set up a facility in the more business-friendly state of South Carolina, away from its current hub of Washington. California legislators recently went to Texas to learn best practices as a result of a rising tide of businesses that are building operations outside of their state. Over time, individuals will migrate to more tax-friendly states as well, and job seekers will follow corporations.

Continued in article

Jensen Comment
Some accountants naively assume that the new IASB-FASB agreement on fair value accounting will make pension obligations more transparent, especially if the GASB follows suit. What they don't really understand is that obligations that are not recognized in the first place are not going to be made more transparent with fair value accounting if they're hidden in the first place. For ten years Arnold Swartzenagger disclosed four kids and hid a fifth kid from his wife and the rest of the world. With pensions it's more like disclosing one kid and hiding four from the world.

Arnold pretty well ruined parts of his life when the that which was hidden was finally revealed. The same thing will happen to local, state, and national governments in the U.S. if hidden pension obligations are ever revealed. It will ruin everything in future elections if voters really understand how bad the hidden entitlements have really become ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Entitlements.htm

Questions
Although all 50 states are in deep financial troubles, what state is in the worst shape at the moment and is unable to pay its bills?
Hint: The state in deepest trouble is not California, although California is in dire straights!

How did accountants hide the pending disaster?

Watch the Video
This module on 60 Minutes on December 19 was one of the most worrisome episodes I've ever watched
It appears that a huge number of cities and towns and some states will default on bonds within12 months from now
"State Budgets: The Day of Reckoning Steve Kroft Reports On The Growing Financial Woes States Are Facing," CBS Sixty Minutes, December 19, 2010 ---
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/19/60minutes/main7166220.shtml

The problem with that, according to Wall Street analyst Meredith Whitney, is that no one really knows how deep the holes are. She and her staff spent two years and thousands of man hours trying to analyze the financial condition of the 15 largest states. She wanted to find out if they would be able to pay back the money they've borrowed and what kind of risk they pose to the $3 trillion municipal bond market, where state and local governments go to finance their schools, highways, and other projects.

"How accurate is the financial information that's public on the states? And municipalities," Kroft asked.

"The lack of transparency with the state disclosure is the worst I have ever seen," Whitney said. "Ultimately we have to use what's publicly available data and a lot of it is as old as June 2008. So that's before the financial collapse in the fall of 2008."

Whitney believes the states will find a way to honor their debts, but she's afraid some local governments which depend on their state for a third of their revenues will get squeezed as the states are forced to tighten their belts. She's convinced that some cities and counties will be unable to meet their obligations to municipal bond holders who financed their debt. Earlier this year, the state of Pennsylvania had to rescue the city of Harrisburg, its capital, from defaulting on hundreds of millions of dollars in debt for an incinerator project.

"There's not a doubt in my mind that you will see a spate of municipal bond defaults," Whitney predicted.

Asked how many is a "spate," Whitney said, "You could see 50 sizeable defaults. Fifty to 100 sizeable defaults. More. This will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of defaults."

Municipal bonds have long been considered to be among the safest investments, bought by small investors saving for retirement, and held in huge numbers by big banks. Even a few defaults could affect the entire market. Right now the big bond rating agencies like Standard & Poor's and Moody's, who got everything wrong in the housing collapse, say there's no cause for concern, but Meredith Whitney doesn't believe it.

"When individual investors look to people that are supposed to know better, they're patted on the head and told, 'It's not something you need to worry about.' It'll be something to worry about within the next 12 months," she said.

No one is talking about it now, but the big test will come this spring. That's when $160 billion in federal stimulus money, that has helped states and local governments limp through the great recession, will run out.

The states are going to need some more cash and will almost certainly ask for another bailout. Only this time there are no guarantees that Washington will ride to the rescue.

Continued in article

"Public Pensions Cook the Books:  Some plans want to hide the truth from taxpayers," by Andrew Biggs, The Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2009 --- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683573382697889.html

Bob Jensen's threads on pension schemes to hide debt ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/theory02.htm#Pensions

In the United Kingdom
 "State pension age 'rises' to 70 for anyone under 30: Anyone under the age of 30 will not receive the state pension until they reach 70 years old under Government plans to increase the retirement age," by Myra Butterworth By Myra Butterworth, The Telegraph, March 24, 2011 ---
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/8404788/State-pension-age-rises-to-70-for-anyone-under-30.html

"America's Financial Future: Our Choice... But Not For Long," by Ken Blackwell, Townhall, December 23, 2010 ---
http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2010/12/23/americas_financial_future_our_choice_but_not_for_long

In August of this year, Admiral Michael Mullens, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised Congress that “The National debt is the biggest threat to our national security.” In November, voter sentiment against the debt and deficit led to an historic rebuke of Congressional incumbents. In December, the President’s Debt Commission laid out in stark terms the imminent economic impact of continued deficit spending.

Apparently rejecting these clarion calls, the President and Congress acted in the lame-duck session to cut not one dime of federal spending, while increasing the national debt by nearly $1 trillion. They are ignoring a glaring problem that, if not addressed soon, will cause a panoply of other problems.

Some insist that the problem with increasing the debt by nearly $1 trillion is that the borrowed money will be loaned to us by China. Concerning as it is that we have become the world’s largest debtor to a foreign sovereign whose interests are (to put it mildly) not always in harmony with our own, that's not the biggest problem. What ought to be of even greater, more immediate concern is the fact that China will refuse to loan us the money.

From October 2009 to October 2010, we financed $734 billion of our $1.690 trillion deficit through loans from foreign entities. And while China remains our largest creditor, China actually reduced the amount of U.S. debt it holds by $32 billion over the last year—from $938 billion to $906 billion. Through its actions, China has indicated that it will no longer fund the U.S. government's practice of perpetual deficit spending.

So if not China, then who? That's the problem.

The largest increase in U.S. debt holdings over the past year was a near five-fold increase by the U.K.—from $108 billion to $477 billion — and a near three-fold increase by Canada — from $44 billion to $125 billion.

The reality is that the U.K. and Canada do not have another half-trillion dollars to loan the U.S. in 2011. According to the World Bank, the entire economic output of the U.K. and Canada combined is only about $3.5 trillion annually.

So if China won't and the U.K. and Canada can't, who is going to loan us a trillion dollars in the next 12 months? Nobody knows.

The economic threat from China and other foreign countries loaning us trillions of dollars is like falling off the Empire State Building. It isn't the fall itself that kills you ... it's the sudden stop.

Commonwealth investors increased their U.S. holdings last year as they fled debt holdings in the Eurozone, nearly collapsing several E.U. government-bond markets derisively referred to as the PIIGS—Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain.

Continued in article

Jensen Comment
We're worrying about a paper tiger here. Zimbabwe has shown us the light. We simply print trillions of dollars to make up for the deficits. Ben Bernanke listed when he took a continuing education course from Robert Mugabe.

Preliminary draft of President Obama's long-awaited bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform report

Jensen Comment
A very preliminary draft of President Obama's long-awaited bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform report was released as a Co-Chairs' Proposal on November 10, 2010
Very Brief Summary --- http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/11/10/deficit-commission-co-chairs-proposal/
Huffington Post Slide Show --- http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/CoChairDraft.pdf
Full Report --- http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/news/cochairs-proposal

Initial Reactions on the Left ---
"Deficit panel leaders propose curbs on Social Security, major cuts in spending, tax breaks," The Washington Post, November 11, 2010 ---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111004029.html
Initial Reactions on the Right ---
"A Deficit of Nerve," The Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2010 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608610971091280.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

Jensen Opinion
The conservative right always has knee jerking opposition to increased taxes and new taxes of any kind. The liberal media objects to increasing burdens on the middle income class and labor. Nancy Pelosi has already commenced all out war against the deficit commission's preliminary recommendations. Democrats, Republicans, and everybody else agree that the incomprehensible tax system of the United States needs to be drastically reformed but Congress probably will never agree to drastic reforms. Trying for comprehensive tax reforms will be an absolute political dogfight.

Personally, I lean toward eliminating the corporate income tax entirely and replacing the personal income tax code with a flat tax. But in order to keep the flat tax rate relatively low, I support introducing a Value Added Tax (VAT) sales tax that is now common in other parts of the world, especially in Europe. Businesses in the U.S. will fight a VAT tax tooth and nail, and the VAT tax will seriously increase prices of consumer and industrial goods. But serious deficit reductions cannot be financed without pain and sacrifice in all economic sectors These are my personal thoughts and are not all included in the Co-Chair's Report..

More importantly, the VAT tax should be the primary tax that is used to gradually put Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the new "Affordable" Health Care law on a pay-as-you-go basis that no longer will keep piling on to deficits and unfunded entitlements. These are my personal thoughts and are not all included in the Co-Chair's Report..

But the most important thing to do immediately is to extend the retirement age to current average life expectancy averaged across race and gender categories. Persons that elect early retirement should take a heavy hit in benefits and not be eligible for Medicare before reaching the established retirement age.

Of course any increases in taxes will probably slow economic growth. But the insanity of simply printing money (read that buying back Treasury notes by the Fed) and borrowing that increases deficit by well over a trillion each year will eventually destroy the the economy and standard of living of the entire United States ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/entitlements.htm

From the Left
"Deficit panel leaders propose curbs on Social Security, major cuts in spending, tax breaks," The Washington Post, November 11, 2010 ---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111004029.html

The chairmen of President Obama's bipartisan deficit commission on Wednesday offered an aggressive plan to rebalance the federal budget by curbing increases in Social Security benefits, slashing spending at the Pentagon and other agencies, and wiping out more than $100 billion a year in popular tax breaks for individuals and businesses.

The blueprint drafted by former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former senator Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) would slice more than $3.8 trillion from deficits over the next decade, reversing a rapid run-up in the national debt that many fear has the country headed for crisis.

To meet that goal, Bowles and Simpson are proposing to slay a herd of sacred cows, including the tax deduction for mortgage interest claimed by many homeowners, the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health insurance and the practice of letting retirees claim Social Security benefits starting at age 62. The blueprint would raise the early retirement age to 64 and the standard retirement age to 69 for today's toddlers.

During a briefing for reporters, Bowles and Simpson stressed that the plan is theirs alone and acknowledged that it is unlikely to win support from a majority of the commission's 18 members, many of whom seemed startled Wednesday by its breadth and scope. Bowles called it "a starting point" as the panel attempts to forge an agreement by Dec. 1.

Obama, speaking Thursday at a news conference in Seoul where he is attending the G-20 conference, cautioned that "before anybody starts shooting down proposals, I think we need to listen, we need to gather up all the facts."

"If people are, in fact, concerned about spending, debt, deficits and the future of our country, then they're going to need to be armed with the information about the kinds of choices that are going to be involved, and we can't just engage in political rhetoric," the president said.

"I set up this commission precisely because I'm prepared to make some tough decisions," Obama said, adding that "I'm going to need Congress to work with me."

Balanced-budget advocates praised the seriousness of the effort, saying it has the potential to reframe the debate over taxes and spending that dominated this month's congressional elections, regardless of how many commission members ultimately support it.

"A White House commission has put out a credible plan to eliminate the deficit and debt. This has changed the rules of the game and, for the first time, things are serious," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, who hailed the blueprint as "a breakthrough."

"After this," she said, "the debate simply cannot go back to silly games where people pretend that eliminating earmarks will solve the problem."

Still, the reaction was harsh in some quarters, particularly among liberals who have vowed to protect retirees from any reduction in benefits. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the plan "simply unacceptable."

Speaker-in-waiting John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) declined to comment, saying he would discuss the plan with his three representatives on the panel. But Republican anti-tax activist Grover Norquist was not happy and warned that Republicans who support the proposal would be breaking their pledge not to raise taxes.

Continued in article

Jensen Comment
Many far more hostile reactions are pouring forth to support Pelosi's resistance plan. It's unlikely that a sharply divided House versus Senate over the next two years will accomplish a single recommendation in the deficit commission's preliminary report.  Much depends on reducing the Congressional divide in the 2012 election, and at this point we don't know whether the 2013 Congress will be sipping on tea or vodka.

From the Right
"A Deficit of Nerve," The Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2010 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608610971091280.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

We've been expecting to dislike the report of President Obama's deficit commission, so count us as pleasantly surprised by the draft outline released on Wednesday by its two chairmen. There's plenty to oppose but also something for the next Congress to build on, not least the plea for a more efficient, competitive tax code.

Neither Democrat Erskine Bowles nor Republican Alan Simpson are trusted by their respective parties these days, so the duo seem to have decided to roil everybody. Fair enough. Even if their proposals fail to gain the 14 commission votes out of 18 needed for a consensus judgment by December 1, they've at least shown that restraining the federal Leviathan is possible.

Before we pound the details, it's important to understand why we have had deficits of 10% and 8.9% of GDP for the past two years, with another 10% or so anticipated in fiscal 2011. The most important reason is the burst of spending from the 111th Congress that has taken federal outlays as a share of GDP to 25% in 2009, 23.8% in 2010 and back to an estimated 25% in 2011. This is unheard of in the modern era, when the average has been under 21%.

The second reason is a revenue shortfall due to the recession and feeble economic recovery. Revenues have averaged about 18.5% of GDP in recent decades, but in 2009 and 2010 they were only 14.9% with little improvement expected this fiscal year. The single least painful way to reduce the deficit is to get the economy growing at a healthy pace again, which would cut the deficit by 3.5% of GDP a year without a dime of spending cuts.

This is where the chairmen's draft is both wrong and useful. Its mistake is proposing new taxes—notably on Social Security payroll taxes—that it claims would raise revenues as a share of GDP to no more than 21%. But this is an accountant's-eye view of taxation. The conceit is that Washington can raise taxes and, voila, revenue will follow on demand. But revenue will only follow if the economy grows, and higher taxes will restrain growth to some extent, depending on the timing and incidence of the tax increases.

The chairmen are on better ground arguing for fundamental tax reform that would swap lower rates for fewer loopholes and "tax expenditures." On the latter, the draft is right to put the mortgage interest deduction on the table, as taboo as that is in Washington. If we've learned anything from the last decade, it ought to be that our many housing subsidies have led to a misallocation of capital with few benefits. Canada has no such deduction but a higher rate of home ownership.

Ditto for the employer deduction for health insurance, which costs some $200 billion a year and has also distorted incentives by creating a system of third-party payments. Individuals who bear little responsibility for their health-care expenses have little incentive to reduce costs, much less lead a healthier life-style that would save money over time. Refocusing this tax benefit on the needy while encouraging wealthier consumers to economize would help health markets and the federal budget.

The chairmen also take aim at the corporate tax rate, proposing in one option a reduction to 26%. Everyone to the right of MoveOn.org knows that the 35% corporate tax rate is a disincentive to invest in America and has sent businesses pleading to Congress for this or that loophole. This is the second Obama-appointed outfit to recommend a cut in the corporate tax rate, following Paul Volcker's economic advisory group this year, and it ought to be one basis for bipartisan agreement.

The draft also proposes spending cuts, albeit far too timidly. Its discretionary spending proposals would take outlays down only to 2010 levels, though Republicans have already promised to take them back to 2008. We wonder if this is a bow to Democrats who think that spending at 25% of GDP should be the new normal.

More egregiously, the chairmen tiptoe around ObamaCare, which has led some on the right and left to claim that the commission is essentially endorsing the largest new entitlement in 40 years. We're told the chairmen mostly dodged the subject because Democrats on the commission made that a nonnegotiable demand. A truly bold report would consider Congressman Paul Ryan's model to make Medicare a defined contribution program. Instead, the chairmen settle for the familiar likes of "payment reforms," which never work because of Medicare's flawed political price-control model.

Medicaid also gets a near total pass, probably because ObamaCare is expanding that program more than at any time since its inception in 1965. Worse, the federal Medicaid formula rewards states for spending more. If the commission's goal is to spur debate, it ought to propose making Medicaid an annual block grant that would force state politicians to better manage what is often the biggest expense line in their budgets. The status quo will lead to huge state tax increases over the next two decades.

The chairmen are braver on Social Security, though again not brave enough. They propose to raise the retirement age for receiving full benefits to 68 from 67 by—brace yourself—2050, and 69 by 2075. For context, consider that the average American woman born today will live to be 80.

The draft also suggests a payroll tax increase, in particular on upper-middle-class earners, even as it proposes to cut their benefits to a greater extent than lower earners. Republicans should rule out a tax increase, while accepting that some benefit cuts on the basis of need will be required.

Mr. Obama conceived the deficit commission as a form of political cover for his spending blowout—and to coax Republicans into a tax increase. So it's notable that Democrats and liberals have been more critical of the chairmen's draft than have Republicans. Having put the U.S. in a fiscal hole, Nancy Pelosi's minority wants to oppose all spending cuts or entitlement reform to climb out.

House Republicans should react accordingly, which means taking what they like from the commission report and making it part of their own budget proposals. If Senate Democrats and Mr. Obama want to regain any fiscal credibility, they'll be willing to listen and talk. If not, the voters will certainly have a choice in 2012.

Jensen Comment
Meanwhile the United States will continue to both print more money supported by neither taxes nor borrowing plus continued to borrow over a trillion dollars each year to finance the cash flow deficit differences between what the government takes in in revenue and what the government pays out. At this point voters are simply numb to the difference between a billion dollars and a trillion dollars, but in terms of economic survival the difference is crucial.

"How to Live Freer in New Hampshire:  With all eyes on Wisconsin this past week, overlooked has been the conservative policy changes that are moving ahead in New Hampshire," by Stephen Moore, The Wall Street Journal, February 25, 2011 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166452052715900.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

With all eyes on Wisconsin this past week, overlooked has been the conservative policy changes that are moving ahead in New Hampshire. In recent days the New Hampshire House, where the GOP controls nearly three-quarters of the 400 seats, passed a bill to repeal the state cap-and-trade law that imposes a tax on energy use and a bill to make New Hampshire a right-to-work state.

Democratic Gov. John Lynch has vowed to veto both bills, but my sources in Concord say there's a chance that the vetoes could be overridden. Meanwhile, Republicans are also set to pass a spending reduction bill with the kinds of public sector pension reforms that have incited protests from the labor unions in the Midwest.

New Hampshire has always been the island of liberty and low taxes surrounded by a sea of Northeastern-style socialism. It's the only state in the region without an income tax or statewide sales tax, and per-capita spending is about half of what's found in New York and New Jersey. Republicans won huge majorities in both houses in November after turning blue in 2008 and voting for President Obama.

If New Hampshire becomes a right-to-work state, it would be the only New England state that does not force workers to join a union and pay dues. The bill passed by 221-131 but still lacks the two-thirds majority that's needed for a veto override. House Deputy Speaker Pamela Tucker said that becoming a right-to-work state "would help us become a haven for employers seeking a pro-business environment." She added: "Freedom is a core New Hampshire belief, and freedom of association and choice is a fundamental right of every New Hampshire citizen."

In 2008, New Hampshire joined something called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a region-wide cap-and-trade system for state utilities. So far, it's resulted in about $27 million in higher electric costs for consumers, and the environmental benefits have been dubious. "It does nothing to reduce greenhouse gases because jobs and businesses just move to other states," says Corey Lewandowski, the New Hampshire director of Americans for Prosperity. His group is working to make New Hampshire the first state in the nation to repeal an existing global warming law. The repeal bill passed with a two-thirds majority, and the state Senate is expected to follow suit with the necessary margin to override a veto.

Jensen Comment
In spite of now being labeled a conservative Yankee state, New Hampshire is surprisingly liberal on many issues. It has had a succession of senators and representatives that it sent to Washington DC prior to the 2008 election. Governors have be Democrats for decades. And New Hampshire is not only one of the few states sanctifying gay marriage, the Republican-controlled legislature just turn down an effort to repeal the gay marriage law.

More notably, New Hampshire is one of the least friendly states to private sector corporate businesses in terms of business taxes and fees.

Medicare is the real killer. According to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, an average couple retiring last year can look forward to consuming Medicare benefits with a present value of $343,000, having paid Medicare taxes with a present value of $109,000.
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.  

"Let's Begin Obama's 'Conversation' on Entitlements:  A couple retiring last year paid $109,000 into Medicare but can expect $343,000 back from the system," by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, February 26, 2011 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164172865528158.html

Nobody should be surprised that public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are fighting to preserve every penny of their promised benefits.

Nobody should be surprised that state governors—and it doesn't matter which party—are trying to trim those privileges and benefits.

Nobody should be surprised by anything.

News reporters may be naïve, and some of the protesters may pretend to be. But this fight was penciled in long ago, when politicians and union leaders made the strategic decision to negotiate benefits without negotiating for the funding to make good on them. The mock shock and horror is all the more laughable given that events in Wisconsin are a perfect microcosm of the battle that every sentient American knows, and has known for a generation, awaits Medicare and Social Security.

In keeping with the theatrics of naïveté, President Obama now calls for "beginning a conversation on entitlements." One wonders what it was, then, that G.W. Bush began at the 2004 Republican convention, or what thinkers and activist groups that have been pushing visions of entitlement reform for decades have been doing.

Has the president not heard of the private sector's pioneering work on "defined contributions"? Or Bill Clinton's landmark Medicare commission in 1999? One might as well wonder what pain is coming to those Obama followers who have yet to suspect their thoughtful liberal might be a visionless apparatchik.

Don't doubt that Mr. Obama's real impulse, like that of most Democrats, is to let things ride and then simply, amid a crisis, start slashing benefits for the "rich" while also raising taxes on "the rich." Unspoken has been a Democratic assumption that an aging electorate, in a crisis, would be willing to tax itself to the hilt to prop up an unreformed or barely reformed Social Security and Medicare.

Even if this assumption were electorally sound, economics won't oblige in the crisis that's coming. The necessary tax hikes would kill any hope of growth. The economy would continue its free fall without root-and-branch entitlement cuts all the more painful for having been delayed.

Let's lay down a couple of markers for "the conversation" Mr. Obama pretends he wants to have. The transition to a new system, in which workers save for their own retirement consumption, will have to be financed—that is, we'll have to borrow to settle the claims of those who are retired or nearing retirement and can't be left in the lurch.

Medicare is the real killer. According to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, an average couple retiring last year can look forward to consuming Medicare benefits with a present value of $343,000, having paid Medicare taxes with a present value of $109,000.

And don't let that figure get your hopes up, because even that $109,000 is not available today. That money was spent long ago. The government's trust funds are a fraud. Indeed, by some large amount, society missed out over many decades on domestic savings and investment that would have taken place had workers not been relying on unfunded government promises to support them in retirement.

The flip side of this depressing consideration, though, is a happier one. Moving toward a system of real savings, in which payroll taxes would flow into some version of personal accounts controlled by the worker, would bring a big improvement to incentives. We could expect a sizeable growth dividend to help finance the transition.

By "finance the transition," of course, we mean today's workers having to reach into their own pockets twice, paying for their own retirement while also making up for the saving their parents and grandparents didn't do. When people talk about generational injustice, this is what they mean. But the pain can be lightened and spread more evenly with borrowing. Here's where we should not be afraid of debt. The bond market can be trusted to distinguish between good debt and bad debt—between borrowing to fix the system and borrowing to prop it up.

Continued in article

Bob Jensen's threads on entitlements are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Entitlements.htm

Bob Jensen's threads on health care are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Health.htm

Audit Failure: The GAO Reported No Problems Amidst All This Massive Fraud

Note that most of these particular workers retire long before age 65 and are fraudulently collecting full Social Security and Medicare benefits intended for truly disabled persons
"The Public-Union Albatross What it means when 90% of an agency's workers (fraudulently)  retire with disability benefits," by Philip K. Howard, The Wall Street Journal, November 9, 2011 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577024321510926692.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

The indictment of seven Long Island Rail Road workers for disability fraud last week cast a spotlight on a troubled government agency. Until recently, over 90% of LIRR workers retired with a disability—even those who worked desk jobs—adding about $36,000 to their annual pensions. The cost to New York taxpayers over the past decade was $300 million.

As one investigator put it, fraud of this kind "became a culture of sorts among the LIRR workers, who took to gathering in doctor's waiting rooms bragging to each [other] about their disabilities while simultaneously talking about their golf game." How could almost every employee think fraud was the right thing to do?

The LIRR disability epidemic is hardly unique—82% of senior California state troopers are "disabled" in their last year before retirement. Pension abuses are so common—for example, "spiking" pensions with excess overtime in the last year of employment—that they're taken for granted.

Governors in Wisconsin and Ohio this year have led well-publicized showdowns with public unions. Union leaders argue they are "decimat[ing] the collective bargaining rights of public employees." What are these so-called "rights"? The dispute has focused on rich benefit packages that are drowning public budgets. Far more important is the lack of productivity.

"I've never seen anyone terminated for incompetence," observed a long-time human relations official in New York City. In Cincinnati, police personnel records must be expunged every few years—making periodic misconduct essentially unaccountable. Over the past decade, Los Angeles succeeded in firing five teachers (out of 33,000), at a cost of $3.5 million.

Collective-bargaining rights have made government virtually unmanageable. Promotions, reassignments and layoffs are dictated by rigid rules, without any opportunity for managerial judgment. In 2010, shortly after receiving an award as best first-year teacher in Wisconsin, Megan Sampson had to be let go under "last in, first out" provisions of the union contract.

Even what task someone should do on a given day is subject to detailed rules. Last year, when a virus disabled two computers in a shared federal office in Washington, D.C., the IT technician fixed one but said he was unable to fix the other because it wasn't listed on his form.

Making things work better is an affront to union prerogatives. The refuse-collection union in Toledo sued when the city proposed consolidating garbage collection with the surrounding county. (Toledo ended up making a cash settlement.) In Wisconsin, when budget cuts eliminated funding to mow the grass along the roads, the union sued to stop the county executive from giving the job to inmates.

No decision is too small for union micromanagement. Under the New York City union contract, when new equipment is installed the city must reopen collective bargaining "for the sole purpose of negotiating with the union on the practical impact, if any, such equipment has on the affected employees." Trying to get ideas from public employees can be illegal. A deputy mayor of New York City was "warned not to talk with employees in order to get suggestions" because it might violate the "direct dealing law."

How inefficient is this system? Ten percent? Thirty percent? Pause on the math here. Over 20 million people work for federal, state and local government, or one in seven workers in America. Their salaries and benefits total roughly $1.5 trillion of taxpayer funds each year (about 10% of GDP). They spend another $2 trillion. If government could be run more efficiently by 30%, that would result in annual savings worth $1 trillion.

What's amazing is that anything gets done in government. This is a tribute to countless public employees who render public service, against all odds, by their personal pride and willpower, despite having to wrestle daily choices through a slimy bureaucracy.

One huge hurdle stands in the way of making government manageable: public unions. The head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees recently bragged that the union had contributed $90 million in the 2010 off-year election alone. Where did the unions get all that money? The power is imbedded in an artificial legal construct—a "collective-bargaining right" that deducts union dues from all public employees, whether or not they want to belong to the union.

Some states, such as Indiana, have succeeded in eliminating this requirement. I would go further: America should ban political contributions by public unions, by constitutional amendment if necessary. Government is supposed to serve the public, not public employees.

America must bulldoze the current system and start over. Only then can we balance budgets and restore competence, dignity and purpose to public service.

Bob Jensen's threads on the entitlements disaster are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Entitlements.htm

Audit Failure:  The GAO Reported No Problems Amidst All This Fraud
This is what a union site claims about the Long Island Rail Road workers for disability ---
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=55668&start=300

What you won't read in Newsday or the New York Times from non-copyrighted labor source:

GAO Audit Gives Railroad Occupational Disability Program a Clean Bill of Health

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) just issued its second review of the Railroad Retirement Board Occupational Disability Program. And once again it found no problems.

“This was a major accomplishment for rail labor,” says TCU President Bob Scardelletti. “Occupational Disability is a vitally important program for members who need it. It’s the best in the country, and this Report will help keep it that way.”

The increased government attention on Occupational Disability began when New York politicians and newspapers began a full scale campaign targeting Long Island Rail Road workers’ alleged abuse of the program. After extensive scandalous press reports, public hearings, wild allegations, and a congressionally requested GAO investigation, no improprieties were found.

The Railroad Retirement Board did institute some oversight measures specific to Long Island Rail Road to make sure that no abuses were occurring, reflecting the fact that the rate of applications for occupational disability were higher than on any other railroad. But these oversight procedures wound up finding that all Long Island applications that were approved were properly reviewed, legitimate and in accordance with existing law and regulations. And that fact was endorsed by the first GAO audit of Long Island Rail Road claims in a report released in September, 2009.

Not satisfied with the GAO’s findings, two Congressman – John Mica of Florida and Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania – on March 18, 2009 formally requested the GAO to “conduct a systematic review of RRB’s occupational disability program”, not just limited to Long Island Rail Road.

The Congressmen’ request prompted yet another GAO review of the occupational disability program. In their just-issued response to the two Congressmen, the GAO reported they found no improprieties and made no recommendations.

“Once again efforts to find fault with the occupational disability have come up empty,” says President Scardelletti. “That’s because the program is functioning as it was intended – to be a last resort for rail workers who because of illness or injury can no longer perform their jobs. It is a necessary benefit and it is not abused by those who unfortunately must apply for it. We will continue to do everything in our power to preserve it as is.”

Jensen Comment
The program seems to be "working as intended." Either 90% of all the railroad's workers are becoming disabled on the job or the system is "intended" to defraud the taxpayers. One sign of that it was a fraud is that the same doctor (now indicted) was receiving millions of dollars from the union to sign phony disability claims.

And there are some who advocate that the GAO take over the private sector auditing because there will be less fraud, greater independence, and more competent auditors than anything the Big Four and other auditing firms can come up with. Baloney!

"Europe's Entitlement Reckoning From Greece to Italy to France, the welfare state is in crisis," The Wall Street Journal, November 9, 2011 ---

In the European economic crisis, all roads lead through Rome. The markets have raised the price of financing Italy's mammoth debt to new highs, and on Tuesday Silvio Berlusconi became the second euro-zone prime minister, after Greece's George Papandreou, to resign this week. His departure may keep the world's eighth largest economy solvent for the time being, but it hardly addresses the root of the problem.

In Italy, as in Greece, Spain and Portugal and eventually France, the welfare-entitlement state has hit a wall. Successive governments on the Continent, right and left, have financed generous entitlements with high taxes and towering piles of debt. Their economies have failed to grow fast enough to keep up, and last year the money started to run out. The reckoning has arrived.

If the first step in curing an addiction is to acknowledge it, there is little sign of that in Europe. The solutions on offer are to spend still more money, to have the Germans bail out everybody else, or to ditch the euro so bankrupt countries can again devalue their own currencies. France's latest debt solution includes raising corporate, capitals gains and sales taxes.

Yet Europe's problem isn't the euro. If it were, Hungary, Iceland and Latvia—none of which use the euro—would have been spared their painful days of reckoning. The same applies for Britain. Europe is in a debt spiral brought about by spendthrift, overweening and inefficient governments.

This is a crisis of the welfare state, and Italy is a model basket case. Mario Monti, who is tipped to lead a new government of technocrats, once described the Italian economy as a case of "self-inflicted strangulation." Government debt is 120% of GDP, making Italy the world's third largest borrower after the U.S. and Japan. Its economy last grew at more than 2% a year in 2000.

An aging and shrinking population is a symptom, but not a leading cause, of the eurosclerosis. A fifth of Italy's 60 million people are 65 or older and make increasingly expensive claims on state-paid pensions and other benefits. In fast-growing Turkey, only 6.3% fit that demographic. Italian women have on average 1.2 children, putting the country's birth rate at 207th out of 221 countries.

But the bulk of the responsibility lies with politicians. Mr. Berlusconi, Italy's richest man, promised a shake up each time he ran for office (in 1994, 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2008). He was the longest serving premier in post-war Italy, from 2001 to 2006, controlled parliament and could have pushed through reforms. He didn't. Promises to lower taxes and hack away at regulations and protections for Italy's powerful guilds—from taxi drivers to pharmacists to journalists—were broken.

"It is not difficult to rule Italy," Benito Mussolini once said, "it is useless." The so-called concertazione, or concert, of Italian coalition politics that brings together numerous parties in the Parliament makes for unstable and indecisive governments. So does the fear prominent in many European countries that any serious reform will provoke street protests. An unhappy byproduct of a welfare state is that it creates powerful interests that will fight to the last to preserve their free lunch, no matter the cost to the country.

But now hard choices can no longer be postponed. And the solution to Europe's debt crisis must begin with reforming, if not dismantling, the welfare state. Europe rose from the economic grave in the 1960s, it rode the Reagan-Thatcher reform wave to more modest growth in the 1980s-'90s, and it can grow again. A decade ago, Germany was called the "sick man of Europe," bedeviled by Italian-like economic problems. But a center-left coalition, supported by trade unions and German society, overhauled labor and welfare codes and set the stage for the current (if still modest) export-led revival in Germany.

The road from Rome may now lead to Paris, Madrid and other debt-ridden European countries. But this is no cause for U.S. chortling, because that same road also leads to Sacramento, Albany and Washington. America's federal debt was 35.7% of GDP in 2007, but it was 61.3% last year and is rising on an Italian trajectory. The lesson of Italy, and most of the rest of Europe, is never to become a high-tax, slow-growth entitlement state, because the inevitable reckoning is nasty, brutish and not short.

 

Japan Adopted the Worst Entitlements Practices of the United States (and the same baby boomer mistakes following WW II)

"The Italy of Asia:  Japan's entitlement dilemmas are a warning to Washington," The Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2011 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723104576061332542456172.html#mod=djemEditorialPage_t

Japanese politics is once again in turmoil, with the government's approval ratings around 20%. Prime Minister Naoto Kan is trying to force out his rival within the Democratic Party of Japan, Ichiro Ozawa, which might boost his own popularity but would probably cause enough defections to destroy a precarious majority. And he has chosen as his New Year initiative an increase in the consumption tax—a hugely unpopular policy that cost him the upper house election last year and would surely harm the economy.

Looks like it's almost time for another change of leader in Tokyo, which is becoming the Italy of Asia. Whoever it is, he will have to tackle Japan's problems before unpleasant outcomes are forced upon it. Without cuts to entitlements and tax cuts to promote growth, Tokyo will continue turning into Athens.

Mr. Kan's claims to fiscal rectitude are belied by the draft fiscal 2011 budget released late last month. It calls for another year of near-record addition to a national debt already approaching 200% of GDP. The budget includes $867 billion of spending, though total government revenue amounts to just $501 billion. The budget proposes trimming discretionary spending only marginally, cuts that are overwhelmed by the uncontrolled growth of entitlement programs, which make up 53% of total spending.

Japan is foundering on the promises made by past generations of politicians that are coming due in a rapidly aging society. These include unfunded pensions and medical care for the elderly. And it will only get worse—2012 is expected to be a watershed year when the biggest wave of baby boomers begins to retire.

As two lost decades since the bursting of the bubble show, Japan's consensus-based political system seizes up when it comes to allocating societal losses. In the 1990s, that meant that the government encouraged banks to sit on bad loans rather than undergo the kind of cathartic restructuring the U.S. is now undergoing, at least in some parts of the economy. That made Japan appear more stable, but without creative destruction the economy was unable to return to growth. This time the leverage is spread across generations, with the lack of growth making the promises to the old a bigger burden, which in turn makes it impossible to pursue pro-growth policies.

Payments on the national debt next year are projected at an already substantial $263 billion, but this assumes a payout of no more than 2% on 10-year bonds. Yields may remain well below this level for now, but in recent auctions signs have emerged that investors are losing their appetite for government bonds. The national debt is forecast to exceed household savings in the next year, as retirees continue to spend down savings. As long as growth remains slow, corporations will probably continue to save. But if Tokyo is forced to look abroad for funding, it will have to pay much higher rates.

That has the potential to blow out the budget in spectacular fashion. With central and local government debt now estimated at over $11 trillion, each one percentage point increase in yields will cost $110 billion. Adding in its unfunded liabilities, Japan has already reached the point at which its debt load will continue to increase regardless of how much it cuts spending or raises taxes.

In other words, Japan is about to run into the late economist Herb Stein's obvious but oft-overlooked law, which states that if something cannot continue it won't. The crunch is coming in one form or another.

Continued in article

Bob Jensen's threads on entitlements are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Entitlements.htm

Watch for the other possible solutions in the 30-minute summary video ---
http://www.pgpf.org/newsroom/press/IOUSA-Solutions-Premiers-on-CNN/
(Scroll Down a bit)

Here is the original (and somewhat dated video that does not delve into solutions very much)
IOUSA (the most frightening movie in American history) ---
(see a 30-minute version of the documentary at www.iousathemovie.com )

Now the IOUSA Bipartisan Solutions
I suggest that as many people as possible divert their attention from the Tiger Woods at the Masters Tournament today (April 11) to watch bipartisan proposals (‘Solutions”) on how to delay the Fall of the United States Empire. By the way, Bill Bradley was one of the most liberal Democratic senators in the History of the United States Senate.

Watch the World Premiere of I.O.U.S.A.: Solutions on CNN
Saturday, April 10, 1:00-3:00 p.m. EST or Sunday, April 11, 3:00-5:00 p.m. EST

Watch for the other possible solutions in the 30-minute summary video ---
http://www.pgpf.org/newsroom/press/IOUSA-Solutions-Premiers-on-CNN/
(Scroll Down a bit)

CBS Sixty minutes has a great video on the enormous cost of keeping dying people artificially alive:
High Cost of Dying --- http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5737437n&tag=mncol;lst;3
(wait for the commercials to play out)

"The Looming Entitlement Fiscal Burden," by Gary Becker, The Becker-Posner Blog, April 11, 2010 ---
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/beckerposner/2010/04/the-looming-entitlement-fiscal-burdenbecker.html

"The Entitlement Quandary," by Richard Posner, The Becker-Posner Blog, April 11, 2010 ---
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/beckerposner/2010/04/the-entitlement-quandaryposner.html

The "Burning Platform" of the United States Empire
Former Chief Accountant of the United States, David Walker, is spreading the word as widely as possible in the United States about the looming threat of our unbooked entitlements. Two videos that feature David Walker's warnings are as follows:

• IOUSA (the most frightening movie in American history) ---
  (see a 30-minute version of the documentary at www.iousathemovie.com )
   
• David Walker on CBS Sixty Minutes
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml

David Walker claims the U.S. economy is on a "burning platform" but does not go into specifics as to what will be left in the ashes.

The US government is on a “burning platform” of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon.
David M. Walker, Former Chief Accountant of the United States --- http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2009/0218.html
 

U.S. Debt/Deficit Clock --- http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The $61 Trillion Margin of Error, and What "Empire Decline" Means in Layman's Terms
This is a bipartisan disaster from the beginning and will be until the end

David Walker --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walker_(U.S._Comptroller_General)

Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

Harvard Profession Video:   Niall Ferguson: Empires on the Edge of Chaos ---
http://fora.tv/2010/07/28/Niall_Ferguson_Empires_on_the_Edge_of_Chaos

Paul Johnson --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_%28writer%29

Eminent United Kingdom historian Paul Johnson on the roots and outcomes of U.S. deficit spending
Modern Times:  1920s to the 1990s, by Paul Johnson
There's a paperback version for $13.90 --- Click Here

Customer Reviews

"Why America Will Stay on Top," by Brian M. Carney, The Wall Street Journal, March 5, 2011 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559604576175881248268272.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

In his best-selling history of the 20th century, "Modern Times," British historian Paul Johnson describes "a significant turning-point in American history: the first time the Great Republic, the richest nation on earth, came up against the limits of its financial resources." Until the 1960s, he writes in a chapter titled "America's Suicide Attempt," "public finance was run in all essentials on conventional lines"—that is to say, with budgets more or less in balance outside of exceptional circumstances.

"The big change in principle came under Kennedy," Mr. Johnson writes. "In the autumn of 1962 the Administration committed itself to a new and radical principle of creating budgetary deficits even when there was no economic emergency." Removing this constraint on government spending allowed Kennedy to introduce "a new concept of 'big government': the 'problem-eliminator.' Every area of human misery could be classified as a 'problem'; then the Federal government could be armed to 'eliminate' it."

Twenty-eight years after "Modern Times" first appeared, Mr. Johnson is perhaps the most eminent living British historian, and big government as problem-eliminator is back with a vengeance—along with trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. I visited the 82-year-old Mr. Johnson in his West London home this week to ask him whether America has once again set off down the path to self-destruction. Is he worried about America's future?

"Of course I worry about America," he says. "The whole world depends on America ultimately, particularly Britain. And also, I love America—a marvelous country. But in a sense I don't worry about America because I think America has such huge strengths—particularly its freedom of thought and expression—that it's going to survive as a top nation for the foreseeable future. And therefore take care of the world."

Pessimists, he points out, have been predicting America's decline "since the 18th century." But whenever things are looking bad, America "suddenly produces these wonderful things—like the tea party movement. That's cheered me up no end. Because it's done more for women in politics than anything else—all the feminists? Nuts! It's brought a lot of very clever and quite young women into mainstream politics and got them elected. A very good little movement, that. I like it." Then he deepens his voice for effect and adds: "And I like that lady—Sarah Palin. She's great. I like the cut of her jib."

The former governor of Alaska, he says, "is in the good tradition of America, which this awful political correctness business goes against." Plus: "She's got courage. That's very important in politics. You can have all the right ideas and the ability to express them. But if you haven't got guts, if you haven't got courage the way Margaret Thatcher had courage—and [Ronald] Reagan, come to think of it. Your last president had courage too—if you haven't got courage, all the other virtues are no good at all. It's the central virtue." ***

Mr. Johnson, decked out in a tweed jacket, green cardigan and velvet house slippers, speaks in full and lengthy paragraphs that manage to be at once well-formed and sprinkled with a healthy dose of free association. He has a full shock of white hair and a quick smile. He has, he allows, gone a bit deaf, but his mind remains sharp and he continues to write prolifically. His main concession to age, he says, is "I don't write huge books any more. I used to write 1,000 printed pages, but now I write short books. I did one on Napoleon, 50,000 words—enjoyed doing that. He was a baddie. I did one on Churchill, which was a bestseller in New York, I'm glad to say. 50,000 words. He was a goodie." He's also written short forthcoming biographies of Socrates (another "goodie") and Charles Darwin (an "interesting figure").

Mr. Johnson says he doesn't follow politics closely anymore, but he quickly warms to the subject of the Middle East. The rash of uprisings across the Arab world right now is "a very interesting phenomenon," he says.

"It's something that we knew all about in Europe in the 19th century. First of all we had the French Revolution and its repercussions in places like Germany and so on. Then, much like this current phenomenon, in 1830 we had a series of revolutions in Europe which worked like a chain reaction. And then in 1848, on a much bigger scale—that was known as the year of revolutions."

In 1848, he explains, "Practically every country in Europe, except England of course . . . had a revolution and overthrew the government, at any rate for a time. So that is something which historically is well-attested and the same thing has happened here in the Middle East."

Here he injects a note of caution: "But I notice it's much more likely that a so-called dictatorship will be overthrown if it's not a real dictatorship. The one in Tunisia wasn't very much. Mubarak didn't run a real dictatorship [in Egypt]. Real dictatorships in that part of the world," such as Libya, are a different story.

As for Moammar Gadhafi, "We'll see if he goes or not. I think he's a real baddie, so we hope he will." The Syrian regime, he adds, "not so long ago in Hama . . . killed 33,000 people because they rose up." Then, "above all," there is Iran. "If we can get rid of that horrible regime in Iran," he says, "that will be a major triumph for the world."

Frank judgments like these are a hallmark of Mr. Johnson's work, delivered with almost child-like glee. Of Mahatma Gandhi, he wrote in "Modern Times": "About the Gandhi phenomenon there was always a strong aroma of twentieth-century humbug."

Socrates is much more to Mr. Johnson's liking. Whereas, in Mr. Johnson's telling, Gandhi led hundreds of thousands to death by stirring up civil unrest in India, all the while maintaining a pretense of nonviolence, Socrates "thought people mattered more than ideas. . . . He loved people, and his ideas came from people, and he thought ideas existed for the benefit of people," not the other way around.

In the popular imagination, Socrates may be the first deep thinker in Western civilization, but in Mr. Johnson's view he was also an anti-intellectual. Which is what makes him one of the good guys. "One of the categories of people I don't like much are intellectuals," Mr. Johnson says. "People say, 'Oh, you're an intellectual,' and I say, 'No!' What is an intellectual? An intellectual is somebody who thinks ideas are more important than people."

And indeed, Mr. Johnson's work and thought are characterized by concern for the human qualities of people. Cicero, he tells me, was not a man "one would have liked to have been friends with." But even so the Roman statesman is "often very well worth reading."

His concern with the human dimension of history is reflected as well in his attitude toward humor, the subject of another recent book, "Humorists." "The older I get," he tells me, "the more important I think it is to stress jokes." Which is another reason he loves America. "One of the great contributions that America has made to civilization," he deadpans, "is the one-liner." The one-liner, he says, was "invented, or at any rate brought to the forefront, by Benjamin Franklin." Mark Twain's were the "greatest of all."

And then there was Ronald Reagan. "Mr. Reagan had thousands of one-liners." Here a grin spreads across Mr. Johnson's face: "That's what made him a great president."

Jokes, he argues, were a vital communication tool for President Reagan "because he could illustrate points with them." Mr. Johnson adopts a remarkable vocal impression of America's 40th president and delivers an example: "You know, he said, 'I'm not too worried about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.'" Recovering from his own laughter, he adds: "Of course, that's an excellent one-liner, but it's also a perfectly valid economic point." Then his expression grows serious again and he concludes: "You don't get that from Obama. He talks in paragraphs." ***

Mr. Johnson has written about the famous and notorious around the world and across centuries, but he's not above telling of his personal encounters with history. He is, he says, "one of a dwindling band of people who actually met" Winston Churchill.

Continued in article

Jensen Comment
I think the entitlements crisis in American is currently too unique and too serious to justify such optimism.

 I lean more to the prognosis of Harvard historian Niall Ferguson.

Harvard Profession Video:   Niall Ferguson: Empires on the Edge of Chaos ---
http://fora.tv/2010/07/28/Niall_Ferguson_Empires_on_the_Edge_of_Chaos

Call it the fatal arithmetic of imperial decline. Without radical fiscal reform, it could apply to America next.
Niall Ferguson, "An Empire at Risk:  How Great Powers Fail," Newsweek Magazine Cover Story, November 26, 2009 --- http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694/page/1
Please note that this is NBC’s liberal Newsweek Magazine and not Fox News or The Wall Street Journal.

. . .

In other words, there is no end in sight to the borrowing binge. Unless entitlements are cut or taxes are raised, there will never be another balanced budget. Let's assume I live another 30 years and follow my grandfathers to the grave at about 75. By 2039, when I shuffle off this mortal coil, the federal debt held by the public will have reached 91 percent of GDP, according to the CBO's extended baseline projections. Nothing to worry about, retort -deficit-loving economists like Paul Krugman.

. . .

Another way of doing this kind of exercise is to calculate the net present value of the unfunded liabilities of the Social Security and Medicare systems. One recent estimate puts them at about $104 trillion, 10 times the stated federal debt.

Continued in article --- http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694/page/1

Call it the fatal arithmetic of imperial decline. Without radical fiscal reform, it could apply to America next.
Niall Ferguson, "An Empire at Risk:  How Great Powers Fail," Newsweek Magazine Cover Story, November 26, 2009 --- http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694/page/1
Please note that this is NBC’s liberal Newsweek Magazine and not Fox News or The Wall Street Journal.

. . .

In other words, there is no end in sight to the borrowing binge. Unless entitlements are cut or taxes are raised, there will never be another balanced budget. Let's assume I live another 30 years and follow my grandfathers to the grave at about 75. By 2039, when I shuffle off this mortal coil, the federal debt held by the public will have reached 91 percent of GDP, according to the CBO's extended baseline projections. Nothing to worry about, retort -deficit-loving economists like Paul Krugman.

. . .

Another way of doing this kind of exercise is to calculate the net present value of the unfunded liabilities of the Social Security and Medicare systems. One recent estimate puts them at about $104 trillion, 10 times the stated federal debt.

Continued in article --- http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694/page/1

Niall Ferguson is the Laurence A. Tisch professor of history at Harvard University and the author of The Ascent of Money. In late 2009 he puts forth an unbooked discounted present value liability of $104 trillion for Social Security plus Medicare. In late 2008, the former Chief Accountant of the United States Government, placed this estimate at$43 trillion. We can hardly attribute the $104-$43=$61 trillion difference to President Obama's first year in office. We must accordingly attribute the $61 trillion to margin of error and most economists would probably put a present value of unbooked (off-balance-sheet) present value of Social Security and Medicare debt to be somewhere between $43 trillion and $107 trillion To this we must add other unbooked present value of entitlement debt estimates which range from $13 trillion to $40 trillion. If Obamacare passes it will add untold trillions to trillions more because our legislators are not looking at entitlements beyond 2019.

The Meaning of "Unbooked" versus "Booked" National Debt
By "unbooked" we mean that the debt is not included in the current "booked" National Debt of $12 trillion. The booked debt is debt of the United States for which interest is now being paid daily at slightly under a million dollars a minute. Cash must be raised daily for interest payments. Cash is raised from taxes, borrowing, and/or (shudder) the current Fed approach to simply printing money. Interest is not yet being paid on the unbooked debt for which retirement and medical bills have not yet arrived in Washington DC for payment. The unbooked debt is by far the most frightening because our leaders keep adding to this debt without realizing how it may bring down the entire American Dream to say nothing of reducing the U.S. Military to almost nothing.

Niall Ferguson, "An Empire at Risk:  How Great Powers Fail," Newsweek Magazine Cover Story, November 26, 2009 --- http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694/page/1

This matters more for a superpower than for a small Atlantic island for one very simple reason. As interest payments eat into the budget, something has to give—and that something is nearly always defense expenditure. According to the CBO, a significant decline in the relative share of national security in the federal budget is already baked into the cake. On the Pentagon's present plan, defense spending is set to fall from above 4 percent now to 3.2 percent of GDP in 2015 and to 2.6 percent of GDP by 2028.

Over the longer run, to my own estimated departure date of 2039, spending on health care rises from 16 percent to 33 percent of GDP (some of the money presumably is going to keep me from expiring even sooner). But spending on everything other than health, Social Security, and interest payments drops from 12 percent to 8.4 percent.

This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in the resources available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Which is why voters are right to worry about America's debt crisis. According to a recent Rasmussen report, 42 percent of Americans now say that cutting the deficit in half by the end of the president's first term should be the administration's most important task—significantly more than the 24 percent who see health-care reform as the No. 1 priority. But cutting the deficit in half is simply not enough. If the United States doesn't come up soon with a credible plan to restore the federal budget to balance over the next five to 10 years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis could lead to a major weakening of American power.

The Meaning of Present Value
Initially it might help to explain what present value means. When I moved from Florida State University to Trinity University in 1982, current mortgage rates were about 18%. As part of my compensation package, President Calgaard agreed to have Trinity University carry my mortgage. I purchased a home at 9010 Village Drive for $300,000 by paying $100,000 down and signing a 240 month mortgage at 12% APR and a 1982 present value of $200,000. At payments of $2,202 per month my total cash obligation (had I not refinanced from a bank when mortgage rates went below 12%) would've been $528,521. However, since money has time value, the present value of that $528,521 was only $200,000.

In a similar manner, Professor Ferguson's $104 trillion present value translates to over $300 trillion in cash obligations of Social Security and Medicare before being tinkered with changed entitlement obligations.

The "Burning Platform" of the United States Empire
Former Chief Accountant of the United States, David Walker, is spreading the word as widely as possible in the United States about the looming threat of our unbooked entitlements. Two videos that feature David Walker's warnings are as follows:

• IOUSA (the most frightening movie in American history) ---
  (see a 30-minute version of the documentary at www.iousathemovie.com )
   
• David Walker on CBS Sixty Minutes
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs 
   

David Walker claims the U.S. economy is on a "burning platform" but does not go into specifics as to what will be left in the ashes.

The US government is on a “burning platform” of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon.
David M. Walker, Former Chief Accountant of the United States --- http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2009/0218.html
 

An "Empire at Risk"
Harvard's Professor Niall Ferguson is equally vague about what will happen if the U.S. Empire collapses from its entitlement burdens.
Niall Ferguson, "An Empire at Risk:  How Great Powers Fail," Newsweek Magazine Cover Story, November 26, 2009 --- http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694/page/1

This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in the resources available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Which is why voters are right to worry about America's debt crisis. According to a recent Rasmussen report, 42 percent of Americans now say that cutting the deficit in half by the end of the president's first term should be the administration's most important task—significantly more than the 24 percent who see health-care reform as the No. 1 priority. But cutting the deficit in half is simply not enough. If the United States doesn't come up soon with a credible plan to restore the federal budget to balance over the next five to 10 years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis could lead to a major weakening of American power.

The precedents are certainly there. Habsburg Spain defaulted on all or part of its debt 14 times between 1557 and 1696 and also succumbed to inflation due to a surfeit of New World silver. Prerevolutionary France was spending 62 percent of royal revenue on debt service by 1788. The Ottoman Empire went the same way: interest payments and amortization rose from 15 percent of the budget in 1860 to 50 percent in 1875. And don't forget the last great English-speaking empire. By the interwar years, interest payments were consuming 44 percent of the British budget, making it intensely difficult to rearm in the face of a new German threat.

Call it the fatal arithmetic of imperial decline. Without radical fiscal reform, it could apply to America next.

Empire Collapse in Layman's Terms
In 2010, hundreds upon hundreds of people will daily sneak across the U.S. border illegally in search of a job, medical care, education, and a better life under the American Dream. By 2050 Americans will instead be exiting in attempts to escape the American Nightmare and sneak illegally into BRIC nations for a job, medical care, education, and a better life under the BRIC Dream.

A BRIC nation at the moment is a nation that has vast resources and virtually no entitlement obligations that drag down economic growth --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC

In economics, BRIC (typically rendered as "the BRICs" or "the BRIC countries") is an acronym that refers to the fast-growing developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The acronym was first coined and prominently used by Goldman Sachs in 2001. According to a paper published in 2005, Mexico and South Korea are the only other countries comparable to the BRICs, but their economies were excluded initially because they were considered already more developed. Goldman Sachs argued that, since they are developing rapidly, by 2050 the combined economies of the BRICs could eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world. The four countries, combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40% of the world's population.

"Toward a Different Fiscal Future:  Tax increases can't plausibly address the coming entitlement crisis," Glen R. Hubbard, Dean of the Columbia University College of Business, The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2010 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704041504575045250168889076.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

Moody's Investors Service's warning last week that the AAA credit rating of the United States is in jeopardy raises fresh concern about the nation's fiscal health. The question to ask about the president's eye-popping budget, also rolled out last week, is whether it prepares the country for its future—or shackles it to past decisions that our leaders would rather not confront.

President Obama's blueprint gave us a federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2010 of $1.6 trillion, about 10.6% of GDP. While one expects bigger budget deficits in a downturn, the administration expects the deficit and debt buildup to persist. By 2013, it forecasts that deficits will bring about a debt-to-GDP ratio of 72%, unprecedented in our experience except during a major war.

The problem is spending. Despite Mr. Obama's words about restraint, the new budget proposes more spending—1.8% of GDP for 2011 to be precise—and a higher level, roughly one percentage point of GDP higher, in subsequent years.

Debates about the budget traditionally revolve around these numbers. There is another way to look at the federal budget, however, and that is to focus on its effect on our economic health, not just the government's fiscal health. Focusing on economic health means setting our sights on productivity growth—our future living standards.

To understand what this means, consider the famous "kitchen debates" between Soviet President Nikita Khruschev and Vice President Richard Nixon in 1959 about the merits of capitalism and socialism. Nixon famously pointed to color television as a milestone in American innovation. The Soviet leader replied by trumpeting his nation's lead in rocket thrust. The issue resurfaced in the televised 1960 presidential debates, when Sen. John F. Kennedy attacked Nixon for wanting to lead a nation No. 1 in color TV, but not in rockets.

Nixon's response was essentially nothing. But the correct response was obvious: The nation with the higher present and future productivity growth—the U.S.—could lead in both color TV and rockets.

Today our productivity growth is imperiled by the anti-investment tilt of the president's budget plan for escalating federal debt. Even conservative estimates of effects of federal debt on interest rates (by Eric Engen of the Federal Reserve and me in the 2004 National Bureau of Economic Research Macroeconomics Annual) suggest that the last Obama budget blueprint would lead to a one-percentage-point rise in Treasury interest rates as the economic recovery takes hold. The consequence—lower business investment and real GDP 4% lower than it would otherwise be by the next presidential election—compromises our future.

But there is more bad news. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that, without policy changes, by 2050 spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone would be 10 percentage points of GDP more than today. Total federal spending would exceed 30% of GDP. ObamaCare would only exacerbate the problem. This means government spending for national defense, education, research and other priorities would be dramatically constrained.

This brings us to the reason we need a real budget debate today: Tax increases cannot plausibly make these problems go away. If taxes were increased sufficiently to accommodate the CBO's projected increase in entitlement spending, long-term U.S. GDP growth rates would be reduced between a half and a full percentage point (an estimate derived from widely cited research by Mr. Engen and Jonathan Skinner of Dartmouth), unacceptably lowering our future living standards. This would be equivalent to erasing all the "growth dividend" gains of the great productivity boom of the 1990s.

There is a better way forward. In the present economic situation, attempting to reduce the deficit drastically could spell another economic contraction. One can even make cogent arguments for cutting taxes on business investment and corporate profits, given the importance of an improved investment climate for the recovery.

Rather, the president and the Congress need to present a credible path toward lower deficits and more effective government. Such a plan should have three elements.

First, introduce specific targets for reducing discretionary spending. The administration has set too easy a goal for a putative President's Fiscal Commission, likely requiring deficit reduction of only 1% of GDP by 2015, to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio at more than 70%. But this level is even higher than in 1950, when we were paying off debt from World War II.

The discretionary spending binge in both the Bush and Obama years offer many opportunities for further cuts. Indeed, holding growth in the nondefense discretionary spending to 2% per year, well under present levels, is achievable and would free up funds for our future priorities.

Second, slow the growth of entitlement spending on Social Security and Medicare. A good way would be to shave 1% per year from projected entitlement growth.

It is possible to do so progressively, lowering the growth in benefits for middle- and upper-income households, while strengthening support for lower-income households. Expanded saving incentives and health saving accounts can be used to help more affluent households prepare for retirement. Taken together, these changes offer the greatest chance for reducing long-term spending while holding fast to government's legitimate social insurance role.

Third, if the administration wants to maintain the spending path on which its budget blueprint places us, it must confront and propose significant, broad-based tax increases. Let's be clear what this means.

Our present income tax already relies very heavily on revenue from high earners; the top 1% pay well over one-third of federal income taxes. Mr. Obama's budget increases the reliance. But we cannot count "taxes on the rich" for deficit reduction, health-care expansion and funding entitlements while ignoring the effect of those tax increases on investment, innovation and growth.

To raise the revenue for the president's welfare-state ambitions, the tax increases must necessarily be broad-based, as, for example, with a broad-based consumption tax. A useful start would be to calculate—and present to the public each year—the broad-based consumption tax required to pay for higher spending.

In the end, the reason to get the nation's fiscal house in order is less about deficits or debt as percentage points of GDP than about our future. We need a healthy, dynamic and innovative economy. We need a safety net for those buffeted by change. And we need the flexibility to increase support for national defense and other new domestic priorities.

Mr. Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.

"Go To the Back of the CLASS," by Ed Feulner, Townhall, August 17, 2010 ---
http://townhall.com/columnists/EdFeulner/2010/08/18/go_to_the_back_of_the_class

In Washington, politicians often give their bills clever names designed more to obscure than to reveal.

Consider the CLASS Act. It sounds like yet another federal attempt to meddle in local schools. Instead, it stands for “Community Living Assistance Services and Support.”

CLASS was a little-noticed part of the massive Obamacare bill that the president signed in March. It’s supposed to provide affordable long-term care insurance to American workers. In reality, it creates another entitlement likely to increase our exploding federal deficit.

Starting next year CLASS is scheduled to begin enrolling people and collecting premiums. If CLASS was a normal insurance program, it would invest these premiums to build reserves. These reserves would later be tapped to provide benefits for those individuals in need of long-term care services.

But CLASS doesn’t work that way.

Similar to Social Security, all premiums that CLASS collects will be spent immediately. Its trust fund will be filled with government IOUs. Since participants need to pay five years of premiums before they’re eligible to collect any benefits, a sizeable amount of short-term revenue will be raised from CLASS. This aspect was especially useful when lawmakers were trying to find tricks to reduce the projected cost of Obamacare. By including the revenues from CLASS, politicians were able to pretend they’d reduced the cost of the bill by $70 billion.

But even Uncle Sam can’t spend your money twice. It’s impossible to spend the money today on government programs and invest the money to fund eventual benefits.

Eventually 2017 will arrive. That’s when CLASS starts paying benefits. It’s difficult to predict how soon after that the program would dive into the red and pay out more in benefits than it collects in premiums. Actuaries at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimate it could be as soon as 2025.

Continued in article

"Principles for Economic Revival Our prosperity has faded because policies have moved away from those that have proven to work. Here are the priorities that should guide policy makers as they seek to restore more rapid growth,"
by GEORGE P. SHULTZ, MICHAEL J. BOSKIN, JOHN F. COGAN, ALLAN MELTZER AND JOHN B. TAYLOR
The Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2010 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703466704575489830041633508.html

America's financial crisis, deep recession and anemic recovery have largely been driven by economic policies that have deviated from proven fact-based principles. To return to prosperity we must get back to these principles.

The most fundamental starting point is that people respond to incentives and disincentives. Tax rates are a great example because the data are so clear and the results so powerful. A wealth of evidence shows that high tax rates reduce work effort, retard investment and lower productivity growth. Raise taxes, and living standards stagnate.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Edward Prescott examined international labor market data and showed that changes in tax rates on labor are associated with changes in employment and hours worked. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the effective tax rate on work increased by an average of 28% in Germany, France and Italy. Over that same period, work hours fell by an average of 22% in those three countries. When higher taxes reduce the reward for work, you get

Long-lasting economic policies based on a long-term strategy work; temporary policies don't. The difference between the effect of permanent tax rate cuts and one-time temporary tax rebates is also well-documented. The former creates a sustainable increase in economic output, the latter at best only a transitory blip. Temporary policies create uncertainty that dampen economic output as market participants, unsure about whether and how policies might change, delay their decisions.

Having "skin in the game," unsurprisingly, leads to superior outcomes. As Milton Friedman famously observed: "Nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as they spend their own." When legislators put other people's money at risk—as when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought risky mortgages—crisis and economic hardship inevitably result. When minimal co-payments and low deductibles are mandated in the insurance market, wasteful health-care spending balloons.

Rule-based policies provide the foundation of a high-growth market economy. Abiding by such policies minimizes capricious discretionary actions, such as the recent ad hoc bailouts, which too often had deleterious consequences. For most of the 1980s and '90s monetary policy was conducted in a predictable rule-like manner. As a result, the economy was far more stable. We avoided lengthy economic contractions like the Great Depression of the 1930s and the rapid inflation of the 1970s.

The history of recent economic policy is one of massive deviations from these basic tenets. The result has been a crippling recession and now a weak, nearly nonexistent recovery. The deviations began with policies—like the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low for too long—that fueled the unsustainable housing boom. Federal housing policies allowed down payments on home loans as low as zero. Banks were encouraged to make risky loans, and securitization separated lenders from their loans. Neither borrower nor lender had sufficient skin in the game. Lax enforcement of existing regulations allowed both investment and commercial banks to circumvent long-established banking rules to take on far too much leverage. Regulators, not regulations, failed.

The departures from sound principles continued when the Fed and the Treasury responded with arbitrary and unpredictable bailouts of banks, auto companies and financial institutions. They financed their actions with unprecedented money creation and massive issuance of debt. These frantic moves spooked already turbulent markets and led to the financial panic.

More deviations occurred when the government responded with ineffective temporary stimulus packages. The 2008 tax rebate and the 2009 spending stimulus bills failed to improve the economy. Cash for clunkers and the first-time home buyers tax credit merely moved purchases forward by a few months.

Then there's the recent health-care legislation, which imposes taxes on savings and investment and gives the government control over health-care decisions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now sit with an estimated $400 billion cost to taxpayers and no path to resolution. Hundreds of new complex regulations lurk in the 2010 financial reform bill with most of the critical details left to regulators. So uncertainty reigns and nearly $2 trillion in cash sits in corporate coffers.

Since the onset of the financial crisis, annual federal spending has increased by an extraordinary $800 billion—more than $10,000 for every American family. This has driven the budget deficit to 10% of GDP, far above the previous peacetime record. The Obama administration has proposed to lock a sizable portion of that additional spending into government programs and to finance it with higher taxes and debt. The Fed recently announced it would continue buying long-term Treasury debt, adding to the risk of future inflation.

There is perhaps no better indicator of the destructive path that these policy deviations have put us on than the federal budget. The nearby chart puts the fiscal problem in perspective. It shows federal spending as a percent of GDP, which is now at 24%, up sharply from 18.2% in 2000.

Future federal spending, driven mainly by retirement and health-care promises, is likely to increase beyond 30% of GDP in 20 years and then keep rising, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The reckless expansions of both entitlements and discretionary programs in recent years have only added to our long-term fiscal problem.

As the chart shows, in all of U.S. history, there has been only one period of sustained decline in federal spending relative to GDP. From 1983 to 2001, federal spending relative to GDP declined by five percentage points. Two factors dominated this remarkable period. First was strong economic growth. Second was modest spending restraint—on domestic spending in the 1980s and on defense in the 1990s.

The good news is that we can change these destructive policies by adopting a strategy based on proven economic principles:

• First, take tax increases off the table. Higher tax rates are destructive to growth and would ratify the recent spending excesses. Our complex tax code is badly in need of overhaul to make America more competitive. For example, the U.S. corporate tax is one of the highest in the world. That's why many tax reform proposals integrate personal and corporate income taxes with fewer special tax breaks and lower tax rates.

But in the current climate, with the very credit-worthiness of the United States at stake, our program keeps the present tax regime in place while avoiding the severe economic drag of higher tax rates.

• Second, balance the federal budget by reducing spending. The publicly held debt must be brought down to the pre-crisis safety zone. To do this, the excessive spending of recent years must be removed before it becomes a permanent budget fixture. The government should begin by rescinding unspent "stimulus" and TARP funds, ratcheting down domestic appropriations to their pre-binge levels, and repealing entitlement expansions, most notably the subsidies in the health-care bill.

The next step is restructuring public activities between federal and state governments. The federal government has taken on more responsibilities than it can properly manage and efficiently finance. The 1996 welfare reform, which transferred authority and financing for welfare from the federal to the state level, should serve as the model. This reform reduced welfare dependency and lowered costs, benefiting taxpayers and welfare recipients.

• Third, modify Social Security and health-care entitlements to reduce their explosive future growth. Social Security now promises much higher benefits to future retirees than to today's retirees. The typical 30-year-old today is scheduled to get an inflation-adjusted retirement benefit that is 50% higher than the benefit for a typical current retiree.

Benefits paid to future retirees should remain at the same level, in terms of purchasing power, that today's retirees receive. A combination of indexing initial benefits to prices rather than to wages and increasing the program's retirement age would achieve this goal. They should be phased-in gradually so that current retirees and those nearing retirement are not affected.

Health care is far too important to the American economy to be left in its current state. In markets other than health care, the legendary American shopper, armed with money and information, has kept quality high and costs low. In health care, service providers, unaided by consumers with sufficient skin in the game, make the purchasing decisions. Third-party payers—employers, governments and insurance companies—have resorted to regulatory schemes and price controls to stem the resulting cost growth.

The key to making Medicare affordable while maintaining the quality of health care is more patient involvement, more choices among Medicare health plans, and more competition. Co-payments should be raised to make patients and their physicians more cost-conscious. Monthly premiums should be lowered to provide seniors with more disposable income to make these choices. A menu of additional Medicare plans, some with lower premiums, higher co-payments and improved catastrophic coverage, should be added to the current one-size-fits-all program to encourage competition.

Similarly for Medicaid, modest co-payments should be introduced except for preventive services. The program should be turned over entirely to the states with federal financing supplied by a "no strings attached" block grant. States should then allow Medicaid recipients to purchase a health plan of their choosing with a risk-adjusted Medicaid grant that phases out as income rises.

The 2010 health-care law undermined positive reforms underway since the late 1990s, including higher co-payments and health savings accounts. The law should be repealed before its regulations and price controls further damage availability and quality of care. It should be replaced with policies that target specific health market concerns: quality, affordability and access. Making out-of-pocket expenditures and individual purchases of health insurance tax deductible, enhancing health savings accounts, and improving access to medical information are keys to more consumer involvement. Allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines will lower the cost of insurance.

• Fourth, enact a moratorium on all new regulations for the next three years, with an exception for national security and public safety. Going forward, regulations should be transparent and simple, pass rigorous cost-benefit tests, and rely to a maximum extent on market-based incentives instead of command and control. Direct and indirect cost estimates of regulations and subsidies should be published before new regulations are put into law.

Off-budget financing should end by closing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Bureau of Consumer Finance Protection and all other government agencies should be on the budget that Congress annually approves. An enhanced bankruptcy process for failing financial firms should be enacted in order to end the need for bailouts. Higher bank capital requirements that rise with the size of the bank should be phased in.

• Fifth, monetary policy should be less discretionary and more rule-like. The Federal Reserve should announce and follow a monetary policy rule, such as the Taylor rule, in which the short-term interest rate is determined by the supply and demand for money and is adjusted through changes in the money supply when inflation rises above or falls below the target, or when the economy goes into a recession. When monetary policy decisions follow such a rule, economic stability and growth increase.

In order to reduce the size of the Fed's bloated balance sheet without causing more market disruption, the Fed should announce and follow a clear and predictable exit rule, which describes a contingency path for bringing bank reserves back to normal levels. It should also announce and follow a lender-of-last-resort rule designed to protect the payment system and the economy—not failing banks. Such a rule would end the erratic bailout policy that leads to crises.

The United States should, along with other countries, agree to a target for inflation in order to increase expected price stability and exchange rate stability. A new accord between the Federal Reserve and Treasury should re-establish the Fed's independence and accountability so that it is not called on to monetize the debt or engage in credit allocation. A monetary rule is a requisite for restoring the Fed's independence.

These pro-growth policies provide the surest path back to prosperity.

Mr. Shultz, a former secretary of labor, secretary of Treasury and secretary of state, is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Mr. Boskin, a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Cogan, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Meltzer is professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University. Mr. Taylor, an economics professor at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was undersecretary of Treasury under President George W. Bush.

Bob Jensen's threads on the bailout are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/2008bailout.htm

"Harder to buy US Treasuries," Shangai Daily, December 18, 2009 ---
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/print.asp?id=423054

IT is getting harder for governments to buy United States Treasuries because the US's shrinking current-account gap is reducing supply of dollars overseas, a Chinese central bank official said yesterday.

The comments by Zhu Min, deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, referred to the overall situation globally, not specifically to China, the biggest foreign holder of US government bonds.

Chinese officials generally are very careful about commenting on the dollar and Treasuries, given that so much of its US$2.3 trillion reserves are tied to their value, and markets always watch any such comments closely for signs of any shift in how it manages its assets.

China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange reaffirmed this month that the dollar stands secure as the anchor of the currency reserves it manages, even as the country seeks to diversify its investments.

In a discussion on the global role of the dollar, Zhu told an academic audience that it was inevitable that the dollar would continue to fall in value because Washington continued to issue more Treasuries to finance its deficit spending.

He then addressed where demand for that debt would come from.

"The United States cannot force foreign governments to increase their holdings of Treasuries," Zhu said, according to an audio recording of his remarks. "Double the holdings? It is definitely impossible."

"The US current account deficit is falling as residents' savings increase, so its trade turnover is falling, which means the US is supplying fewer dollars to the rest of the world," he added. "The world does not have so much money to buy more US Treasuries."

China continues to see its foreign exchange reserves grow, albeit at a slower pace than in past years, due to a large trade surplus and inflows of foreign investment. They stood at US$2.3 trillion at the end of September.

Where Did Social Security Go So Wrong?
Social Security in the United States currently refers to the Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. It commenced only as an old age ("survivors:") retirement insurance program as a forced way of saving for retirement by paying worker premiums matched by employer contributions into the SS Trust Fund. Premiums were relatively low due heavily to the proviso that the SS Trust Fund got to keep all the premiums paid for each worker and spouse that did not reach retirement age (generally viewed as 65).  Details are provided at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Creation:_The_Social_Security_Act

If Congress had not tapped the SS Trust Fund for other (generally unfunded social programs of various types), the SS Trust Fund would not be in any trouble at all if it were managed like a diversified investment fund. But it became too tempting for Congress to tap the SS Trust Fund for a variety of other social programs, the costliest of which was to make monthly living allowance payments to each person of any age who is declared "disabled." In many cases a disabled person collects decades of benefits after having paid less than a single penny into the SS Trust Fund. It's well and good for our great land to provide living allowances to disabled citizens, but without funding from other sources such as a separate Disability Trust Fund fed with some type of other taxes, the disability payments mostly drained the SS Trust Fund to where it is in dire trouble today.

Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt.
Herbert Hoover --- http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/herberthoo110353.html

Hoover Daily Report (Economics, History, Political Science, Social Science) --- http://www.hoover.org/news/daily-report 

The obligation to pay pensioners as well as disabled persons was passed on to current and future generations to a point where the Social Security and Disability Program is no longer self-sustaining with little hope for meeting entitlement obligations from worker premiums and employer matching funds. The SS Trust Fund will have deficits beginning in 2010 that are expected to explode as baby boomers collect benefits for the first time.

Where Did Medicare Go So Wrong?
Medicare is a much larger and much more complicated entitlement burden relative to Social Security by a ratio of about six to one or even more. The Medicare Medical Insurance Fund was established under President Johnson in 1965.

Note that Medicare, like Social Security in general, was intended to be insurance funded by workers over their careers. If premiums paid by workers and employers was properly invested and then paid out after workers reached retirement age most of the trillions of unfunded debt would not be precariously threatening the future of the United States. The funds greatly benefit when workers die before retirement because all that was paid in by these workers and their employers are added to the fund benefits paid out to living retirees.

The first huge threat to sustainability arose beginning in 1968 when medical coverage payments payments to surge way above the Medicare premiums collected from workers and employers. Costs of medical care exploded relative to most other living expenses. Worker and employer premiums were not sufficiently increased for rapid growth in health care costs as hospital stays surged from less than $100 per day to over $1,000 per day.

A second threat to the sustainability comes from families no longer concerned about paying up to $25,000 per day to keep dying loved ones hopelessly alive in intensive care units (ICUs) when it is 100% certain that they will not leave those ICUs alive. Families do not make economic choices in such hopeless cases where the government is footing the bill. In other nations these families are not given such choices to hopelessly prolong life at such high costs. I had a close friend in Maine who became a quadriplegic in a high school football game. Four decades later Medicare paid millions of dollars to keep him alive in an ICU unit when there was zero chance he would ever leave that ICU alive.

On November 22, 2009 CBS Sixty Minutes aired a video featuring experts (including physicians) explaining how the single largest drain on the Medicare insurance fund is keeping dying people hopelessly alive who could otherwise be allowed to die quicker and painlessly without artificially prolonging life on ICU machines.
"The Cost of Dying," CBS Sixty Minutes Video, November 22, 2009 ---
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5737138n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

What is really sad is the way Republicans are standing in the way of making rational cost-benefit decisions about dying by exploiting the "Kill Granny" political strategy aimed at killing a government option in health care reform.
See the "Kill Granny" strategy at --- www.defendyourhealthcare.us

The third huge threat to the economy commenced in when disabled persons (including newborns) tapped into the Social Security and Medicare insurance funds. Disabled persons should receive monthly benefits and medical coverage in this great land. But Congress should've found a better way to fund disabled persons with something other than the Social Security and Medicare insurance funds. But politics being what it is, Congress slipped this gigantic entitlement through without having to debate and legislate separate funding for disabled persons. And hence we are now at a crossroads where the Social Security and Medicare Insurance Funds are virtually broke for all practical persons.

Most of the problem lies is Congressional failure to sufficiently increase Social Security deductions (for the big hit in monthly payments to disabled persons of all ages) and the accompanying Medicare coverage (to disabled people of all ages). The disability coverage also suffers from widespread fraud.

Other program costs were also added to the Social Security and Medicare insurance funds such as the education costs of children of veterans who are killed in wartime. Once again this is a worthy cause that should be funded. But it should've been separately funded rather than simply added into the Social Security and Medicare insurance funds that had not factored such added costs into premiums collected from workers and employers.

The fourth huge problem is that most military retirees are afforded full lifetime medical coverage for themselves and their spouses. Although they can use Veterans Administration doctors and hospitals, most of these retirees opted for the unfunded  TRICARE plan the pushed most of the hospital and physician costs onto the Medicare Fund. Unlike where other workers had Medicare deductions taken from their paychecks with employer matchinf funds over the years, TRICARE coverage was dumped on Medicare without prior funding. This became a huge drain on the Medicare fund.

The fifth threat to sustainability came when actuaries failed to factor in the impact of advances in medicine for extending lives. This coupled with the what became the biggest cost of Medicare, the cost of dying, clobbered the insurance funds. Surpluses in premiums paid by workers and employers disappeared much quicker than expected.

A sixth threat to Medicare especially has been widespread and usually undetected fraud such as providing equipment like motorized wheel chairs to people who really don't need them or charging Medicare for equipment not even delivered. There are also widespread charges for unneeded medical tests or for tests that were never really administered. Medicare became a cash cow for crooks. Many doctors and hospitals overbill Medicare and only a small proportion of the theft is detected and punished.

The seventh threat to sustainability commenced in 2007 when the costly Medicare drug benefit entitlement entitlement was added by President George W. Bush. This was a costly addition, because it added enormous drains on the fund by retired people like me and my wife who did not have the cost of the drug benefits factored into our payments into the Medicare Fund while we were still working. It thus became and unfunded benefit that we're now collecting big time.

In any case we are at a crossroads in the history of funding medical care in the United States that now pays a lot more than any other nation per capita and is getting less per dollar spent than many nations with nationalized health care plans. I'm really not against Obamacare legislation. I'm only against the lies and deceits being thrown about by both sides in the abomination of the current proposed legislation.

Democrats are missing the boat here when they truly have the power, for now at least, in the House and Senate to pass a relatively efficient nationalized health plan. But instead they're giving birth to entitlements legislation that threatens the sustainability of the United States as a nation.

In any case, The New York Times presents a nice history of other events that I left out above ---
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/19/us/politics/20090717_HEALTH_TIMELINE.html

"THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE: What Went Wrong? How the Health Care Campaign Collapsed --
A special report.; For Health Care, Times Was A Killer," by Adam Clymer, Robert Pear and Robin Toner, The New York Times, August 29, 1994 --- Click Here
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/29/us/health-care-debate-what-went-wrong-health-care-campaign-collapsed-special-report.html

November 22, 2009 reply from Richard.Sansing [Richard.C.Sansing@TUCK.DARTMOUTH.EDU]

The electorate's inability to debate trade-offs in a sensible manner is the biggest problem, in my view. See

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111904053.html?referrer=emailarticle 

Richard Sansing

The New York Times Timeline History of Health Care Reform in the United States ---
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/19/us/politics/20090717_HEALTH_TIMELINE.html
Click the arrow button on the right side of the page. The biggest problem with "reform" is that it added entitlements benefits without current funding such that with each reform piece of legislation the burdens upon future generations has hit a point of probably not being sustainable.

Call it the fatal arithmetic of imperial decline. Without radical fiscal reform, it could apply to America next.
Niall Ferguson, "An Empire at Risk:  How Great Powers Fail," Newsweek Magazine Cover Story, November 26, 2009 --- http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694/page/1

. . .

In other words, there is no end in sight to the borrowing binge. Unless entitlements are cut or taxes are raised, there will never be another balanced budget. Let's assume I live another 30 years and follow my grandfathers to the grave at about 75. By 2039, when I shuffle off this mortal coil, the federal debt held by the public will have reached 91 percent of GDP, according to the CBO's extended baseline projections. Nothing to worry about, retort -deficit-loving economists like Paul Krugman.

. . .

Another way of doing this kind of exercise is to calculate the net present value of the unfunded liabilities of the Social Security and Medicare systems. One recent estimate puts them at about $104 trillion, 10 times the stated federal debt.

Continued in article

This is now President Obama's problem with or without new Obamacare entitlements that are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the entitlement obligations that President Obama inherited from every President of the United States since FDR in the 1930s. The problem has been compounded under both Democrat and Republican regimes, both of which have burdened future generations with entitlements not originally of their doing.

Professor Niall Ferguson and David Walker are now warning us that by year 2050 the American Dream will become an American Nightmare in which Americans seek every which way to leave this fallen nation for a BRIC nation offering some hope of a job, health care, education, and the BRIC Dream.

Bob Jensen's threads on health care ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Health.htm

The first economist, an early  Nobel Prize Winning economist, to raise the alarm of entitlements in my head was Milton Friedman.  He has written extensively about the lurking dangers of entitlements.  I highly recommend his fantastic "Free to Choose" series of PBS videos where his "Welfare of Entitlements" warning becomes his principle concern for the future of the Untied States 25 years ago --- http://www.ideachannel.com/FreeToChoose.htm 

Ten Trillion and Counting (a full-length PBS Frontline video) --- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/view/
All of the federal government's efforts to stem the tide of the financial meltdown have added hundreds of billions of dollars to an already staggering national debt, a sum that is expected to double over the next 10 years to more than $23 trillion. In Ten Trillion and Counting, FRONTLINE traces the politics behind this mounting debt and investigates what some say is a looming crisis that makes the current financial situation pale in comparison.

No sugar coating from this Wharton professor
"National Retirement Expert: 75 needs to be the new 62," by Carla Fried, CBS Moneywatch, June 2010 ---
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retirement-planning/blog/retirement-beat/national-retirement-expert-75-needs-to-be-the-new-62/644/

Olivia Mitchell is one of the nation’s foremost retirement experts, having spent an impressive career studying the evolving nature of retirement planning issues for individuals, corporations and government. The short version of Mitchell’s resume is that she is a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and executive director of the Pension Research Council. I’ll let you peruse Mitchell’s full 23-page CV at your own leisure.

So I was interested to read a recent PRC paper Mitchell penned that digs into some of the most pressing retirement security issues in the wake of the financial crisis.

Sugarcoating is not her way.

My message is straightforward and, I fear, not particularly upbeat: current and future generations of managers and employees will not be able to use the ‘old fashioned’ model of provisioning for retirement. Instead, the 21st century economy will require an entirely new perspective on retirement risk management.

From there Mitchell ticks off the big risks weighing on the current model: We’re not saving enough, we don’t have a clue how to deal with longevity risk — in fact, we don’t have a clue about basic financial concepts — traditional pensions are in major trouble, the PBGC is not exactly rock solid, and then there’s the little issue of Social Security, a topic near and dear to her heart, having served on the 2001 bipartisan presidential Commission to Strengthen Social Security

The Retirement Fix

Mitchell concludes the report with a perfectly serviceable call to action:

Part of the task is to enhance financial literacy and political responsibility.  We will also need to save more, invest smarter, and insure better against longevity. Another task will be to develop new products which can be used to hedge longevity and better protect against very long term risks including inflation.

What struck me in her report was this final thought:

But when all is said and done, most of us will simply have to work longer to preserve some flexibility against shocks in the long run.

And there it is: one of the nation’s foremost retirement thinkers concludes that at the end of the day, it’s working longer that is going to be our ticket out of any shortfalls and “shocks.”

Retire Early….at 75

Mitchell points out that working two to four more years can go a long way to closing a retirement funding gap. But that’s directed at Baby Boomers. Given ever-expanding longevity forecasts for younger generations she has this bit of advice for Gen X and Gen Y:

For the younger generation, age 75 might be a good target for early retirement, and later if possible!

Confirmation, from one of the country’s leading retirement thinkers, that 75 may indeed be the new 55.

Jensen Comment
At the moment we're between a rock and a hard place apart from each person's private problem concerning retirement. The global problem is that extending retirement age to 75 contributes significantly to decline of employment opportunities for younger people versus the need to extend retirement age to 75 to save the U.S. Social Security and Medicare entitlement programs.

Video on IOUSA Bipartisan Solutions to Saving the USA

If you missed Sunday afternoon CNN’s two-hour IOUSA Solutions broadcast, you can watch a 30-minute version at
http://www.pgpf.org/newsroom/press/IOUSA-Solutions-Premiers-on-CNN/   (Scroll Down a bit)
Note that great efforts were made to keep this a bipartisan panel along with the occasional video clips of President Obama discussing the debt crisis. The problem is a build up over spending for most of our nation’s history, It landed at the feet of President Obama, but he’s certainly not the cause nor is his the recent expansion of health care coverage the real cause.

One take home from the CNN show was that over 60% of the booked National Debt increases are funded off shore (largely in Asia and the Middle East).
This going to greatly constrain the global influence and economic choices of the United States.

By 2016 the interest payments on the National Debt will be the biggest single item in the Federal Budget, more than national defense or social security. And an enormous portion of this interest cash flow will be flowing to foreign nations that may begin to put all sorts of strings on their decisions  to roll over funding our National Debt.

The unbooked entitlement obligations that are not part of the National Debt are over $60 trillion and exploding exponentially. The Medicare D entitlements to retirees like me added over $8 trillion of entitlements under the Bush Presidency.

Most of the problems are solvable except for the Number 1 entitlements problem --- Medicare.
Drastic measures must be taken to keep Medicare sustainable.

I thought the show was pretty balanced from a bipartisan standpoint and from the standpoint of possible solutions.

Many of the possible “solutions” are really too small to really make a dent in the problem. For example, medical costs can be reduced by one of my favorite solutions of limiting (like they do in Texas) punitive damage recoveries in malpractice lawsuits. However, the cost savings are a mere drop in the bucket. Another drop in the bucket will be the achievable increased savings from decreasing medical and disability-claim frauds. These are important solutions, but they are not solutions that will save the USA.

The big possible solutions to save the USA are as follows (you and I won’t particularly like these solutions):

• Extend retirement age significantly (75 years maybe?).
  When Social Security was enacted, life expectancy was slightly over 65 years of age.
  Now it is well over 75 years of age.
   

• Hit Medicare retirees like me with higher fees for physicians, hospital services, and Medicare D drug payments.
  Perhaps this should be on a scale based upon wealth/income levels such that people, like me, who can afford to pay more must pay more.
   

• Greatly curb the biggest cost of Medicare --- keeping dying people alive in expensive hospitals for a few weeks or maybe even a few months. Sometimes dying people must be kept alive in ICU units costing over $10,000 per day when there is no hope of recovery. There was not any hint of suggesting euthanasia as an alternative. But dying people can be allowed to die more naturally and pain free.
  http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5737437n&tag=mncol;lst;3
  (wait for the commercials to play out)
   

• Limit the National Debt is some way. It’s now more common in Europe to limit national debt to 60% of GDP. Various other means of constraining our National Debt were discussed in the CNN longer version of the IOUSA Solutions video.

Watch for the other possible solutions in the 30-minute summary video ---
http://www.pgpf.org/newsroom/press/IOUSA-Solutions-Premiers-on-CNN/
(Scroll Down a bit)

Spending Deficits and Unfunded Entitlements
There are two economic disasters facing the United States. One is the problem of annual spending deficits now approaching trillions of dollars. The far worse problem, however, is unfunded entitlements now approaching $100 trillion. David Walker's mission in life is to warn us about both time bombs.

David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office, appeared on the program of the 2009 American Accounting Association Annual Meetings in New York City. He as also appeared previously in those annual meetings.

"Warning: The Deficits Are Coming! The former head of the Government Accountability Office is on a crusade to alert taxpayers to their true obligations," by John Fund, The Wall Street Journal, September 4, 2009 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574392620693542630.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

David Walker sounds like a modern-day Paul Revere as he warns about the country's perilous future. "We suffer from a fiscal cancer," he tells a meeting of the National Taxpayers Union, the nation's oldest anti-tax lobby. "Our off balance sheet obligations associated with Social Security and Medicare put us in a $56 trillion financial hole—and that's before the recession was officially declared last year. America now owes more than Americans are worth—and the gap is growing!"

His audience sits in rapt attention. A few years ago these antitax activists would have been polite but a tad restless listening to the former head of the Government Accountability Office, the nation's auditor-in-chief. Higher taxes is what hikes their blood pressure the most, but the profligate spending of the Bush and Obama administrations has put them in a mood to listen to this green-eyeshade Cassandra. "He's so unlike most politicians," says Sharron Angle, a former state legislator from Nevada, "his message is clear, detailed and with no varnish."

Mr. Walker, a 57-year-old accountant, didn't set out to be a fiscal truth-teller. He rose to be a partner and global managing director of Arthur Anderson, before being named assistant secretary of labor for pensions and benefits during the Reagan administration. Under the first President Bush, he served as a trustee for Social Security and Medicare, an experience that convinced him both programs are looming train wrecks that could bankrupt the country. In 1998 he was appointed by President Bill Clinton to head the GAO, where he spent the next decade issuing reports trying to stem waste, fraud and abuse in government.

Despite many successes, he was able to make only limited progress in reforming Washington's tangled bookkeeping. When he arrived he was told the Pentagon was nearly a decade away from having a clean audit, or clear evidence that its financial statements were accurate. When he left in 2008, he was told the Pentagon was still a decade away from that goal. "If the federal government was a private corporation, its stock would plummet and shareholders would bring in new management and directors," he said as he retired from the GAO.

Although he found the work fulfilling, Mr. Walker said he decided to leave last year with a third of his 15-year term left because "there are practical limits on what one can—and cannot—do in that job." He became president and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a group seeking to educate the public and policy makers on the need for fiscal prudence. Although it accepts private donations, its own future is secure given that Mr. Peterson, a former head of the Blackstone private equity firm and secretary of commerce under Richard Nixon, has endowed it with a $1 billion gift.

We met to hash over current events in his tastefully appointed office just off of New York's Fifth Avenue. Mr. Walker, a lean man with an unflappable demeanor, welcomed me with the observation that he's never been in more demand as a speaker "but it's only because everyone is so worried for our future."

His group calls itself strictly nonpartisan and nonideological, and that seems to limit how tough and specific it can be. Last year, it released a documentary "I.O.U.S.A.," that followed Mr. Walker as he toured the country on his fiscal "wake up" tour. The solutions the film proposes for the debt crisis are either glib or gray: The country should save more, reduce oil consumption, hold politicians accountable and get more value from health-care spending.

But in its diagnosis of the problem the film scores a bull's-eye. Among the fiscal hawks featured in the film is Rep. Ron Paul, who memorably tells Alan Greenspan that if doctors had the same success rate in meeting his goals as the Fed has had, patients would be dead all over America.

Mr. Walker's own speeches are vivid and clear. "We have four deficits: a budget deficit, a savings deficit, a value-of-the-dollar deficit and a leadership deficit," he tells one group. "We are treating the symptoms of those deficits, but not the disease."

Mr. Walker identifies the disease as having a basic cause: "Washington is totally out of touch and out of control," he sighs. "There is political courage there, but there is far more political careerism and people dodging real solutions." He identifies entrenched incumbency as a real obstacle to change. "Members of Congress ensure they have gerrymandered seats where they pick the voters rather than the voters picking them and then they pass out money to special interests who then make sure they have so much money that no one can easily challenge them," he laments. He believes gerrymandering should be curbed and term limits imposed if for no other reason than to inject some new blood into the system. On campaign finance, he supports a narrow constitutional amendment that would bar congressional candidates from accepting contributions from people who can't vote for them: "If people can't vote in a district not their own, should we allow them to spend unlimited money on behalf of someone across the country?"

Recognizing those reforms aren't "imminent," Mr. Walker wants Congress to create a "fiscal future commission" that would hold hearings all over America to move towards a consensus on reform. It would then present Congress with a "grand bargain" on entitlement and budget-control reforms. Its recommendations would be guaranteed a vote in Congress and be subject to only limited amendments. I note that critics have called such a commission an end-run around the normal legislative process. He demurred, saying that Congress would still have to approve any recommendations in an up-or-down vote—much like the successful base-closing commission created by GOP Rep. Dick Armey in the 1980s.

What kind of reforms would Mr. Walker hope the commission would endorse? He suggests giving presidents the power to make line-item cuts in budgets that would then require a majority vote in Congress to override. He would also want private-sector accounting standards extended to pensions, health programs and environmental costs. "Social Security reform is a layup, much easier than Medicare," he told me. He believes gradual increases in the retirement age, a modest change in cost-of-living payments and raising the cap on income subject to payroll taxes would solve its long-term problems.

Medicare is a much bigger challenge, exacerbated by the addition of a drug entitlement component in 2003, pushed through a Republican Congress by the Bush administration. "The true costs of that were hidden from both Congress and the people," Mr. Walker says sternly. "The real liability is some $8 trillion."

That brings us to the issue of taxes. Wouldn't any "grand bargain" involve significant tax increases that would only hurt the ability of the economy to grow? "Taxes are going up, for reasons of math, demographics and the fact that elements of the population that want more government are more politically active," he insists. "The key will be to have tax reform that simplifies the system and keeps marginal rates as low as possible. The longer people resist addressing both sides of the fiscal equation the deeper the hole will get."

I steer towards the fiscal direction of the Obama administration. He says his stimulus bill was sold as something it wasn't: "A number of people had agendas other than stimulus, and they shaped the package."

As for health care, Mr. Walker says he had hopes for comprehensive health-care reform earlier this year and met with most of the major players to fashion a compromise. "President Obama got the sequence wrong by advocating expanding coverage before we've proven our ability to control costs," he says. "If we don't get our fiscal house in order, but create new obligations we'll have a Thelma and Louise moment where we go over the cliff." Mr. Walker's preferred solution is a plan that combines universal coverage for all Americans with an overall limit on the federal government's annual health expenditures. His description reminds me of the unicorn—a marvelous creature we all wish existed but is not likely to ever be seen on this earth.

As I prepare to go, Mr. Walker returns to the theme of economic education. Poor schools often produce young people with few tools to help them realize the extent of the fiscal trap their generation is going to fall into.

One way the Peterson Foundation wants to change that is to bring big numbers down to earth so people can comprehend them. "Our $56 trillion in unfunded obligations amount to $483,000 per household. That's 10 times the median household income—so it's as if everyone had a second or third mortgage on a house equal to 10 times their income but no house they can lay claim to." As for this year's likely deficit of $1.8 trillion, Mr. Walker suggests its size be conveyed thusly: "A deficit that large is $3.4 million a minute, $200 million an hour, $5 billion a day," he says. That does indeed put things into perspective.

Despite an occasional detour into support for government intervention, Mr. Walker remains the Jeffersonian he grew up as in his native Virginia. "I view the Constitution with deep respect," he told me. "My ancestors and those of my wife fought and died in the Revolution, and I care a lot about returning us to the principles of the Founding Fathers."

He notes that today the role of the federal government has grown such that last year less than 40% of it related to the key roles the Founders envisioned for it: defense, foreign policy, the courts and other basic functions. "What happened to the Founders' intent that all roles not expressly reserved to the federal government belong to the states, and ultimately the people?" he asks. "I'm pleased the recent town halls show people are waking up and realizing it's time to pay attention to first principles."

With that we parted, as he had to get back to work. Today's Paul Revere is hard at work on a book due out in January from Random House that will be called, "Come Back America."

From Bob Jensen's threads on entitlements --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Entitlements.htm

The US government is on a “burning platform” of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon.
David M. Walker, Former Chief Accountant of the United States --- http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2009/0218.html
Also see his dire warnings on CBS Sixty Minutes on the unbooked national debt for entitlements (See below)

IOUSA (the most frightening movie in American history) --- (see a 30-minute version of the documentary at www.iousathemovie.com ).
A Must Read for All Americans
The most important article for the world to read now is the following interview with a former Andersen Partner and former Chief Accountant of the United States:
"Debt Crusader David Walker sounds the alarm for America's financial future," Journal of Accountancy, March 2009 --- http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2009/Mar/DebtCrusader.htm 

David Walker is a man on a mission. As U.S. comptroller general, he used the bully pulpit to fuel a campaign of town hall meetings highlighting the country’s ballooning federal deficit. The Fiscal Wake-Up Tour and the publicity it generated begat the documentary I.O.U.S.A. Walker hopes the film will do for fiscal irresponsibility what Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth did for global warming—mobilize new citizen activists and pressure politicians to act.

A year ago, Walker stepped away from the five-plus remaining years on his term as comptroller general and head of the Government Accountability Office. He had been recruited by billionaire Pete Peterson, a co-founder of the private- equity fund The Blackstone Group, to become president and CEO of Peterson’s foundation. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a nonprofit to which Peterson has pledged $1 billion, focuses on issues such as the deficit, savings levels, entitlement benefits, health care costs, and the nation’s tax system.

Walker talked with the JofA recently about the deficit and the financial crisis. What follow are excerpts from that conversation.

JofA: What did you hope to accomplish when you set out on your speaking tour and got involved with the documentary I.O.U.S.A., and what progress has been made on those goals?

Walker: I have been to over 42 states, giving speeches, participating in town hall meetings, meeting with business community leaders, local television and radio stations, and editorial boards with the objective of trying to state the facts and speak the truth about the deteriorating financial condition of the United States government and the need for us to start making some tough choices on budget controls, tax policy, entitlement reform and spending constraints. And the good news is that people get it. The American people are a lot smarter than many people give them credit for—especially elected officials

Well, a lot has happened since we started the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour. Two significant events would be the 60 Minutes piece, which ran twice in 2007, and that led to the commercial documentary I.O.U.S.A. (see a 30-minute version of the documentary at www.iousathemovie.com ). So there’s a lot more visibility on our issue, and I think that’s encouraging. The other thing that has happened is the recent market meltdown and bailouts of some very venerable institutions in the financial services industry have served to bring things home to America. The concept of “too big to fail” is just not reality anymore, and when you take on too much debt and you don’t have adequate cash flow, some very bad things can happen.

Here’s the key. The factors that led to the mortgage-based subprime crisis exist for the federal government’s finances. Therefore, we must take steps to avoid a super subprime crisis, which frankly would have much more disastrous effects not only domestically but around the world.

JofA:
How does the economic crisis affect your message and the outlook for the kind of wide-scale changes you think need to be made?

Walker:
What’s critical is that we take advantage of the teachable moment associated with the market meltdown and the failure of some of the most prominent financial institutions in the country to help the American people know that nobody can live beyond his means forever. And that goes for government, too.

We have a new president, and therefore we have an opportunity to press the reset button, and I hope President Obama will do two things: That he will assure Americans that he will do what it takes to turn the economy around. I think it is critically important that he also focus on the future and be able to put a mechanism in place like a fiscal future commission so that once we turn the corner on the economy, we have a set of recommendations Congress and the president would be able to consider about budget controls, tax reform, entitlement reform—things that are clear and compelling that we need to act on.

Individuals need to understand that the government has overpromised and under-delivered for far too long. It is going to have to engage in some dramatic and fundamental reform of existing entitlement programs, spending policies and tax policies. The government will be there to provide a safety net through Social Security, a foundation of retirement security, and it will be there to help those that are in need. In general, most individuals are going to have to assume more responsibility for their own financial future, and the earlier they understand that the better off they are going to be. They need to have a financial plan, a budget, make prudent use of debt, save, invest their savings for specified purposes and, very importantly, preserve their savings for the intended purpose, including retirement income.

I believe the government policies are going to have to encourage people to work longer by increasing the eligibility ages for many government programs. So if people want to retire at an earlier age, they are going to have to plan, save, invest and preserve those savings for retirement purposes.

JofA:
You’ve called the current U.S. health care system unsustainable. How can the system be fixed without negatively affecting the care Americans need?

Walker:
Our current health care system is not really a system. It’s an amalgamation of a bunch of different things that have occurred over the years, and it’s unacceptable and unsustainable. We spend twice per capita what any other country on the Earth does. We have the highest uninsured population of any industrialized nation. We have below average health care outcomes. So the value of the equation just does not compute.

We are going to need to do two things on health care. We are going to need to take some steps quickly to reduce the rate of increase in health care cost. We are also going to have to better target taxpayer subsidies and tax preferences for health care.

We are also going to end up needing to move toward trying to achieve comprehensive health care reform that accomplishes four key goals. First: achieve universal coverage for basic and essential health care—based on broad-based societal needs, not unlimited individual wants—that’s affordable and sustainable over time and that avoids taxpayer-funded heroic measures. Secondly, the federal government has to have a budget for health care. We are the only nation on Earth dumb enough to write a blank check for health care. It could bankrupt the country. We have to have constraints. Thirdly, we need national evidence-based practice standards for the practice of medicine and for the issuance of prescription drugs to improve consistency, enhance quality, reduce costs and dramatically reduce litigation risks. And last, but certainly not least, we have to require personal responsibility and accountability for our own health and wellness in a whole range of areas including obesity.

JofA:
What drives you?

Walker: My family has been in this country since the 1680s, and I have ancestors who fought and died in the American Revolution. So I care very deeply about this country, and I am a big history buff. I believe you need to study history in order to learn from it in order not to make some of the same mistakes that others have made in the past.

Secondly, I am only the second person in my direct Walker line to graduate from college. My dad was the first. Therefore, I am somewhat of an example of what someone can accomplish in this great country if you get an education, if you have a positive attitude, if you work hard, if you have good morals and ethical values.

My personal mission in life is to be able to make a difference, to try and make a difference in the lives of others, to try and help make sure our country stays strong, that the American dream stays alive, and that the future will be better for my children and my grandchildren.

Links to David Walkers videos, including his famous CBS Sixty Minutes bell ringer that is far more frightening and sobering than anything Rush Limbaugh is screaming about. You never, ever hear Keith Olbermann, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid so much as whisper the name of David Walker (See below).

 

Question
What former Andersen partner, who watched the Andersen accounting firm implode alongside its client Enron, has been traveling for years around the United States warning that the United States economy will implode unless we totally come to our senses?
Hints:
David Walker is was the top accountant, Controller General, of the United States Government.
He was a featured plenary speaker a few years back at an annual meeting of the American Accounting Association.
See his "State of the Profession of Accountancy" piece in the October 2005 edition of the Journal of Accountancy.
Also see http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/jul2006/walker.htm

Videos About Off-Balance-Sheet Financing to an Unimaginable Degree
Truth in Accounting or Lack Thereof in the Federal Government (Former Congressman Chocola) --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWTCnMioaY0 
Part 2 (unfunded liabilities of $100 trillion plus) --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Edia5pBJxE
Part 3 (this is a non-partisan problem being ignored in election promises) --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG5WFGEIU0E

Watch the Video of the non-sustainability of the U.S. economy (CBS Sixty Minutes TV Show Video) ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs 
Also see "US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy" in the CBS interview with David Walker --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
Also at Dirty Little Secret About Universal Health Care (David Walker) --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8

 

"The U.S. Isn't as Free as It Used to Be:  Canada now boasts North America's freest economy," by Terry Miller, The Wall Street Journal, January 19, 2010 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575011684172064228.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

The United States is losing ground to its major competitors in the global marketplace, according to the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom released today by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. This year, of the world's 20 largest economies, the U.S. suffered the largest drop in overall economic freedom. Its score declined to 78 from 80.7 on the 0 to 100 Index scale.

The U.S. lost ground on many fronts. Scores declined in seven of the 10 categories of economic freedom. Losses were particularly significant in the areas of financial and monetary freedom and property rights. Driving it all were the federal government's interventionist responses to the financial and economic crises of the last two years, which have included politically influenced regulatory changes, protectionist trade restrictions, massive stimulus spending and bailouts of financial and automotive firms deemed "too big to fail." These policies have resulted in job losses, discouraged entrepreneurship, and saddled America with unprecedented government deficits.

In the world-wide rankings of economic freedom, the U.S. fell to eighth from sixth place. Canada now ranks higher and boasts North America's freest economy. More worrisome, for the first time in the Index's 16-year history, the U.S. has fallen out of the elite group of countries identified as "economically free" by the objective measures of the Index. Four Asia-Pacific economies now sit atop the global rankings. Hong Kong stands in first place for the 16th consecutive year, followed by Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Every region of the world maintains at least one country among those deemed "free" or "mostly free" by the Index.

Some countries, notably Britain and China, have followed America's poor example and curtailed economic freedom. But many others—such as Poland, South Korea, Mexico, Japan, Germany and even France—have maintained or expanded economic freedom despite the global crisis. Ignoring the pressures of recession, these enlightened nations have continued to liberalize their economies, granting their entrepreneurs and consumers greater freedom. As a result, the average Index score dropped only 0.1 point in 2010. Eighty-one countries out of the 179 ranked recorded higher scores than in 2009.

These trends are important because study after study shows a strong correlation between economic freedom and prosperity. Citizens of economically freer countries enjoy much higher per-capita incomes on average than those who live in less free economies. Economic freedom also has positive impacts on overall quality of life, political and social conditions, and even on protection of the environment. Perhaps of most significance in these hard times, Index data indicate that freer economies do a much better job of reducing poverty than more highly

The public sector can't match the vitality of the private sector in promoting growth. Governments, even those that promise change, are primarily agents of the status quo. They tend to reflect the views and needs of those already holding political or economic power. Even democratic nations have their vested interests. Real change, however, can happen when those outside the mainstream have the freedom to try new things: new production processes, new technologies and new methods of organizing workers and capital.

It is common these days to dismiss as simpletons or ideologues those who speak in favor of the free market or capitalism. An honest assessment shows otherwise. Economic freedom, as represented in the Index of Economic Freedom, is a philosophy that rejects economic dogma, championing instead the diversity that follows when entrepreneurs are free to choose their own paths to prosperity.

The abiding lesson of the last few years is that the battle for liberty requires perpetual vigilance. President Obama professes desire to foster prosperity, environmental protection, poverty reduction and better health care. How ironic, then, that his economic proposals so consistently ignore or even undermine the one system—free enterprise capitalism—that has proven best able to achieve those goals.

Now America's once high-flying economy is barely crawling forward. Americans deserve better, and they can do better—as soon as they reverse course and start regaining the economic freedom that made America the most prosperous country in the world.

Mr. Miller is director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at the Heritage Foundation. He is co-editor, with Kim R. Holmes, of the "2010 Index of Economic Freedom" (471 pages, $24.95), available at heritage.org/index.

"Entitlement Rip Off," by John Stossel, Townhall, March 14, 2010 ---
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2010/03/24/entitlement_rip-off

Bernie Madoff took money from people who thought he'd invested it, gave some to others who thought it was a partial return on their earlier investments and kept much for himself. That's called a Ponzi scheme, and his $50 billion fraud was called the biggest ever. But it wasn't the biggest. Social Security and Medicare are much bigger ones.

These are trillion-dollar scams. Medicare has a $36 trillion unfunded liability. Social Security's is $8 trillion. There's no money to keep those promises.

But Congress isn't investigating this scam. Congress runs it. That FICA money you thought government had saved for your retirement is gone. There's nothing left but IOUs backed by nothing. Your money was spent not only on current retirees but on wars, welfare, corporate bailouts, earmarks and all the other stuff Congress wants. For years, this was possible because the FICA tax brought in surpluses that allowed government to pay retirees more than they contributed and still help buy those other things.

Those days are gone. The huge group of baby boomers has started to retire, and that means trouble. In 2008, for the first time, Medicare paid out more than it took in.

So instead of filling the government's coffers and hiding the real size of the budget deficit, the entitlement programs have now begun to drain the treasury. Part of the "problem" is that we live longer. When Social Security started, most people didn't live to 65. Now we average 78.

This means that baby boomers like me who expect to collect Social Security and Medicare are basically stealing from children.

Think of the burden: When I was a kid, there were five workers for every retired person. Now, there are only three. And soon there will only be two young workers to fund each baby boomer's Social Security and Medicare checks.

When I explore this alarming matter on my Fox Business New show tomorrow night, Veronique de Rugy, an economist at the Mercatus Center, will point out that Social and Medicare right now consume almost half the federal budget. In coming years, if nothing changes, they will swallow nearly the whole thing. But since Congress will want to spend money on all the other things it now buys -- not to mention a new medical entitlement -- the government will either have to raise taxes to stratospheric heights, borrow like crazy or inflate the dollar. Whichever it chooses, we'll have serious problems.

Higher taxes are not a good solution because taxation suppresses economic activity by transferring capital to politicians. Yet our only hope is a sustained economic boom.

As Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., points out: "You literally cannot tax your way out of this problem. It's not mathematically possible. ... You wipe out the middle class."

Well, how about borrowing? That might mean raising interest rates, which, again, would depress economic activity. Even then, lenders such as China may soon be too nervous to lend Uncle Sam more money. Moody's recently announced it might downgrade America's credit rating.

The most likely outcome is that the Fed will print more money, inflating the currency, so that the creditors are paid with less-valuable dollars. Our purchasing power will disappear.

The architects of the welfare state sure have left us a big mess. Yet hardly anyone talks about entitlements, except to add new ones.

De Rugy asks: Why can't people take care of their own retirement by investing the money government now takes? Had we done this all along, the looming problem would have been averted. Instead, "We're about to witness the biggest, most massive transfer of wealth from the relatively young and poor people of society to the relatively old and wealthy people in society."

Our forefathers would be appalled. After the American Revolution, when the new government was debating how to pay its bills, George Washington said this about a national debt: "We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity ... the burden we ourselves ought to bear." Well, we sure are dumping my generation's debt onto posterity. I wish we had more politicians like George Washington.

"The Real Pending Crisis: Public Pensions," by Bruce Bialosky, Townhall, November 2, 2009 ---
http://townhall.com/columnists/BruceBialosky/2009/11/02/the_real_pending_crisis_public_pensions 

President Obama often states that the federal budget cannot be balanced without health insurance reform. Even if that were true, the real crisis that exists already and will only worsen over time comes from the horrendous obligations taken on by state and local governments for public employee pension plans.

Keith Richman caught on to this problem while a California Assemblyman. He has formed the non-profit California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility to educate elected officials and the public on the looming budget disaster. Fortunately, he is not the only one touting this pending mess. Ron Seeling, the Chief Actuary for CalPERS (the California public employees’ retirement program), has stated the plan is unsustainable. CalPERS represents state employees and 1,500 local governmental entities.

Some would say the pension problem starts with the unionization of public employees. In California, the major catalyst was SB400, signed by Gray Davis in his first year in office, 1999. The bill lowered retirement age for public safety employees to 50 years old and to non-public safety employees to 55 years old. We are in an era when people are living on average until around 80 years old.

The law gives the employee pension benefits of 3.0% of their final income for each year of service. It also made the 3.0% amount retroactive to the beginning of their employment period. That means if you work 20 years you receive a pension benefit equal to 60% of your final income. The problem was compounded by how they calculated the income on which to base the pension.

Everything including the kitchen sink adds to the final income level. Things such as auto allowance and bonuses boost the final number. If the employee did not use vacation pay or holiday pay for the prior 10 years that adds to the base salary to determine the income. Understanding that in most private sector jobs when you do not use your vacation, you lose your vacation, the ability to accumulate vacation time opens up the system for vast manipulation. Peter Nowicki, the Moraga Orinda fire chief, retired at age 50. His final salary was a whopping $185,000, but small compared to his annual pension benefit of $241,000. Making that matter worse, Nowicki was hired as a consultant to the fire department for an additional $176,000 per year -- on top of his retirement benefit.

This is not an isolated case. In Los Angeles County there are over 3,000 people receiving greater than $100,000 per year in pension benefits. In San Francisco, it was found that 25% of employees’ income spiked up over 10% in the final year of their work. The San Francisco grand jury found that amount cost the city $132 million.

Some would argue why not game the system? Let’s say you start working for the government when you are 30 years old and work for 25 years. Your final income with all the fancy calculations ends up at $120,000. That means you would receive $90,000 plus full health care benefits. You can either live on that very nice retirement or you are free to get another position. After all, being 55 years old, you are still in your prime earnings years. Where in the private sector are there comparative opportunities?

These kinds of retirement ages and benefits are why the estimated unfunded liability is soaring. California has estimated unfunded pension and health care liabilities ranging from $100 to $300 billion. The school systems operate under their separate pension program – CalSTRS. The Los Angeles Unified School System estimate for unfunded retiree benefits comes in at about $10 billion. That is one school system, be it the largest, in one state. Estimates show that the LAUSD will soon carve out 30% of its budget for combined retiree health and pension benefits.

California may be the worst example, but not the only example of deplorable financial planning by governmental entities. The original justification for rich benefits for public employees centered on lower salaries, but that no longer rings true. A recent analysis by the U.S. Bureau of Economics shows that federal employees receive compensation that is double the average of the private sector. Other studies have shown state and government employees to be receiving like levels of compensation.

The genesis of this pending disaster comes from the right of public employees to unionize. This was not always so. The first opportunity occurred in 1958 in New York City under Mayor Robert Wagner. President Kennedy instituted the right for federal employees to unionize in 1962. Since then the right for public employees to unionize has spread, but is not universal. States that have more restrictive laws have blocked public employee unions and thus have not suffered the consequences.

In states like California, the public employee unions fund huge political campaigns. To most observers, the unions have a stranglehold on the state legislature, Los Angeles and San Francisco city governments, and most if not all of the school districts in the state. When the employees control the employers, the results are uncontrollable obligations.

A recent report stated that children born today will live an average life span of 100 years. With public employees retiring at 50 or 55 years of age, it doesn’t take a deep thinker to extrapolate that these retirement benefit programs are unsustainable.

Private sector employees now receive less annual income than their public counterparts. Private sector employees will have to work well into their seventies to pay for these public sector employees’ retirement benefits which far exceed what the private sector offers. The public will, little by little, become aware of this upside-down arrangement. Heroes like Keith Richman are sacrificing to make the public aware of this coming debacle. Our elected officials need to heed his warnings.

"The Bankrupting of America:  We have a ruinous collaboration of elected officials and unionized public workers," by Mortimer Zuckerman, The Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2010 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250610059801620.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

The American public feels it is drowning in red ink. It is dismayed and even outraged at the burgeoning national deficits, unbalanced state and local budgets, and accounting that often masks the extent of indebtedness. There is a mounting sense that taxpayers are being taken for an expensive ride by public-sector unions. The extraordinary benefits the unions have secured for their members are going to be harder and harder to pay.

The political backlash has energized the tea party activists, put incumbents at risk in both parties, and already elected fiscal conservatives such as Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. Over the next fiscal year, the states are looking at deficits approaching hundreds of billions of dollars. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, estimates that this coming year alone states will face an aggregate shortfall of $180 billion. In some states the budget gap is more than 30%.

How did we get into such a mess? States have always had to cope with volatility in the size and composition of their populations. Now we have shrinking tax bases caused by recession and extra costs imposed on states to pay for Medicaid in the federal health-care program. The straw (well, more like an iron beam) that breaks the camel's back is the unfunded portions of state pension plans, health care and other retirement benefits promised to public-sector employees. And federal government assistance to states is falling—down by roughly half in the next fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

It is galling for private-sector workers to see so many public-sector workers thriving because of the power their unions exercise. Take California. Investigative journalist Steve Malanga points out in the City Journal that California's schoolteachers are the nation's highest paid; its prison guards can make six-figure salaries; many state workers retire at 55 with pensions that are higher than the base pay they got most of their working lives.

All this when California endures an unemployment rate steeper than the nation's. It will get worse. There's an exodus of firms that want to escape California's high taxes, stifling regulations, and recurring budget crises. When Cisco CEO John Chambers says he will not build any more facilities in California you know the state is in trouble.

The business community and a growing portion of the public now understand the dynamics that discriminate against the private sector. Public unions organize voting campaigns for politicians who, on election, repay their benefactors by approving salaries and benefits for the public sector, irrespective of whether they are sustainable. And what is happening in California is happening in slower motion in the rest of the country. It's no doubt one of the reasons the Pew Research Center this year reported that support for labor unions generally has plummeted "amid growing public skepticism about unions' power and purpose."

In New York, public-service employees have received gold-plated perks for much of the 20th century, especially generous health-insurance benefits. Indeed, where once salaries were lower in the public sector, the salary gaps in the public and private sectors have disappeared or even reversed.

A Citizens Budget Commission report in 2005 showed that for most job categories in the greater New York City region, public-sector workers received higher hourly wages than private-sector workers. And according to a 2009 survey by the same group, this doesn't even count the money that New York City pays in full premiums for comprehensive health-insurance policies for workers and their families. Only 8% of workers in private firms enjoy that subsidy. In virtually all cases, the city also pays the full health-care premium costs for retirees and their spouses. And city pensions are "defined benefit" plans, which are more expensive since they guarantee specific benefits on retirement.

By contrast, private-sector workers in the survey were mostly in "defined contribution" plans, which means that, unlike their cushioned brethren in the public sector, they do not have a predetermined benefit at retirement. If New York City were to require its current workers to pay contributions toward health insurance equal to the amounts paid by the employees of local private-sector firms, the taxpayer savings would be $628 million a year. In New Jersey, Gov. Christie says government employee health benefits are 41% more expensive than those of the average Fortune 500 company.

What we suffer is a ruinously expensive collaboration between elected officials and unionized state and local workers, purchased with taxpayer money. "Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."

No wonder the Service Employees International Union has become the nation's fastest-growing union: It represents government and health-care workers. Half of its 700,000 California members are government employees. More and more, it wins not on the picket line but at the negotiating table, where it backs up traditional strong-arming with political power. It spends vast amounts of money on initiatives that keep the government growing and the gravy flowing.

The state's teachers unions operate in a similar fashion—with the result that California's various municipalities, especially Los Angeles, face budget shortfalls in the hundreds of millions of dollars. California can no longer rely on a strong economy to support this munificence. Its unemployment rate of 12.5% runs several points higher than the national rate and its high-tech companies are choosing to expand elsewhere. Why stay in a state with such higher taxes and a cumbersome regulatory environment?

California is a horrible warning of how dreams can turn to dust. In most states, politicians face a contracting local economy and shortfalls in tax receipts. Naturally, they look to cut expenses but run into obstruction from politically powerful unions that represent state and local government employees, teachers and health-care workers who have themselves caused pension and health-care insurance costs to soar. It is not an accident that in framing the national stimulus program in 2009 Congress directed a stunning $275 billion of the $787 billion as grants to the states to support public-service employees in health care, education, etc.

The lopsided subsidies for pension and health costs are a large part of the fiscal crises at the state and local levels. The subsequent squeeze on education and infrastructure investment is undermining the very programs that have made it possible for our economy to grow.

Between New York and California, the projected deficits run about $40 billion—and that doesn't account for projected billions of dollars in the operating deficits in the states' mass transit systems or the multibillion-dollar unfunded liability in many of the state pension plans. New York would be badly hit because it is on the verge of being deprived of tax revenues by Washington's increased regulations on the financial industry, especially the hugely profitable, multitrillion-dollar market in derivatives—an industry that is critical to the economy of New York state and the country.

City government was developed to serve its citizens. Today the citizenry is working in large part to serve the government. It is always hard to shrink government spending. It is particularly difficult when public-sector unions have such a unique lever of pressure.

We have to escape this cycle or it will crush us. One way is to take labor negotiations out of the hands of vulnerable legislators and assign them to independent commissions. They would have a better shot at achieving a fair balance between appropriate salary increases and the revenues and services of local municipalities. The electorate won't swallow any more red ink.

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.

Bob Jensen's threads on health care are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Health.htm
 

"The Worst Bill Ever:   Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all," The Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2009 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.

*** All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

EGADs! Pending Collapse of the Overspending U.S. Economy to Be Financed With Hot Air
President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed budget rules that would allow Congress to borrow tens of billions of dollars and put the nation deeper in debt to jump-start the administration's emerging health care overhaul. The "pay-as-you-go" budget formula plan is significantly weaker than a proposal Obama issued with little fanfare last month. It would carve out about $2.5 trillion worth of exemptions for Obama's priorities over the next decade. His health care reform plan also would get a green light to run big deficits in its early years. But over a decade, Congress would have to come up with money to cover those early year deficits. Obama's latest proposal for addressing deficits urges Congress to pass a law requiring lawmakers to pay for new spending programs and tax cuts without further adding to exploding deficits projected to total about $10 trillion over the next decade.
Andrew Taylor, "Obama: It's OK to borrow to pay for health care:  Obama-proposed budget rules allow deficits to swell to pay for health care plan," Yahoo News, June 8, 2009 ---
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-Its-OK-to-borrow-to-pay-apf-15483626.html?.v=13
Jensen Comment
The frightening part of this is that the added $10 trillion does not include the entitlements obligations of Obama's Universal Health Plan. That will add up to another $100 trillion to the current $100 trillion in entitlements obligations.

President Obama's deficit spending playbook is straight out of Alice in Wonderland. The King says"
"Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop."

America, what is happening to you?
“One thing seems probable to me,” said Peer Steinbrück, the German finance minister, in September 2008....“the United States will lose its status as the superpower of the global financial system.” You don’t have to strain too hard to see the financial crisis as the death knell for a debt-ridden, overconsuming, and underproducing American empire . . .
Richard Florida, "How the Crash Will Reshape America," The Atlantic, March 2009 --- http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/meltdown-geography

If the economy improves and unemployment drops, Obama can take credit. If it fails to improve and unemployment rises, though, he can say he averted an even worse showing. Republicans will take the opposite tack—attributing any improvement to the natural resilience of the economy and blaming the administration if things get worse. And neither side will really know who's right. I have long been a believer in the value of economics in understanding the world. But the chief effect of the current crisis is to raise the possibility that economists—at least those macroeconomists, who study the broad economy—don't have a blessed clue.
"Baffled by the Economy:  Why being a macroeconomist means never having to say you're sorry," by Steve Chapman, Reason Magazine, June 11, 2009 --- http://www.reason.com/news/show/134059.html

U.S. Debt/Deficit Clock --- http://www.usdebtclock.org/

"Will the Democrats' Massive Borrowing and Spending Binge Kill the U.S. Economy?" by Gerard Jackson, Seeking Alpha, July 13, 2009 --- Click Here

Any reasonably intelligent person understands that if the demand for a product increases then (all things being equal, as the economist would say) its price will rise. The same holds in the case of borrowing, except for congressional Democrats. These people seem to think that economics laws are a vicious Republican plot.

Poll figures are now showing that the American public is growing alarmed by the Democrats' utterly reckless fiscal policy. Unfortunately, few people understand just how grave the danger really is. In less than five months Obama increased the national debt by more than $800 million and lumbered the economy with a $1.8 trillion deficit that looks like growing even bigger. (I still get silly emails from Obama cultists who were evidently screaming into their computer monitors: "Bush did!" Pathetic doesn't begin to describe these people). In 2003 Thomas Laubach, the US Federal Reserve’s senior economist, produced New Evidence on the Interest Rate Effects of Budget Deficits and Debt, a paper containing calculations for long-term interest rates based on historical evidence. He concluded that

a percentage point increase in the projected deficit-to-GDP ratio raises the 10-year bond rate expected to prevail five years into the future by 20 to 40 basis points, a typical estimate is about 25 basis points.

As the US deficit has rocketed from 3 percent to 13.5 percent one should therefore expect long-term rates to rise by at least 2.5 percentage points. In addition, he believes that a 1 percent rise in the ratio of debt to GDP will raise future rates by 4 to 5 basis points. It appears that recent movements in long-term rates support Mr Laubach's thesis. The 20-year treasury bill stood at 3.22 percent on 2 February: by the 8 July it had risen to 4.13 percent. It was the same story 10-year treasuries which rose from 2.46 percent on 2 January to 3.33 percent on 8 July while the 30-year mortgage rate had risen to 5.32 percent by 2 July as against 4.78 percent for 2 April. The government's insatiable demand for funds looks very much like it is driving up long-term rates very quickly.

Obama supporters with their fetish for big government can always claim that economic conditions in Japan refute Laubach. Japan has increased its national debt by a colossal amount and yet interest rates remain ridiculously low. These critics overlooked the economist's caveat: All things being equal. Just as the price of the a monetary unit (its purchasing power) is determined by the supply and demand for it, the same holds for all other economic goods. For example, though US car production has dropped car prices have not jumped. Why? Because demand fell.

The same holds for Japanese interest rates. They have not been driven up government borrowing because the private demand for loans has virtually collapsed. A similar situation prevailed during the Great Depression. Despite Roosevelt's spending and borrowing interest rates remained low — but so did business borrowing with the result that there was a great deal of capital consumption.

Professor Higgs calculated that from 1930 to 1940 net private investment was minus $3.1 billion. (Robert Higgs, Depression, War, and Cold War, The Independent Institute, 2006, p. 7). Arthur Lewis calculated that from 1929 to 1938 net capital formation plunged by minus 15.2 percent (W. Arthur Lewis, Economic Survey 1919-1939, Unwin University Books, 1970, p. 205). Benjamin M. Anderson estimated that in 1939 there was more than 50 percent slack in the economy. (Benjamin M. Anderson, Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States 1914-1946, LibertyPress, 1979, pp. 479-48). It ought to be obvious that where a process of capital consumption is underway — as it was in the 1930s — one should expect to see a rise in the average age of plant and equipment. This is precisely what happened as shown by the table below.

So where we have a situation in which extremely low interest rates reign while government borrowing has massively expanded we should expect to find — as in Japan — that the personal demand for loans. particularly by business, has plunged. In other words, critics have been looking at only part of the equation. It just so happens that most critics of Obama's spending mania have also overlooked a vital point — the crucial role that interest rates play in raising or lowering the standard of living.

If the government's fiscal policy imposes high long-term rates on the economy then prospective highly time-consuming projects, the ones that do so much to raise real wage rates, would have to be abandoned. Moreover, existing projects of the same nature would be eventually phased out. This is called capital consumption. What this means is that the quantity of savings necessary to prevent the capital structure from contracting are no longer available. As Hayek observed:

[I]t is quite possible that, after a period of great accumulation of capital and a high rate of saving, he rate of profit and the rate of interest may be higher than they were before — if the rate of saving is insufficient compared with the amount of capital which entrepreneurs have attempted tp form, or if the demand for consumers' goods is too high compared with the supply. And for the same reason the rate of interest and profit may be higher in a rich community with much capital and a high rate of saving than in an otherwise similar community with little capital and a low rate of saving. (Friedrich von Hayek, The Pure Theory of Capital, The University of Chicago Press, 1975, p. 396).

Added to this is Obama's misguided energy policy that amounts to a massive tax on production. Once that is also taken into account one is left looking at economic carnage.

America, what is happening to you?
“One thing seems probable to me,” said Peer Steinbrück, the German finance minister, in September 2008....“the United States will lose its status as the superpower of the global financial system.” You don’t have to strain too hard to see the financial crisis as the death knell for a debt-ridden, overconsuming, and underproducing American empire.
Richard Florida, "How the Crash Will Reshape America," The Atlantic, March 2009 ---
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/meltdown-geography

Accounting in the U.S. Government is all done with smoke and mirrors
The worst stuff is all off balance sheet

Question
What accounts for the difference between the booked $3.3 trillion in U.S. "National Debt" owed to foreign investors reported by Newsweek, June 8, 2009 on Page 57 compared to the booked $13.7 trillion in U.S. debt owed to foreign investors as reported in the CIA's World Fact Book?

Answer
The $13.7 trillion includes a massive amount of state and local public debt held by nonresidents as well as corporate bonds that are issued by business firms rather than government jurisdictions. Some of this non-Federal debt is becoming especially worrisome such as bond obligations of California that may have to be bailed out by the Federal Government. The massive indebtedness of California is especially worrisome since California bond defaults could rile foreign investors that we also depend upon to fund our Federal deficit --- which in 2009 will be nearly $2 trillion that must be funded in new debt. Hence we have Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Timothy Geithner recently carrying tin cups around China.

See the definition of "Debt - External" at
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2079

Nations are ranked by "external debt" owed to investors outside their borders ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
Data source:  CIA's World Fact Book ---
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html

U.S. National Debt ---  http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The National Debt recently spiked about 10% to over $12 trillion.

U.S. Debt/Deficit Clock --- http://www.usdebtclock.org/

But as bad as the fiscal picture is, panic-driven monetary policies portend to have even more dire consequences. We can expect rapidly rising prices and much, much higher interest rates over the next four or five years, and a concomitant deleterious impact on output and employment not unlike the late 1970s. About eight months ago, starting in early September 2008, the Bernanke Fed did an abrupt about-face and radically increased the monetary base -- which is comprised of currency in circulation, member bank reserves held at the Fed, and vault cash -- by a little less than $1 trillion. The Fed controls the monetary base 100% and does so by purchasing and selling assets in the open market. By such a radical move, the Fed signaled a 180-degree shift in its focus from an anti-inflation position to an anti-deflation position.
Arthur B. Laffer, "Get Ready for Inflation and Higher Interest Rates," The Wall Street Journal, June 10, 2009 --- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458888993599879.html

The Jim Rogers video that everyone seems to be talking about concerns the US Dollar and potential inflation ---
http://financeprofessorblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/jim-rogers-video-that-everyone-seems-to.html
And that is before the pending Universal Health Plan is set in motion!

President Obama's deficit spending playbook is straight out of Alice in Wonderland. The King says"
"Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop."

The projected U.S. budget annual budget spending deficits are now standing in the way of economic recovery. Deficits are also restraining our national sovereignty and public policy as we now have to beg on our hands and knees for foreign investors in Asia and the Middle East to invest trillions more in in our Treasury bonds. For example, efforts to tax or otherwise restrain imports from Asia (think automobiles) and the Middle East (think oil) could spell disaster since we must beg most to those parts of the world to invest in government debt to fund our Federal trillion-dollar deficits. This, in turn, greatly increases our own troubling foreign trade deficits.

Worse yet, we worry about foreign investors not rolling over what they've already invest in our public and private "external debt." That could lead to having to monetize our National Debt (read than print money) that almost immediately translates to Zimbabwe-like disastrous price inflation and destruction of the U.S. currency in foreign exchange markets.

Although the media tends to avoid serious discussion of deficit reduction, some big spenders in government are at last owning up to the pending time bomb of trillion-dollar deficit spending.

"Bernanke Urges Deficit Reduction," by Brian Blackstone, The Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2009 --- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124403584900281215.html

U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Wednesday urged lawmakers to commit to reducing the nearly $2 trillion budget deficit, warning that the government can't borrow "indefinitely" to meet the growing demand on its resources.

Mr. Bernanke also reiterated that the pace of economic contraction appears to be slowing, setting the stage for a return to growth later this year.

"Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer run, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth," Mr. Bernanke said in prepared testimony to the House Budget Committee. (Read the full remarks.)

The White House estimates that the budget deficit will reach around $1.8 trillion this year and fall to about $900 billion by 2011. That, Mr. Bernanke said, will push the debt-to-GDP ratio from 40% before the financial crisis began to 70% by 2011, which would be the highest since after World War II.

"Certainly, our economy and financial markets face extraordinary near-term challenges, and strong and timely actions to respond to those challenges are necessary and appropriate," Mr. Bernanke told the House panel.

However, the retirement of the Baby Boom generation will place even more of a burden on entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, and "we will not be able to continue borrowing indefinitely to meet those demands," he said.

Mr. Bernanke suggested that fiscal concerns may already be having an effect in the markets. Yields on longer-term Treasury securities and fixed-rate mortgages have risen, he noted.

"These increases appear to reflect concerns about large federal deficits but also other causes, including greater optimism about the economic outlook, a reversal of flight-to-quality flows, and technical factors related to the hedging of mortgage holdings," he said.

Mr. Bernanke adhered closely to the Fed's cautiously upbeat outlook for the economy. Consumer spending, he said, has been flat since the start of the year and sentiment has improved. Housing, he said, "has also shown some signs of bottoming" and lean inventories should eventually spur production.

Still, he cautioned that even when an upturn begins, growth will remain below its long-run potential "for a while."

"Sizable" job losses, he said, should continue for "the next few months," pushing the unemployment rate higher. The government releases May payroll figures Friday. Economists expect another payroll decline of over 500,000, raising the jobless rate past 9%.

Against that backdrop of widening economic slack, inflation should fall over the next year compared to 2008, Mr. Bernanke said, though an improving economy and stable inflation expectations "should limit further declines in inflation."

Meanwhile, Mr. Bernanke said the ability of banks to raise new capital "suggests that investors are gaining greater confidence in the banking system."

But while financial conditions have improved since the start of the year, they remain under stress and continue to act as a brake on the economy, he said.

Question
Would much smaller budget deficits forestall economic disaster in the United States?

Answer
The benefit of deficit reduction is contingent upon many factors. The immediate benefit is linked to Gross Domestic Product such that the ideal situation would be a combination of a surge in GDP coupled with significant deficit spending reductions such as when the surge in GDP greatly increases tax revenues. A plunge in GDP caused, in part, by dysfunctional taxation and deficit reduction would be very worrisome.

However, all that is written about the booked National Debt, booked External Debt, and annual deficit spending pales relative to the time bomb (usually not mentioned in the media now pushing for added social programs) of unbooked off-balance sheet entitlements obligations that are contracted or otherwise promised but are not yet due such as baby boomer Social Security benefits, Medicare obligations (including drug benefits), Medicaid obligations, military pensions, veterans medical benefits, welfare programs, etc. Milton Freedman was a wise man 40 years ago when he said that unfunded entitlement obligations should be avoided as long as we were "free to choose." The idea behind Social Security was that it should be funded by the Social Security Trust Fund which did indeed build up over the years.

The problem with the Social Security Trust Fund is that Congress unwisely commenced to massively "borrow" from it to fund other programs with no intention of taxing to replace the borrowings. Social Security benefits were initially envisioned as being like pension funds where money was taken from both a worker and an employer during all his/her working years to fund eventual small retirement benefits to be collected by that worker.

Congress, however, added unfunded hemorrhages to the Social Security Trust Fund such as the funding of monthly benefits to millions of disabled citizens, including people disabled at birth or at very young ages who never contributed a dime to the Social Security Trust Fund. Other unfunded entitlements were added decades ago such as the funding of education for dependents of soldiers who died while in military service. The point is that unfunded entitlements have been steeped upon what commenced as a funded Social Security "Retirement" Program. The unfunded drains were for worthy causes such as disability benefits that should've been part of the General Fund legislation rather than the Social Security Trust Fund that was not intended for anything other than Social Security retirement benefits.

Accounting in the U.S. Government is all done with smoke and mirrors
Congress like funding disability benefits from the Social Security Trust Fund because that kept the billions spent each year out of the calculation of the budget deficits. The estimated $1.8 trillion projected budget deficit would soar if we added all the payments to millions of disabled citizens that slip out the back door from the Social Security Trust Fund. Accounting in the U.S. Government is all done with smoke and mirrors.

Another huge problem is that added payroll tax funds collected for Medicare hospital, physician, and rehab benefits plus Medicare Drug benefits were collected over the years from workers and employers with vastly under-computed estimates of the soaring inflation in the medical sector of the economy. As a result there's a huge mismatch between what was collected in Medicare taxes versus what is now being paid out to our aging workers and retirees like me and my wife.

Whereas the U.S. National Debt is booked at $11 trillion dollars, the unbooked entitlements debt was estimated in 2007 by the former Chief Accountant of the United States, David Walker, to be in excess of $55 trillion  (now in excess of $100 trillion) for entitlements already in place. Pending entitlements such as universal health and drug coverage will make this unfunded and unbooked obligation soar.

Bob Jensen's threads on the pending economic disaster in the United States --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/2008Bailout.htm#NationalDebt

A New Definition of Life on the Edge

Loss of dollar purchasing power since 1775 --- http://manualofideas.com/blog/2009/03/declining_value_of_us_dollar_s.html

U.S. Debt/Deficit Clock --- http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Projected Population Growth (it's out of control) --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

Reinventing the American Dream ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/2008Bailout.htm#AmericanDream

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $3.93 billion per day since September 28, 2007!
The National Debt Amount This Instant (Refresh your browser for updates by the second) --- http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
History of the National Debt --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Debt 
The crisis --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/2008Bailout.htm#NationalDebt

National Debt

Once the spigot is turned on it's almost never turned off:  That's how special appropriations become entitlements
Several university presidents and higher-education officials went to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to thank lawmakers for committing more ($21.5 billion) funds for scientific research, but they worried about what might happen to their budgets if that commitment didn't continue.
Paul Baskey, "Universities Are Wary of Drawbacks to a Huge Boost in Federal Spending," Chronicle of Higher Education, March 25, 2009 --- http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/03/14470n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Jensen Comment
This is the same argument that will be raised by virtually all recipients of the 2009 massive Stimulus (Recovery) Act handouts to states, education/research institutions, welfare programs, public works projects, etc. Once the spigot is turned on such handouts are hard to stop in future budget years. They become entitlements that will make President Obama's promise to reduce the Year 2012 budget deficit a complete and utter failure. Both logic and sob stories make it virtually impossible to turn the spigots off once they've been turned on. This is one of the common problems of budgeting in general except for Zero-Based Budgeting that almost never takes place in industry and probably has never taken place in state and federal governments.
Bob Jensen's threads on the entitlements disaster are at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Entitlements.htm

Why Obama's Big Spending, Big Taxing Regime Will Cripple the U.S. Economy
Before any article on savings and investment can really make sense, it must first define what savings and investment really mean. Saving is the process of transforming present goods into future goods. Present goods are consumption goods and future goods are capital goods. When we save, we transfer purchasing power from consumption to the production of capital goods, many of which will then be used to produce more capital goods. (This is why growth is sometimes called forgone consumption.) Investment in more capital (the material means of production) makes for increased future consumption, i.e., higher living standards. It needs little imagination to realise that taxing savings amounts to taxing future living standards. What needs to be remembered is that when defined in real terms, investment and savings are (a) always equal and (b) saving is clearly the only means by which resources can be directed from consumption to investment. To put it another way: The function of savings is to redirect resources from the production of consumption goods to the production of capital goods.
"Why Obama's Big Spending, Big Taxing Regime Will Cripple the U.S. Economy," Seeking Alpha, March 23, 2009 ---
http://seekingalpha.com/article/127312-why-obama-s-big-spending-big-taxing-regime-will-cripple-the-u-s-economy

Tim Geithner Draws a Big Laugh and Lots of Sighs In China
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday reassured the Chinese government that its huge holdings of dollar assets are safe and reaffirmed his faith in a strong U.S. currency. A major goal of Geithner's maiden visit to China as Treasury chief is to allay concerns that Washington's bulging budget deficit and ultra-loose monetary policy will fan inflation, undermining both the dollar and U.S. bonds. China is the biggest foreign owner of U.S. Treasury bonds. U.S. data shows that it held $768 billion in Treasuries as of March, but some analysts believe China's total U.S. dollar-denominated investments could be twice as high. "Chinese assets are very safe," Geithner said in response to a question after a speech at Peking University, where he studied Chinese as a student in the 1980s. His answer drew loud laughter from his student audience, reflecting skepticism in China about the wisdom of a developing country accumulating a vast stockpile of foreign reserves instead of spending the money to raise living standards at home.
Glenn Somerville, Reuters, June 1, 2009 --- Click Here

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Alexander Tyler. 1787 - Tyler was a Scottish history professor that had this to say about 2000 years after "The Fall of the Athenian Republic" and about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution.
As quoted at http://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm (where the debt clock in real time is a few months behind)
The National Debt Amount This Instant (Refresh your browser for updates by the second) --- http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

"Harvard’s Rogoff Sees Sovereign Defaults, ‘Painful’ Austerity," by Aki Ito and Jason Clenfield, Bloomberg, February 24, 2010 ---
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2065100&sid=aaeViPPUVSw4
Thank you for the heads up Jim Mahar.

Ballooning debt is likely to force several countries to default and the U.S. to cut spending, according to Harvard University Professor Kenneth Rogoff , who in 2008 predicted the failure of big American banks.

Following banking crises, “we usually see a bunch of sovereign defaults, say in a few years,” Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, said at a forum in Tokyo yesterday. “I predict we will again.”

The U.S. is likely to tighten monetary policy before cutting government spending, sending “shockwaves” through financial markets, Rogoff said in an interview after the speech. Fiscal policy won’t be curbed until soaring bond yields trigger “very painful” tax increases and spending cuts, he said.

Global scrutiny of sovereign debt has risen after budget shortfalls of countries including Greece swelled in the wake of the worst global financial meltdown since the 1930s. The U.S. is facing an unprecedented $1.6 trillion budget deficit in the year ending Sept. 30, the government has forecast.

“Most countries have reached a point where it would be much wiser to phase out fiscal stimulus,” said Rogoff, who co- wrote a history of financial crises published in 2009. It would be better “to keep monetary policy soft and start gradually tightening fiscal policy even if it meant some inflation.”

Failed Marriage

Rogoff, 56, said he expects Greece will eventually be bailed out by the IMF rather than the European Union. Greece will probably announce an austerity program “in a few weeks” that will prompt the EU to provide a bridge loan which won’t be enough to save the country in the long run, he said.

“It’s like two people getting married and saying therefore they’re living happily ever after,” said Rogoff. “I don’t think Europe’s going to succeed.”

Investors will eventually demand higher interest rates to lend to countries around the world that have accumulated debt, including the U.S., he said. The IMF forecast in November that gross U.S. borrowings will amount to the equivalent of 99.5 percent of annual economic output in 2011. The U.K.’s will reach 94.1 percent and Japan’s will spiral to 204.3 percent.

“In rich countries -- Germany, the United States and maybe Japan -- we are going to see slow growth. They will tighten their belts when the problem hits with interest rates,” Rogoff said at the forum, which was hosted by CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, a unit of Credit Agricole SA, France’s largest retail bank. Japanese fiscal policy is “out of control,” he said.

Euro Concerns

So far concerns about the euro zone’s ability to withstand the deteriorating finances of its member nations have outweighed the U.S.’s deficit woes, propping up the dollar.

“The more they suck in Greece, the lower the euro goes, because it’s not a viable plan,” Rogoff said. “Clearly the dollar is going to go down against the emerging markets -- there’s going to be concern about inflation and the debt.”

The dollar has surged more than 9 percent against the euro in the past three months. Ten-year Treasuries yielded 3.72 percent as of 10:16 a.m. in New York.

The U.S. government will delay any efforts to contain the deficit until Treasury yields reach around 6 percent to 7 percent, Rogoff said.

“The U.S. is in a state of paralysis in its fiscal policy,” he said. “Monetary policy will tighten first, and I don’t think it’s the right mix.”

Fed Exit

The Federal Reserve last week raised the discount rate charged to banks for direct loans, and plans to end its $1.25 trillion purchases of mortgage-backed securities in March. President Barack Obama ’s administration is proposing a $3.8 trillion budget for fiscal 2011 to spur the recovery.

“When they start tightening monetary policy even a little bit, it’s going to send shockwaves through the system,” Rogoff said.

In an interview a month before Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. went bankrupt in 2008, Rogoff said “the worst is yet to come in the U.S.” and predicted the collapse of “major” investment banks. His 2009 book “This Time Is Different,” co- written with Carmen M. Reinhart , charts the history of financial crises in 66 countries.

“We almost always have sovereign risk crises in the wake of an international banking crisis, usually in a few years, and that’s happening,” he said. “Greece is just the beginning.”

Greece’s debt totaled 298.5 billion euros ($405 billion) at the end of 2009, according to the Finance Ministry. That’s more than five times more than Russia owed when it defaulted in 1998 and Argentina when it missed payments in 2001.

The cost of protecting Greek bonds from default surged in January, then declined this month as concern eased over the country’s creditworthiness. Credit-default swaps on Greek sovereign debt have fallen to 356 basis points from 428 last month, according to CMA DataVision. That’s up from 171 at the start of December.

“Greece just highlights that one of those risks is sovereign default,” said Naomi Fink , a strategist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. Still, “it doesn’t justify the situation where we’re all in a panic and are going back to cash in the post-Lehman shock.”

U.S. Debt/Deficit Clock --- http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Bob Jensen's threads on looming entitlements disasters ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/entitlements.htm

David Walker --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walker_(U.S._Comptroller_General)

Niall Ferguson --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
Niall Ferguson, "An Empire at Risk:  How Great Powers Fail," Newsweek Magazine Cover Story, November 26, 2009 --- http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694/page/1
Please note that this is NBC’s liberal Newsweek Magazine and not Fox News or The Wall Street Journal.

Stop Imitating Hyper-inflated Zimbabe:  The U.S. Treasury Should Cease Monetizing the Debt
The U.S. should borrow or tax to pay its debts, but stop printing money to pay deficit-driven debt

"Don't Monetize the Debt: The president of the Dallas Fed on inflation risk and central bank independence," by Mary Anastasia O'Grady, The Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2009 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303024230548323.html

From his perch high atop the palatial Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, overlooking what he calls "the most modern, efficient city in America," Richard Fisher says he is always on the lookout for rising prices. But that's not what's worrying the bank's president right now.

His bigger concern these days would seem to be what he calls "the perception of risk" that has been created by the Fed's purchases of Treasury bonds, mortgage-backed securities and Fannie Mae paper.

Mr. Fisher acknowledges that events in the financial markets last year required some unusual Fed action in the commercial lending market. But he says the longer-term debt, particularly the Treasurys, is making investors nervous. The looming challenge, he says, is to reassure markets that the Fed is not going to be "the handmaiden" to fiscal profligacy. "I think the trick here is to assist the functioning of the private markets without signaling in any way, shape or form that the Federal Reserve will be party to monetizing fiscal largess, deficits or the stimulus program."

The very fact that a Fed regional bank president has to raise this issue is not very comforting. It conjures up images of Argentina. And as Mr. Fisher explains, he's not the only one worrying about it. He has just returned from a trip to China, where "senior officials of the Chinese government grill[ed] me about whether or not we are going to monetize the actions of our legislature." He adds, "I must have been asked about that a hundred times in China."

A native of Los Angeles who grew up in Mexico, Mr. Fisher was educated at Harvard, Oxford and Stanford. He spent his earliest days in government at Jimmy Carter's Treasury. He says that taught him a life-long lesson about inflation. It was "inflation that destroyed that presidency," he says. He adds that he learned a lot from then Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, who had to "break [inflation's] back."

Mr. Fisher has led the Dallas Fed since 2005 and has developed a reputation as the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) lead inflation worrywart. In September he told a New York audience that "rates held too low, for too long during the previous Fed regime were an accomplice to [the] reckless behavior" that brought about the economic troubles we are now living through. He also warned that the Treasury's $700 billion plan to buy toxic assets from financial institutions would be "one more straw on the back of the frightfully encumbered camel that is the federal government ledger."

In a speech at the Kennedy School of Government in February, he wrung his hands about "the very deep hole [our political leaders] have dug in incurring unfunded liabilities of retirement and health-care obligations" that "we at the Dallas Fed believe total over $99 trillion." In March, he is believed to have vociferously objected in closed-door FOMC meetings to the proposal to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. So with long-term Treasury yields moving up sharply despite Fed intentions to bring down mortgage rates, I've flown to Dallas to see what he's thinking now.

Regarding what caused the credit bubble, he repeats his assertion about the Fed's role: "It is human instinct when rates are low and the yield curve is flat to reach for greater risk and enhanced yield and returns." (Later, he adds that this is not to cast aspersions on former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and reminds me that these decisions are made by the FOMC.)

"The second thing is that the regulators didn't do their job, including the Federal Reserve." To this he adds what he calls unusual circumstances, including "the fruits and tailwinds of globalization, billions of people added to the labor supply, new factories and productivity coming from places it had never come from before." And finally, he says, there was the 'mathematization' of risk." Institutions were "building risk models" and relying heavily on "quant jocks" when "in the end there can be no substitute for good judgment."

What about another group of alleged culprits: the government-anointed rating agencies? Mr. Fisher doesn't mince words. "I served on corporate boards. The way rating agencies worked is that they were paid by the people they rated. I saw that from the inside." He says he also saw this "inherent conflict of interest" as a fund manager. "I never paid attention to the rating agencies. If you relied on them you got . . . you know," he says, sparing me the gory details. "You did your own analysis. What is clear is that rating agencies always change something after it is obvious to everyone else. That's why we never relied on them." That's a bit disconcerting since the Fed still uses these same agencies in managing its own portfolio.

I wonder whether the same bubble-producing Fed errors aren't being repeated now as Washington scrambles to avoid a sustained economic downturn.

He surprises me by siding with the deflation hawks. "I don't think that's the risk right now." Why? One factor influencing his view is the Dallas Fed's "trim mean calculation," which looks at price changes of more than 180 items and excludes the extremes. Dallas researchers have found that "the price increases are less and less. Ex-energy, ex-food, ex-tobacco you've got some mild deflation here and no inflation in the [broader] headline index."

Mr. Fisher says he also has a group of about 50 CEOs around the U.S. and the world that he calls on, all off the record, before almost every FOMC meeting. "I don't impart any information, I just listen carefully to what they are seeing through their own eyes. And that gives me a sense of what's happening on the ground, you might say on Main Street as opposed to Wall Street."

It's good to know that a guy so obsessed with price stability doesn't see inflation on the horizon. But inflation and bubble trouble almost always get going before they are recognized. Moreover, the Fed has to pay attention to the 1978 Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act -- a.k.a. Humphrey-Hawkins -- and employment is a lagging indicator of economic activity. This could create a Fed bias in favor of inflating. So I push him again.

"I want to make sure that your readers understand that I don't know a single person on the FOMC who is rooting for inflation or who is tolerant of inflation." The committee knows very well, he assures me, that "you cannot have sustainable employment growth without price stability. And by price stability I mean that we cannot tolerate deflation or the ravages of inflation."

Mr. Fisher defends the Fed's actions that were designed to "stabilize the financial system as it literally fell apart and prevent the economy from imploding." Yet he admits that there is unfinished work. Policy makers have to be "always mindful that whatever you put in, you are going to have to take out at some point. And also be mindful that there are these perceptions [about the possibility of monetizing the debt], which is why I have been sensitive about the issue of purchasing Treasurys."

He returns to events on his recent trip to Asia, which besides China included stops in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Korea. "I wasn't asked once about mortgage-backed securities. But I was asked at every single meeting about our purchase of Treasurys. That seemed to be the principal preoccupation of those that were invested with their surpluses mostly in the United States. That seems to be the issue people are most worried about."

As I listen I am reminded that it's not just the Asians who have expressed concern. In his Kennedy School speech, Mr. Fisher himself fretted about the U.S. fiscal picture. He acknowledges that he has raised the issue "ad nauseam" and doesn't apologize. "Throughout history," he says, "what the political class has done is they have turned to the central bank to print their way out of an unfunded liability. We can't let that happen. That's when you open the floodgates. So I hope and I pray that our political leaders will just have to take this bull by the horns at some point. You can't run away from it."

Voices like Mr. Fisher's can be a problem for the politicians, which may be why recently there have been rumblings in Washington about revoking the automatic FOMC membership that comes with being a regional bank president. Does Mr. Fisher have any thoughts about that?

This is nothing new, he points out, briefly reviewing the history of the political struggle over monetary policy in the U.S. "The reason why the banks were put in the mix by [President Woodrow] Wilson in 1913, the reason it was structured the way it was structured, was so that you could offset the political power of Washington and the money center in New York with the regional banks. They represented Main Street.

"Now we have this great populist fervor and the banks are arguing for Main Street, largely. I have heard these arguments before and studied the history. I am not losing a lot of sleep over it," he says with a defiant Texas twang that I had not previously detected. "I don't think that it'd be the best signal to send to the market right now that you want to totally politicize the process."

Speaking of which, Texas bankers don't have much good to say about the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), according to Mr. Fisher. "Its been complicated by the politics because you have a special investigator, special prosecutor, and all I can tell you is that in my district here most of the people who wanted in on the TARP no longer want in on the TARP."

At heart, Mr. Fisher says he is an advocate for letting markets clear on their own. "You know that I am a big believer in Schumpeter's creative destruction," he says referring to the term coined by the late Austrian economist. "The destructive part is always painful, politically messy, it hurts like hell but you hopefully will allow the adjustments to be made so that the creative part can take place." Texas went through that process in the 1980s, he says, and came back stronger.

This is doubtless why, with Washington taking on a larger role in the American economy every day, the worries linger. On the wall behind his desk is a 1907 gouache painting by Antonio De Simone of the American steam sailing vessel Varuna plowing through stormy seas. Just like most everything else on the walls, bookshelves and table tops around his office -- and even the dollar-sign cuff links he wears to work -- it represents something.

He says that he has had this painting behind his desk for the past 30 years as a reminder of the importance of purpose and duty in rough seas. "The ship," he explains, "has to maintain its integrity." What is more, "no mathematical model can steer you through the kind of seas in that picture there. In the end someone has the wheel." He adds: "On monetary policy it's the Federal Reserve."

Bob Jensen's threads on the National Debt Crisis are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/2008Bailout.htm#NationalDebt

"Mr. Wen's Debt Bomb," The Wall Street Journal, March 18, 2009 --- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123734170930865121.html 

President Obama's stimulus plan and new budget will require an additional $3 trillion to $4 trillion in new borrowing over the next two or three years, and that's if the economy recovers smartly. Adding it all up, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke last week estimated that U.S. public debt-to-GDP would reach 60% over the next few years, up from 40% before the financial panic hit -- and the highest level since the aftermath of World War II. He must be an optimist. As the nearby chart shows, Mr. Obama's budget anticipates a decade of outlays far above postwar spending and revenue averages. And even that assumes, implausibly, that most "stimulus" spending will be temporary.

That's a lot of T-bills to flog, and the world is taking note. Our colleagues at MarketWatch reported last week that the cost to buy insurance against U.S. sovereign debt default has surged in the past year. The spreads on credit default swaps for U.S. government debt hit 97 basis points last week -- or $97,000 to buy insurance on $10 million in debt -- nearly seven times higher than a year ago and 60% higher than the end of 2008.

Mr. Wen called on the U.S. to "maintain its credibility, honor its commitments and guarantee the safety of Chinese assets." Little wonder: China, like other trading nations, has a big stake in this fiscal free-for-all. Although it doesn't release detailed data, roughly two-thirds of Beijing's $1.9 trillion foreign-exchange reserves are likely parked in U.S. Treasury debt.

The Obama Administration revealed its sensitivity on the issue by responding quickly, with Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs saying Friday "there's no safer investment in the world than in the United States." Mr. Obama added Saturday that "not just the Chinese government, but every investor can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States."

The White House is almost certainly right that the U.S. won't default; the consequences would be too dire. But there are risks well short of formal debt repudiation. As the supply of U.S. debt increases, investors may demand a higher yield and interest rates would rise, reducing the tradable value of current Treasury bonds. The other temptation will be to inflate away the debt, which would also devalue dollar-denominated assets.

What Mr. Wen is really saying is that even the U.S. national balance sheet has limits. The dollar is the world's reserve currency, so the U.S. has the rare privilege among nations of being able to borrow (and then repay its debts) in its own currency. America also remains the world's main safe haven in a crisis, as the flight to the dollar and T-bills in recent months underscores.

But reserve currency status isn't a birthright and it can vanish when nations are irresponsible. Deficits are sometimes necessary to finance tax cuts and investments that promote economic growth. The tragedy of Mr. Obama's $787 billion stimulus and $410 billion 2009 budget is that they spend principally on transfer payments that have little growth payback. The U.S. received another foreign rebuke on this score this weekend, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other Europeans rejected Mr. Obama's calls for a comparable spending binge on the Continent.

Mr. Wen may have been trying to placate his domestic Chinese audience, which is suffering through its own economic slowdown. Or perhaps he was trying to repay Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for his nomination-hearing comments on Chinese currency "manipulation." Mr. Wen doesn't have much room to lecture the U.S., having done too little in his nearly six years in office to liberalize the Chinese economy.

But the Chinese Premier is right to warn the U.S. political class that the global demand for American debt will continue only if the U.S. runs economic policies that make U.S.-dollar assets worth the risk.

Question
As of December 2008, what do Zimbabwe and the United States have in common?

Answer
Rather than taxing or borrowing to cover deficit spending, both governments are simply printing more money?

What's wrong with that?
First look at what it did to Zimbabwe. Then read about Gresham's Law --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_Law
The instant the Federal Reserve announced this new funding policy in December, the U.S. dollar plunged in value relative to foreign currencies. The reason is obvious.

Zimbabwe's central bank will introduce a 100 trillion Zimbabwe dollar banknote, worth about $33 on the black market, to try to ease desperate cash shortages, state-run media said on Friday.
KyivPost, January 16, 2009 --- http://www.kyivpost.com/world/33522
Jensen Comment
This is a direct result of raising money by simply printing it, and the U.S. should take note since this is how our Federal government has decided to pay for anticipated trillion-dollar budget deficits --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/2008Bailout.htm#NationalDebt

The United States will "look like a banana republic" unless it gains control over its budget deficit and federal debt, economist Allen Sinai warned Congress on Thursday. "The deficit and debt prospects under almost any scenario are daunting," Mr. Sinai, chief global economist for Decision Economics Inc., told the Senate Budget Committee. "This territory is uncharted, with no real historical analogue to this kind of financial situation for a major global economic power." Asked by committee Chairman Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat, whether the U.S. government's creditworthiness is at risk, Mr. Sinai replied, "Unequivocally yes." Richard Berner, chief U.S. economist at Morgan Stanley, told the committee one measure of America's creditworthiness -- credit default swap spreads -- already shows some deterioration. The worse a nation's credit rating becomes, the more its CDS spread rises. U.S. sovereign CDS spreads have widened to about 0.6 percent from 0.1 percent last summer, Mr. Berner noted. "So the message is that you ignore global investors at your peril," he told the committee.
David M. Dixon, "Congress warned about debt U.S. advised to gain control," The Washington Times, January 16, 2009 --- http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/16/policies-on-debt-a-risk-to-economy/

The US government is on a “burning platform” of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon.
David M. Walker, Former Chief Accountant of the United States --- http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2009/0218.html
Also see his dire warnings on CBS Sixty Minutes on the unbooked national debt for entitlements (See below)

Question
What caused the credit crisis and why can't credit be unlocked after throwing over $1 trillion at the big banks?
Great answers on Video --- this is a must-see video for you, your family, and your students who want to understand these banking failures
The Short and Simple Video About What Caused the Credit Crisis --- http://vimeo.com/3261363
Also at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0zEXdDO5JU
Ed Scribner forwarded the above links

Question
Who more than anybody else is at fault for wiping out shareholders in AIG, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, CitiBank, Bank of America, Washington Mutual, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack, etc.
Answers
I primarily blame the CPA auditors, internal auditors, and credit rating agencies that failed to disclose the off-balance-sheet risks that fee-loving bankers had created. The auditors and credit rating agencies have a fiduciary and professional responsibility to disclose to investors the extent of looming uncollectable investments. For many years auditors have been knowingly understating banks' bad debt risks and failing to warn investors about such banking risks. I also think auditors, along with credit rating agencies, knew full well about the financial risks of their huge clients but were afraid to jeopardize their fees by blowing whistles.

Question
What more than anything else saved United Airlines and who is primarily at fault for wiping out the shareholders of United Airlines in 2002?
Answer
In December 2002 United Airlines filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. In order to get United's airplanes back in the air, the single most important saving device was to have Uncle Sam's taxpayers take over the lifetime retirement obligations to be paid to United's retired pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, passenger agents, and ground crews. This saved United Airlines with the help of some major wage concessions of existing employees who decided that keeping their jobs was the most important thing to them.

Once again the auditors are primarily at fault for not warning investors soon enough that United Airlines was not a viable going concern and would not be able to meet its unbooked liabilities called Off-Balance-Sheet-Financing (OBSF) by accountants. If investors had been warned years earlier, the stock market would've forced United Airlines to become more serious about pricing and funding of retirement obligations. But since investors were not forewarned by the auditors and credit rating agencies, the equity holders (many of them United Airlines employees) got wiped out by the 2002 declaration of bankruptcy.

Question
What more than anything else will save General Motors in 2009 and who is primarily at fault for wiping out the shareholders of General Motors?
GM is now losing $85 million per day on average.

In 2009 or 2010 filed General Motors will most likely declare Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. It will be Deja Vu United Airlines. In order to get GM's vehicles back on the road, the single most important saving device was to have Uncle Sam's taxpayers take over the retirement obligations (pensions and health care obligations) to be paid to GM's retired management and factory workers and GMAC retired employees as well. This will save GM with the help of some major wage concessions of existing GM employees who eventually decide that keeping their jobs was the most important thing to them.

Once again the auditors are primarily at fault for not warning investors soon enough that General Motors was not a viable going concern and would not be able to meet its unbooked liabilities called Off-Balance-Sheet-Financing (OBSF). If investors had been warned years earlier, the stock market would've forced General Motors to become more serious about pricing and funding of retirement obligations. But since investors were not forewarned by the auditors and credit rating agencies, the equity holders (many of them being huge investment funds) got wiped out by the forthcoming 2009 declaration of bankruptcy.

In fairness, the accountants did give more warning about OBSF unfunded retirement obligations in GM's case relative the United Airlines. Accountants did disclose some years ago that about $1,500 of each new vehicle sold went toward current funding of for retirement and health care of GM's retired workers. It's been widely known for some time that GM's retirement obligations were badly underfunded. What made it especially difficult for GM is that it's major foreign competitors were making longer-lasting vehicles that beat GM prices. The reason Toyota, Subaru, Nissan, etc. could undercut GM prices is that these foreign automakers did not have the serious unbooked OBSF obligations that GM carried on its back.

Question
What are the two secret numbers that you will never hear mentioned by Uncle Sam's current leaders like President Obama, House Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Leader Reid?
Answer
They will never mention the extent of Uncle Sam's unbooked OBSF liabilities. Accountants have no accurate estimates of these liabilities, but the former Chief Accountant of the United States, David Walker, estimates that these are about $60 trillion at the moment. They may well be $100 trillion in four years if Congress is successful in legislating tens of trillions of dollars in new entitlements for education, energy, welfare, and health care.

Uncle Sam's leaders are now focusing our attention on problems with the annual spending deficit (which may well approach $ trillion at the end of 2009) and the booked National Debt (which may well approach $12 trillion by the end of 2009). But these booked items will not break the back of Uncle Sam. What will break the back of Uncle Sam is what broke the back of United Airlines and General Motors. It's the unbooked OBSF debt which the companies, auditors, and credit rating agencies tried to keep secret.

Uncle Sam saved United Airlines by taking over United's OBSF retirement debt. Uncle Sam will probably do the same for GM, Ford, and Chrysler unfunded OBSF debt. But who will save Uncle Sam from its $60-$100 trillion of unfunded and unbooked OBSF debt?
Answer
Only the Abraham Lincoln School of Finance (see Lincoln’s quote below) will save Uncle Sam from its unsustainable OBSF

You, your family, and your students may learn a great deal from the links to David Walker's warning videos and the most worrisome CBS Sixty Minutes module ever produced --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/entitlements.htm

The US government is on a “burning platform” of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon.
David M. Walker, Former Chief Accountant of the United States --- http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2009/0218.html
Also see his dire warnings on CBS Sixty Minutes on the unbooked national debt for entitlements (See below)

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Alexander Tyler. 1787 - Tyler was a Scottish history professor that had this to say about 2000 years after "The Fall of the Athenian Republic" and about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution.
As quoted at http://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm (where the debt clock in real time is a few months behind)
The National Debt Amount This Instant (Refresh your browser for updates by the second) --- http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The Perfect (Stimulus) Storm for a Universal Healthcare Entitlement in the United States
The more we dig into the pile of spending and tax favors known as the "stimulus bill," the more amazing discoveries we make. Namely, Democrats have apparently decided that the way to gun the economy is to spend even more on health care. This is notable because if there has been one truly bipartisan idea in Washington, it's that the U.S. as a whole spends too much on health care. President Obama has been talking up entitlement reform as a way to free up the money for his other social priorities. But it turns out that Congress is using the stimulus as cover for a massive expansion of federal entitlements.
"The Entitlement Stimulus:  More giant steps toward government," The Wall Street Journal, January 29, 2009 --- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318915075926757.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Jensen Comment
On January 28, ABC News reported how the Canadian Universal Health Care Plan was so much more efficient in terms of accounting efficiency, largely because third party billing in the U.S. has become a quagmire. However, what ABC failed to mention, probably deliberately, is that over half of the average Canadian's salary is taxed mostly for health care. Much has been made about the months or years Canadians wait for non-emergency medical treatments. But seldom does the liberal U.S. press mention the enormous tax bill that goes with the Canadian Universal Health Care Plan. Taxpayers need not worry in the United States however. The new entitlement payment plan in the U.S. simply entails printing money rather than taxing or borrowing --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Entitlements.htm

"Fed Cuts Key Rate to a Record Low," by Edmund L. Andrews and Jackie Calmes, The New York Times, December 16, 2008 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/business/economy/17fed.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=printing money&st=cse

In effect, the Fed is stepping in as a substitute for banks and other lenders and acting more like a bank itself.
“The Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote the resumption of sustainable economic growth,” it said. Those tools include buying “large quantities” of mortgage-related bonds, longer-term Treasury bonds, corporate debt and even consumer loans.

The move came as President-elect Barack Obama summoned his economic team to a four-hour meeting in Chicago to map out plans for an enormous economic stimulus measure that could cost anywhere from $600 billion to $1 trillion over the next two years.

The two huge economic stimulus programs, one from the Fed and one from the White House and Congress, set the stage for a powerful but potentially risky partnership between Mr. Obama and the Fed’s Republican chairman, Ben S. Bernanke.

“We are running out of the traditional ammunition that’s used in a recession, which is to lower interest rates,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference Tuesday. “It is critical that the other branches of government step up, and that’s why the economic recovery plan is so essential.”

Financial markets were electrified by the Fed action. The Dow Jones industrial average jumped 4.2 percent, or 359.61 points, to close at 8,924.14.

Investors rushed to buy long-term Treasury bonds. Yields on 10-year Treasuries, which have traditionally served as a guide for mortgage rates, plunged immediately after the announcement to 2.26 percent, their lowest level in decades, from 2.51 percent earlier in the day.

Yields on investment-grade corporate bonds edged down to 7.215 percent on Tuesday, from 7.355 on Monday. Yields on riskier high-yielding corporate bonds remained in the stratosphere at 22.493 percent, almost unchanged from 22.732 on Monday.

By contrast, the dollar dropped sharply against the euro and other major currencies for the second consecutive day — a sign that currency markets were nervous about a flood of newly printed dollars.
Some analysts predict that the Treasury will have to sell $2 trillion worth of new securities over the next year to finance its existing budget deficit, a new stimulus program and to refinance about $600 billion worth of maturing government debt.

For the moment, Mr. Obama and Mr. Bernanke appear to be on the same page, though that could abruptly change if the economy starts to revive. Fed officials have already assumed that Congress will pass a major spending program to stimulate the economy, and they are counting on it to contribute to economic growth next year.

In more normal times, the Fed might easily start raising interest rates in reaction to a huge new spending program, out of concern about rising inflation.

But data on Tuesday provided new evidence that the biggest threat to prices right now was not inflation but deflation.

The federal government reported on Tuesday that the Consumer Price Index fell 1.7 percent in November, the steepest monthly drop since the government began tracking prices in 1947. The decline was largely driven by the recent plunge in energy prices, but even the so-called core inflation rate, which excludes the volatile food and energy sectors, was essentially zero.

Mr. Obama’s goal is to have a package ready when the new Congress convenes on Jan. 6. His hope is that the House and Senate, with their bigger Democratic majorities, can agree quickly on a plan for Mr. Obama to sign into law soon after he is sworn into office two weeks later.

The Fed, in a statement accompanying its rate decision, acknowledged that the recession was more severe than officials had thought at their last meeting in October.

“Over all, the outlook for economic activity has weakened further,” the central bank said.

“Labor market conditions have deteriorated, and the available data indicate that consumer spending, business investment and industrial production have declined.”

The central bank added: “The committee anticipates that weak economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for some time.”

With fewer than 10 days until Christmas, retailers from Saks Fifth Avenue to Wal-Mart have been slashing prices to draw in consumers, who have sharply reduced their spending over the last six months. On Tuesday, Banana Republic offered customers $50 off on any purchases that total $125. The clothing retailer DKNY offered customers $50 off any purchase totaling $250.

Ian Shepherdson, an analyst at High Frequency Economics, said falling energy prices were likely to bring the year-over-year rate of inflation to below zero in January.

The Fed has already announced or outlined a range of unorthodox new tools that it can use to keep stimulating the economy once the federal funds rate effectively reaches zero. On Tuesday, Fed officials said they stood ready to expand them or create new ones to relieve bottlenecks in the credit markets.

All of the tools involve borrowing by the Fed, which amounts to printing money in vast new quantities, a process the Fed has already started.
Since September, the Fed’s balance sheet has ballooned from about $900 billion to more than $2 trillion as it has created money and lent it out. As soon as the Fed completes its plans to buy mortgage-backed debt and consumer debt, the balance sheet will be up to about $3 trillion.

“At some point, and without knowing the timing, the Fed is going to have to destroy all that money it is creating,” said Alan Blinder, a professor of economics at Princeton and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.

“Right now, the crisis is created by the huge demand by banks for hoarding cash. The Fed is providing cash, and the banks want to hoard it. When things start returning to normal, the banks will want to start lending it out. If that much money is left in the monetary base, it would be extremely inflationary.”

This is the thing I’ve been afraid of ever since I realized that Japan really was in the dreaded, possibly mythical liquidity trap. You can read my 1998 Brookings Paper on the issue here. Incidentally, there were a bunch of us at Princeton worrying about the Japan problem in the early years of this decade. I was one; Lars Svensson, currently at Sweden’s Riksbank, was another; a third was a guy named Ben Bernanke. I wonder whatever happened to him?
Paul Krugman, "ZIRP," The New York Times, December 16, 2008 ---
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/zirp/?scp=8&sq=printing money&st=cse

Federal Revenue and Spending Book of Charts (Great Charts on Bad Budgeting) ---
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/index.html

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Alexander Tyler. 1787 - Tyler was a Scottish history professor that had this to say about 2000 years after "The Fall of the Athenian Republic" and about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution.
As quoted at http://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm (where the debt clock in real time is a few months behind)
The National Debt Amount This Instant (Refresh your browser for updates by the second) --- http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Question
As of December 2008, what do Zimbabwe and the United States have in common.

Answer
Rather than taxing or borrowing to cover deficit spending, both governments are simply printing more money?

What's wrong with that?
First look at what it did to Zimbabwe. Then read about Gresham's Law --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_Law
The instant the Federal Reserve announced this new funding policy in December, the U.S. dollar plunged in value relative to foreign currencies. The reason is obvious.

"Fed Cuts Key Rate to a Record Low," by Edmund L. Andrews and Jackie Calmes, The New York Times, December 16, 2008 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/business/economy/17fed.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=printing money&st=cse

In effect, the Fed is stepping in as a substitute for banks and other lenders and acting more like a bank itself.
“The Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote the resumption of sustainable economic growth,” it said. Those tools include buying “large quantities” of mortgage-related bonds, longer-term Treasury bonds, corporate debt and even consumer loans.

The move came as President-elect Barack Obama summoned his economic team to a four-hour meeting in Chicago to map out plans for an enormous economic stimulus measure that could cost anywhere from $600 billion to $1 trillion over the next two years.

The two huge economic stimulus programs, one from the Fed and one from the White House and Congress, set the stage for a powerful but potentially risky partnership between Mr. Obama and the Fed’s Republican chairman, Ben S. Bernanke.

“We are running out of the traditional ammunition that’s used in a recession, which is to lower interest rates,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference Tuesday. “It is critical that the other branches of government step up, and that’s why the economic recovery plan is so essential.”

Financial markets were electrified by the Fed action. The Dow Jones industrial average jumped 4.2 percent, or 359.61 points, to close at 8,924.14.

Investors rushed to buy long-term Treasury bonds. Yields on 10-year Treasuries, which have traditionally served as a guide for mortgage rates, plunged immediately after the announcement to 2.26 percent, their lowest level in decades, from 2.51 percent earlier in the day.

Yields on investment-grade corporate bonds edged down to 7.215 percent on Tuesday, from 7.355 on Monday. Yields on riskier high-yielding corporate bonds remained in the stratosphere at 22.493 percent, almost unchanged from 22.732 on Monday.

By contrast, the dollar dropped sharply against the euro and other major currencies for the second consecutive day — a sign that currency markets were nervous about a flood of newly printed dollars.
Some analysts predict that the Treasury will have to sell $2 trillion worth of new securities over the next year to finance its existing budget deficit, a new stimulus program and to refinance about $600 billion worth of maturing government debt.

For the moment, Mr. Obama and Mr. Bernanke appear to be on the same page, though that could abruptly change if the economy starts to revive. Fed officials have already assumed that Congress will pass a major spending program to stimulate the economy, and they are counting on it to contribute to economic growth next year.

In more normal times, the Fed might easily start raising interest rates in reaction to a huge new spending program, out of concern about rising inflation.

But data on Tuesday provided new evidence that the biggest threat to prices right now was not inflation but deflation.

The federal government reported on Tuesday that the Consumer Price Index fell 1.7 percent in November, the steepest monthly drop since the government began tracking prices in 1947. The decline was largely driven by the recent plunge in energy prices, but even the so-called core inflation rate, which excludes the volatile food and energy sectors, was essentially zero.

Mr. Obama’s goal is to have a package ready when the new Congress convenes on Jan. 6. His hope is that the House and Senate, with their bigger Democratic majorities, can agree quickly on a plan for Mr. Obama to sign into law soon after he is sworn into office two weeks later.

The Fed, in a statement accompanying its rate decision, acknowledged that the recession was more severe than officials had thought at their last meeting in October.

“Over all, the outlook for economic activity has weakened further,” the central bank said.

“Labor market conditions have deteriorated, and the available data indicate that consumer spending, business investment and industrial production have declined.”

The central bank added: “The committee anticipates that weak economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for some time.”

With fewer than 10 days until Christmas, retailers from Saks Fifth Avenue to Wal-Mart have been slashing prices to draw in consumers, who have sharply reduced their spending over the last six months. On Tuesday, Banana Republic offered customers $50 off on any purchases that total $125. The clothing retailer DKNY offered customers $50 off any purchase totaling $250.

Ian Shepherdson, an analyst at High Frequency Economics, said falling energy prices were likely to bring the year-over-year rate of inflation to below zero in January.

The Fed has already announced or outlined a range of unorthodox new tools that it can use to keep stimulating the economy once the federal funds rate effectively reaches zero. On Tuesday, Fed officials said they stood ready to expand them or create new ones to relieve bottlenecks in the credit markets.

All of the tools involve borrowing by the Fed, which amounts to printing money in vast new quantities, a process the Fed has already started.
Since September, the Fed’s balance sheet has ballooned from about $900 billion to more than $2 trillion as it has created money and lent it out. As soon as the Fed completes its plans to buy mortgage-backed debt and consumer debt, the balance sheet will be up to about $3 trillion.

“At some point, and without knowing the timing, the Fed is going to have to destroy all that money it is creating,” said Alan Blinder, a professor of economics at Princeton and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.

“Right now, the crisis is created by the huge demand by banks for hoarding cash. The Fed is providing cash, and the banks want to hoard it. When things start returning to normal, the banks will want to start lending it out. If that much money is left in the monetary base, it would be extremely inflationary.”

This is the thing I’ve been afraid of ever since I realized that Japan really was in the dreaded, possibly mythical liquidity trap. You can read my 1998 Brookings Paper on the issue here. Incidentally, there were a bunch of us at Princeton worrying about the Japan problem in the early years of this decade. I was one; Lars Svensson, currently at Sweden’s Riksbank, was another; a third was a guy named Ben Bernanke. I wonder whatever happened to him?
Paul Krugman, "ZIRP," The New York Times, December 16, 2008 ---
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/zirp/?scp=8&sq=printing money&st=cse

As it has so often in recent months, the market elation that greeted the Federal Reserve's epic monetary easing earlier this week has turned to worry. Stocks fell off again yesterday, but the big news of the week has been the slide in the dollar. The nearby chart shows the greenback's story since September. From its dangerous summer lows, the buck soared at the height of the credit panic as investors looked for safety in a hurricane. But the dollar has fallen like Newton's apple in December, as Chairman Ben Bernanke and his comrades signaled that they are willing to cut interest rates to near-zero and print as much money as it takes to prevent a deflation.
"A Dollar Referendum Currency markets reflect a lack of faith in Bernanke," The Wall Street Journal, December 19, 2008 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122965017184420567.html

Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course." . . . Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry. I have news for the gang in Congress and the Senate. We didn’t elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don’t you guys show some spine for a change? I honestly don’t think any of you have one! . . . The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we’re fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving ‘pom-poms’ instead of asking hard questions. That’s not the promise of the ‘ America ‘ my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I’ve had enough. How about you?
Lee Iococca (the former and successful CEO of Chrysler) as quoted in Jim Sinclair's Mailbox on December 20, 2008 --- http://www.jsmineset.com/

The House made its first down payment on President Obama's health-care plans last week, passing 289-139 a major expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Senate is scheduled to take it up soon and pass it easily as well. These days tens of billions in new spending is a mere pittance, but Schip is also the Democratic model for a quantum jump in government health care down the line. The bill became a liberal Pequot after President Bush repeatedly vetoed it in 2007 (while supporting a modest expansion). The GOP has no hope of stopping it now, so Schip will more than double in size with $73.3 billion in new spending over the next decade -- not counting a budget gimmick that hides the true cost. The program is supposed to help children from working-poor families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but since it was created in 1997 Democrats have used it as a ratchet to grow the federal taxpayer share of health-care coverage. With the new bill, Schip will be open to everyone up to 300% of the federal poverty level, or $63,081 for a family of four. In other words, a program supposedly targeted at low-income families has an eligibility ceiling higher than the U.S. median household income, which according to the Census Bureau is $50,233. Even the 300% figure isn't really a ceiling, given that states can get a government waiver to go even higher. Tom Daschle's folks at Health and Human Services will barely read the state paperwork before rubberstamping these expansions.
"The Latest Entitlement:  Federal health care at 300% of poverty," The Wall Street Journal, January 21, 2009 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249769747600423.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Reinventing the American Dream --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/2008Bailout.htm#AmericanDream

"Paul Krugman: The Prophet of Socialism A prophet who has been consistently wrong," by Donald Luskin )Editor’s Note: This article is excerpted from Donald Luskin’s new book, I Am John Galt,, National Review, June 13, 2011 ---
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269428/paul-krugman-prophet-socialism-donald-luskin

Christiane Amanpour’s eyes darted back and forth in fear, and her mouth twisted in disgust, because she could see where this was going. A guest on her Sunday-morning political talk show, ABC’s This Week, was getting dangerously overexcited, and something very regrettable was about to happen.

She could see that he was winding himself up as he talked about how a recent deficit-reduction panel hadn’t been “brave enough” — because it failed to endorse the idea of expert panels that would determine what medical services government-funded care wouldn’t pay for. When Obamacare was still being debated in Congress, Sarah Palin had created a media sensation by calling them “death panels,” causing most liberals who supported Obamacare to quickly distance themselves from any idea of rationing care as being tantamount to murder.

The guest said, “Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”

It was all the more horrifying because the guest was not a conservative, not an opponent of Obamacare. This guest was an avid liberal, a partisan Democrat, and an enthusiastic supporter of government-run health care. He was endorsing death panels, not warning about them. He was saying death panels are a good thing. And it was even more horrifying because of who this guest was. This was no fringe lefty wearing a tinfoil hat, churning out underground newspapers in his parents’ basement. This was an economics professor at Princeton, one of the country’s most prestigious universities. This was the winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, the highest honor the profession can bestow. This was a columnist for the New York Times, the most influential newspaper in the world. This was Paul Krugman, live, on national television, endorsing government control over life and death. And while we’re at it, let’s raise taxes on those who are permitted to live.

Who exactly does Paul Krugman think he is? He’d like to think he’s John Maynard Keynes, the venerated British economist who created the intellectual framework for modern government intervention in the economy. Keynes is something of a cult figure for modern liberal economists like Krugman, who read his texts with exegetical fervor. But Krugman will never live up to Keynes. However politicized his economic theories, Keynes’s predictions were so astute that he made himself wealthy as a speculator. Economics is called “the dismal science,” but as we’ll see, Krugman’s predictions are so laughably bad his economics should be called the abysmal pseudo-science.

Most critiques of Krugman as a public intellectual begin with what is apparently an obligatory disclaimer, usually in the very first sentence — something to the effect that Krugman is a very accomplished and well-respected economist. Then comes the “But . . .” and the critique proceeds in earnest, often scathingly.

But why concede this honor to Krugman? So what if he won the Nobel Prize? The real test of Krugman’s mettle as an economist is the accuracy of his economic forecasting. The fact is that, with about three decades of evidence now in, Krugman’s track record, to use a technical term favored by economists, sucks.

He’s not always candid about this. But once, under the pressure of a televised debate with conservative talk-show host Bill O’Reilly, Krugman blurted out an understated if truthful self-evaluation: “Compare me . . . compare me, uh, with anyone else, and I think you’ll see that my forecasting record is not great.”

The most egregious example of “not great” is Krugman’s utterly incorrect 1982 prediction that inflation would soar. He made this prediction from no less lofty a perch than the White House, as staff member of the Council of Economic Advisers in the first Reagan administration. In a memo titled “The Inflation Time Bomb” Krugman wrote with co-author Lawrence Summers, “We believe that it is reasonable to expect a significant reacceleration of inflation . . . at least 5 percentage points to future increases in consumer prices. . . . This estimate is conservative.”

It also turned out to be hilariously, side-splittingly, knee-slappingly, rolling-on-the-floor wrong. Except for a tiny uptick the very next month, inflation didn’t rise; it fell. Four years later, it had fallen to 1.18 percent, a rate so low as to border on deflation.

In late February 2000, two weeks before the peak of the dot-com stock bubble at Nasdaq 5,000, Krugman wrote in his Times column that the Dow Jones Industrial Average was overvalued, saying, “Let the blue chips fall where they may.” As for the Nasdaq — which at that point had almost doubled over the prior year, and more than tripled over the prior three years — Krugman said soothingly, “I’m not sure that the current value of the Nasdaq is justified, but I’m not sure that it isn’t.”

We all know what happened. As of this writing, the Dow is about 20 percent higher than when Krugman wrote those words — and that’s not including a decade of dividends. The Nasdaq is about 42 percent lower. It hit bottom in October 2002, a 75.7 percent loss from where Krugman said not to worry about it. After something of a recovery, stocks fell again. They hit a real bottom — about a week after Krugman wrote a Times column asking the rhetorical question, “Is there any relief in sight?” His wrong answer: “No.”

Perfect bookends: He missed the top, and then three years later, he missed the bottom. But then he outdid himself. In June 2003, with the Nasdaq up 20 percent since Krugman’s “No,” did he recognize his error and reverse course? Again, no. Krugman wrote that “the current surge in stocks looks like another bubble.” From there the Nasdaq was to rally another 75 percent.

At around the same time, afraid of what he called a “fiscal train wreck” that would lead to disastrously high interest rates, he announced in the lead paragraph of a March 2003 Times column: “So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I’m terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.” In fact, rates didn’t rise, even when budget deficits skyrocketed beyond anything he could have imagined then, driven by government “stimulus” spending that he himself urged. Nowadays, on his New York Times blog, he regularly chides deficit-wary Republicans by using today’s low interest rates to prove that the U.S. faces no financial difficulties.

In 2003, I set out to expose Krugman’s various distortions, and to force the New York Times to correct them. I started first on my blog, and soon afterward in a series of columns for National Review Online called “The Krugman Truth Squad” (KTS). The inaugural KTS column appeared on March 20, 2003. The series of columns was structured as what is now called “crowdsourcing”: Within several hours of a Krugman column’s appearing on the Times website, I and a network of fellow bloggers would put it under a microscope and discover all the filthy microbes hiding in every crack. We’d fact-check every claim, confirm every quotation, run down every source, and compare every statement for consistency with statements made in the past. The KTS called Krugman “America’s most dangerous liberal pundit,” and our promise to readers was: “We’ll read Paul Krugman so you don’t have to.”

I won’t cite here very many of the dozens upon dozens of prevarications that my Krugman Truth Squad exposed in 94 columns over five years. If you are interested, look up my name in the NRO author archives, where most of the KTS columns can still be seen. Or you can download a PDF file with the entire collection of KTS columns here.

Continued in article

Bob Jensen's threads on entitlements are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Entitlements.htm

What is (Obama's) biggest challenge? Not demoralized and reorganizing Republicans on the Hill but his own party, with a hunger for innovation and a head of steam built up and about to burst. And the incredible sense of expectation his supporters hold. When you think someone's Moses, you expect him to part the seas. Americans want change, and they just voted for it, but in times of high-stakes history they appreciate stability. And while we love drama in our movie stars and on our television sets, we don't love unneeded drama in our government and among our govern-ors. This is already a dramatic time—two wars, economic collapse—and people are rattled. "Moderation in all things." It should be noted here that the split in the popular vote was 53% to 46%. That is a solid seven-point win for the new president-elect, but it also means more than 56 million voters went for John McCain in a year when all the stars were aligned against the Republicans. (Though it is also true that many of the indexes for the GOP are dreadful, especially that they lost the vote of two-thirds of those aged 18 to 29. They lost a generation! If that continues in coming years, it will be a rolling wave of doom.)
Peggy Noonan, "The Children Are Watching:  America makes history, but the mandate is for moderation," The Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2008 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122600597583706149.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

"The country must be governed from the middle," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has spent much of the last two years working to quell intramural fights between liberals and conservatives on everything from ending the Iraq war to curbing the deficit. "You have to bring people together to reach consensus on solutions that are sustainable and acceptable to the American people." She also acknowledged, however, that Obama faces "more expectations than any president I can ever remember in my life time." So does his party.
"Pelosi: Obama Facing Higher Expectations Than Any Other President," Fox News, November 6, 2008 ---
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/06/pelosi-obama-facing-higher-expectations-president/
Jensen Comment
If Nancy Pelosi keeps saying such things as "curbing the deficit," you can expect a new Speaker of the House soon.

Obama is not making a balanced budget any kind of priority
Asked what Barack Obama was elected to do, and what legislation he's likely to find on his Oval Office desk soonest, Mr. Emanuel (the incoming White House Chief of Staff) didn't hesitate. "Bucket one would have children's health care, Schip," he said. "It has bipartisan agreement in the House and Senate. It's something President-elect Obama expects to see. Second would be [ending current restrictions on federally funded] stem-cell research. And third would be an economic recovery package focused on the two principles of job creation and tax relief for middle-class families."
Jason L. Riley, "Do What You Got Elected to Do," The Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2008 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122611134918910647.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Jensen Comment
It's interesting that Buckets 1, 2, and 3 did not mention ending the war in Iraq on the promised timetable. Stem cell research spending seems to have been moved up to the Number 2 bucket. Bucket Number 3 seems to be tax relief for the middle class coupled with the inevitable inflation accompanying increased balanced budgets. As an accountant I will be watching how the government hides the start of the trillion-dollar universal health care plan. Don't watch the media for revelations of slight of hand government accounting.
Welcome to George Orwell's Big Brother!

As for the liberal academy, the majority of professors won't give up bashing a market-based economy until the stock markets are dead and the private banking system is failed entirely.
How long will it be before the government bails out all pension funds, including TIAA/CREF? That's probably the next big bailout.
It's best to study about how to live on a government pension with soaring inflation --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/entitlements.htm

An academic voice speaks against Big Brother --- how dare he?
A second paper in this series will examine the theoretical justifications for the importance of the stock market as perhaps the central financial institution in the United States.
"Who Needs the Stock Market? Part I: The Empirical Evidence," by Lawrence E. Mitchell George Washington University - Law School, SSRN, October 30, 2008 --- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1292403

Data on historical and current corporate finance trends drawn from a variety of sources present a paradox. External equity has never played a significant role in financing industrial enterprises in the United States. The only American industry that has relied heavily upon external financing is the finance industry itself. Yet it is commonly accepted among legal scholars and economists that the stock market plays a valuable role in American economic life, and a recent, large body of macroeconomi