Five Quick Reasons the Debt Ceiling Argument is a Farce

Debt Ceiling fights are truly ridiculous.  Here’s why:

#1. The money has already been spent.  The entire “We Need To Stop Spending” argument isn’t applicable to money already appropriated.  If we want to cut future spending the place to do that is in budget and appropriation bills. Everything else is extraneous.

#2. There are three branches of government.  The President, any President of any party, may only recommend a budget or call for appropriations, and then all the incumbent can do is to pressure the Congress to enact the budget or appropriations.  Arm twisting, log rolling, and other negotiating techniques may be applied, but the final say on all money bills is the province of the House, with the agreement of the Senate.  Thus, the fight about a debt ceiling is essentially a matter of the House arguing that the House should not have appropriated so much funding so the House must (or must not) increase the debt ceiling limit.  If this sounds silly, it’s because it is.

#3.  The failure to increase the debt limit increases the deficit. Telling the world that the U.S. may not pay interest on the Treasury bills it has issued for government operations, then the cost of issuing those securities goes up as investors demand higher yields (read interest rates.)  Higher yields mean more debt service payments, and more debt service payments mean we’re deeper in the hole.  The general rule in life is that when you are in a hole — stop digging.  This rule doesn’t appear to apply to House and Senate Republicans.

#4. The debt ceiling argument is a distraction.  Don’t want to talk about reasonable gun control legislation?  Wave the Debt Flag. Don’t want to talk about comprehensive immigration law reform? Wave the Debt Flag. Don’t want to talk about the reemergence of Wall Street machinations issuing debt instruments the interest on which can be paid off with more debt? Wave the Debt Flag.  Don’t want to talk about infrastructure investment? Wave the Debt Flag. Don’t want to talk about re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act? Wave the Debt Flag.   Don’t want to talk about enacting the American Jobs Act? Wave the Debt Flag.  It is as if the multi-tasking performed by every other human being on this planet becomes a mystery when a person enters the halls of Congress.  Evidently, the House of Representatives gets mesmerized (with the assistance of a compliant press) by the Debt Flag every time it’s waved.

#5.  The institutions which are crying the loudest for debt management, the investment bankers, may have very personal motives.  Not that profit making is a bad thing — but, they want their cake and the eating of it too.  If they invest in Treasury bills, then they’d like to earn as much interest as possible. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised then interest rates on Treasuries will likely go up –and they’d like that. Who wouldn’t?

Leverage?

Some members of the chatterati may have taken Archimedes a bit too literally: “Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.”  Often too much emphasis is placed on the fulcrum and not quite enough on the part about the ancient mathematician needing a place to stand.  The word of the week sounds like “leverage” in Washington, D.C. Who has it? Who doesn’t? And, so what? The So What part isn’t all that interesting.

Although the pundit class is thoroughly fascinated at the moment with how much leverage the President and the Republicans may each possess after the self inflicted Fiscal Cliff fiasco, most of their comments can be categorized as post game “analysis” of the variety which is more commonly associated with post game “analysis” of a sporting event.  It’s never quite enough to declare one team or another victorious based on the scoreboard numbers — “we” have to “know” why one team won and the other lost.  In reality, we really don’t.

So, in the parlance of political reporters emulating the post game questions of their sports writer colleagues — can the President win the next game? A game of Debt Ceiling already scheduled by the Republicans and given official status by the post game analysts.

It depends on where you stand.

There are two major elements of the federal debt that deserve serious scrutiny.  First, during the Bush Administration’s policy of credit card conservatism we racked up two wars (off the budget and supported by supplemental appropriations), a major addition to the Medicare program (Medicare Part D, also unpaid for) and one major Recession.  All were guaranteed to increase the national debt.  The first two increased spending and the latter cut into the tax base.

Secondly, we do need to reduce the national debt, but how we do it is important.  This is one of those occasions which calls for a scalpel, not a meat axe.

It is also important to stand on firm ground.

A few facts are in order.  The first part of standing on terra firma before attempting to leverage anything is to dismiss some media mythology about trends in the national budget deficits.  The following chart should provide an illustration of the inaccuracy of the Now That A Democrat Is In The White House The Deficit Is Out Of Control Myth:

The chart illustrates what happens when two wars, one major Medicare addition, and a nasty Recession contribute to national spending. It also shows the effect of Obama Administration policies mentioned earlier, a point at which we should note that the Bush Administration toted up about $5.1 trillion in expenses, while as of last June the Obama Administration’s policies resulted in about $983 billion in spending.

In short, if we are really serious about deficit reduction then we need to eschew the policies that got us into this mess in the first instance, i.e. unnecessary tax cuts, and two very expensive wars.

OK, so if we don’t get involved in more military operations, we resist the myth that tax cuts somehow cause economic growth (which they never have), and we regulate our financial markets more effectively in order to mitigate the excessive enthusiasm of traders who created the last great mess, then where do we cut?

It’s time for another reality check.

Here’s where the money goes:

Since Social Security is a self-funding program, which as President Reagan famously cautioned in 1984 doesn’t add to the federal deficit (video), we can take that 20% out of the equation right now.  Anyone who is truly serious about the single issue of Social Security solvency should be clamoring to increase the cap on earnings liable to the payroll tax, currently set at a measly $110,000. We also need to remove the mandatory spending from the discussion because what we cut will have to be from discretionary spending.

The FY 2013 budget calls for spending $666.2 billion by the Department of Defense.  Another $80.6 billion is allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services (Medicare, Medicaid), and the Department of Education (Pell Grants, Title I, student loan guarantees, etc.) is scheduled to spend or entail $67.7 billion while the 4th largest chunk of the budget goes to the Veterans Administration which has $60.4 billion in scheduled spending.

In short, we’ve budgeted for $1,510 billion in discretionary spending in FY 2013.  The Department of Defense is on track to receive 44.12% of ALL the discretionary spending in the national budget.   Yet calls to cut military spending brings on the wailing of voices, the gnashing of teeth, and the rending of garments about “making us less safe” in an uncertain world.  In spite of all the wailing, gnashing, and rending — that one single department consumes 44.12% of the entire pot of discretionary spending is something we ought to be discussing.

Medicare is another matter.  IF we are truly serious about deficit reduction then we need to have more than the simplistic discourse already in evidence.  There is a false choice being presented, as though the only options are to privatize the Medicare program (give Granny a coupon and let her go out and find her own insurance) or to create a Single Payer national health care system.  While I wouldn’t be sorry to see a Single Payer system, this is an argument for another day.  The point is that there are options between these two proposals.

The central focus point should be that nothing which doesn’t have a bearing on health care cost containment is going to make much difference in the spending levels.   Privatization doesn’t address the cost containment issue, and a single payer system without cost containment elements is merely a recipe for increased expenses.

Now that the campaign season is over we can dismiss the Republican rhetoric about “Obama cut $716 out of Medicare,” and consign to the dust bin the notion that the Affordable Care Act somehow impinges on Medicare benefits.  Business Week explains:

From 2010 to 2019, Obamacare trims payments to providers by $196 billion. They agreed to take a cut because they will get so many new patients, thanks to the individual mandate. Another $210 billion will be generated by raising Medicare taxes on the wealthy (that’s households earning more than $250,000). Another $145 billion comes from phasing out overpayments to Medicare Advantage. About 25 percent of seniors use the program—in which private plans compete for Medicare dollars—instead of traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Under Obamacare, the government has to keep Medicare Advantage costs in line with those of traditional Medicare. More savings come from streamlining administrative costs.

Thus, if we trim payments to providers, phase out over-payments for profitable private health care policies, and put some reins on administrative costs we’ll find about $716 billion in savings for the Medicare program.  Other cost savings may also be the result of more efficient record keeping, especially in the pharmaceutical segment.  Anyone who’s dealt with the medical issues of an elderly parent knows of multiple prescriptions written from several physicians who may or may not consult with one another.  The result can be as minimal as two (or three) prescriptions for the same medication at different dosages; or, as detrimental as two prescription medications which should not be taken together.

However, the bottom line is still the bottom line — unless and until we are ready to discuss health care cost containment we’ll be immersed in the rhetoric of low bludgeon and high dudgeon without much result.

When we discuss funding for the Department of Education it’s important to note that the FY 2013 discretionary requests yield an official number, $69.8 billion — if we include Pell Grants.  Pell Grants constitute about $22.8 billion of the total, a decrease from $23.8 billion in the FY 2011 budget.  Without the Pell Grants the total discretionary spending in the FY 2013 budget is $47 billion.   There are two constituencies with major stakes in arguing about these funds.

Parents.  Unless one is amenable to the elitist argument that kids should have access to only the level of education their parents can afford (which makes social mobility a moot point) parents are going to need assistance paying for their children’s education.  Whether we like it or no, education is a labor intensive business.  We can trim educational spending by continuing what the Obama Administration has started — saving approximately $61 billion by cutting the banks out of their role as middlemen in the student loan program [NYT]– but it really doesn’t do to cut efforts to educate our young people.  It also doesn’t make economic sense since a college degree is worth money in the marketplace.

Local school districts.  Cash strapped and semi-starved local school districts rely on funds for Special Education programs, Title I services, School Lunch programs, to make up budget shortfalls.  While the level of federal involvement at the local level isn’t all that much it does cover expenses local districts would be hard pressed to meet were the monies cut.

Hostage Taking

How we fund, or de-fund, these major activities depends on who is being held hostage and by whom.   Did the President allow the Republicans to gain “leverage” by taking the tax rates off the table in the next Congressionally manufactured debt ceiling debacle. Or, are we going to change hostages?

Will the Republican stance be that all other programs must be cut in order to spare the 44.12% consumed by the Department of Defense?

Will the GOP position be that Medicare must be privatized in order to practice “sound fiscal responsibility?”

Will the GOP position be that Social Security must be “reformed” (read cut) in the interest of “fiscal accountability and deficit reduction” even though it adds not a nickel to the federal debt?

Will the Administration simply say — You manufactured this debt ceiling “crisis” live with it?  Remembering that if the national credit rating is downgraded this will likely mean that the cost of borrowing (yields paid to those who invest in Treasuries) will go up, exacerbating the problem rather than addressing it.

Will the point be made to the American people that while the credit card analogy is handy, the United States of America doesn’t have creditors it has investors.  Our federal government accesses funds by issuing bonds.   And WE own most of those bonds.

Here’s the little chart again:

42.2% of the money “borrowed” by the U.S. government is an asset for U.S. individuals and financial institutions.   Today’s yield curve doesn’t indicate a government which is having to pay all that much to get people and institutions to invest in it:

Even 30 year bonds are paying only 3.0% interest.

The amount of leverage always depends on where one stands and places the fulcrum.

Things that could get me to toss confetti in 2013

There are things that could get me to toss confetti for 2013.   Not many, mind you, which would justify the consequent vacuuming, but a goodly handful.

#1. The Senate of the United States of America does something constructive with the FILIBUSTER rule.   The original rule was intended to prevent the willful trampling of minority points of view, but the abuse of the rule is now part of the clichéd “Washington Gridlock.”  There is a delicate balance between Majority Rule and Minority Rights, but Obstruction for its own sake is not a laudable occupation.

#2. The Republicans in the House of Representatives eschew the  Hastert Rule , under which a majority of the majority party caucus must agree to the passage of a bill before a vote can be taken on the House floor.  This might have been a lovely idea if the current majority party caucus weren’t the replication of that other cliché– a wheelbarrow load of frogs.  Governance requires compromise, and compromise demands the admission that we don’t always get everything we want.  Ideological posturing is not a substitute for principled discourse.

#3.  Someone in a position to do something about it finally figures out that arguments over raising the debt ceiling are academic at best and consummately silly at worst — rather like announcing that because I overspent my budget for this holiday season I’m going to chop up my credit cards and not pay the bills.  Aside from being the most fiscally irresponsible action imaginable, it’s also a manifestation of the idea that the full faith and credit of the United States is some kind of bargaining chip in ideological squabbling.

#4. The National Rifle Association (aka No Rational Argument) stops pretending to care about the right of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and honestly announces that its ultimate intention is to promote the sale of as many firearms as its manufacturing donors can create.  After that, it should be far easier to discuss comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and banning military style assault weapons.

#5. More people, perhaps even more people in the national media, stop referring to “The” government and start calling it what it is — OUR government.   “The” government calls to mind the institution which cracks down on Moonshiners, or enforces school integration, or ignores calls to make Jefferson Davis’s birthday a national holiday.  “The” government didn’t decide to integrate public schools — “our” government did. “The” government didn’t decide to enact regulations to prevent air and water pollution — “our” government did.  And, “The” government didn’t create the Food Stamp (SNAP) program — “our” government did that.  And so it goes.  Continual references to “The” government is an unfortunate holdover from the Reaganesque caricature of government designed to promote the financial health of the economic elite by appealing to the discontent with those laws “our” government enacted to promote OUR general welfare.

#6. Our representatives on Capitol Hill learn to say “____ isn’t the end of the world as we know it.”  I could do with a great deal less hysterical hyperbole.  “This is the Largest Tax Increase In The History of the Universe!”  Probably not.  “This is the worst violation of human rights ever!” Probably not that either.  “This will create the worst calamity known to man.” Probably not.  “This will destroy our ____.”  Again, probably not.  Excuse me while I chuckle at the pomposity of this meaningless prognostication.

#7.  Journalists who seek to inform me via the television set prove to be (1) knowledgeable about the subject under discussion, and (2) include fact checking as part of the “context” of which they speak so often.  If a statement made by a politician is factually inaccurate, they will tell me; and I hope they’ll be able to offer a correction.  I really don’t care if they are correcting the record in the wake of Left Wing Larry or Right Wing Richard’s pontification.  The object of the exercise should be to impart accurate information so far as it can be known — I can get my “entertainment” elsewhere.  Bluntly, the “he said, she said, and then he said” reactions from professional chatterati or elected representatives is less entertaining than a good professional wrestling match, which at least has the grace to admit it’s a scripted farce.

#8. Somebody finally declares the Culture Wars over and done with.  Our contemporary version appears to incorporate a toxic dose of good old fashioned misogyny.  Women make up about 51% of our population and telling them they cannot have an abortion (even in the cases of an ectopic pregnancy or as the result of a rape) is paternalistic to the core.  Worse still would be telling them that their employer can decide if their health insurance plan covers contraceptive medication.

#9.  On a related note, it really doesn’t do to blame God for everything.  I’d cheer the week that some blowhards weren’t showcased in the media for pronouncing God’s Wrath for … whatever.  Hurricane Katrina — God’s wrath for a Gay Pride gathering? Really?  God’s wrath because we don’t pray hard enough?  That certainly doesn’t explain the attack on congregants in the Knoxville Unitarian church.  God’s Wrath because we don’t have organized  prayer in schools? Huh?  No one at Columbine High School, Platte County High School, Northern Illinois University, Virginia Tech University, or Sandy Hook Elementary knew how to pray and practiced it regularly? Spare me the Westboro Wannabes who “know” the mind of God better than a six year old child.

#10.  The confetti will fly when we begin to have a serious discussion about global climate change without having to incorporate the phony “science” offered up by the fossil fuel industry.  No, there isn’t a “controversy” here. And, no reputable science deflects our responsibility as human beings for the contamination of which we are clearly capable.

Speaking of the Almighty, there’s an old story about the man caught in a flood which seems appropriate at the moment.  “Why, he cried out to God, am a trapped in these flood waters?”  The Almighty, sorely tired of listening to the wailing, said, “I sent you warnings.” “When?”  “When?” responded the Deity. “When indeed.” “I sent you warnings on the radio. You ignored me. I sent you warnings in television broadcasts, and you ignored me. I even sent a deputy sheriff to personally advise you to evacuate. And, you ignored him too.”  ….

We’ve been visited with major named storms, watched ice caps diminish, seen glaciers disappear… and all together too many people are ignoring the warnings.

Yes, We Could Be Having A Serious Deficit Reduction Discussion?

At some point in the ongoing discussion about federal debts and budget deficits everyone needs to get serious.  Serious, that is, about doing that which will reduce our federal deficit spending.  Really serious, not as in “let’s wave a Debt Crisis Flag every three months to advance an agenda including the privatization of Social Security and the voucherization of the Medicare program.”

Let’s start with the obvious.  Social Security doesn’t add a dime to the national debt.  If the words of a progressive blogger won’t suffice, how about listening to former President Ronald Reagan?  (video here)  So, discussing “reforms” to the self funded Social Security program as a means to reduce the national debt is extraneous to any serious deficit reduction discussion.

One way to approach the privatization of Social Security is to change the frame of reference, such as altering the connotation of “entitlement” from some earned benefit to which we are entitled because we paid for it, to one which has a tinge of “welfare” about it.  Social Security is not a welfare program — it is an earned benefit.  People who have paid into it all their working lives have every right to expect to be getting something back.  Social Security is not a retirement program.  It is a program which seeks to prevent abject poverty for elders.   Nothing in the Social Security program prevents anyone from maintaining a self-contributory retirement account of any shape or form.   Indeed, the benefits from Social Security are low enough that retirement to the Gated Golf Paradise Of Your Choice can only happen if you have a self-contributory retirement savings program. Anyone suggesting that “entitlements” such as Social Security “have to be reformed” to ease the burden on the federal debt (1) doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about, and (2) is regurgitating anti-safety net talking points from radicals who want to privatize all retirement income programs to the benefit of Wall Street investment firms.

Medicare does have some issues.  The first, and most readily apparent, is that the Medicare Part D (prescription drug) segment is, and always has been, underfunded.  However, the really big monster under the Medicare bed is the increasing cost of health care in America.  When private health care corporations started buying up religious organization/private, state, and locally supported hospitals the profit motive surged in the sector.  Health care must now generate a profit.  Savings, which were once achieved for the purpose of reducing costs for local tax payers or donors to religiously based institutions, now accrue to the corporate bottom line — not to taxpayers, donors, or patients.

The second factor is technology.  We do have the best medical treatment providers in the world.  However, best often translates into “most expensive.” We have all manner of devices and gadgets and equipment and gear to save or sustain lives.  Our hospitals take it as their mission to save or sustain life, which is all well and good until the emotional meets the economical.  There are “death panels” in this country, but they aren’t governmental — they are familial, with families making ‘end of life’ decisions which horrifically in some instances are based on what the family can afford.   Frankly speaking, we don’t do a very good job of educating our citizens about advance directives.  Some conservatives set up a howl when they noticed the Affordable Care Act provided for paying physicians or other medical professionals who provided ‘end of life’ counseling for their patients — however, a little counseling might go a long way toward reducing the anxiety of hospital personnel and the trepidations of family members.  It could also provide some savings in the long run.

Returning to the Big Problem — the Medicare Part D component; we knew in 2003 that the Part D segment would  cost approximately $534 billion.  [Foster pdf] Simply put, “the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit,..” [Forbes]  The part about “dedicated financing” is important.  While the Social Security trust funds have dedicated financing (payroll taxes) there were no provisions to increase the revenues available to finance the Part D enhancement.   There is something unappealingly ironic about the current GOP insistence on “entitlement reform” because “Medicare is broken,” when it was the GOP majority in 2003 that Broke the Program.

Ways to ‘reform’ the Medicare program have been suggested which do not require “voucherizing” the entire thing and sending seniors back to pounding pavement in order to find affordable health insurance plans.  We could consider means testing for the prescription drug benefit.  We might take under advisement lifting the earnings cap for payroll taxes from the current $110,000 level and dedicating a portion of the revenues toward the Part D program.  We could allow the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate for prescription drug prices the way the Veterans Administration bargains for prescription drugs for VA hospitals and clinics.

If we are REALLY REALLY SERIOUS about ‘reforming’ Medicare then it would be helpful to get past the silly voucherization proposals, referred to as “structural reform” in Speaker Boehner’s response to the President, [Boehner pdf]  and get to the core of what makes health care expensive — we could talk about health care cost containment, dedicated financing for Medicare, and lifting the earnings cap.   We might also want to take a deep breath and see if the Affordable Care Act’s provisions, such as eliminating tax payer subsidies for profitable private Medicare Advantage insurance policies, could achieve some savings over the next decade.

However, it’s getting relatively obvious that the Republicans aren’t terribly serious about deficit (debt) reduction when their offers are strictly ideological (privatize and voucherize) and the proposals don’t address the monster of their own creation — the lack of financing for Medicare Part D.

Buzz Words and Generalities.   Speaker Boehner is offering (pdf) “pro-growth tax reform that closes loopholes and deductions while lowering rates.”   This phrasing is coming perilously close to the older verbiage: Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.  As if we could make up any gaps in program funding by simply cutting out the WFA.  Most anti-tax advocates cite the WFA as some massive potential figure which if reduced could cure all our fiscal woes.  When pressed to provide total figures associated with the largely mythical WFA these advocates provide outlier examples of welfare fraud, some particularly egregious Pentagon payments to contractors, and perhaps a bit of information from Internet e-mail chain letters.  The WFA numbers have yet to yield up the level of financing needed to close budget gaps in the Pentagon or any other government activity.

The arithmetic from “loopholes and deductions” doesn’t add up either.  The same sort of fantastical thinking is required to equate the WFA savings and the L&D revenues.  These mythological creatures are based on the same gossamer upon which anti-tax advocates conjure up the notion that an inordinate amount of the U.S. budget is allocated to foreign aid.  The average American has come to believe that foreign aid takes up 10% of the federal budget, when if fact it consumes only 1%. [NYM]

The Republicans also appear to be consuming their own rhetoric on savings associated with reductions in federal employee compensation.

“Cutting pensions and benefits for government workers is popular, but once again most Americans overestimate how much that costs the government. On average, Americans think the federal government spent 10 percent of its 2010 budget on pensions and retiree benefits; the OMB figures indicate the real number is about 3.5 percent.” [CNN]

The moral of this story is that if the amounts of spending on pensions and benefits, or the amounts that can be retrieved by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions, are grossly inflated, then the resulting policy and budget decisions will be widely off the mark.

Unfortunately, the same type of ideologically based proposals which are the core of Speaker Boehner’s “structural reforms” i.e. voucherization and privatization of Medicare appear to inform his suggestions about federal employee compensation, and another favorite GOP target, SNAP (food stamps.)

The program is already under assault from all sides, considering the appropriations being entertained in the agriculture bill.

The Senate’s version of the farm bill would reduce overall funding by $23 billion, with a reduction in food stamps of $4.5 billion over five years. The House Agriculture Committee is proposing to cut funding by $35 billion — with nearly half the overall cut coming from reductions in food stamps by $16 billion over five years. [Atlantic]

But there’s a problem here.  Food stamps have a beneficial effect on the national economy.

“Those who believe in cutting SNAP funding as a cost-saving measure should know that food stamps boost the economy — not put a strain on it. Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Mark Zandi, of Moody’s Economy.com, confirmed the economic boost in an independent study that found that every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.73 in real GDP increase. “Expanding food stamps,” the study read, “is the most effective way to prime the economy’s pump.” [Atlantic]

If the object of the game is to increase federal revenues by generating a higher GDP along the formula proposing that a growing economy produces jobs, and more jobs yield more taxable income, and more taxable income means more revenue — then the GOP has the SNAP portion of the argument exactly backwards.  They are proposing to cut a program which actually generates more economic growth.   If one seriously believes that economic growth means more revenue and hence less indebtedness, then one can’t seriously advocate cutting programs which elevate levels of economic growth.

All Pain and No Gain.  The two sides don’t seem to be speaking to the same fiscal slope, cliff, gully, whatever.  From the Republican perspective the damage to the economy might be done by The Specter of Rising Taxes.  Those legendary Job Creators — who are now seeing record corporate profits while wages continue to stagnate — might not invest, and hence there will be no economic growth.  This is fundamental Supply Side Hoax thinking.  That it has been, and still is, a hoax is demonstrated neatly by this graph from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis:

The blue line represents wages, the red line corporate profits.  If corporate well being were the driver of overall economic growth and  well being then why has the blue line been trending downward since 1970?  The answer is simplicity itself: Supply Side Economics is a Hoax of the First Water.

A deficit reduction plan predicated on ideology, urban legends, misunderstandings, and economic illiteracy isn’t SERIOUS.   That conclusion further advances the argument that the Republicans aren’t really serious about debt or deficit reduction, but merely see the issue as a flag to be waved in the van of their attack on the social safety net, a banner of privatization signaling their allegiance to Tea Party politics.

Six Talking Points about Fiscal Cliffs and Austerity Bombs

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has a message for the middle class this morning:

“Nevadans and Americans across the country agree that we can strengthen the middle class by adopting a balanced fiscal policy that requires millionaires and billionaires to pay a little more. In July, the Senate passed a bill to cut taxes for the 98% of Americans and 97% of small businesses making less than $250,000. House Republicans should stop trying to protect the wealthiest Americans from contributing their fair share and pass this bill immediately. Middle class Americans will have more opportunities to succeed when we level the playing field and make tax policy fairer.”  Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) 11/19/12″  (emphasis added)

In order to effectively expound on this message it is necessary to plant oneself firmly in the Reality Based World, and to dismiss some common misconceptions being promoted by the plutocrats and their GOP allies.

#1.  When the GOP says “your taxes will be raised” they are not talking to 98% of the American public who earn less than $250,000 in adjusted gross income annually.  The Obama Administration’s proposal is to allow the Bush Tax cuts to expire on earnings above $250,000; and to KEEP the Bush era tax rates in place for those individuals earning less than $250,000 in adjusted gross income annually.

#2. When the GOP says taxes will increase on small businesses, they are including those 3% of “small businesses” which are lobby shops, major law firms, large hedge funds, etc.  They are NOT speaking of the 97% of American small businesses which are small partnerships, single proprietorships, or small corporations which constitute the backbone of the American economy.

#3. Social Security and Medicare are called “entitlements” because they are earned benefits, which individuals have paid for and therefore are entitlements. These programs are not the problem, they are simply the target of choice from the Republican leadership which wants to cut Social Security and privatize Medicare.   These programs have NO place in budget negotiations concerning the reduction of the federal debt.

#4.  The legislation to which Senator Reid refers is S. 3412.  The terms of which can be generally summarized as:

“The Senate bill (S. 3412), passed on July 25, 2012, would extend current tax rates for lower- and middle-income persons, would increase tax rates on higher-income persons, would extend for one year (through 2013) certain tax provisions that expire at the end of 2012, and would patch the alternative minimum tax for one year only (2012).” [source]

#5.  “Harry and Louise” style ads from the Edison Electrical Institute (DefendTheDividend) notwithstanding,  S. 3412 and the Obama Administration proposals are  NOT an attack on retirement savings.  Remember the threshold levels:  “Individuals with incomes above these threshold levels, would have some of their itemized deductions and personal exemptions limited by phase-outs, would have a 20% rate on dividends and long-term gains, and would face tax rates of 33%, 36% and 39.6%“  [source]  The current rate for investors is 15%.

Who would  be affected by the Obama Administration’s tax proposals on capital gains?  Information from the Tax Policy Center is helpful.

Things to note — there are NO changes for those individuals in the bottom four income quintiles.  Only those individuals who are in the TOP income brackets (the top quintile, especially those in the top 1% or the top 0.1%) would be affected by the proposed changes in tax treatment of dividends.

#6.  There is NO correlation between low tax rates and economic growth. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service came to this conclusion after studying data from the last 65 years.

“The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.”  [CRS pdf]

In short, the only economic feature impacted by a reduction in tax rates is income inequality.   Nothing says “Support The Plutocrats and Financialists” better than saying we can’t raise taxes on the top 2% without cutting earned benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare.

The Campaign for the Middle Class Isn’t Over

The candidates are no longer running ads, the campaigns have been shut down, BUT the campaign for the American Middle Class continues.  The next phase comes as the Congress debates how to reduce the national debt — brought to us by two wars fought “off the books,” ill considered tax rate reductions, and a nasty recession.  If the American Middle Class is to avoid the detonation of the Austerity Bomb (aka the Fiscal Cliff) then we need to:

(1) Let our Senators and Representatives know that without an increase in the tax rates for millionaires and billionaires the ARITHMETIC necessary to reduce the national debt doesn’t add up.

(2) Remind our Senators and Representatives that federal discretionary spending has already been cut by $840 billion to $916 billion over the next ten years [QS] in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

(3) Let our Senators and Representatives know that we understand merely closing a few loopholes in the tax code isn’t nearly enough to make a serious dent in the national debt.  If they are serious about debt reduction then “increasing revenues” can’t be a code phrase for “tinkering with deductions and loopholes.”

If millionaires and billionaires don’t want a national debt passed along to their children and grandchildren — it just might behoove them to help pay off some of it.

 

 

A Very Simple Illustration of Republican Fiscal Cliff Hanging

 

Fiscal Cliff or Stairway to Heaven?

As the Nevada Progressive points out, the looming “fiscal cliff” is a meaningful moment for the Republicans in the U.S. Congress.   The somewhat sordid history of this “cliff” which in actuality could be more like a slight slope is summarized as:

“The United States fiscal cliff refers to the effect of a series of recent laws which, if unchanged, will result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit beginning in 2013.  These laws include tax increases due to the expiration of the so-called Bush tax cuts and across-the-board spending cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011.” [link]

At this point, even the well informed may need a reminder that the term ‘fiscal cliff’ was coined by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who was concerned that the impact of the failure of the Super Committee to reach an agreement would depress the economy:

“For the record, although the explanation wasn’t reported or repeated as much as the catchphrase itself, Bernanke actually said the fiscal cliff was about the large spending cuts and tax increases already scheduled to occur being far too big for the current U.S. economy to handle at one time. “I hope that Congress will look at [the spending cuts and revenue increases] and figure out ways to achieve the same long-run fiscal improvement without having it all happen at one date,” he told the committee.

In other words, “fiscal cliff” means the big deficit reductions that have been both inadvertently and intentionally scheduled to go into effect at the turn of the year are the absolutely wrong fiscal policy at that time and that the economy will be damaged if they are not changed.” [OF.org]  (emphasis added)

For those likely to hit the panic button — some programs are exempted from the budget cuts: Social Security, federal pensions, and veteran’s benefits.  Social Security is properly called an entitlement program, because the beneficiaries have paid into it, and it is supported by payroll taxes and its own trust funds.  No one, repeat NO ONE, has “spent” money earmarked for the Social Security Trust Funds.  [SSA]

For those likely to run screaming into the sage brush about THE DEFICIT, we should note that reductions in military operations in Afghanistan will reduce that beast, and we should remember that the Affordable Care Act also has some deficit reduction benefits.  Cherry-picking selective think tank and editorial board musings notwithstanding, the  “CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation—H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal—would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010–2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenues.” [WH.gov]

The central question about the ‘fiscal cliff’ is whether or not  it becomes a stairway to heaven for the American middle class.  It’s a cliff if the Republican controlled Congress obstructs the negotiation process such that ALL tax breaks enacted during the Bush Administration expire — including those for those earning less than $250,000 annually.  It’s a stairway to heaven, if the Congress can agree to allow the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires to expire, and retain the tax breaks for middle class families.

It’s a cliff if the Congress demands that automatic economic stabilizers like unemployment insurance support, nutrition programs, and other means by which we prevent highly volatile economic swings are cut in order to prevent the upper 1% of American income earners from having to pay any increased taxation.  It’s a stairway if the economic stabilizers can be themselves stabilized, perhaps even if in slightly reduced forms.

It’s a cliff if the tax breaks for 97% of American small businesses are lost in the interest of sparing the top 0.01% of American income earners any tax increases.  It’s a stairway if tax breaks for 97% of American small business owners are maintained, and the deficit is reduced by encouraging economic growth, and by taxing the top 1% more fairly.

The newly re-elected President had some words about this choice:

“President Obama said he refuses to accept any approach that isn’t balanced. “I’m not going to ask students and seniors and the middle class to pay down the entire deficit,” while higher earners get tax cuts, he said.

The President said he will ask Congress to pass a bill that will continue the tax cuts for the middle class, which he says will eliminate much of the uncertainty in the nation. After that point, he said, he and Congressional leaders can work on a compromise for the remaining tax cuts.” [CSPAN]

The President’s own words, on video (not yet embeddable) from CSPAN.

 

Chart of the Day: National Debt Increases By Presidency

Clip and share with any Faux News lovin’ Fuzzy Uncle who is convinced Democrats are the party of “Out Of Control Spending.”

H/T to Think For Yourself, and Treasury Direct.

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of ACA: Heller Kicks The Gator Ade Bucket

Senator Dean Heller (R-NV), or as the Fine Wordsmith The Gleaner calls him, “The Senator By Appointment Only,”  wants us all to know that he is not pleased by the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act and Patients’ Bill of Rights.

“Nevada families and businesses are already struggling in this current economic environment, and the President’s job-killing healthcare law is making a difficult situation worse. Congress spent more than a year debating healthcare legislation while Nevadans were losing their jobs and their homes. Obamacare made sweeping changes to Medicare, impacting thousands of Nevada’s seniors, and cut the program by a half trillion dollars.

“This law has now been affirmed as a colossal tax increase on the middle class, and its excessive regulations are stripping businesses of the certainty they need to hire at a time when Nevadans and the rest of the country are desperate for jobs. The President should work with Congress to find real solutions to healthcare reform so the excessive mandates and taxes in this law do not further add to our national debt or continue to stifle economic growth. This onerous law needs to be repealed and replaced with market-based reforms that will provide greater access, affordability, and economic certainty to our nation,” said Senator Dean Heller.

Let us parse:

Heller: “Nevada families and businesses are already struggling in this current economic environment, and the President’s job-killing healthcare law is making a difficult situation worse.”

Coupling “job-killing” and “healthcare” is a Republican construction which doesn’t do anything more than seek to associate a change in health care statutes with something (anything) negative.  If unemployment in Nevada were at 2%, and the nation’s major problem was smog, then it would be easy to imagine that the ACA and Patients Bill of Right would be “pollution producing.”  That’s speculative, so let’s drill down a bit further.

Let’s go to that bastion of liberal thinking, Forbes, to see if the ACA/PBR is actually “job killing?”  The answer: No.  In fact, when we go to the Urban Institute’s Study the Massachusetts health care reform enacted under Governor Romney’s administration did NOT produce “job killing” results:

The graphic reduction is difficult to read, so click on the image for the full sized version in the Urban Institute’s original study.  What happens when we take a look at the right hand side of the chart?

While the U.S. was experiencing a decline in full time jobs during the Recession of 3.6%, Massachusetts saw a 2.8% drop.  While the U.S. witnessed a 0.8% increase in part time employment, Massachusetts saw a 0.9% increase.  Whether Governor Romney wants to admit it or not, the Massachusetts plan is the closest statutory comparison to the Affordable Care Act we have, and the numbers about “job losses” in Massachusetts don’t make the Republican point.

Neither do the national numbers: “Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the economy has created 3.5 million private sector jobs, including 488,000 jobs in the health care industry. The unemployment rate is 8.3%, lower than it was in March 2010.“  [Hoyer] And this: “360,000 small businesses have taken advantage of tax credits that are making health insurance more affordable for 2 million workers.  As many as four million small businesses are eligible for these credits.” [Hoyer] And, again, this: “…over 2,800 employers are participating in the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, which is helping provide coverage to 13 million early retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare.”  [Hoyer]   Whether we look at national numbers or state numbers, or both — the health care reforms enacted in Massachusetts and in the United States are NOT job killing.

Heller: “Congress spent more than a year debating healthcare legislation while Nevadans were losing their jobs and their homes.”

Yes, many things happened while foreclosure rates in Nevada were leading the nation,  and during this time what was the GOP agenda on financial reform and mortgage relief?

On October 12, 2010 Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) laid out the GOP position on the foreclosure crisis: “Republican leader Eric Cantor chose to break his silence on the foreclosure crisis, with other Republicans quickly picking up the talking points.  And his position should come as no surprise.  Rep. Cantor came to the defense of the housing industry and laid blame squarely on the feet of the American homeowner.” [C2C]

Then, there was the infamous comment from current GOP standard bearer Governor Romney on home foreclosures: “Don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” Romney said when asked what he would do to jump-start the floundering housing market.” [WashMonthly Oct 2011]

Thus, while Congress was debating, the President was signing, and then the Department of Health and Human Services was implementing the provisions of the Affordable Care Act and Patients Bill of Rights, the Republicans were blaming homeowners for the foreclosure debacles and the leader among the GOP presidential candidates was asserting that Nevadans who were in the foreclosure process should close their eyes and Think of the Free Market.  In other words, the Congress could have been debating the desirability of regulating Sea Horse Races, and the GOP wouldn’t have been much interested in legislating solutions to the housing crisis.

Heller: ” Obamacare made sweeping changes to Medicare, impacting thousands of Nevada’s seniors, and cut the program by a half trillion dollars.”  We won’t go into the part in which the Ryan Budgets in their various incarnations cut massive amounts from Medicare AND sought to turn the program into a voucher/coupon program.  Let’s just deal with the blatantly misleading statement about cuts to Medicare, and see what the professional fact checkers had to say:

“Under the act, Congress voted to reduce $500 billion in projected Medicare spending over the next 10 years, not in one substantial chunk. The reductions are aimed at eliminating parts of the Medicare program seen as ineffective or wasteful. For example, the plan phases out payments to the Medicare Advantage program, an optional program set up under the George W. Bush administration, where seniors could opt to enroll in a private insurance program and the federal government would subsidize a portion of their premium.”  [PolitiFact.com, 5/10/11] (emphasis added)

Under the Affordable Care Act the savings were reinvested in the Medicare program itself, not simply cut from the budget and the program privatized.  And note — some cuts were made to the taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies offering highly profitable optional insurance.  The cuts were in areas considered wasteful, and were NOT related to basic Medicare services.

Heller: “This law has now been affirmed as a colossal tax increase on the middle class, and its excessive regulations are stripping businesses of the certainty they need to hire at a time when Nevadans and the rest of the country are desperate for jobs.”   This statement is straight out of the GOP Talking Point Random Generator.

Interesting how Republicans like Senator Heller become really engaged in the problems of the Middle Class when taxes or fees might be increased, but rarely (if ever) when said Middle Class is getting pounded by corporate raiders, union busters, private equity Giant Squids, and stagnating wages.   Be that as it may, if the middle class wants a colossal tax increase — it’s more likely to come from the Republicans.

There is, for example, the tax proposal set forth by Governor Romney, about which the Christian Science Monitor reported:

“In any case, not extending the 2009 tax cuts still in effect in 2012 means that Romney’s plan would, on average, raise taxes for households in the bottom two quintiles, relative to what they’re paying this year.  Mitt Romney’s tax plan would cut taxes, by about $180 billion in 2015 alone, relative to current tax policy. And, despite all arguments to the contrary, a disproportionate share of the savings would go to households with the highest incomes.”  (emphasis added)

Ezra Klein, Washington Post columnist, added this analysis of Governor Romney’s plan:

“Note that the Tax Policy Center could only conduct a partial analysis of Romney’s tax plan. That’s because Romney’s proposal itself is incomplete. He’s said that he wants to scrap various deductions in the tax code, particularly for high earners, in order to broaden the tax base. But he hasn’t offered any details about which deductions he’d scrap or how, so there wasn’t anything for the Tax Policy Center to analyze.

Based on the details Romney has provided so far, his plan would lower tax rates for the top quintile by 5.4 percent, saving the wealthiest an average of $16,134. (The top 1 percent of earners, meanwhile, would save an average of $149,997.) The lowest fifth of earners, by contrast, would see a small tax increase of 1.3 percent under Romney’s plan, owing the federal government an additional $143 extra on average.

Obama’s tax proposal, meanwhile, would keep tax rates roughly the same except for married couples making over $250,000 per year (or single earners making more than $200,000 per year). On average, under Obama’s plan, the top 1 percent would be paying about $87,173 more per year.”

Klein offers the following illustration:

There are many “ifs” involved in the Romney tax proposal, incomplete as it is, but there are some deductions which if eliminated would have a definitely negative impact on middle income level Americans:

“Most middle-class families would get little help. About 18 million working families would actually pay higher taxes because Romney would end the American Opportunity Tax Credit for college and cut tax credits for taxpayers with children and earned income.”  [OCCD]

In fine, if one would like to see a tax structure which bestows the greatest advantages on those who already have great advantages — Governor Romney and the Republicans are your kind of people.

There’s nothing quite like tossing in a phrase like Excessive Regulations to stir the hearts of the financial and insurance sectors, both of whom dislike being told, for example, that using premium payments for CEO compensation and advertising aren’t the best use of consumer dollars.   And, the phrase tickles those who think the EPA is merely a professional thorn in the side of the energy sector — Deep Water Horizon notwithstanding.  It’s often notable that when expounding on the “excessive regulations” in the ACA, very few — if indeed any — examples are offered.

Ah, the now hoary and hirsute talking point “uncertainty and hiring” comes back for yet another encore.   The “uncertainty” allegation is a one size fits all gob-lob at any legislation or legislative proposal which might cause corporations to THINK about what they’re doing.

We’ve been told that implementing the provisions of the Dodd Frank Act on financial regulation reform creates “uncertainty.”  In this instance there’s something to be said for a bit of uncertainty — no bank should believe that it “certainly” has the latitude to use depositors funds to play around in proprietary trades, or has blanket permission to bet against the interests of its own clients, or has leave to arbitrarily play with interest rate reporting because it wants to make its own books look better.

And for the umpteenth time — small business hiring won’t increase until small businesses (not to be confused with Washington, DC lobby shops and hedge funds) see the demand for their goods and services increase such that their current staffing levels are insufficient to meet customer needs.   The only thing that is Certain is that middle class income and middle class jobs need to advance in order to improve aggregate demand.  This has precious little to do with the desires of the Wall Street Wizards to play cowboy with depositors dollars.

Heller: “The President should work with Congress to find real solutions to healthcare reform so the excessive mandates and taxes in this law do not further add to our national debt or continue to stifle economic growth.”

Now what could be adding to the national debt?

So, if we are really serious about reducing the federal deficit — then we get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts! And, we do something to get more “growth” into the economy.  Hardly the austerity prescription being touted by Senator Heller and his Republican cohorts.

Heller: “This onerous law needs to be repealed and replaced with market-based reforms that will provide greater access, affordability, and economic certainty to our nation,” said Senator Dean Heller.”

Yes, the House will make another symbolic move at “repealing” the Affordable Care Act during the week of July 9th.  Meanwhile, what are “market based reforms?”

Representative Paul Ryan has suggested some “market based” reforms which mean that Medicare recipients will get a “coupon” or voucher toward paying their private health insurance premiums.   This is essentially a government subsidy for health insurance corporations to give them an “incentive” to offer health insurance for the elderly.  Meanwhile back in the real world — the reason we have Medicare in the first place was that insurance corporations do not want to offer plans for elderly people — they get sick, and old, and old and sick.

This might be a good time to remind ourselves that it’s not a “free market” when some corporations are being subsidized by the taxpayers to offer services and products they don’t otherwise want to sell.  For those keeping score, “market based solutions” is GOP-Speak for privatization.

Not to belabor the point much further, but the GOP response to the ACA ruling as evidenced by Senator Heller is simply to offer no solutions to demonstrated problems, and demonstrations about issues of primary interest to the upper 1% of the American income earning public.  It is a tale bedecked with focus group tested buzz words and talking points, which can mean almost anything to their devoted listeners, and almost nothing to anyone seeking solutions to real American problems.