Showing posts with label FISCAL CLIFF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FISCAL CLIFF. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Why would Congress take a five-week vacation with all the problems facing the country?


August 6th, 2012
03:59 PM ET



By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Congress is on a five-week vacation. They work so hard. The fact is Congress has accomplished next to nothing, but they think they deserve a five-week break.

Millions of Americans are unemployed, and the average American worker only gets 13 paid days off the whole year. But these clowns think they deserve yet another vacation. It's disgraceful.

Meanwhile, the country's problems, which they left behind in Washington, are serious and many:
  • Our runaway national debt is nearing $16 trillion.
  • They've done nothing about the automatic spending cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars to the Defense Department, set to kick in early next year.
  • The Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of this year. The payroll tax cut is set to expire, and estate taxes will rise dramatically as will capital gains taxes.

It's called the "fiscal cliff" for a reason. Unaddressed, these changes will be painful and dramatic. Congress has done nothing. This list still goes on:

  • They've also failed to address the issues of food stamps and farm subsidies as American farmers grapple with the worst drought in decades.
  • Also still on the table are must-pass spending bills to keep the government running, a cybersecurity bill and the post office bill, as the U.S. Postal Service faces default.

This Congress is one of the least productive in recent history - and you can thank a toxic, hyperpartisan atmosphere plus election year politicking

It's unlikely any of these things will be addressed until after the election is over. The American people deserve better than this, but we won't get it if we keep vote these same people into office.

On November 6, think "out-cumbent."

Here’s my question to you: Why would Congress take a five-week vacation with all the problems facing the country?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Bonnie in New Jersey:
What difference does it make? They're on vacation when they are at work. Can we do like the sports team owners and do a "lockout" when they come back?

Laura:
Because we as Americans let them, by voting them back in over and over and over again.

Susan in Ohio:
Maybe they just need a break from their gruesome 3-day work week - the pressures of the job and all. What a joke they are. But the polls show not too many of us are laughing.

Kevin in California:
Because they are back meeting their constituents and updating them on all the things Congress has accomplished ... yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.

Debbie on Facebook:
We need to fire them all. Who else gets to go on vacation with work left incomplete? The rest of us would be fired on the spot.

David in Springfield, Missouri:
Because the Congress could care less about the American people. It’s all about “me, me, me” and using the hard-working people's money to fund the good ole' boy system in waste beyond human imagination. How do you think a person making $169,000 a year becomes a multi multi millionaire X 10?

Ron in Palm Beach, Florida:
They read the schedule, they haven't been worried about the country in three in a half years.

Bob in Ohio:
They deserve a vacation. It’s got to be exhausting work naming post offices session after session with no end in sight.
 
Posted by .  
. . 
Source
.

Friday, January 04, 2013

The bully-in-chief




January 4, 2013


By Boston Herald editorial staff

View My Profile


Now that President Obama has gotten the hang of boxing in and neutering congressional Republicans, why stop?

In fact, Obama wants it all — the virtually limitless power to spend and pass along the bills to every man, woman and child in the country.

“I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed,” he said New Year’s Eve as Congress was attempting to avoid the tax-hike portion of the “fiscal cliff.”

Notice how suddenly it’s congressional spending that is out of control — not Obamacare or the vast expansion of unemployment insurance, which is rapidly becoming yet another entitlement program, or even his pet green jobs programs. The president seems prepared to fix the blame for profligate spending on a Congress that has admittedly been far too compliant with his big government agenda. So having given the president what he wanted in terms of big-money programs and tax hikes, Congress now gets the back of his hand.

And Obama wants our duly elected legislative branch to relinquish one of the few checks it has on the executive — the power to approve increases in the debt ceiling. The government actually reached the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling days ago, but federal officials are busy using all the tools in their accounting arsenal to cook the books until February — when we will once again face another “crisis.”

That gives Obama a full month to out-maneuver Republicans and convince voters, the markets and perhaps even the rating agencies (although we have trouble imagining that level of naivete on their part) that only he should have the unbridled power to control the government’s ability to borrow money.

And if you’re thinking about a fox guarding the hen house, you’d be on the right track here.

“If Congress refuses to give the United States government the ability to pay these bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic,” he insisted. “People will remember, back in 2011, the last time this course of action was threatened, our entire recovery was put at risk. Consumer confidence plunged. Business investment plunged. Growth dropped. We can’t go down that path again.”

The answer? Well, that would be for all members of Congress to check their principles (not to mention their cojones) at the door and roll over and play dead because the commander in chief demands it.



.

Simpson: Try not to fall off the 'physical cliff'

By Dave Simpson
Opinion columnist
Jan. 2, 2013 6:57 p.m.


THIS IS RICH: Out here where I live, the state has a program in which dilapidated houses are purchased, fixed up, then sold at a reasonable price and low interest rate to first-time home buyers.

This makes a certain amount of sense, since the only entity with enough money to deal with government regulations these days is the government.

Included in the state program are radio ads, to encourage people to buy one of these government-renovated houses. And here's the funny part.

The ad says that since there are federal dollars involved in paying for all this, applicants must fill out forms to demonstrate their "FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY."

Take a second here, readers, to let that sink in. Fiscal responsibility. Federal government.

When I hear that radio ad when I'm driving, I need to pull over for a few minutes to regain my composure. It's dangerous to drive with tears of laughter in your eyes. A guy could get in an accident laughing at the notion of demonstrating our fiscal responsibility to the federal government.

Consider what has been going on in Washington in recent days, and the fiscal cliff, and a $16 trillion debt, and $1 trillion annual deficits, and three-day work weeks in Congress, and the debt ceiling closing in, and the pay raise the dysfunctional Congress just gave itself, and "sequestration," and all these phony-baloney end-of-year deadlines they set up for themselves.

And then consider the crazy notion that anyone, anywhere, would have to demonstrate their "fiscal responsibility" to that bunch of world-class spendthrift yahoos in Washington.

That's like requiring us to show our fire extinguishers and smoke alarms to serial arsonists.

I need to stop for a moment here and wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes.

NORM CROSBY ALERT: I've regained my composure now, and can report that on "Fox and Friends in the Morning" on New Years Day, Gerald Celente, founder of the Trends Research Institute, was making predictions for 2013.

Referring to recent events in Washington, he said, "Look at the physical cliff drama. The DC drama queens."

Here's my prediction for 2013: Some viewer will point out to Gerald Celente that it is a "fiscal cliff," not a "physical cliff." Big difference.

And I'm not sure I want to take economic advice from a guy who doesn't know the difference.

ON THAT TOPIC: On one of the political shows on CNBC last week, I learned that economic pundit Jared Bernstein served for a time as the "chief economist and economic adviser" to — are you ready for this? — Vice President Joe Biden.

--

I was taken aback. Nonplussed.

"Does this mean,'' I wondered, "that the grinning, mugging, sarcastic buffoon who made such fun of Paul Ryan in the vice presidential debate has a CHIEF ECONOMIST and ECONOMIC ADVISOR? That Biden joker had a CHIEF ECONOMIST?''

Couldn't he just borrow the president's chief economist if he had a question? He needs his own chief economist?

And, if he had a chief economist, does that mean he had a bunch of other economists who answered to the chief economist? How many economists does a vice president need, anyway?

And we wonder why we have a $16 trillion national debt.

NEW LAWS: Almost 900 new laws went into effect in California on the first of the year, according to news reports.

When I was a cub reporter in Laramie, Wyo., 40 years ago, there was a city council member who would always note the number on any new ordinance being passed, and shake his head in dismay. And then he would ask, "How many new laws do we really need to run this city?"

If you live in California, the answer to that question is apparently almost 900 new state laws this year alone, which probably goes a long way toward explaining the complicated governmental mess they're facing in California, these days.

And yet I'm sure there are those true believers in California who figure that everything will be fixed, and the place will be run like a Swiss watch, now that the geniuses in state government have bestowed all of those wonderful new laws on their constituents.

Don't bet on it.

Contact Dave Simpson at d_simpson@bresnan.net.


Source
.

Thursday, January 03, 2013

When Governing Means Lurching Between Phony Crises



About Clive Crook»

Clive Crook is a Bloomberg View columnist and member of the Bloomberg View editorial board. His column appears ... MORE



By Clive Crook Jan 2, 2013 9:46 AM ET


The vote last night in the House of Representatives brought to a close the latest Washington master class in dereliction of duty. After a few days of arguing about who won or lost, we can move on to the next manufactured crisis.

In itself, not much of a surprise, the fiscal-cliff deal avoids most of the tax increases and postpones almost all of the spending cuts that were about to be triggered. Throughout this farce, financial markets had refused to believe that the U.S. government would inflict a recession rather than strike a budget agreement, especially because they knew that, all posturing aside, the distance between the two parties was small. Markets wobbled but didn’t collapse.

Let’s hope they react with similar equanimity to the next pointless quarrel, over the debt ceiling. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress last week that the current limit on government borrowing was about to be reached. He said “extraordinary measures” (essentially, shuffling funds among government accounts) would be used to prevent the debt from breaking through the ceiling.

How long can that go on? Geithner wasn’t sure. Maybe two months under normal circumstances, he said, but “given the significant uncertainty that now exists with regard to unresolved tax and spending policies for 2013, it is not possible to predict the effective duration of these measures.”

Tax Increase

The latest fiscal deal does little to resolve those uncertainties. The spending-cut part has merely been delayed by two months. The tax increase for couples making more than $450,000, together with other changes and estimated savings in debt interest, shaves about $700 billion from the 10-year deficit. Savings of about $2 trillion will be needed to stabilize the ratio of public debt to national income. Bringing that ratio down to a safer level requires spending cuts and tax increases worth $4 trillion -- the original “grand bargain” ambition.

Instead of dealing calmly with the problem, fiscal policy has settled into a mode of perpetual phony crisis. Phony doesn’t mean harmless, however. The risk of a real fiscal crisis gradually builds. Meanwhile, the cumulative effects of simulated crisis might be almost as bad. It’s the difference between an acute illness and a chronic wasting disease -- one that’s beginning to look incurable.

Don’t tell me the economy just had a lucky escape. Whatever happens next, it has been paying for the fiscal standoff for months. It’s paying for what Congress might do with the next debt ceiling, and the one after that. The “significant uncertainty” that Geithner referred to has already held back the U.S. recovery. Another temporary fiscal patch isn’t a remedy. It’s just more of the same.

The economy needs a lasting fiscal compact that commands broad, bipartisan support. I can hear the groans. Not another call for compromise. Many Democrats and almost all Republicans find the idea disgusting. On Capitol Hill, it’s no longer enough for one side to win; the other has to be seen to lose. That attitude is the growing burden the economy has to carry.

The tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush show what happens when reforms lack broad support. They were pushed through in 2001 and 2003 against solid Democratic opposition. For more than a decade, the overriding aim of Democratic politics has been to (partially) reverse them. Mission accomplished -- for now.

Health Care

A similar fate might be in store for health-care reform. With uncertain support from the public, the Affordable Care Act faces the skepticism of Republican governors and the outright hostility of a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The policy may be the law of the land, but without a firmer base of support it will remain in jeopardy.

Expect the pattern to repeat during the next phase of budgetary dysfunction. Outwitted by its own earlier tactics, the Republican Party has accepted an increase in the top income-tax rate as part of the fiscal-cliff reprieve. Why expect this to be the end? One day Republicans will cut that top rate again, even if it kills them (and the economy). What a glorious day that will be.

The remarkable thing is the passion of this mutual animosity, given how little divides the combatants. President Barack Obama’s health-care law, don’t forget, was built to a Republican blueprint. All Democrats have embraced the Bush tax cuts as they apply to 98 percent of taxpayers, and most acknowledge the need to contain entitlement spending, which the Republicans insist is essential. Before the rank and file in Congress forced a retreat, the House Republican leadership broached raising the tax rate for people earning more than $1 million a year and suggested collecting more revenue by limiting deductions, a reform favored by all thinking progressives.

This is hardly a clash of irreconcilable visions, as the two sides want to claim. Seen from beyond the Beltway, the budgetary gap isn’t just bridgeable, it’s trivial. Democrats and Republicans disagree about taxes and spending, of course, but they relish and exaggerate the differences. Their enmity is less about economics than about culture, values and class. That’s what makes it so poisonous.

Obama offers the best hope for calming this conflict and passing broadly supported -- hence lasting -- fiscal reform. At the moment, it’s hard to be optimistic because the president has chosen since the election to strut more than conciliate, to be a partisan champion, sticking it to the enemy, not a one-nation leader seeking to build agreement. Declaring victory this week won’t serve his or the country’s interests. A little magnanimity would go a long way. Nonetheless, count on the Republicans to do all they can to make presidential aggression look reasonable.

This dynamic could still change, and for America’s sake it had better. The automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts was a fleeting moment of political leverage for the White House, difficult to forgo. That moment has passed. Now the president has to think about the delayed spending cuts, the debt ceiling, comprehensive tax and entitlement reform, and his second term.

He can set out to split differences, build consensus and solve problems. Or he can stand on principle, berate the opposition (and the half of the country it represents), and keep the crises coming. If he does the first, he may fail. If he does the second, he can count on it.

(Clive Crook is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this article: Clive Crook at

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Max Berley at mberley@bloomberg.net


.

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

Smaller paychecks coming - bosses say, don't blame us


By Jose Pagliery @CNNMoney January 2, 2013: 10:59 AM ET




Payroll taxes are going back up. Business owners like Mike Brey, who owns four Hobby Works shops near Washington, D.C., must now explain to workers why their paychecks are 2% smaller.


NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

Everyone's paycheck is about to take a hit, and it's not the boss' fault. But some business owners say it's a tough talk to have.

The rate of workers' payroll taxes, which fund Social Security, has been 4.2% for the past two years. As of Jan. 1, it's back to 6.2%, on the first $113,700 in wages.

That forced Mike Brey, who owns four Hobby Works shops near Washington, D.C., to notify his store managers about the upcoming change during a conference call Monday. He called the experience uncomfortable. "These are the people who can least afford it," Brey said.

Brey said he can't raise compensation to ease the pain. Enduring the recession meant cutting his own salary, firing workers, taking on half a million dollars in debt and raiding his own 401(k).

"Any business that survived the recession did so by digging a big hole," Brey said. "We can't dig any deeper."

Related: How the rich will pay more in 2013

Payroll taxes are key for financing Social Security, and the break of the past two years has forced the government to replenish the funds with borrowed money. The tax break was always meant to be temporary.

Workers earning the national average salary of $41,000 will receive $32 less on every biweekly paycheck. The higher the salary (up to $113,700), the bigger the bite, but business owners say their lower wage employees will feel it most.



 Deborah Koenigsberger, who owns the Noir et Blanc fashion store in Manhattan, has yet to have the talk with her only part-time employee, a college student.

"It's going to hurt me to tell her this. She can't afford a decrease," Koenigsberger said. What unnerves her is the feeling that she's lost control as a business owner watching out for her employees.

Keval Mehta, CEO of In-R-Food, a smartphone app developer in Durham, N.C., worried the tax increase will threaten morale. "They don't get paid enough for what they do," Mehta said.

Related: Fiscal cliff's new definition of 'rich'

The 1-year-old company has yet to make a profit, having just launched software that scans grocery products and lists ingredients and nutritional values. His four employees could make upwards of $80,000 a year elsewhere, but three of them earn less than half that. They put in long hours, must work from laptops while on vacation, and no, there isn't a health insurance plan.

All that made it even more difficult to warn them during the holidays about the oncoming pay cut. Mehta promised them he'd make up the lost pay if the company's finances improve next year.

"Currently, they're working on passion. But that can only drive you so much," Mehta said. "I don't like that I don't have control over this. It wasn't a decision I made. But as a CEO, you take responsibility for everything. You're automatically at fault, because you're the captain of the ship."


First Published: January 2, 2013: 5:23 AM ET


Source
.

"I will not have another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills"



Obama Praises House Vote on Fiscal Cliff




Published on Jan 1, 2013


President Obama spoke shortly after the House passed a deal to avert the "fiscal cliff" tax increases and spending cuts. He said the deal is "just one step in a broader effort."

.

Monday, December 31, 2012

Poison Pill and Gold Debate


Sunday, December 30, 2012 10:15 PM




In Ho Hum - Fiscal Cliff Deal Stalls - Republicans Offer More and More Concessions; Poison Pill Nonsense I stated ...

"The real poison pill is allowing Social Security and Medicare costs to escalate unabated. Does anyone in either party want to admit the truth? ... the best hope still remains that all compromises fail."

The above thought prompted Uncle Frank to respond in a comment "Mish relishes chaos and financial ruin for this country so his gold holdings shoot-up in value. Everyone has an ulterior motive you know."

Ulterior Motives?

Since I get accused of this sort of thing quite frequently, please let me point out a few things:


Gold has been sinking, as it should, if Congress is fiscally prudent.
Government Should be Prudent
Government Won't Be Prudent
Should Congress be fiscally prudent (and the fiscal cliff is not close to being fiscally prudent), I would change my stance on gold in one second flat.

Nonetheless, should Congress fail to address the Fiscal Cliff, I would expect the exact opposite of what Uncle Frank suggests.

In short, regardless of my personal beliefs regarding gold (that one would be prudent to buy and hold gold), I actually advocate government and Fed policies that are contrary to my recommendations.

My reasons are easily explained:


Neither the Fed nor the government gives a darn about what is fiscally prudent.
Both the Fed and Congress are highly likely to debase currency, causing gold to rise, even if I think that is bad economic and fiscal policy, which of course I do.
Thus the accusations of Uncle Frank, and countless others before him are 100% baseless. Should Congress actually do what I expect, I think it would not be good for gold.

I recommend governmental actions on the basis of policy merit alone, not based on my stock market positioning. I find it very sad that few others do the same.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com


.

Jesuit Conference Statement on Taxes and the Fiscal Cliff


28 November 2012



Editor’s Note: The U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration are working to agree to a deal that would avert the so-called fiscal cliff, the convergence of an estimated $1.2 trillion in tax increases and spending cuts over the course of the next decade that threaten to trigger another recession. As policymakers weigh their respective positions, the Jesuit Conference of the United States asks all those involved in this critical debate to remember the many Americans standing at the edge of this cliff.

Policymakers in Washington face difficult choices as they attempt to reach a deficit reduction agreement before year’s end. Their decisions will have long-lasting implications for our nation’s future, and underlying these decisions is a moral question: What kind of society do we want to be? Presumably a moral one, and being a moral society requires feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, welcoming the stranger and caring for the sick.

A moral society also shares burdens in difficult times; therefore it asks more from its members who have more. Accordingly, the Jesuit Conference, representing the Society of Jesus in the United States, the largest religious community of priests and brothers in the Roman Catholic Church, opposes any deficit reduction plan that requires more from those who have less by balancing the nation’s budget on the backs of the poor and vulnerable. Government has a responsibility to provide for its citizens in their time of need, particularly those who cannot provide for themselves.

Recent census data reveals the wealthiest households in the U.S. saw unprecedented income growth over the past ten years while low income and middle class Americans suffered significantly from the economic downturn. Median household income has decreased for all but the top 5% of income groups. Poor and working-class Americans cannot afford to shoulder an even greater portion of our country’s economic burden.

A number of deficit reduction alternatives can reduce our nation’s debt without dramatically altering the social safety net. First and foremost is an increase in revenue, but revenues will not rise if the government continues to provide tax cuts and exemptions for top income earners.

The U.S. Conference of Catholics of Bishops stresses that, “The tax system should be continually evaluated in terms of its impact on the poor.” When faced with the choice of preserving essential services or preserving tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, the moral choice is clear. The Jesuit Conference of the United States supports a tax system that seeks more from the economically prosperous because doing so is a fiscally sound and equitable means to balance the budget. Deficit reduction must not increase the burden on members of our society who have seen incomes decline, jobs disappear and public benefits evaporate. Rather, now is the time to commit to just and fair deficit reduction policies that foster the common good and protect the most vulnerable members of our society.


,,,,

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Obama holiday drama




Obama holiday drama (0:31)

Dec. 27 - Barack Obama cuts short Hawaiian holiday to return to Washington for crucial budget talks. Adam Brauner reports. ( Transcript )

U.S. President Barack Obama cuts short his Hawaiian holiday and returns to Washington. Leaving his wife Michelle and two daughters behind, Obama's getting ready for a crucial budget deadline - with the White House andRepublicans still far apart. In one sign of hope, Speaker John Boehner has urged the Democrat-controlled Senate to avoid the so called fiscal cliff. He's offered to at least consider any bill the upper chamber produces. The President was due in the White House on Thursday morning.


.


Related (Hawaii):
.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Geithner: U.S. to hit debt ceiling on Monday

No, not another 'better than expected' moment..  instead...

Just when you thought everything was as bad as it could get, everything was under control since the president is cutting short his usual Hawaiian vacation to save the nation from going over the FISCAL CLIFF; The Gman is back with another crisis to keep you awake at night: 



AMERICA'S DEBT CHALLENGE

By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney December 26, 2012: 4:59 PM ET



Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner warned Congress in a letter that U.S. borrowing will hit the debt ceiling on Monday, and that Treasury will begin using 'extraordinary measures' to keep under the cap.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)


Government borrowing will hit the debt ceiling on Monday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said in a letter to Congress Wednesday.

As a result, the Treasury Department will soon start using what it calls "extraordinary measures" to prevent government borrowing from exceeding the legal limit.

Fiscal cliff quiz: How much will taxes go up?

Such measures include suspending the reinvestment of federal workers' retirement account contributions in short-term government bonds.

On Monday, debt subject to the limit was just $95 billion below the $16.394 trillion debt ceiling.

All told, the extraordinary measures can create about $200 billion of headroom under the limit -- normally about two months worth of borrowing.

But it's unclear how much time the extraordinary measures can buy now because there are so many unanswered questions about tax and spending policies, Geithner said, referring to the lack of any resolution of the fiscal cliff.

"If left unresolved, the expiring tax provisions and automatic spending cuts, as well as the attendant delays in filing of tax returns, would have the effect of adding some additional time to the duration of the extraordinary measures," he wrote.

After the extraordinary measures run out, Treasury won't be able to pay all the country's bills in full and on time. At that point, the United States will run the very real risk that it could default on some of its obligations.

Geithner has predicted for months that the country would hit the debt ceiling by the end of December.

But Congress, first consumed with the 2012 elections and now with the fiscal cliff, has made little effort to raise the ceiling.

Now there's a good chance the debt ceiling issue won't be resolved until the 11th hour and only after an ugly fight.

Indeed, some Republicans have been saying they view the debt ceiling as leverage in budget negotiations in early 2013 in their bid to secure spending cuts.

Before fiscal cliff legislation died last week, House Speaker John Boehner offered President Obama a one-year debt ceiling increase, but only on the condition that spending cuts and reforms exceeded the size of any increase.



The last standoff over the debt ceiling in 2011 ended badly, with Congress raising it only at the last minute. The debacle led to the downgrade of the country's AAA credit rating and caused tumult in the markets.

The Government Accountability Office has long called for Congress to come up with a smarter way to handle the debt ceiling.

"Congress should consider ways to better link decisions about the debt limit with decisions about spending and revenue to avoid potential disruptions to the Treasury market and to help inform the fiscal policy debate in a timely way," the GAO said in a recent report.

Meanwhile, a variety of fiscal and monetary experts have called for the debt ceiling to be abolished altogether.


First Published: December 26, 2012: 4:32 PM ET


Source
.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The Fiscal Cliff Is A Diversion: The Derivatives Tsunami & the Dollar Bubble



Monday, 17. December 2012


Revolt & Revolution- What the US So Desperately Needs


The “fiscal cliff” is another hoax designed to shift the attention of policymakers, the media, and the attentive public, if any, from huge problems to small ones.

The fiscal cliff is automatic spending cuts and tax increases in order to reduce the deficit by an insignificant amount over ten years if Congress takes no action itself to cut spending and to raise taxes. In other words, the “fiscal cliff” is going to happen either way.

The problem from the standpoint of conventional economics with the fiscal cliff is that it amounts to a double-barrel dose of austerity delivered to a faltering and recessionary economy. Ever since John Maynard Keynes, most economists have understood that austerity is not the answer to recession or depression.

Regardless, the fiscal cliff is about small numbers compared to the Derivatives Tsunami or to bond market and dollar market bubbles.

The fiscal cliff requires that the federal government cut spending by $1.3 trillion over ten years. The Guardian reports that means the federal deficit has to be reduced about $109 billion per year or 3 percent of the current budget. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/27/fiscal-cliff-explained-spending-cuts-tax-hikes ) More simply, just divide $1.3 trillion by ten and it comes to $130 billion per year. This can be done by simply taking a three month vacation each year from Washington’s wars.

The Derivatives Tsunami and the bond and dollar bubbles are of a different magnitude.

Last June 5 in “Collapse At Hand” (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/06/05/collapse-at-hand/ ) I pointed out that according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s fourth quarter report for 2011, about 95% of the $230 trillion in US derivative exposure was held by four US financial institutions: JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.

Prior to financial deregulation, essentially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the non-regulation of derivatives–a joint achievement of the Clinton administration and the Republican Party–Chase, Bank of America, and Citibank were commercial banks that took depositors’ deposits and made loans to businesses and consumers and purchased Treasury bonds with any extra reserves.

With the repeal of Glass-Steagall these honest commercial banks became gambling casinos, like the investment bank, Goldman Sachs, betting not only their own money but also depositors money on uncovered bets on interest rates, currency exchange rates, mortgages, and prices of commodities and equities.

These bets soon exceeded many times not only US GDP but world GDP. Indeed, the gambling bets of JP Morgan Chase Bank alone are equal to world Gross Domestic Product.

According to the first quarter 2012 report from the Comptroller of the Currency, total derivative exposure of US banks has fallen insignificantly from the previous quarter to $227 trillion. The exposure of the 4 US banks accounts for almost of all of the exposure and is many multiples of their assets or of their risk capital.

The Derivatives Tsunami is the result of the handful of fools and corrupt public officials who deregulated the US financial system. Today merely four US banks have derivative exposure equal to 3.3 times world Gross Domestic Product. When I was a US Treasury official, such a possibility would have been considered beyond science fiction.

Hopefully, much of the derivative exposure somehow nets out so that the net exposure, while still larger than many countries’ GDPs, is not in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Still, the situation is so worrying to the Federal Reserve that after announcing a third round of quantitative easing, that is, printing money to buy bonds–both US Treasuries and the banks’ bad assets–the Fed has just announced that it is doubling its QE 3 purchases.

In other words, the entire economic policy of the United States is dedicated to saving four banks that are too large to fail. The banks are too large to fail only because deregulation permitted financial concentration, as if the Anti-Trust Act did not exist.

The purpose of QE is to keep the prices of debt, which supports the banks’ bets, high. The Federal Reserve claims that the purpose of its massive monetization of debt is to help the economy with low interest rates and increased home sales. But the Fed’s policy is hurting the economy by depriving savers, especially the retired, of interest income, forcing them to draw down their savings. Real interest rates paid on CDs, money market funds, and bonds are lower than the rate of inflation.

Moreover, the money that the Fed is creating in order to bail out the four banks is making holders of dollars, both at home and abroad, nervous. If investors desert the dollar and its exchange value falls, the price of the financial instruments that the Fed’s purchases are supporting will also fall, and interest rates will rise. The only way the Fed could support the dollar would be to raise interest rates. In that event, bond holders would be wiped out, and the interest charges on the government’s debt would explode.

With such a catastrophe following the previous stock and real estate collapses, the remains of people’s wealth would be wiped out. Investors have been deserting equities for “safe” US Treasuries. This is why the Fed can keep bond prices so high that the real interest rate is negative.

The hyped threat of the fiscal cliff is immaterial compared to the threat of the derivatives overhang and the threat to the US dollar and bond market of the Federal Reserve’s commitment to save four US banks.

Once again, the media and its master, the US government, hide the real issues behind a fake one. The fiscal cliff has become the way for the Republicans to save the country from bankruptcy by destroying the social safety net put in place during the 1930s, supplemented by Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” in the mid-1960s.

Now that there are no jobs, now that real family incomes have been stagnant or declining for decades, and now that wealth and income have been concentrated in few hands is the time, Republicans say, to destroy the social safety net so that we don’t fall over the fiscal cliff.

In human history, such a policy usually produces revolt and revolution, which is what the US so desperately needs.

Perhaps our stupid and corrupt policymakers are doing us a favor after all.

# # # #



Paul Craig Roberts, Boiling Frogs Post contributing author, is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has been reporting on executive branch and cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. He has written or co-written eight books, contributed chapters to numerous books, and has published many articles in journals of scholarship. Mr. Roberts has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy, and has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations. You can visit his website here.

© PaulCraigRoberts.org


.

Tuesday, December 04, 2012

People's United: Fiscal cliff and your 401k

Posted: Nov 29, 2012 8:55 AM EST
Updated: Dec 02, 2012 5:00 PM EST
By WCAX News - bio


WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-


BURLINGTON, Vt. -

As lawmakers try to fix the fiscal cliff, Americans' financial futures hang in the balance. Wayne Braun from People's United Bank appeared on the Channel 3 Morning News to talk about what this could mean to your personal finances.

Q. With the fiscal cliff, Congress has been looking for solutions, can you explain why they are looking at 401(k) plans?

A. Congress is looking at reducing or eliminating various tax deductions and incentives to raise more tax revenue. However, tax incentives for retirement plans are different than other deductions. For example you can deduct mortgage interest from your income and you never pay taxes on that amount. Retirement money is tax deferred, meaning you don't pay taxes now but it will be subject to income tax when withdrawn at retirement. This fact is not being considered in the analysis by Congress.

Q. What would be the impact to the average retirement plan?

A. They are looking to reduce the amount of money that you and I can contribute to these plans from our own paycheck. In addition, they are looking to limit the amount that employers can contribute and deduct on behalf of employees. Both of these options will limit the retirement savings of the over 60 million Americans that contribute to 401(k) plans, 75% of which earn less than $100,000 per year. Limiting employer deductions for these plans could discourage employers from contributing to or maintaining 401(k) plans.

Q. Don't employees have other options for retirement savings such as IRAs?

A. Yes, however, according to data from the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) over 70% of workers earning between $30,000 and $50,000 participated in their employer's 401(k) plan compared to only 5% who save for retirement without a plan at work, such as an IRA. Due to the increased use of these plans, retirement savings now represent over 65% of American families' financial assets. The bottom line is that 401(k) plans are an effective and proven method to help America save for retiremenT.

Q. How can people learn more?

A. They can go to www.savemy401k.com to learn more.


Source
.
.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Wall Street drops on deficit, Middle East concerns


Related News

Obama says tax hike will have to come first in "fiscal cliff" deal
5:48pm EST
World stocks drop on fiscal mess, oil up on Mideast woe
5:41pm EST
U.S. stocks slip on fiscal cliff woes; euro weakens
Tue, Nov 13 2012
Microsoft leads Wall Street lower, but retailers gain
Tue, Nov 13 2012
Euro slips vs yen, dollar on Greece, Spain concerns
Tue, Nov 13 2012

Analysis & Opinion

Japan shuns fiscal cliff, wont escape growth funk
The economy needs a ‘unity Cabinet’

Related Topics

Investing Simplified »


Related Video

Trading at Noon: Facebook makes friends as lockup expires
3:58pm EST










By Rodrigo Campos

NEW YORK | Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:58pm EST

(Reuters) - Stocks slid on Wednesday with declines accelerating after President Barack Obama set up a drawn-out fight over the fiscal cliff when he stuck to his pledge to raise taxes on the wealthy, and as violence increased in the Middle East.

Obama, in his first press conference since re-election, held to his position that marginal tax rates will have to rise to tackle the nation's deficits.

With talks over solving the U.S. "fiscal cliff" in early stages, investors are reacting to the uncertainty by shedding positions.

"I think we will have a last-minute cliffhanger solution," said Michael Cheah, portfolio manager at SunAmerica Asset Management in Jersey City, New Jersey, about a deal to avoid the so-called cliff.

"In the meantime, the market is going to get punched every day."

Without a deal, a series of mandated tax hikes and spending cuts will start to take effect early next year that could push the U.S. economy into a recession.

Taxes on capital gains and dividends could rise as part of the negotiations, pushing investors to sell this year and pay lower taxes on their gains.

Adding to the selling pressure, Israel launched a major offensive against Palestinian militants in Gaza, killing the military commander of Hamas in an air strike and threatening an invasion of the enclave. Egypt said it recalled its ambassador from Israel in response.

"We know Europe's in trouble, China's slowing down ... and now you've got the Middle East flaring up again. It's all hitting at once, and obviously, the market is taking a 'sell first, ask questions later' approach," said Ryan Detrick, senior technical strategist at Schaeffer's Investment Research in Cincinnati.

Industrial shares led the decline, dragged lower in part by a 1 percent spike in crude prices after the Israeli offensive on Gaza. The S&P industrial sector index .GSPI fell 2.5 percent.

Wall Street had opened higher after Dow component Cisco Systems Inc (CSCO.O) reported first-quarter earnings and revenue late Tuesday that beat expectations, driving its stock up 4.8 percent to $17.66. But the positive momentum was short-lived.

The Dow Jones industrial average .DJI fell 185.23 points, or 1.45 percent, to 12,570.95 at the close. The S&P 500 .SPX dropped 19.04 points, or 1.39 percent, to 1,355.49. The Nasdaq Composite .IXIC lost 37.08 points, or 1.29 percent, to 2,846.81.

Both the Dow industrials and the Nasdaq ended at their lowest levels since late June.

The S&P 500 has fallen 5.1 percent in the six sessions since election night. Wednesday marked the benchmark index's lowest close since July 25.

The Russell 2000 .RUT tumbled 2 percent. The Dow Jones Transportation average .DJT slid 2.6 percent. FedEx Corp (FDX.N) shares dropped 3.7 percent to $87.12. Bank of America (BAC.N) shares lost 3.6 percent to $8.99.

In contrast, Facebook (FB.O) shares jumped 12.6 percent to $22.36 as investors were relieved that expiring trading restrictions on a huge block of shares did not trigger an immediate wave of insider selling.

Teen clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch Co (ANF.N) jumped 34.4 percent to $41.92 after the company reported unexpectedly improved third-quarter results and a full-year outlook that exceeded Wall Street's forecasts.

About 7.53 billion shares changed hands on the New York Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq and NYSE MKT, more than the daily average so far this year of about 6.51 billion shares.

On the NYSE, decliners outnumbered advancers by a ratio of almost 9 to 1. On the Nasdaq, about four stocks fell for every one that rose.

(Reporting by Rodrigo Campos; Additional reporting by Steven C. Johnson and Leah Schnurr; Editing by Jan Paschal)


.

Thursday, November 08, 2012

'FISCAL CLIFF' WILL TEST REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS


Nov 8, 9:17 AM EST




AP Photo
AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. political landscape changed little with Tuesday's election, and now both Democrats and Republicans will be tested by the immediate need for moderation if they are to avoid the feared "fiscal cliff" of automatic tax increases and deep spending cuts that could send the country into a recession.

The Republican Party is entering a period of introspection after failing to block President Barack Obama from a second White House term, even after a period of the worst financial pain for middle-class Americans since the Great Depression of the 1930.

The election was evidence that the majority of voters are no longer willing to accept the leadership of a Republican Party that has been pushed to the far right of the political spectrum by its small-government, low-tax tea party faction.

But Obama and his Democrats also must be ready for compromise, with Americans yearning to see an end to the deep partisan divide and legislative gridlock that has gripped Washington in recent years.

Obama adviser David Axelrod warned Republican leaders to take lessons from Tuesday's vote. The president won after pledging to raise taxes on American households earning more than $250,000 a year "and was re-elected in a significant way," Axelrod told MSNBC Thursday morning.

"Hopefully people will read those results and read them as a vote for cooperation and will come to the table," Axelrod said. "And obviously everyone's going to have to come with an open mind to these discussions. But if the attitude is that nothing happened on Tuesday, that would be unfortunate."

He pointed out that conservative Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdoch in Indiana dismissed the value of compromise and instead said Democrats should join the GOP. "And I note that he's not on his way to the United States Senate," Axelrod said. Mourdock lost to Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly.

Obama was quiet Wednesday but returned to the White House from Chicago, where he held his victory celebration. He spoke by phone with the four top leaders of the House and Senate to talk about the lame-duck Congress that convenes just one week after Election Day. Little major action is expected.

Obama told the congressional leaders he believed "the American people sent a message in yesterday's election that leaders in both parties need to put aside their partisan interests and work with common purpose to put the interests of the American people and the American economy first," the White House said in a statement.

The immediate challenge for both parties is the "fiscal cliff" of across-the-board spending cuts and the end of Bush-era tax cuts that would hit at the beginning of 2013 and cost $800 billion in that year alone. That could upend the slow economic recovery from the Great Recession and the near meltdown of the financial system that Obama was left to repair when he took office four years ago.

On the day after the election, Republicans signaled little readiness to give up their ideological opposition to raising taxes on high-income Americans, as Obama has insisted.

Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner said Republicans are willing to consider some form of higher tax revenue as part of the solution - but only "under the right conditions."

Republicans continue to push for lower rates across the board. That theory, known as trickle-down economics and dating to the era of President Ronald Reagan, holds that cutting taxes will vastly increase the size of the income and profit pie, thereby producing more government revenue even at lower tax rates.

Boehner expressed that position yet again as the condition for working for any increase in government revenue in return for Obama's stated - but undefined - willingness to cut spending on crucial social programs.

Republicans still control of the House, leaving Boehner able to block legislation from Obama's White House and the Democratic-controlled Senate.

There appears no quick solution ahead to the country's skyrocketing debt and stubbornly high deficit that has the government now spending more than $1 trillion a year more than it collects in taxes.

Wall Street has one of its worst days of the year Wednesday as traders worried about the "fiscal cliff" and worsening news on the recession In Europe.

Obama's victory and exit polling of voters showed a majority of Americans supported, or were resigned to, higher taxes to begin cutting the national debt, even as unemployment remains slightly below 8 percent.

Republicans could still moderate as they face the reality of the country's slow shift from a white majority to a day when minorities - blacks, Hispanics and Asians - become the majority. Obama's second-term victory was sealed by massive minority support.

Vice President Joe Biden, flying home from Chicago, told reporters that he predicted the "fever will break" on past legislative gridlock after some soul-searching by Republicans.

Source
.