Category Archives: Debt – Deficit

North Carolina GOP – Unemployment Benefits

Another legislative agenda for the state’s republican dominated state government:

 Tens of thousands of unemployed workers receiving federal emergency unemployment will likely lose their benefits starting July 1 as legislators overhaul the program.

Legislative leaders said this week that they will push ahead with a July 1 start to cuts in weekly benefits for unemployed workers. The measure would put the state in violation of the recently passed federal relief package that would have provided benefits to laid-off workers through December 2013. The federal legislation specifically forbid the states from altering the weekly benefit amount, which the General Assembly is poised to do as it returns to session Wednesday.

The reason for the change?  Well, it turns out that the federal government funded the North Carolina’s unemployment payments.  Funded to the tune of nearly $2.5 billion.  And until that debt is paid, North Carolina businesses are required to higher federal unemployment taxes, or FUTA.  In fact, each year that there is an outstanding balance, businesses in NC have to shell out an additional $21 per employee per year, cumulative.

As a response to this ever growing tax burden faced by employers, the idea is to reduce the scope of the state’s UI payout to reduce the normal tax payed.

Is it popular?

Worker advocates called the measure unnecessary and shortsighted.

“This will push thousands and thousands of North Carolinians off an artificial cliff and deny hundreds of millions in dollars to businesses and communities. That money adds nothing to our debt and had already been appropriated,” said Harry Payne, former labor commissioner and worker advocate for the North Carolina Justice Center.

The extended benefits was being funded entirely by the federal government. Each week, that program funnels $25 million in benefits to about 85,000 laid-off workers.

“If anyone wants an example of thoughtlessness, I’ll hold this piece up high,” Payne said. “This is about not understanding what people are going through.”

Certainly not.

However, as the tax per job increases, more and more NC businesses will look to get out of the way of those taxes.  And the only way to do that is to constrain jobs.  Something we certainly don’t wanna do.  Further, by reducing the size of the UI check, the incentive to look for work increases, driving more and more people into the labor force.

Shaking My Head At The Data

I was over at Coyote Blog the other day when I saw a discussion surrounding this chart:

Coyote was taking Kevin Drum to task for his analysis of the data described by this chart.  Specifically:

Republicans like to say we have a spending problem, not a taxing problem, but the evidence doesn’t back that up. Total government spending didn’t go up much during the Clinton era, and it’s actually declined during the Obama era. In the last two decades, it’s only gone up significantly during the Bush era, the same era in which taxes were cut dramatically.

What we have isn’t a spending problem. That’s under control. What we have is a problem with Republicans not wanting to pay the bills they themselves were largely responsible for running up.

I looked at the chart and had to go, “Huh, he might have a point.”  Then I read Coyote’s complaint:

This is the total of all government spending at all levels, not just Federal.  In fact, had he shown Federal spending (likely more appropriate given he is trying to draw conclusions about Presidents), the numbers would have continued up over the last few years.

How can Drum really make an argument dealing specifically with federal implications and use data that includes state and local spending?  If he wants to discuss federal expenditures he should use data that describes ONLY federal expenditures.  Not data that gives Obama credit for local fiscal restraint.

The State of States

If only federal republicans could govern in the way and manner of state republicans:

Thanks to a Republican governor committed to developing its natural resources, not punishing entrepreneurs who do, Texas legislators are facing an $8.8 billion surplus over the next two years. To the east, Republican governors Bill Haslam of Tennessee and Rick Scott of Florida have also turned recession deficits into budget surpluses. Moving north, Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder, Iowa’s Gov. Terry Brandstad, and Indiana’s out-going-Gov. Mitch Daniels, also can now all boast surpluses in the hundreds of millions of dollars. All of these governors managed to turn their state’s fiscal situation around through spending cuts, not tax hikes. Now their budgets are in the black and their economies are growing.

I think it’s important to focus on the second to last sentence in that quote:

All of these governors managed to turn their state’s fiscal situation around through spending cuts, not tax hikes.

And lest we think that this is just a series of circumstances related to an overall nation economic rebound:

Things do not look as good in Democrat-controlled states. Illinois, who massively raised taxes on the rich, still has a $5.9 billion stack of unpaid bills. California, who also raised taxes on the rich, was supposed to post a small surplus this year. But tax collections are coming in at 10.8 percent below budget projections. As a result, the state is now projected to be $1.9 billion in the red by the end of this fiscal year.

Now, if that same fiscal responsibility could translate to the national level.

The Cost of Entitlements

UPDATE:  Added link to the AE Ideas post.

Browsing over at AE Ideas when I saw this chart:

Some things:

1.  Defense spending has been pretty constant since 1985.

2.  Spending on entitlement programs has not.

Jon Stewart – Pure Platinum

Look, Stewart is funny, wickedly funny.  His timing, expressions and body language are the best. And the fact that his patter is politics only makes it better; I like politics, he makes political humor.

What’s not to love?

But lot’s of people forget that the man is a clown.  He’s an entertainer.  He’s on a stage making people laugh at jokes. Think Abbott and Costello.  Andrew Dice Clay.  Rodney Dangerfield.

Gifted all.

He isn’t a commentator.  He’s isn’t a reporter.  He isn’t a writer.

So I love it when folks use Stewart as a source of news or to make a point.  I especially love it when he turns his schtick back on the liberal establishment that loves him so:

!!!!

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Paul Krugman & the Trillion Dollar Coin
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Deficits and Debts: Spending and Taxes

Money.  The spending of it.  The making of it.  Revenue and expenditure.

How to manage it all responsibly?

Recently, always[?], there has been a debate regarding the deficit and the debt.  How we as a nation spend vs how much we as a nation bring in.  The most recent event was the fiscal cliff.  The new event is the debt ceiling negotiations.  And yes, there will be negotiations regardless of what the President says or what he wants.

Leave aside the partisan bickering for a second and let’s just look at this in a way that people kinda get; real world.

Typically, a household has an idea on how much money they bring in.  And this amount of money dictates how much they spend, typically.  In college I brought in very little – I spent very little.  Out of college I brought in more and spent more.  And during these times, my spending would, indeed, fluctuate.  I could count on certain bills and expenditures but others would just come up.  A broken muffler, a wedding out of state.  Maybe dental work.

My budget would often shift.  But it was always thought of in relation to how much I could bring in.  I knew that I was taking a short term hit but long term gain by going to college.  Earnings would suffer but the long term outlook was positive.

But my debt was always defined in relation to MY reality.

Earlier this week, the fellas at Poison Your Mind posted on the fact that the United States is a low tax country:

Of course, one can have a political preference that the US maintain extremely low taxes and/or reduce the size of government, but neither political inclination is compelled by The Math.

I assume, with all the risks commensurate, that by referencing “The Math” RR is referring to the fact that republicans claim spending is to blame for our deficit, not taxes.  In fact, the chart accompanying the post shows that the United States is near the bottom in tax revenue indicating that tax revenue, and not necessarily spending, is the problem.

But to me, that doesn’t jive.

Back to younger me.  I existed in my own reality.  I went to school, church and lodge with members of my community that existed on a range of socioeconomic status.  Virtually ALL earned more than I did.  And now, flash forward to today, I exist in that same strata, many peers earn more, many less.  None of which have any bearing on defining the health of my financial status.

I must balance my spending with my revenue.

In some cases I earn less due to sheer ability.  They have it and I don’t.  In other cases it’s based on desire; they have it and I don’t.  In others, I earn more because I am the one with the desire or the ability.  And yet in others, people have decided that compensation takes forms other than money; time off, value to society and personal growth are examples.  Whatever the individual situation is, basing fiscal health on the experience of others is rather short sighted.  And in the end, not at all healthy.

For whatever reason, perhaps because we are an independent colony all grown up.  Maybe it’s because we have access to massive natural resources.  Or education, or – well, whatever.  Whatever the reason, America has decided that it only wants to generate “X” amount of revenue.  We don’t wanna work harder to earn more per hour, or take an second job.  We’re cool where we are.

Given that reality, our spending has to reflect that fiscal reality and adjust.  It just has to.  And if it doesn’t, then spending is the problem.

But back to the chart, it IS rather stark.  After all, we are the United States of America and certainly have reason to expect that we come in better than 4th from the bottom.  Am I missing something?

Well maybe.

See, we may only be taxing at a very low rate of GDP, but we are a very VERY rich nation. So, while a person may argue that a policy of higher tax revenue is desirable, the larger question may be ignored.  Namely, is the nation wealthier as a result of such taxation or less wealthy as a result.

There is data:

It turns out that America does well compared to her high tax peers.  For example, Denmark, the nation with the highest revenues, is very poor compared ti the states of the United States.  In fact, if Denmark WERE a states, it would rank only as the 44th richest state in the Union.  Behind Kentucky.  And Belgium, the nation with the 3rd highest tax revenues?  Why, it would rank below even Denmark, poorer even than Idaho.

The EU as a whole, with Spain, Israel, Italy, Greece and Portugal all, ALL, rank lower than the poorest state in our nation; Mississippi.

This might mean that such high tax rates lead to less prosperous nations.  Or it might mean that such high tax rates are really an illusion of mathematics – revenues compared to a paltry GDP may seem higher than they really are.  Whatever the explanation, I doubt anyone would argue that we would wanna live in a nation that would rank among the poorest of our states.

On Crazy And Irrelevant

A few days ago Paul Krugman jumped the shark:

Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillion platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default? Yes, absolutely. He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious.

So, there ya have it.  Paul’s contribution to the debt ceiling problems.  And his reasoning?

For those new to this, here’s the story. First of all, we have the weird and destructive institution of the debt ceiling; this lets Congress approve tax and spending bills that imply a large budget deficit — tax and spending bills the president is legally required to implement — and then lets Congress refuse to grant the president authority to borrow, preventing him from carrying out his legal duties and provoking a possibly catastrophic default.

I think Paul is forgetting that we can service our debt very easily with existing revenues.  The money we don’t have is for additional spending.  There really is very little danger of defaulting on our debt.

Anyway, cooler, calmer and more rational minds have saved the day:

The U.S. Treasury Department said on Saturday it will not produce platinum coins as a way of generating $1 trillion in revenue and avoiding a battle in Congress over raising the U.S. debt ceiling.

The idea of creating $1 trillion by minting platinum coins has gained some currency among Democrats in recent days as a way of sidestepping congressional Republicans who are threatening to reject a necessary increase in the debt ceiling unless deep spending cuts are made.

The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, both independent of one another, each concluded this was not a viable option.

“Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit,” said Treasury spokesman Anthony Coley in a statement.

File this under “no kidding”.

Dysfunction of Government

Look, I like Rand Paul.  I resonate with much of what he says.  And this even more so.

Ignore the comments about term limits – I can go back and forth on that one.  Just listen to his comments on how the Fiscal Cliff Senate legislation was passed.

No printed bill.

Made available online at 01:36.

Voted on at 01:39.

Partisan politics aside, there is no earthly way that an argument can be made that this is an example of how we want legislation debated, written, studied and then voted on.

No way.

Fiscal Cliff “Averted”

The last charge of the 112 Congress has taken place.  With just hours before the session was set to close, the congress passed the bill that will now go to Obama’s desk for signature.  Only in my most vindictive moments did I want us to go over the cliff.  I wanted the average person who voted for the current President to face the economic damage first hand.  If nothing else, the prospect of facing an additional $2,500 in taxes with the possibility of the AMT hitting them, they  may have learned what happens when a tax happy spend happy administration gets in power.

As it is, we have very little to be happy about.  The first, if not only, is the fact that the Bush Tax Cuts are now permanent for everyone earning less then $450,000.  About time!  Although now that they are permanent, watch the left begin calling them the Obama Tax Cuts – as if.

The other positive is that the AMT’s annual correction is also permanent.  No more posturing on that one.

But there is a TON to hate.  Taxes going up for anyone in this economy is only going to do more harm than good.  And those taxes are on business and investors.  Not to mention investment itself.

And the worst part?  There wasn’t ANY spending cuts of meaning.  Rather we have that battle in two months.  Oh yeah, I forgot the third thing – no debt ceiling limit rise.

All that means is that we get to go through this all over again in a few short months.

Clinton-Era Tax Rates

Through all the discussion surrounding the fiscal cliff negotiations we have heard the relentless drumbeat of an argument that during the surplus years of President Clinton, the tax rates were higher than they are now.  If it worked then, they theory goes, it can work now.

Makes sense.  Kinda.

But no one is asking for a return to the Clinton-era rates.  They’re asking for a return to the Clinton-era tax rates for SOME, not all.

And, of course, the idea is only to revert to the Clinton-era revenue rates.  Not the spending rates.

What if we went back to the spending of that Clinton era?  Why, during 1999 the federal budget was $1,701 billion.  Adjusted for inflation, that comes to $2,350 billion.  And what is our expected revenue for 2012?  About $2,468 billion.

A surplus of $118 billion.