SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (387687)4/8/2003 12:53:27 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 769670
 
Clinton's Smoke and Mirrors Budget Surplus

What Surplus?

by
U.S. Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald
July 5, 1999

Last week the President announced that we will have federal budget surpluses this year and every year into the foreseeable future. The New York Times asserted that the national debt clock in mid-town Manhattan would soon start running in reverse, thanks to these surpluses, and news articles have appeared across the country proclaiming that the nation will be debt-free by 2015.

Before you uncork the champagne, take a look at the fine print in the President's projections. The national debt now stands at $5.6 trillion---that's $55,000 for every family in America. The fine print shows that, far from decreasing, the national debt will rise---every day, every month, every year---to over $7.5 trillion by 2015. Over the next five years alone, our national debt will jump by over a half trillion dollars.

How can our national debt be rising if we're running surpluses? The answer is simple---we're not running surpluses.

The President has a well-earned reputation for his careful choice of words. In his remarks on the budget last week in the Rose Garden, he correctly stated that the portion of the national debt held by the public will fall to zero by 2015. But he failed to point out that another component of the national debt---money borrowed from over 150 federal government trust funds, including Social Security and Medicare---will quadruple by 2015.

By the President's omissions, the public is hearing and perceiving a half-truth. Part of the government's debt will go down while another part skyrockets, and the total debt---and every family's share of that debt---continues to climb. Washington is simply moving its debt from one account to another---using its Visa to pay off its MasterCard. Such dubious refinancing is no cause for celebration.

Congress and the Administration are not being straight with the American people. Rather than admit that the federal government continues to run large annual budget deficits, they use accounting techniques to blur and obscure the problem.

In order to mask on-going annual deficits in the general fund, Washington "borrows" money from a variety of dedicated government trust funds and mixes that money in with the general fund. But each dollar taken out of these trust funds is another dollar added to our national debt. Borrowing from these trust funds explains why our national debt continues to rise even though many in Washington are claiming "surpluses" in the general fund.

Let's look at this more closely. Each year, Americans pay billions of dollars into over 150 federal government trust funds. Congress originally created these trust funds to specifically earmark or set aside money for programs like Social Security and federal employees' and veterans' pensions. Last year, for example, working Americans paid $423 billion in payroll taxes into Social Security, of which $53 billion went into the Social Security trust funds to help pay for the benefits of future retirees. Another $6.8 billion of your hard-earned tax dollars went to increase the Military Retirement Fund to provide future retirement benefits to veterans and their families. And the unemployment trust funds---used to provide financial assistance to workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own---grew by $8.8 billion last year, thanks to payroll tax contributions by working Americans.

But there is no money in these trust funds. The federal government has taken every dollar out of these funds---over $1.6 trillion, or more than $6,100 for every man, woman, and child in America---and spent it on other government programs. In 1998 alone, the federal government borrowed, and then spent, $153 billion from the trust funds---$99 billion from Social Security alone.

In return, the Treasury Department has issued non-marketable, non-negotiable IOUs to the trust funds, contributing to our massive federal debt. These IOUs earn interest, but the federal government doesn't pay the interest in cash or other real assets. Instead, the government "pays" the interest by issuing even more IOUs to the trust funds.

Under Congress's own laws, if a private business raided its employees' pension funds and spent that money for general corporate expenses, its executives could be prosecuted. Yet that's exactly what Congress has done to the government trust and pension funds. They've dipped into these funds for years. They've used the proceeds to mask budget deficits and to pay for other programs, in what amounts to a shell game with taxpayers' money. But it's the American taxpayers who will pay in the long run, as our huge national debt will grow for many years to come.

I am working in the Senate to try to change the government's accounting practices so that the public cannot be so easily misled. I have introduced the Truth in Budgeting Act of 1999, which would require the federal government to separate the money borrowed from the trust funds from the general fund and report the real federal budget deficit or surplus. By requiring all trust funds to be reported separately from the general fund budget, the Truth in Budgeting Act shows that the government "surpluses" now being touted are fictitious.

This legislation specifically does not "lock box" every trust fund, as I and others have proposed for Social Security. In fact, of the over 150 trust funds, there may very well be some that should not have the status of trust funds, and whose monies should not be segregated from the general fund. The Truth in Budgeting Act will only illuminate our nation's finances, but this legislation is an incremental, critical step toward changing the way Congress budgets and spends your money.

The Truth in Budgeting Act---endorsed by the taxpayer watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste---will shine a spotlight on the budget shell games used by Congress and the Administration, and force the government to, literally, account to the American people.



To: American Spirit who wrote (387687)4/8/2003 12:57:41 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 769670
 
Who owns the bubble economy?

By: Tim Wood


Posted: 2002/08/02 Fri 04:00 | © Moneyweb 1997-2003


NEW YORK --- Paul Krugman is partly a Princeton economics professor and mostly a mendacious Democratic Party apologist. He is the New York Times’ op-ed choir falsetto; chiming in weekly to bash Bush, and tax cuts that haven’t taken effect, for destroying the great Bull Market.
Krugman, who pocketed $50,000 for dubious services to Enron, warbled in this week’s column about the loss of Clinton era “responsibility” (the scare quotes are entirely mine, Krugman’s writing is always poker faced on the probity of Bill Clinton). On cue, Hilary Clinton also mounted the stage this week, eyes fixed on a 2004 presidential bid, to declare that there was no bubble, just a bumbling successor who broke the economy and stopped the Dow from cracking 15,000:

"Now some have recently called that record a binge [the 90’s bubble]. I am reminded of what Abraham Lincoln once said, when his commanders complained about Ulysses S. Grant's binges. 'Find out,' he said, 'what brand of whiskey Grant drinks, because I'm going to send a barrel to each of my generals,'” she told the rent-a-crowd.

Across the aisle, Republicans are back peddling. They started off praising Reagan for the 90’s prosperity, but then shut up as soon as it became apparent that a bubble had formed and was popping. Now they like to remind everyone that the markets had already cracked when the curtain came down on Clinton’s vaudeville presidency.

Everyone is probably a little bit right, but the central players in the drama are undoubtedly Alan Greenspan, governor of the Federal Reserve and Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary.

Rubin’s starring role is fogged by the ongoing scandal of his influence peddling on behalf of employer Citigroup to forestall a credit derating for Enron, which was heavily indebted to it. Even when you set that aside, Rubin looks increasingly likely to take on the moniker Bubble Boy and he will not automatically get the nod to be the next Fed governor when Greenspan retires.

Rubin, as the Clinton administration’s direct line to voter’s wallets, had a vested interest in making those voters feel cheerily good. He did just that as pension wealth rocketed higher and the consumerism of 20 million new jobs lapped from sea-to-shining-sea.

Greenspan did warn of irrational exuberance, but he also came out years later when Nasdaq was searing toward 5,000 points, and praised the US’s new economy productivity miracle. Rubin is always proud to boast about containing Asian contagion, although Japan has never recovered despite sucking up every Rubin prescription for its economy.

A contributor to the Andrew Sullivan blog ringfenced the debate perfectly recently:

“PIMCO bond fund manager Bill Gross said in January 2002: "Prior to Robert Rubin, Secretaries of the U.S. Treasury conducted economic policy with an eye towards promoting the competitiveness of American industry, as well as services such as banking, insurance, and financial management. For the past eight years or so, the focus has been on the markets (stock and bond) as opposed to the marketplace."

“Greenspan and Rubin orchestrated the bailout of Long Term Capital Management in 1998, and in this and other ways they generally fostered the perception that Treasury and Fed policy would be aimed at supporting the stock market. By creating the impression that the government was creating a floor under which stock prices would not fall, they helped stoke the stock market bubble.”

Rubin and Greenspan certainly orchestrated an unprecedented prosperity, but it was overly concentrated in certain assets and was ultimately unsustainable. Its temporal nature is what makes the show a failure; without the encore, you’re not a hit. It’s also dangerous, because the stock promotion was a whorish genuflection to populism that probably had a lot to do with muffling the Monica scandal among many others.

If the U.S. economy stabilises and portfolios are left without any permanent damage, then Rubin and Greenspan will escape ignominy. If stocks continue to sink, the housing bubble blows and the dollar tanks as badly everyone is expecting it to, then history is going to be very unkind to them. That is provided the Krugman chorus line isn’t successful in high kicking all the blame over to Bush’s side of the stage.
m1.mny.co.za



To: American Spirit who wrote (387687)4/8/2003 1:07:11 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 769670
 
Bill Clinton's economic legacy

Monday, 15 January, 2001, 12:47 GMT

President Bill Clinton will leave office with the longest boom in US history still intact.

But the rapidly slowing economy will leave questions for his successor about how to manage the downturn.


Mr Clinton also leaves the legacy of a huge and growing budget surplus, the product of years of bitter battles between Republicans and Democrats.

But the very size of the surplus has provoked an even bigger debate, with a fierce controversy over how much of it should be used to cut taxes, how much for spending increases or reductions in the national debt.

And finally, Mr Clinton leaves an international trading system in paralysis, with the collapse of plans for a new trade round.

That was despite a promising start, which had seen him push through deals with Canada, Mexico, and China against fierce Congressional opposition.

Mr Bush may well decide to pursue the regional trade agenda further, aiming at creating a free trade area in the Americas, at the risk of solidifying the world into rival trade blocs.

Economic boom

Mr Clinton's most enduring legacy is likely to be the economic boom which began shortly before he took office in 1992.

During the eight years of the presidency, the economy expanded by 50% in real terms, and by the end of his tenure the US had a gross national product of $10,000bn - one quarter of the entire world economic output.

The booming US economy has brought economic benefits right across the income spectrum.

The unemployment rate has dropped by half, to 4%, a 40-year-low, while the economy has created some 15 million jobs.

The stock market grew even faster - by more than three times - creating thousands of millionaires among middle class stockholders, and employees of fast-growing companies like Microsoft - before the high tech index, the Nasdaq, fell back sharply this year.

But the growth was not evenly distributed.

Inequality

The US has the highest rate of inequality of any industrialised country, and that inequality increased during Mr Clinton's years in office.

It was only in the last few years of the boom that economic growth percolated down, as average wages began to rise and unemployment fell among minority communities.

Mr Clinton was unable, or unwilling, to do much to combat that inequality.


Some of the policies he embraced, such as the expansion of the earned income tax credit, were designed to redistribute money to working families.

But others, such as welfare reform, meant that even less government support was likely for poor people at the bottom of the income distribution.

Healthy public finances

The booming economy and strict controls over government spending has meant that Mr Clinton also leaves office with the public finances in their strongest shape for decades.

The Office of Management and Budget is projecting a surplus of $5,000bn over the next 10 years, enough to pay off the entire Federal debt and fund Social Security, the state pension scheme, for several more decades.

But that position has been reached after a long political struggle.

Mr Clinton decided early in his term of office that debt reduction, rather than tax cuts, was the best way to preserve economic growth.

That policy, backed by Mr Greenspan, contributed to the close working relationship that developed between the Fed and the US Treasury - but left little scope for redistribution.

It also set the scene for a confrontation between Mr Clinton and Congressional Republicans over what spending to cut in order to reach a balanced budget.

After two government shutdowns when agreement could not be reached on the budget, one that lasted nearly six weeks, Mr Clinton appeared to win the battle - and the 1996 election.

Saving Social Security

Mr Clinton did manage to preserve spending on certain key programmes, most notably the huge and popular entitlement programmes for the elderly, Social Security and Medicare.

"Save social security first" was the motto coined by President Clinton in the midst of the budget struggle, and he has succeeded in ensuring that at least part of the government surplus will be reserved to fund the future deficits of these programmes.

However, Mr Clinton dodged the more difficult issues of how to reform these programmes in the long-term, despite a series of bi-partisan commissions.

Now it will be left to President-elect Bush to propose a radical shake-up of social security, allowing younger workers to partially opt-out of the system and put some of their savings into the stock market instead.

International trade tensions

Mr Clinton left an even more ambiguous legacy in the area of international trade, and leaves office with the US more exposed than ever before to the international economy.

The US trade deficit - the gap between the goods the US sells to the rest of the world and the amount it buys - has ballooned to over $400bn, financed by foreign buyers of US stocks, bonds and companies.


That investment has been boosted by a strong dollar poll which also helped keep inflation in check.

Under Mr Clinton, the US Treasury sanctioned a limited intervention in foreign currency markets, first to save the yen from a catastrophic decline, and second, and less effectively, to try and boost the value of the euro, the single currency for Europe.

The Fed's interest rate cuts in 1998 also helped stabilise the world financial system and prevent the Asian crisis spilling over into a global catastrophe - at the cost of increasing imports to the US even further.

In trade policy the Clinton adminstration has a more mixed legacy.

Against strong opposition from within his own party, Mr Clinton pushed through a trade deal that created the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) between the USA, Canada and Mexico in 1995.

But he was forced to agree to "sideline" agreements incorporating labour and environmental standards.

Mr Clinton was never again able to gain "fast-track" authorisation from Congress, which would have given him the authority to negotiate further trade deals, and his plans for Latin American free trade zone soon faltered - as did his ambitions to launch the Pacific Century, using the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) as the framework for a regional trade opening.

But he did negotiate an agreement with China in 1999 that cleared the way for its membership in the World Trade Organisation, and managed to persuade Congress to back that deal, encouraging the world's biggest country to continue its path of economic reform and integration in the world economy.

Seattle fiasco

However, Mr Clinton also played a central role in the collapse of the Seattle trade talks - intended to launch a new world trade round in 1999.

He went against the advice of his own trade negotiators to urge the inclusion of labour standards issues in the trade talks, alienating many third world delegates.

The Seattle talks then dissolved into acrimonious failure, with all sides blaming the US for inadequate preparation and giving in to the domestic political pressures.

And the failure increased trade tensions with the European Union, the only real rival to the US among world trade blocs.


A number of nagging disputes - over beef, bananas, aircraft subsidies, and tax breaks - continued to trouble US-EU trade relations.

Now it will be very difficult for President-elect Bush to revive the momentum for global trade talks - and without US leadership, regional trade agreements may replace global trade negotiations.

Clinton - or Greenspan?

Many observers credit Alan Greenspan, the Fed chief, rather than President Clinton, with the careful management of the economy.

However, it was the effective alliance between the US Treasury and central bank which cemented the boom.

Mr Clinton's populist instincts were effectively reined in by the tyranny of the bond markets - and low interest rates helped cut the deficit as well as boost spending.

But on trade, Mr Clinton never succeeded in overcoming the reluctance of his own party to endorse his "New Democrat" free trade position, leaving trade policy more polarised than ever.

news.bbc.co.uk