Despite its Debt, the US Can't Afford to Ignore its Antiquated Infrastructure

To contact us Click HERE


In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave America’s infrastructure a “D-“ grade and called for $2.2 trillion in investment over the coming five years. However, the necessary investment has not since been made. This has jeopardized our economy and even our safety. Basic upgrades and critical modernization have been ignored.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama acknowledged this, admitting that we have an "aging infrastructure badly in need of repair," while also noting that there are “nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country.”

Roads, bridges, ports, and rail systems allow businesses to move goods, reach global markets, grow their market share and create new jobs. Investing in these critical elements of our nation's infrastructure, as well as our water systems, is the only way to build and maintain a 21st Century economy.

Greg E. DiLoreto, President of the ASCE, put it this way:

For the U.S. economy to be the most competitive country in the world we need a first class infrastructure system—transport systems that move people and goods efficiently and at reasonable cost by land, water and air; transmission systems that deliver reliable, low-cost power from a wide range of energy sources, and water systems that drive industrial processes as well as the daily functions in our homes. Infrastructure is the foundation that connects the nation’s businesses, communities and people, driving our economy and improving our quality of life.

On March 19th, the ASCE will release its 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. It will be interesting to see if anything has improved in the intervening four years, or if our overall infrastructure has predictably regressed.

The 2009 report highlighted a continual pattern of disrepair and neglect. The ASCE had previously given US infrastructure a "D" grade in 2005 as well. Getting the same grade again in 2009 clearly indicated a total lack of national commitment to correcting these critical problems.

In an economic report on the failure to invest in infrastructure, ASCE has found that "infrastructure investment is inherently linked to our nation’s economic success. The Failure to Act report found that if we fill our infrastructure funding gap by 2020, the U.S. can eliminate potential drags on economic growth, protect 3.5 million jobs, and protect $3,100 in annual personal disposable income."

If these problems are ignored, the ASCE warns, "Your commute will become less reliable, your shipments will take longer. You may experience more electrical outages and water issues."



Those problems will come at a great expense.

The ASCE study finds that the overall cost to households and businesses of deficient infrastructure grows to $1.2 trillion for businesses by 2020 and $611 billion for households, under current investment trends.

The ASCE asserts the following:

Thus, the investment gaps will total $1.1 trillion by 2020, and will grow to $4.7 trillion by 2040.

If we don’t address this funding shortfall of $157 billion a year for our nation’s infrastructure, we will be faced with the following by 2020:

• A projected loss of $3.1 trillion in GDP, almost the equivalent of the 2011 GDP of France

• A $1.1 trillion decline in U.S. trade value, equivalent to Mexico’s GDP

• A loss of 3.5 million jobs in the year 2020 alone, more than the jobs created in the U.S. over the previous 22 months

• A $2.4 trillion decline in consumer spending, comparable to Brazil’s GDP

• A drop of $3,100 in disposable income per year, per household

Obviously, the cost of performing these vital infrastructure repairs and improvements will be great. Yet, the ASCS says, "the real story of this report is that we can’t afford not to."

Whatever the cost, the price of not investing will be even higher.

Repairing, rebuilding and modernizing our national infrastructure would also create jobs, increase demand, circulate money back into the U.S. economy and revive the tax base.

It will be impossible for the U.S. to maintain it's status as a super power and a world leader in the 21st Century with a failing and crumbling infrastructure. Quite disturbingly, the current state of affairs reveals a nation in decay and decline.

The problem is that the U.S. is already running massive annual budget deficits and is burdened by a cumbersome national debt exceeding $16 trillion. Our politicians have squandered our national wealth, as well as opportunities to address these problems, for many years. This decay didn't just happen overnight.

The repairs to our nation's infrastructure are long overdue. Yet, for a nation with such a staggering debt burden, they will prove cumbersome.

Economic growth this year will average only 1.4 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest forecast. In other words, growth will be too paltry to pay for these vital repairs.

Yet, they cannot be ignored, and that's the conundrum for the U.S.

The U.S. can't afford $2.2 trillion in infrastructure repairs and improvements, and yet it can't afford not to fund them either.

When the Obama administration unveiled its fiscal stimulus package in early 2009, the federal government’s debt to the public amounted to only 35 percent of our gross domestic product. Today, it amounts to about 75 percent. That's a whole lot of new debt in a very short time frame.

However, according to CBO calculations, the 2009 fiscal stimulus produced about $1 of economic output for every $1 in stimulus, on average. In other words, spending on infrastructure paid for itself.

But there is still reason for caution.

Earlier this month, the CBO produced an analysis of the impact that further deficits would have on the economy. A $2 trillion fiscal stimulus would increase growth for the next three or four years. But as the economy recovered, the deficit would crowd out private investment, reducing growth over the decade. By 2023, government debt would amount to 87 percent of GDP.

Congress needs to weigh the potential return on public investment over the long term. Improving the nation’s infrastructure could ultimately yield much more than a dollar in economic output for each dollar spent.

The reality is that we can't ignore our infrastructure. Even absent the goals of modernizing and improving our infrastructure, old bridges, roads, dams, dikes and levees will continue to crumble.

It is a problem that cannot, and will not, be ignored.

Bush's agenda faces opposition from election-wary Republicans

To contact us Click HERE
April 4th 2005 - The tightly disciplined, Republican-controlled Congress that gave President George W. Bush key pro- business victories in the first few months of his second term may now put political survival ahead of party unity.

Bush has outlined an aggressive agenda -- including restructuring Social Security, cutting a record budget deficit and easing immigration policies -- that he hopes will secure his legacy for posterity. His party's lawmakers have a simpler goal: winning re-election and maintaining or enlarging their House and Senate majorities in 2006.

``Bush sees himself as a consequential president in history who accomplished big things,'' says Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster. ``Most members of Congress can be very happy just strolling along saying, 'Here is all the money I delivered to my district.'''

Congressional Republicans are pushing for legislation to allow drug imports from Canada, a measure opposed by Bush and drug makers such as Pfizer Inc. and Merck & Co. Bush also faces resistance on his plan to ease immigration laws, which food- service companies such as Outback Steakhouse Inc. and Wendy's International Inc. support. And Wall Street analysts and economists hoping for measures to restrain the budget deficit are concerned that lawmakers facing re-election won't be inclined to cut spending.

``There are some great challenges,'' White House spokesman Trent Duffy says. ``This president is a big-game hunter. The process is just beginning.''

The Republicans, who gained expanded majorities in both chambers of Congress in the November elections, gave Bush some early successes this year with measures that curbed class-action lawsuits, rewrote bankruptcy laws and paved the way for oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Easy Wins

These ``were easy wins that were left over from the last Congress,'' says Ethan Siegal, president of the Washington Exchange, which tracks policy for institutional investors. ``Everything else Bush has on the table is very difficult, and the discipline in his party is breaking apart.''

The first stirrings of dissent were heard when lawmakers took up Bush's 2006 budget, which calls for trimming federal benefits and other domestic programs while extending portions of his first-term tax cuts.

Last month, Senator Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican, led six other Republicans in blocking Bush's plan to cut $14 billion from the Medicaid health program over five years. And when a Senate committee approved Bush's $284 billion highway bill, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma assured his fellow Republicans that the funding may be increased later.

Drug Imports

Republicans are also at odds with Bush's position on allowing Americans to import cheaper drugs from Canada. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the powerful chairman of the Finance Committee, is pushing for legislation that would allow the imports, which Bush and drug makers oppose.

Representative Jo Ann Emerson, a Missouri Republican, says she is confident the bill allowing imports can clear the House. Lawmakers' ``constituents are saying, find any means possible to bring down the cost of drugs,'' she says.

Drug makers such as New York-based Pfizer, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-based Merck and Madison, New Jersey-based Wyeth say the measure won't adequately address these concerns. ``We don't believe that re-importation is a solution to the problems of access and affordability of medications,'' Wyeth spokeswoman Natalie De Vane says. ``And it does pose a safety risk.''

Bush's call for a guest-worker visa program aimed at allowing migrants to fill low-skilled jobs may be the toughest to pass, because so many Republicans are opposed to it, says Bruce Josten, the head lobbyist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington.

Opening Floodgates

Representative John Hostettler, an Indiana Republican who heads the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, said he wouldn't allow any bill easing immigration to be brought before his panel for a vote. ``It is my concern and others' concerns that if you legalize those who have illegally obtained residency here, you will open the floodgates,'' he said in an interview March 31.

The National Restaurant Association, which represents companies such as Tampa, Florida-based Outback Steakhouse and Dublin, Ohio-based Wendy's International, backs Bush's plan. The food-service industry is the largest U.S. employer of undocumented workers -- about 1.4 million of the nation's 8 million immigrants.

Second-Term Blues

These kinds of defections are common in a president's second term, particularly when his party is in power in Congress, says Stephen Wayne, a government professor at Georgetown University in Washington. In four of five second-term mid-term elections since World War II, the party that controlled the White House has lost seats in both chambers, says Jennifer Duffy, an analyst at the Cook Political Report, which tracks political races.

Most lawmakers are aware of this phenomenon, called the ``sixth-year itch,'' Duffy says, and Republicans will cast their votes on Bush's agenda items with this precedent in mind. ``It's a self-preservation issue,'' she says.

There are 15 Republican-held Senate seats on the ballot next year. In the House, where all members are up for re-election, 24 Republicans won their 2004 elections with 55 percent of the vote or less.

This dynamic is already evident in the voting behavior of Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3 Senate Republican leader, who is expected to face a tough re-election contest in 2006 from Democrat Robert Casey Jr., the state treasurer.

Good for Pennsylvania

Santorum has parted ways with the president at least twice in the last month. He proposed a $1.10-an-hour increase to the $5.15-an-hour minimum wage, and voted in favor of an amendment to a 2006 budget plan that rejected Bush's call to cut nearly $2 billion from the Community Development Block Grant program and other economic development programs that are popular in his state.

``You're going to see him deviate on things that make sense for Pennsylvania,'' Duffy says.

Perhaps most significant for Bush's legacy, his plan to establish private Social Security accounts has failed to generate a critical mass of support. The proposal has proved unpopular in the polls, and Republican lawmakers including Representative Jim Nussle of Iowa and Representative John Mica of Florida have not made commitments to support it.

Wall Street Worries

Some Republicans share Wall Street's concern over the effect of the proposal on the budget deficit, which reached a record $412 billion last year. Any plan to create the accounts would add $1 trillion to $2 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

``The longer we continue to allow the public debt to rise, the more painful the ultimate cuts will be,'' says Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLP, a research firm in Jersey City, New Jersey, that analyzes the effects of federal economic policies.

For many Republicans, though, concern about the deficit is mitigated by the desire to avoid the political pain that spending cuts or moderating Bush's tax cuts would entail.

During last month's Senate debate on Bush's request to extend his $1.85 trillion in tax cuts, only five Republican senators joined the chamber's 44 Democrats and one independent to demand that further reductions be offset by tax increases or spending cuts. While the Senate rejected, 50-50, an amendment to the fiscal blueprint requiring offsets, some Republicans plan to fight again this summer when party leaders advance the legislation.

Bush's Budget Sparks Bipartisan Protest

To contact us Click HERE
February 7th 2006 - The administration defended President Bush's $2.77 trillion budget plan on Tuesday against congressional attacks that the cuts it sought to deal with exploding budget deficits would unfairly harm government efforts in education, health care and farm programs.

Treasury Secretary John Snow, among leadoff witnesses in a series of congressional hearings, said the administration had made the tough choices to fund programs that were working and eliminate those that were not.

"This budget represents the president's dedication to fiscal discipline, an efficient federal government and the continuation of a thriving U.S. economy," Snow told the Senate Finance Committee.

But critics noted that the deficit for the current budget year would rise to an all-time high of $423 billion and they questioned Bush's projections for declining deficits in future years.

Democrats said Bush's proposed budget for Fiscal 2007, beginning Oct. 1, was seriously understating spending that will be needed to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and did not include the billions of dollars needed in future years to make sure the alternative minimum tax designed for the wealthy does not pinch more and more middle class taxpayers.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said the explosion of federal deficits was adding to the national debt, requiring the administration to come to Congress in the next few weeks to raise the $8.18 trillion debt ceiling. He said all of that debt is being financed more and more by foreigners.

"America is borrowing 80 percent of the world's annual savings. We are handing our children and our children's children a set of obligations they will owe to foreign central banks," Baucus told Snow.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., produced charts showing that the amount of federal government debt held by foreigners before Bush became president totaled $1 trillion and now in the first five years of his administration has more than doubled.

Snow said the ability of the United States to pay interest on the debt was a function of the economy's size and the vitality of the nation's bond markets.

"There is no doubt given the deep and liquid capital markets of the United States, that we will continue to attract capital from investors around the world," the Treasury secretary told the committee.

Testifying separately before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the military must continue to change in order to defend against terrorists who could get a nuclear weapon or launch a biological attack.

"No nation, no matter how powerful, has the resources or capability to defend everywhere, at every time, against every conceivable type of attack," Rumsfeld said. "The only way to protect the American people, therefore, is to provide our military with as wide a range of capabilities, rather than preparing to confront any one particular threat.

Bush's budget, which was sent to Congress on Monday, has faced predictable criticism from Democrats but it is also facing attacks from Republicans.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called Bush's proposed cuts in education and health "scandalous" while Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said she was "disappointed and even surprised" at the extent of the administration's proposed cuts in Medicaid and Medicare.

Bush's spending blueprint for the 2007 budget year that begins Oct. 1 would provide large increases for the military and homeland security but would trim spending in the one-sixth of the budget that covers the rest of discretionary spending. Nine Cabinet agencies would see outright reductions with the biggest percentage cuts occurring in the departments of Transportation, Justice and Agriculture.

And in mandatory programs _ so-called because the government must provide benefits to all who qualify _ the president is seeking over the next five years savings of $36 billion in Medicare, $5 billion in farm subsidy programs, $4.9 billion in Medicaid support for poor children's health care and $16.7 billion in additional payments from companies to shore up the government's besieged pension benefit agency.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley noted that Congress has just completed a yearlong battle to achieve far smaller savings in Medicaid and Medicare and "any more reductions of a significant scope could be difficult this year."

Bush's budget would meet his twin goals of making permanent his first-term tax cuts, which are set to expire by 2010, and cutting the deficit in half by 2009, the year he leaves office.

Democrats, hoping to wrest control of Congress from the Republicans in this year's election, charged that Bush was forced into an austere spending plan because of the estimated $1.35 trillion over the next decade that it will cost to extend his first-term tax cuts, which Democrats claim primarily benefit the very wealthy.

In addition to strict limits on most discretionary, non-security spending in the budget, Bush sought drastic cuts or total elimination on 141 programs that would produce savings of nearly $15 billion in 2007.

The targeted programs included 42 in the area of education ranging from drug-free schools to federal support for the arts, technology and parent-resource centers.

Even previously favored agencies such as the National Institutes of Health were not immune from the budget knife with overall funding essentially frozen and many individual programs seeing budget cuts. That brought objections from groups ranging from the American Heart Association to the American Diabetes Association.

Bush's budget submission is just the opening round in what opponents are promising will be a spirited fight in Congress over spending priorities.

"The president's budget slashes resources for exactly the priorities we should be supporting _ groundbreaking medical research, health care for our seniors, and education for our kids," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

Bush's Legacy: Debt

To contact us Click HERE
September 25th 2008

UNITED STATES - The Bush legacy is going to include a nasty four-letter word: debt.

On second thought, make that staggering, long-term debt, perhaps in excess of $11 trillion, that will tie the hands of the next president and Congress, to say nothing of imposing a crushing burden on taxpayers.

Just a few months ago, the Iraq war looked like the biggest thing in the eight-year era of the second President Bush, during which his party controlled Congress for six years.

Just a couple of Sunday mornings ago, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post said on national television that the war in Iraq “is probably the most important thing going on right now,” adding that in January the war in Iraq will be topic one in the next administration, and topic two will be the war in Afghanistan.

Now the country suddenly is facing a financial crisis fraught with the possibility of unprecedented economic disaster.

If that isn’t enough to make you reach for the antacid tablets, the president still has about three months left in office, plenty of time for yet another calamitous turn of events.

The national debt was about $5.7 trillion when Bush took office in January 2001. Today, after almost eight years and a couple of wars, the debt has risen to about $9.7 trillion.

And, by the way, that figure might rise another $1 trillion or so before Bush steps down on Jan. 20.

The national debt ceiling today is $10.6 trillion. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson wants Congress to raise that to $11.3 trillion to clear the decks for massive borrowing to deal with the nation’s financial crisis.

A national debt of $11.3 trillion would come to more than $37,000 each for every man, woman and child in the United States.

And all this comes during an era of allegedly conservative, fiscally responsible Republican domination in Washington.

Obama's Achilles Heel: China

To contact us Click HERE
UNITED STATES - The US National Debt continues to go up $3.87 billion USD per day and is currently hovering around $12.4 trillion.

The problem is its going to continue to skyrocket as long as the United States is fighting off a recession, two wars and high oil prices. US President Barack Obama thus has his work cut out for him, problems left behind by George W. Bush, and his problems are quantified by the statement that "Most Americans don't buy American, they buy Chinese."

"Most Americans don't buy American, they buy Chinese."

That is not completely true. What is true that on average the USA imports $2 trillion USD worth of products every year of which approx. $300 billion is from China (approx 15%).

That is peanuts when you realize the USA only exports an average of $65 billion to China annually. The end result is an annual trade deficit of $235 billion taken out of the American economy and bolstering China's economy.

China is not the only country that enjoys a trade deficit with the United States. Japan, South Korea and numerous other countries trade heavily with the USA, often in products that Americans "need" in terms of electronics, but also a lot of products that could be made in North America but has been outsourced instead.

What the USA needs is more factories inside America that is hiring people, making products Americans can use (preferably products and equipment that will make them more competitive internationally) and are priced fairly.

Otherwise what we're opening ourselves up to is to communism... Oh dear, I said it. The dreaded C-word.

If the USA cannot shake off the recession and high unemployment rate America's economy will continue to flounder and will eventually be forced to create a more socialist-based economy as capitalism falls apart. This means government "work-fare programs", huge cutbacks to arts & culture funding (including Hollywood), an increase in food stamp usage, and a skyrocketing crime rate as Americans become more desperate for survival.

The 1st thing the USA needs to do is put a halt on all free trade discussions with Asia. America isn't ready for such big trading partners. The economy is too fragile right now.

The 2nd thing the USA needs to do is find cheaper alternatives to expensive oil. Oil prices are simply too high and its hampering transportation costs of materials/products. Hydrogen power perhaps.

The 3rd thing the USA needs to do is cut taxes on the poor, increase taxes on the rich. The poor will spend every dollar they have anyway, whereas the rich have a tendency to stick their money in the bank and sit on it.

The 4th thing is create tax breaks for companies that operate solely in the USA. This will benefit small businesses and new startups.

The 5th thing the USA needs to do is enforce mandatory retirements. Old people who keep working when they should be retired are essentially stealing jobs from younger Americans. Exceptions can be made for industries that have a shortage (ie. doctors), but otherwise these people need to be put out to pasture.

The end goal is to get more Americans working and building things again, creating opportunities for a new generation of hard working Americans.

Deflation: Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here

To contact us Click HERE

The trend is abundantly clear; the U.S. economy has been slowing for more than six months and is perilously close to contraction.

After growing at a robust 4.1% clip in the last three months of 2011, gross domestic product fell to 2% growth rate in the first quarter, before falling again to 1.5% in the second quarter.

Using monetary policy, the Federal Reserve has made repeated attempts to stimulate the economy and raise it from its listless state. The Fed has held short term rates at a remarkably low level of between 0% and 0.25% since December 2008. It has also purchased nearly $3 trillion worth of Treasuries and housing-related assets to lower long-term interest rates and try to spur the economy.

If these efforts have worked at all, they have so far averted a double-dip recession. Yet, these extraordinary measures have not resulted in an economic recovery. To the contrary, things are getting worse.

Clearly, the economy is contracting, or deflating. Recessions are technically defined by two consecutive quarters of contracting GDP. Though we aren't there yet, the current trend is worrisome. Recessions are, by definition, deflationary. Above all else, the Fed fears deflation; it is harder to control than inflation and once it takes hold, deflation can be crippling.

The U.S. economy is built on a perpetual growth model. Deflation aside, even stagnation is debilitating. Growth is imperative.

The Fed likes inflation because it makes debts easier to repay. But inflation also devalues the money in everyone's pockets and bank accounts.

At a rate of three percent annual inflation, your money loses 30 percent of its buying power over the course of a decade. For example, inflation was 27% from 2000 to 2010. That's a hidden tax on all Americans, young and old, rich and poor. So, inflation is also a pernicious thing.

With that in mind, what follows are highlights from a speech given by Ben Bernanke on Nov. 21, 2002. This is the infamous speech that earned Bernanke the moniker "Helicopter Ben."

As you read the speech, bear in mind that it was given a full six years before the financial collapse, which led to the federal funds rate being reduced to its present level of 0% to 0.25%. It was also four years prior to Bernanke being nominated as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

As you'll see, Bernanke had a plan, a vision and a philosophy — all of which explains what is going on today, monetarily. You can see Bernanke's utter fear of deflation. Concerns about inflation? They hardly exist. In fact, Bernanke makes clear that central banks seek an inflation rate between 1 and 3 percent per year.

Bernanke also outlines the "special problems" that central banks face when the federal funds rate reaches zero due to deflation. This should cause the reader to wonder how bad the problem could become, considering that the rate is already effectively zero. As Bernanke notes, a zero interest rate places a "limitation on conventional monetary policy."

However, in Bernanke's view, even when the interest rate has been forced down to zero, the Fed "has most definitely not run out of ammunition."

There is a singular strategy always at the Fed's disposal, according to Bernanke, providing it "considerable power to expand aggregate demand and economic activity" and allowing it "to generate increased nominal spending and inflation, even when the short-term nominal interest rate is at zero."

What is that strategy, you are surely asking?

Printing money.

The problem is that printing large sums of money, without any relation to a corresponding increase in the amount of goods and services in the economy, devalues all of the money in circulation.

"By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so," said Bernanke, "the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation."


Note: The bolded areas are my emphasis. The italicized areas are Bernanke's.

Deflation: Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here

The Congress has given the Fed the responsibility of preserving price stability (among other objectives), which most definitely implies avoiding deflation as well as inflation. I am confident that the Fed would take whatever means necessary to prevent significant deflation in the United States and, moreover, that the U.S. central bank, in cooperation with other parts of the government as needed, has sufficient policy instruments to ensure that any deflation that might occur would be both mild and brief.

Before going further I should say that my comments today reflect my own views only and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Board of Governors or the Federal Open Market Committee.

The sources of deflation are not a mystery. Deflation is in almost all cases a side effect of a collapse of aggregate demand — a drop in spending so severe that producers must cut prices on an ongoing basis in order to find buyers. Likewise, the economic effects of a deflationary episode, for the most part, are similar to those of any other sharp decline in aggregate spending — namely, recession, rising unemployment, and financial stress.

However, a deflationary recession may differ in one respect from "normal" recessions in which the inflation rate is at least modestly positive: Deflation of sufficient magnitude may result in the nominal interest rate declining to zero or very close to zero. Once the nominal interest rate is at zero, no further downward adjustment in the rate can occur, since lenders generally will not accept a negative nominal interest rate when it is possible instead to hold cash. At this point, the nominal interest rate is said to have hit the "zero bound."

Deflation great enough to bring the nominal interest rate close to zero poses special problems for the economy and for policy. First, when the nominal interest rate has been reduced to zero, the real interest rate paid by borrowers equals the expected rate of deflation, however large that may be. To take what might seem like an extreme example (though in fact it occurred in the United States in the early 1930s), suppose that deflation is proceeding at a clip of 10 percent per year. Then someone who borrows for a year at a nominal interest rate of zero actually faces a 10 percent real cost of funds, as the loan must be repaid in dollars whose purchasing power is 10 percent greater than that of the dollars borrowed originally. In a period of sufficiently severe deflation, the real cost of borrowing becomes prohibitive. Capital investment, purchases of new homes, and other types of spending decline accordingly, worsening the economic downturn.

Although deflation and the zero bound on nominal interest rates create a significant problem for those seeking to borrow, they impose an even greater burden on households and firms that had accumulated substantial debt before the onset of the deflation. This burden arises because, even if debtors are able to refinance their existing obligations at low nominal interest rates, with prices falling they must still repay the principal in dollars of increasing (perhaps rapidly increasing) real value.

Beyond its adverse effects in financial markets and on borrowers, the zero bound on the nominal interest rate raises another concern — the limitation that it places on conventional monetary policy. Under normal conditions, the Fed and most other central banks implement policy by setting a target for a short-term interest rate — the overnight federal funds rate in the United States — and enforcing that target by buying and selling securities in open capital markets. When the short-term interest rate hits zero, the central bank can no longer ease policy by lowering its usual interest-rate target.

Because central banks conventionally conduct monetary policy by manipulating the short-term nominal interest rate, some observers have concluded that when that key rate stands at or near zero, the central bank has "run out of ammunition"— that is, it no longer has the power to expand aggregate demand and hence economic activity. It is true that once the policy rate has been driven down to zero, a central bank can no longer use its traditional means of stimulating aggregate demand and thus will be operating in less familiar territory. The central bank's inability to use its traditional methods may complicate the policymaking process and introduce uncertainty in the size and timing of the economy's response to policy actions. Hence I agree that the situation is one to be avoided if possible.

However, a principal message of my talk today is that a central bank whose accustomed policy rate has been forced down to zero has most definitely not run out of ammunition. As I will discuss, a central bank, either alone or in cooperation with other parts of the government, retains considerable power to expand aggregate demand and economic activity even when its accustomed policy rate is at zero.

There are several measures that the Fed (or any central bank) can take to reduce the risk of falling into deflation. First, the Fed should try to preserve a buffer zone for the inflation rate. That is, during normal times it should not try to push inflation down all the way to zero. Central banks with explicit inflation targets almost invariably set their target for inflation above zero, generally between 1 and 3 percent per year.

Under a fiat (that is, paper) money system, a government (in practice, the central bank in cooperation with other agencies) should always be able to generate increased nominal spending and inflation, even when the short-term nominal interest rate is at zero.

The conclusion that deflation is always reversible under a fiat money system follows from basic economic reasoning.

U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.

In the United States, the Department of the Treasury, not the Federal Reserve, is the lead agency for making international economic policy, including policy toward the dollar; and the Secretary of the Treasury has expressed the view that the determination of the value of the U.S. dollar should be left to free market forces. Moreover, since the United States is a large, relatively closed economy, manipulating the exchange value of the dollar would not be a particularly desirable way to fight domestic deflation, particularly given the range of other options available. Thus, I want to be absolutely clear that I am today neither forecasting nor recommending any attempt by U.S. policymakers to target the international value of the dollar.

Although a policy of intervening to affect the exchange value of the dollar is nowhere on the horizon today, it's worth noting that there have been times when exchange rate policy has been an effective weapon against deflation. A striking example from U.S. history is Franklin Roosevelt's 40 percent devaluation of the dollar against gold in 1933-34, enforced by a program of gold purchases and domestic money creation. The devaluation and the rapid increase in money supply it permitted ended the U.S. deflation remarkably quickly. Indeed, consumer price inflation in the United States, year on year, went from -10.3 percent in 1932 to -5.1 percent in 1933 to 3.4 percent in 1934. The economy grew strongly, and by the way, 1934 was one of the best years of the century for the stock market. If nothing else, the episode illustrates that monetary actions can have powerful effects on the economy, even when the nominal interest rate is at or near zero, as was the case at the time of Roosevelt's devaluation.

Each of the policy options I have discussed so far involves the Fed's acting on its own. In practice, the effectiveness of anti-deflation policy could be significantly enhanced by cooperation between the monetary and fiscal authorities. A broad-based tax cut, for example, accommodated by a program of open-market purchases to alleviate any tendency for interest rates to increase, would almost certainly be an effective stimulant to consumption and hence to prices. A money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman's famous "helicopter drop" of money.

Don't Expect Justice in a Corporatocracy

To contact us Click HERE
For any society to survive, much less thrive, it must be rooted in trust. The citizenry must trust the government and, most importantly, the justice system. It also helps if the people trust the banks that hold their money and finance their nation's economy.

However, that sort of trust is now virtually non-existent in our society.

According to a Gallup poll, only 18% of Americans — an all-time low — have confidence in banks. And a Pew Research survey found that Americans' trust in government is only marginally higher, at 22%.

Perhaps Americans have come to the conclusion that their government is colluding with the banks against their best interests. The examples are far and wide. In fact, they are so numerous that listing them all would be tedious, and reading them all would be cumbersome.

But, just to make the point, here are a few less than shining examples:

The SEC charged Wells Fargo with selling products tied to risky mortgage securities, causing municipalities and non-profits to suffer substantial losses as a result.

In response, Wells Fargo, the nation’s biggest consumer bank, recently agreed to pay a $6.5 million fine for these offenses without admitting or denying the charges.

Wells Fargo reported second-quarter pre-tax profits of $8.9 billion. This means that Wells Fargo will cough up a $6.5 million penalty from the nine-thousand-million dollar profit it made in just the second quarter of this year alone. That's about 0.07 percent of a single-quarter's profit.

Does this sound like justice to you? Will such a fine cause Wells Fargo to change its behaviors and practices? That's a rhetorical question.

A Senate report issued in July found that a "pervasively polluted" culture at HSBC allowed the bank to act as financier to clients moving shadowy funds from the world's most dangerous and secretive corners, including Mexico, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The report said large amounts of Mexican drug money was likely to have passed through the bank. HSBC's U.S. division provided money and banking services to some banks in Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh that are believed to have helped fund al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

The U.S. unit of the London- based HSBC, Europe’s biggest bank, “offers a gateway for terrorists to gain access to U.S. dollars and the U.S. financial system,” according to the report.

Laundering money for criminal enterprises, including drug cartels, is nothing new for the Big Banks.

In 2010, Wachovia Bank (now owned by Wells Fargo) paid $160 million to resolve a criminal probe that Mexican cartels were using currency-exchange firms to launder cash through the bank.

British bank Standard Chartered recently agreed to a settlement of $340 million with New York’s top banking regulator, Benjamin Lawsky, over claims that it laundered hundreds of billions of dollars in tainted money for Iran and lied to regulators in the process.

The New York Department of Financial Services charged that the bank schemed with Iran for nearly a decade to hide from regulators 60,000 transactions worth $250 billion.

Lawsky’s office threatened to revoke the bank’s state license at a hearing scheduled this week, prompting Standard Chartered to settle. Such a move would have been a death knell for the bank.

For a bank that announced record profits of $6.78 billion in 2011, a $340 million fine is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. In fact, it amounts to just 5 percent of last year's profits. That sort of expense is simply calculated into the cost of doing business.

According to the New York Times, a trove of e-mails and memos detail an elaborate strategy devised by the bank’s executives to mask the identities of its Iranian clients and to thwart American efforts to detect money laundering.

In light of all this, it's tough for anyone to reasonably claim that justice was served because Standard Chartered paid a $340 million fine. Sadly, that sort of outcome is the rule, rather than the exception.

The report issued by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission nearly two years ago found that, by 2006, Goldman Sachs traders knew that they were selling dangerous investments packed with subprime home mortgages. Goldman was making big profits on these toxic investments, which they privately characterized as "junk," "dogs," "big old lemons" and "monstrosities."

These mortgage investment products eventually collapsed in value, bringing down the housing market and very nearly the American economy along with it.

Despite misleading investors about the risks of a mortgage-backed investment product known as Abacus (which Goldman was in fact betting against), Goldman Sachs was allowed to settle with the Securities and Exchange Commission for just $550 million.

Goldman had revenue of $28.8 billion and net income of $4.44 billion in 2011. Once again, the fine was merely a slap on the wrist that will not dissuade or prevent the Wall St. bank from similar behavior in the future. Such a penalty is merely calculated into its cost of doing business.

The SEC has also dropped its investigation into Goldman Sachs over a $1.3 billion mortgage bond known as Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-E, even though it indicated earlier this year that charges were likely. Moreover, the Federal Housing Finance Agency had filed a lawsuit against Goldman alleging that it knew that Fremont, a subprime lender, was selling it mortgages certain to fail.

The Department of Justice also announced that it is ending its own Goldman investigation, launched after a congressional investigation chaired by senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) issued a report that found Goldman Sachs sold investments "in ways that created conflicts of interest with the firm’s clients and at times led to the bank's profiting from the same products that caused substantial losses for its clients.”

In May, the SEC dropped its probe of Lehman Brothers, even though an independent examiner appointed by the bankruptcy court of the defunct bank concluded that there were "actionable claims" against senior Lehman officers for using an accounting tool known as Repo 105 to book billions of dollars in phony sales to disguise the true extent of the bank's financial woes.

These are just the latest indications that the federal government has been neutered by Wall St. The revolving door between Washington and Wall St. has created a good old boys network, a corporate/political alliance that now controls our government. Our alleged leadership has been bought and paid for.

Regulation is dead. The industry's complaints about the burden of regulatory rules are absurd and fantastical.

Accountability and an adherence to the law are no longer expected from the Banksters. They do whatever they wish, gutting laws, ripping off their clients and paying meager fines to continue their perverted business as usual. Justice is only for regular people.

Ethics, scruples and moral decency are wholly absent. The government refuses to enforce its own laws and it allows bank lobbyists to water down others until they are meaningless.

More than 2,500 banking lobbyists are swarming the halls of Congress each week, fighting reform, meaning that the Big Banks now have five lobbyists for every member of Congress.

The Justice Department refused to pursue cases against Angelo Mozilo, the former head of the defunct mortgage giant Countrywide and Joseph Cassano, who ran the financial products division at AIG. These two men were central figures in the financial collapse, which led to the crisis that continues to destabilize our economy. And yet they remain free men.

I could go on and on with examples of paltry fines, dropped charges and cases that were never even opened. It's all so disgusting and disheartening. How can this nation claim to observe the rule of law when it refuses to uphold and enforce its laws?

How did the mega banks and corporations become exempt?

This nation's Supreme Court has upheld the absurd notion that corporations are people, due all the same rights under the law. While such a suggestion is absurd on its face, the deeper problem is that corporations — such as banks — are afforded an entirely separate set of rights and privileges that are not afforded to real, living, breathing, human citizens.

This nation's judicial, executive and legislative branches of government are all corrupt. How can anyone reasonably expect Wall St. or big business in general (Big Media, Big Energy, Big Agriculture, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, etc. ) to be otherwise? They are all part of the corruption.

The heart of the problem is that corporate financing of political campaigns has led to corporate control of our country. Corporations have bought our government and they now own it. They control the country and the government.

This nation is now a corporatocracy. We are officially the United States of Corporate America.

Despite its Debt, the US Can't Afford to Ignore its Antiquated Infrastructure

To contact us Click HERE


In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave America’s infrastructure a “D-“ grade and called for $2.2 trillion in investment over the coming five years. However, the necessary investment has not since been made. This has jeopardized our economy and even our safety. Basic upgrades and critical modernization have been ignored.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama acknowledged this, admitting that we have an "aging infrastructure badly in need of repair," while also noting that there are “nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country.”

Roads, bridges, ports, and rail systems allow businesses to move goods, reach global markets, grow their market share and create new jobs. Investing in these critical elements of our nation's infrastructure, as well as our water systems, is the only way to build and maintain a 21st Century economy.

Greg E. DiLoreto, President of the ASCE, put it this way:

For the U.S. economy to be the most competitive country in the world we need a first class infrastructure system—transport systems that move people and goods efficiently and at reasonable cost by land, water and air; transmission systems that deliver reliable, low-cost power from a wide range of energy sources, and water systems that drive industrial processes as well as the daily functions in our homes. Infrastructure is the foundation that connects the nation’s businesses, communities and people, driving our economy and improving our quality of life.

On March 19th, the ASCE will release its 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. It will be interesting to see if anything has improved in the intervening four years, or if our overall infrastructure has predictably regressed.

The 2009 report highlighted a continual pattern of disrepair and neglect. The ASCE had previously given US infrastructure a "D" grade in 2005 as well. Getting the same grade again in 2009 clearly indicated a total lack of national commitment to correcting these critical problems.

In an economic report on the failure to invest in infrastructure, ASCE has found that "infrastructure investment is inherently linked to our nation’s economic success. The Failure to Act report found that if we fill our infrastructure funding gap by 2020, the U.S. can eliminate potential drags on economic growth, protect 3.5 million jobs, and protect $3,100 in annual personal disposable income."

If these problems are ignored, the ASCE warns, "Your commute will become less reliable, your shipments will take longer. You may experience more electrical outages and water issues."



Those problems will come at a great expense.

The ASCE study finds that the overall cost to households and businesses of deficient infrastructure grows to $1.2 trillion for businesses by 2020 and $611 billion for households, under current investment trends.

The ASCE asserts the following:

Thus, the investment gaps will total $1.1 trillion by 2020, and will grow to $4.7 trillion by 2040.

If we don’t address this funding shortfall of $157 billion a year for our nation’s infrastructure, we will be faced with the following by 2020:

• A projected loss of $3.1 trillion in GDP, almost the equivalent of the 2011 GDP of France

• A $1.1 trillion decline in U.S. trade value, equivalent to Mexico’s GDP

• A loss of 3.5 million jobs in the year 2020 alone, more than the jobs created in the U.S. over the previous 22 months

• A $2.4 trillion decline in consumer spending, comparable to Brazil’s GDP

• A drop of $3,100 in disposable income per year, per household

Obviously, the cost of performing these vital infrastructure repairs and improvements will be great. Yet, the ASCS says, "the real story of this report is that we can’t afford not to."

Whatever the cost, the price of not investing will be even higher.

Repairing, rebuilding and modernizing our national infrastructure would also create jobs, increase demand, circulate money back into the U.S. economy and revive the tax base.

It will be impossible for the U.S. to maintain it's status as a super power and a world leader in the 21st Century with a failing and crumbling infrastructure. Quite disturbingly, the current state of affairs reveals a nation in decay and decline.

The problem is that the U.S. is already running massive annual budget deficits and is burdened by a cumbersome national debt exceeding $16 trillion. Our politicians have squandered our national wealth, as well as opportunities to address these problems, for many years. This decay didn't just happen overnight.

The repairs to our nation's infrastructure are long overdue. Yet, for a nation with such a staggering debt burden, they will prove cumbersome.

Economic growth this year will average only 1.4 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest forecast. In other words, growth will be too paltry to pay for these vital repairs.

Yet, they cannot be ignored, and that's the conundrum for the U.S.

The U.S. can't afford $2.2 trillion in infrastructure repairs and improvements, and yet it can't afford not to fund them either.

When the Obama administration unveiled its fiscal stimulus package in early 2009, the federal government’s debt to the public amounted to only 35 percent of our gross domestic product. Today, it amounts to about 75 percent. That's a whole lot of new debt in a very short time frame.

However, according to CBO calculations, the 2009 fiscal stimulus produced about $1 of economic output for every $1 in stimulus, on average. In other words, spending on infrastructure paid for itself.

But there is still reason for caution.

Earlier this month, the CBO produced an analysis of the impact that further deficits would have on the economy. A $2 trillion fiscal stimulus would increase growth for the next three or four years. But as the economy recovered, the deficit would crowd out private investment, reducing growth over the decade. By 2023, government debt would amount to 87 percent of GDP.

Congress needs to weigh the potential return on public investment over the long term. Improving the nation’s infrastructure could ultimately yield much more than a dollar in economic output for each dollar spent.

The reality is that we can't ignore our infrastructure. Even absent the goals of modernizing and improving our infrastructure, old bridges, roads, dams, dikes and levees will continue to crumble.

It is a problem that cannot, and will not, be ignored.

Low Incomes and a Dearth of Good Jobs Have Led to Unsustainable Dependence

To contact us Click HERE


During the last election cycle, the American public was subjected to a contentious debate about 'makers' versus 'takers.' Posited on one side of the argument were the industrious, entrepreneurial Americans who produce things (including jobs) and on the other side were the Americans who allegedly mooch off the government.

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan initiated the dispute when he had previously argued that 60 percent of Americans receive more financial benefits from the government than they pay in taxes.

Quite obviously, the framework for this debate was bound to be controversial. It implied that the majority of Americans are idly sitting around, just waiting for a check from the government so they don't actually have to work. Under this argument, an enormous segment of the American public is deemed as lazy, unmotivated and lacking ambition.

The proper context would be to question why the middle class has been entirely shredded and why so many millions of Americans cannot find work, leaving them to simply exit the labor force as a result. Chronic unemployment has become the new normal.

The U.S. labor market started 2012 with fewer jobs than it had 11 years earlier, in January 2001. The only reason the unemployment rate continues to drop is because people keep dropping out of the labor force.

The percentage of the civilian labor force that is employed fell every single year from 2006 to 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In other words, this ugly trend was already underway a full two years before the financial crisis even began.

Yet, those fortunate enough to have jobs are confronted by the fact that, adjusted for inflation, wages have been stagnant since the 1970s. And the prevalence of low-wage jobs is further hampering the U.S. economy.

The U.S. had the highest share of employees toiling away at low-wage work among all developed/industrialized countries in 2009, according to OECD data. One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers that year. That is 20 percent higher than in the number-two country, the United Kingdom.

Low-wage work is defined as earning less than two-thirds of the country's median hourly wage.

The number of employees working in low-wage jobs has been rising since 1979, according to to John Schmitt, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Given these troubling developments, it should come as no surprise that government dependence has reached an all-time high.

Charles Hugh Smith spells out the troubling reality quite clearly:

There are roughly 127 million people who receive government transfers or benefits. Sixty-one million recipients of Social Security and Medicare and 66 million people receiving welfare (SNAP food stamps, housing credits, Medicaid, etc.) Since there are about 115 million full-time jobs in the U.S., this means there are 1.1 government dependents for every full-time worker in the U.S. (For context, there are 315 million Americans and roughly 142 million jobs. About 38 million of these jobs are part-time that pay less than $10,000 annually. Fifty million wage earners earn less than $15,000 a year, and 61 million earn less than $20,000 annually.)

The Federal government counts a person who is self-employed and earns $100 a year as "employed" and a person who works one hour a week as "employed." As a result, the only meaningful metric is full-time employment.

A new research paper by Patrick Tyrrell and William W. Beach says the number of Americans receiving money directly from the federal government each month has grown from 94 million in the year 2000 to more than 128 million today.

Whether the number of Americans receiving government benefits each month is 127 million or 128 million amounts to quibbling. It is a serious problem when there are just 115 million full-time workers subsidizing that many of their fellow citizens.

It's not even a matter of morality, or charity, or fairness; it's a matter of practicality and sustainability.

It's reasonable to ask how long the federal government can afford to support 128 million Americans every month. There will always be poor people in any society, including ours. But how can the U.S. maintain first world status with such a rapidly growing portion of poor and low-income citizens?

I wrote about the shocking upswell of low-come Americans in a recent article, Stagnant Incomes Leading to Economic Decline.

According to Census Bureau data, a record number of Americans – nearly 1 in 2 – are now classified as either poor or low income. About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, and 49.1 million fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor. This means that 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population, is now considered to be either poor or low-income.

This is why so many millions of our fellow citizens rely on government transfer payments.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.

Here's the breakdown of the households receiving government benefits: Social Security - 31.6 percent; Medicare - 29 percent (obviously there is a lot of overlap between the two, since those programs mainly benefit retirees); Medicaid - 19.5 percent; food stamps - 12.7 percent; subsidized lunches - 11.2 percent; public housing - 5 percent (again, there is some overlap here); unemployment - 4 percent; and veterans’ compensation - 2.6 percent.

The growth in these various programs has resulted in significant increase in the amount of income that Americans now derive from the associated government payments.

In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7 percent of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for more than 18 percent of all income.

Low and stagnant wages, plus an insufficient number of well-paying jobs, have left far too many Americans dependent on government benefits. This is plainly unsustainable. Low wages and chronic unemployment are crippling the economy and leaving the U.S. continually vulnerable to recession. That, in turn, will increase the number of Americans in need the government safety net and continual transfer payments.

Without an abundance of middle-class jobs — millions of additional ones each and every year — the U.S. economy will continue to decline. Our economic health relies on quality jobs that allow millions of low-income Americans to participate in the middle class. This would also increase the tax base and lessen the dependance on government.

At the end of 2012, just 58.6 percent of all working age Americans had a job. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of the U.S. labor force that is employed has been steadily falling since 2006.

Take a look at the percentage of the civilian labor force that has been employed over the past several years. These numbers come directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

2006: 63.1

2007: 63.0

2008: 62.2

2009: 59.3

2010: 58.5

2011: 58.4

2012: 58.6

As you can see, the percentage of the civilian labor force that is employed fell every single year from 2006 to 2011.

In January, only 57.9 percent of the civilian labor force was employed. So the number is trending downward once again.

As a result, the number of Americans "not in the labor force" has absolutely skyrocketed in recent years. There has been an alarming and steady rise every year since 2006:

2006: 77,387,000

2007: 78,743,000

2008: 79,501,000

2009: 81,659,000

2010: 83,941,000

2011: 86,001,000

2012: 88,310,000

In January, there were reportedly 89,868,000 Americans at least 16 years of age not in the labor force.

Despite mainstream media reports, it's obvious that unemployment is "improving" only if you pretend that millions of American workers no longer want jobs.

As long as the percentage of the civilian labor force with a job remains this low — much less continues to increase — the reliance on government benefits will persist and even grow. As it stands, the 75 million Baby Boomers will progressively become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits each and every year for the next two decades. That will pose a tremendous burden to this nation.

By 2033, there will be almost twice as many older Americans as today — from 43.4 million at present to 75.7 million — according to the Social Security Administration. Meanwhile, the number of workers for each Social Security beneficiary will decline from 2.8 to 2.1.

The vast number of seniors, alone, will create a tremendous fiscal burden. The additional weight of so many poor and low-income Americans also in need of support could strangle the economy. The current state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely. At some point, it will collapse.

There is certainly enough money in the U.S. economy. The problem is that it is too restricted at the top.

According to a recent study by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez, based on an analysis of American tax returns, in 2010, 93 percent of all new income growth went to the top 1 percent of American households. Everyone else, the bottom 99 percent, divided up the remaining 7 percent.

As long as that persists, the current level of government dependance will also persist — until it can be sustained no longer. At that point, it's game over. Our days as a first-world nation will be nothing more than a memory and a tale for the history books.

Real Effective Tax Rates | Romney's versus Obama's

To contact us Click HERE

Content of Character ::

According to a report released by the Tax Foundation, an effective federal tax rate of 14.0% is higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.

- By: Larry Walker, Jr. -

And according to The Tax Policy Center, the average effective federal tax rate for all Americans, as a percentage of cash income, was only 9.3% in 2011. Those in the Top 20 Percent (with incomes over $103,465) paid an average of 14.9%, while those in the Bottom 20 Percent (with incomes below $16,812) received back refundable tax credits averaging 5.8% of their incomes.

Within the Top Quintile, the Top 1 Percent paid an average rate of 20.3%, while the Top 0.1 Percent paid an average of 19.8%. It’s important to note that these are averages, which means that within each quintile some pay more than the average and others less. But overall, since the average effective federal tax rate for all of America is 9.3%, this represents a kind of minimum benchmark. What’s your effective federal tax rate?

Under the traditional model, in 2011, Mitt and Ann Romney paid an effective federal tax rate of around 14.0% (see definitions at the end), while Barack and Michelle Obama paid 17.8% (see table below). So does that mean the Obamas are more patriotic? Before you answer that, consider that the Romneys paid a total of $1,912,529 in federal income taxes, versus the Obamas $150,253. So does this give the Romneys the upper hand?

Digging a little deeper, it turns out that the Romneys paid an effective state and local tax rate of 11.3%, compared to the Obamas 7.0%. The Romneys also paid $1,541,905 in state and local taxes, compared to the Obamas $59,804. Shouldn’t state and local taxes be counted as well, since they are, after all, taxes? Yes, of course.

So when all taxes are on the table, the Romneys overall effective tax rate was 25.2%, compared to the Obamas 24.8%. And, the Romneys paid a total of $3,454,434 in federal, state and local taxes, versus the Obamas $209,057. So in light of these facts, is one of the two presidential candidates better suited for the Oval Office than the other? Is one a tax deadbeat and the other a saint? If a presidential candidate’s effective tax rate matters, then this election should be a toss up. But if it doesn’t, then Barack Obama’s entire – fair share monologue – is nothing but rubbish. The question is – what really matters?

Real Effective Tax Rates

Perhaps a more suitable measure of patriotism may be found in one’s real effective tax rate. One way of lowering U.S. tax liabilities is through charitable giving. When gifts are given to charity, the taxpayer no longer controls the assets, and so is granted a deduction against his (or her) taxable income of as much as 50% of adjusted gross income. Depending upon one’s marginal tax bracket, the tax savings may be as high as 35% of the amount given.

What happens to the money once it has been gifted? It gets spent by recipient organizations on salaries and wages, goods and services, real property, or is otherwise invested toward its charitable endeavors. Thus, charity is wealth redistribution, or if you will, a type of voluntary taxation. I would add that charitable giving is a much more efficient means of spreading the wealth than the U.S. government’s wasteful method, which after a certain limit may be summed up as little more than legalized robbery.

In 2011, the Romneys gave away $4,000,000, or about 29.0% of their income, although they only chose to claim a tax deduction of $2,250,772. The Obamas donated $172,130 or about 20.0% of their income. When we add this voluntary taxation to the total amount of taxes paid, we find that the Romneys paid a real effective tax rate of 54.4%, compared to the Obamas 45.1% (see table below).

Just to add some perspective I included data from the Roosevelts and the Carters tax returns (above). It’s interesting to note that in 1937, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt donated $3,024, or only about 3.2% of their income, while in 1978, Jimmy and Roselynn Carter gave away $18,637, or about 7.0%. When we add the amount of the couples voluntary taxation through charitable gifts, to the total amount of taxes paid, we find that the Roosevelts paid a real effective tax rate of 33.3%, compared to the Carters 45.6%. So was FDR a slacker? Was Jimmy Carter slightly more patriotic than Obama? And isn’t Mitt Romney a better man than them all?

Note: The Roosevelts income of $93,602 in 1937 is equivalent to $1,504,178 today, while the Carters income of $267,195 in 1978 is equivalent to $948,325. A study of historical Presidential tax returns is interesting, informative, and highly recommended for anyone serious about tax reform, as is a study of historical income tax rates.

Tax Return Analysis: Romneys versus Obamas

Following are some other key statistics from the Romneys and Obamas tax returns:

It’s notable that 94.8% of the Romneys income came from investments – interest, dividends and capital gains, versus -12.8% for the Obamas. The Obamas tax return includes a capital loss carryover of $116,151, a consequence of failed investments from the past. That’s interesting, since Barack Obama is the one always harping on the idea of government investment, yet all the while it turns out that successful investing is a trait beyond the scope of his expertise. Small wonder his taxpayer-funded green energy investments have turned out to be dismal failures.

What’s even more notable is the fact that roughly 62.4% of the Romneys income came from capital gains and qualified dividends which, based on current law, are taxed at a maximum rate of 15.0%. In contrast, around 99.0% of the Obamas income came from wages and net book sales which are taxed at ordinary rates of as high as 35.0%. Thus the Romneys effective tax rate should be considerably lower than the Obamas; but it turns out that both couples effectively paid about the same overall effective tax rate, 25.2% versus 24.8%, as explained earlier. So in spite of favorable capital gains rates, overall effective tax rates tend to balance out. One reason for this phenomenon is that most of the States don’t reciprocate (i.e. there is no favorable capital gains rate at the state level).

Next, we find that the Romneys paid $102,790, or 0.8% of their income, in foreign taxes, while the Obamas paid $5,841, or 0.7%. Thus, on a percentage basis, both families earned about an equal amount of their income from foreign sources. So is either candidate more likely to outsource American jobs than the other? I guess Obama could limit sales of his books to the USA, and cut-off the rest of the world, as if that would make any sense. I’ll let you figure that one out.

Next, we discover that the Obamas claimed a retirement contribution deduction of $49,000, or 5.8% of their income, while the Romneys claimed none. Foul! The question is that since Barack Obama now qualifies for a $191,000 a year presidential pension, why is he continuing to maximize the simplified employee pension account (SEP) deduction? In the private sector, the most anyone can exclude from income for retirement purposes, including employer matching contributions, is $49,000 per year. Yet Barack Obama gets to claim this maximum deduction, while at the same time deferring taxes on the annual contributions the U.S. Treasury makes to his pension account. Does that sound fair to you? Is Obama paying his fair share?

Is a guaranteed $191,000 a year for life, on top of a virtually unlimited presidential expense account, insufficient for Mr. Obama? In stark contrast, Mitt Romney refused to take a salary while he served as Governor of Massachusetts. So has anyone bothered to ask if he would waive his presidential salary? Would he also consider waiving the presidential pension and lush lifetime expense account? Somebody needs to ask that question. By the way, Mitt Romney could have claimed exactly the same SEP-IRA deduction that the Obamas did, based on his net business income, which would have further reduced his tax liability, but chose not to. So what does this say about character?

Next, the Obamas also claimed a $47,564 home mortgage deduction amounting to 5.6% of their income, while the Romneys claimed none. Wow! So since the Obamas claimed both a $47,564 home mortgage deduction, and the $49,000 maximum retirement contribution exclusion, while the Romneys claimed neither, this gave the Obamas an 11.4% handicap. Note: According to the Internal Revenue Service, in tax year 2010, only 25.8% of tax filers claimed the home mortgage deduction, which kind of makes the case for placing limits on this deduction.

Now when it comes to charitable contributions, as stated earlier, the Romneys gave $4,000,000, or around 29.2% of their income, while the Obamas gave $172,130, or 20.4%. But since the Romneys only chose to write-off $2,250,772, their actual deduction amounted to just 16.4% of their income. So once again the Obamas had a slight advantage, yet when their total itemized deductions are compared, we find that the Romneys amounted to 34.2% of their income, while the Obamas amounted to 33.0%, or about the same.

Finally, the Romneys federal taxes included an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) of $674,512, representing 4.9% of their income, while the Obamas incurred a liability was $12,491, or 1.5%. The AMT limits certain deductions and tax preferences to ensure that high income earners pay at least a minimum amount of tax. So what will happen when the AMT is eliminated? Will the rich pay less in taxes? Not necessarily, because if the same deductions and tax preferences for high income earners were eliminated from the get go, then the AMT wouldn’t be necessary. Isn’t this the objective of tax reform, to eliminate deductions and preferences, lower tax rates, and thus simplify the tax code? So when tax rates are cut by 20% in the next year or two, and that’s where we’re headed, the first place to look for deductions and preferences to eliminate is within current AMT regulations.

Content of Character

So what’s the point? First of all, we learned that in 2011, the Romneys paid a total of $3,454,434 in federal, state and local taxes, while the Obamas paid $209,057. When state and local taxes were added to the mix, we found that the Romneys paid an overall effective tax rate of 25.2%, versus the Obamas 24.8%. But when charitable contributions were figured in, we discovered that the Romneys paid a real effective tax rate of 54.4% compared to the Carters 45.6%, the Obamas 45.1%, and the Roosevelts 33.3%.

What should be clear is that measuring a person by the size of their effective tax rate reveals nothing about their character. If those who pay the largest share of taxes are the most patriotic among us, then that all but eliminates everyone except for the Top 1 Percent. If effective tax rates are so important, then why not simply convert to a flat tax (i.e. the FairTax)? That way the concept of effective tax rates becomes meaningless. In a perfect world it seems this would be the goal.

Is paying more taxes than absolutely necessary savvy? No, but anyone who voluntarily pays more must really love this country. Mitt and Ann Romney didn’t claim all of the charitable contributions they could have, and thus paid a higher amount in taxes than legally required. When it comes down to it, no one that I know cares anything about increasing their own personal effective tax rate; most are like the Obamas, preoccupied with finding ways to reduce it.

The main point of this post has been to prove that measuring any American by the size of their effective tax rate reveals next to nothing about the content of their character. Thus, Barack Obama’s entire fair share mantra turns out to be nothing but rubbish. The rich already pay more than their fair share sir. It’s time to bring on a business guy, someone who really understands what’s going on in this country. It’s time to lower income tax rates, limit deductions and preferences, broaden the tax base, and reduce the size of government. It’s time to lower the federal deficit and move towards a balanced budget. It’s time to purge Barack Obama’s jaded philosophy of – do as I think, not as I do.

Definitions:

(a) The Traditional Model – Under the traditional model, the effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total income taxes (before tax credits and other taxes), by total income (before exclusions and deductions).

(b) Effective Federal Tax Rate – The effective federal tax rate is determined by dividing total federal income taxes (before tax credits and other taxes), by total income (before exclusions and deductions).

(c) Effective State and Local Tax Rate – The effective state and local tax rate is determined by dividing total state income taxes, real estate taxes, and personal property taxes claimed on federal Schedule A, by total income (before exclusions and deductions).

(d) Overall Effective Tax Rate – The overall effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total federal income taxes (before tax credits and other taxes), plus total state and local taxes as in (c), by total income (before exclusions and deductions).

(e) Real Effective Tax Rate – The real effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total federal income taxes (before tax credits and other taxes), plus state and local taxes as in (c), plus charitable contributions, by total income (before exclusions and deductions).

References:

The Romneys 2011 Tax Return

The Obamas 2011 Tax Return

The Roosevelts 1937 Tax Return

The Carters 1978 Tax Return

Romney’s Taxes: A Window Into Charitable Giving

Even at 14%, Romney Pays a Higher Rate than 97% of His Fellow Americans

Ex-presidents have huge expense accounts

PresidentObama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

Bush's agenda faces opposition from election-wary Republicans

To contact us Click HERE
April 4th 2005 - The tightly disciplined, Republican-controlled Congress that gave President George W. Bush key pro- business victories in the first few months of his second term may now put political survival ahead of party unity.

Bush has outlined an aggressive agenda -- including restructuring Social Security, cutting a record budget deficit and easing immigration policies -- that he hopes will secure his legacy for posterity. His party's lawmakers have a simpler goal: winning re-election and maintaining or enlarging their House and Senate majorities in 2006.

``Bush sees himself as a consequential president in history who accomplished big things,'' says Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster. ``Most members of Congress can be very happy just strolling along saying, 'Here is all the money I delivered to my district.'''

Congressional Republicans are pushing for legislation to allow drug imports from Canada, a measure opposed by Bush and drug makers such as Pfizer Inc. and Merck & Co. Bush also faces resistance on his plan to ease immigration laws, which food- service companies such as Outback Steakhouse Inc. and Wendy's International Inc. support. And Wall Street analysts and economists hoping for measures to restrain the budget deficit are concerned that lawmakers facing re-election won't be inclined to cut spending.

``There are some great challenges,'' White House spokesman Trent Duffy says. ``This president is a big-game hunter. The process is just beginning.''

The Republicans, who gained expanded majorities in both chambers of Congress in the November elections, gave Bush some early successes this year with measures that curbed class-action lawsuits, rewrote bankruptcy laws and paved the way for oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Easy Wins

These ``were easy wins that were left over from the last Congress,'' says Ethan Siegal, president of the Washington Exchange, which tracks policy for institutional investors. ``Everything else Bush has on the table is very difficult, and the discipline in his party is breaking apart.''

The first stirrings of dissent were heard when lawmakers took up Bush's 2006 budget, which calls for trimming federal benefits and other domestic programs while extending portions of his first-term tax cuts.

Last month, Senator Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican, led six other Republicans in blocking Bush's plan to cut $14 billion from the Medicaid health program over five years. And when a Senate committee approved Bush's $284 billion highway bill, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma assured his fellow Republicans that the funding may be increased later.

Drug Imports

Republicans are also at odds with Bush's position on allowing Americans to import cheaper drugs from Canada. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the powerful chairman of the Finance Committee, is pushing for legislation that would allow the imports, which Bush and drug makers oppose.

Representative Jo Ann Emerson, a Missouri Republican, says she is confident the bill allowing imports can clear the House. Lawmakers' ``constituents are saying, find any means possible to bring down the cost of drugs,'' she says.

Drug makers such as New York-based Pfizer, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-based Merck and Madison, New Jersey-based Wyeth say the measure won't adequately address these concerns. ``We don't believe that re-importation is a solution to the problems of access and affordability of medications,'' Wyeth spokeswoman Natalie De Vane says. ``And it does pose a safety risk.''

Bush's call for a guest-worker visa program aimed at allowing migrants to fill low-skilled jobs may be the toughest to pass, because so many Republicans are opposed to it, says Bruce Josten, the head lobbyist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington.

Opening Floodgates

Representative John Hostettler, an Indiana Republican who heads the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, said he wouldn't allow any bill easing immigration to be brought before his panel for a vote. ``It is my concern and others' concerns that if you legalize those who have illegally obtained residency here, you will open the floodgates,'' he said in an interview March 31.

The National Restaurant Association, which represents companies such as Tampa, Florida-based Outback Steakhouse and Dublin, Ohio-based Wendy's International, backs Bush's plan. The food-service industry is the largest U.S. employer of undocumented workers -- about 1.4 million of the nation's 8 million immigrants.

Second-Term Blues

These kinds of defections are common in a president's second term, particularly when his party is in power in Congress, says Stephen Wayne, a government professor at Georgetown University in Washington. In four of five second-term mid-term elections since World War II, the party that controlled the White House has lost seats in both chambers, says Jennifer Duffy, an analyst at the Cook Political Report, which tracks political races.

Most lawmakers are aware of this phenomenon, called the ``sixth-year itch,'' Duffy says, and Republicans will cast their votes on Bush's agenda items with this precedent in mind. ``It's a self-preservation issue,'' she says.

There are 15 Republican-held Senate seats on the ballot next year. In the House, where all members are up for re-election, 24 Republicans won their 2004 elections with 55 percent of the vote or less.

This dynamic is already evident in the voting behavior of Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3 Senate Republican leader, who is expected to face a tough re-election contest in 2006 from Democrat Robert Casey Jr., the state treasurer.

Good for Pennsylvania

Santorum has parted ways with the president at least twice in the last month. He proposed a $1.10-an-hour increase to the $5.15-an-hour minimum wage, and voted in favor of an amendment to a 2006 budget plan that rejected Bush's call to cut nearly $2 billion from the Community Development Block Grant program and other economic development programs that are popular in his state.

``You're going to see him deviate on things that make sense for Pennsylvania,'' Duffy says.

Perhaps most significant for Bush's legacy, his plan to establish private Social Security accounts has failed to generate a critical mass of support. The proposal has proved unpopular in the polls, and Republican lawmakers including Representative Jim Nussle of Iowa and Representative John Mica of Florida have not made commitments to support it.

Wall Street Worries

Some Republicans share Wall Street's concern over the effect of the proposal on the budget deficit, which reached a record $412 billion last year. Any plan to create the accounts would add $1 trillion to $2 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

``The longer we continue to allow the public debt to rise, the more painful the ultimate cuts will be,'' says Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLP, a research firm in Jersey City, New Jersey, that analyzes the effects of federal economic policies.

For many Republicans, though, concern about the deficit is mitigated by the desire to avoid the political pain that spending cuts or moderating Bush's tax cuts would entail.

During last month's Senate debate on Bush's request to extend his $1.85 trillion in tax cuts, only five Republican senators joined the chamber's 44 Democrats and one independent to demand that further reductions be offset by tax increases or spending cuts. While the Senate rejected, 50-50, an amendment to the fiscal blueprint requiring offsets, some Republicans plan to fight again this summer when party leaders advance the legislation.

Deficit cracking GOP's solidarity

To contact us Click HERE
November 27th 2005 - More than a decade after the Republican Revolution, when Newt Gingrich became House speaker on the promise to downsize government, Republicans are facing another revolution.

This one is from within.

When Congress returns next month from its Thanksgiving recess, Republican leaders who have never failed to marshal their forces on big party-line votes face the prospect of defeat on tax cuts and spending restraint -- the core issues that have united the party since President Ronald Reagan and gave them their House majority in 1994.

They have lost some tax and spending votes already, and postponed others because of the specter of losing. After a five-year spending spree on everything from the Iraq war to Medicare, deficits are now jeopardizing the tax cuts that were the centerpiece of President Bush's first term.

A move to preserve tax cuts on capital gains and dividends -- the gemstone of the Bush tax cuts for conservatives -- is in trouble in both the House and the Senate. For the first time since George W. Bush took office, House Democrats are united against tax cuts, and Republican moderates are bucking their party leadership.

GOP leaders are pushing a measure to control entitlement spending by shaving Medicaid and food stamps for the poor. But the combination of investor tax cuts and reductions in poverty programs has already led to a series of embarrassing defeats in committee and on the House floor. Republicans are headed for a pre-Christmas showdown that could turn into a political disaster.

Hurricane topples plans

Hurricane Katrina last summer was a tipping point. The storm forced Republicans to ditch the estate tax repeal because it was deemed unseemly to end a wealth tax after poor people had lost their homes. Sensing a public relations disaster, Republican leaders also postponed extending the investor tax cuts until the end of the year.

Congress quickly passed $62 billion in emergency disaster relief. But Bush's promise to "do whatever it takes" to rebuild the Gulf Coast set off a rebellion among conservatives, who demanded spending cuts to pay the bill.

"I think they blinked after Hurricane Katrina," said Brad Woodhouse, a liberal activist who helped defeat Bush's Social Security overhaul and has turned his fire on the Republican budget, heading a liberal alliance called the Emergency Campaign for American Priorities.

"It was such an acknowledgment of how inappropriate these spending cuts to finance tax cuts are," Woodhouse said. "It was like blood dripping in the water for us."

The budget outlook -- and the problems facing the GOP -- promise to get much worse. Medicare's costly new prescription drug benefit, an $18 trillion unfunded liability sponsored by the White House and Republican leadership, starts in January. Just two years from now, in 2008, the enormous Baby Boom generation will begin retiring, ceasing income tax payments and starting to collect benefits, leading to a budget squeeze unprecedented in U.S. history.

"We're seeing the future," said Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury official in the George H.W. Bush administration and tax-cut advocate. "The decisions that have been made over the last five years have resulted in the chickens coming home to roost."

Total spending increases under the current President Bush closely rival those of President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat famous for conducting the Vietnam War while simultaneously increasing domestic spending.

Discretionary spending rose 48.5 percent in Bush's first term, according to an analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute, twice as much as in two terms under President Bill Clinton, when spending rose 21.6 percent. Adjusted for inflation, Bush has increased total spending at an annualized rate of 5.6 percent, compared with 1.5 percent under Clinton.

"It's only a matter of time before we stop talking about cutting taxes for a very long period of time and talk basically about increasing taxes," Bartlett predicted. "The end of the era of tax cutting is going to put tremendous strain on the Republican coalition, just as the end of the era of big spending put tremendous strain on the Democratic coalition" in the 1980s. "You're hearing more and more people on the Republican side talking about major losses in the congressional elections next year and about 2008 being a really, really bad year for Republicans."

In the two months since Republicans pulled their tax cut bills, the atmosphere has only gotten worse. Republicans lost two important off-year gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey. Bush's popularity has hit new lows, with the public now decidedly opposing the Iraq war. Leading GOP candidates, including Sen. Rick Santorum, a conservative member of the Senate leadership who faces a tough re-election fight in Pennsylvania, have refused to appear with Bush at campaign events.

"Republican members of Congress recognize that the president can't help them very much any more," said Cato Institute Chairman Bill Niskanen, a former Reagan administration economist. In addition, the indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay seriously weakened party discipline in the House and exposed deep divisions between fiscal conservatives and moderates.

"There is a substantial ideological split, particularly among House Republicans, on fiscal responsibility," Niskanen said. "A lot of them have gone along with a high rate of growth of spending but have done so without any enthusiasm."

As the post-Katrina conservative revolt gelled, the Republican leadership turned to Medicaid, food stamps and student loans for spending restraint. The Senate is proposing $35 billion in reductions and the House $50 billion; both chambers are also seeking between $56 billion and $59 billion in tax cuts.

Large gap to cross

There are enormous differences between the House and Senate on both measures. Reconciling them will be very difficult in the two weeks Congress has left before adjourning for Christmas.

Combined, the measures increase the deficit. The spending restraint appeased conservatives but provoked an outcry from Democrats and GOP moderates. Efforts to console moderates by dropping a measure for oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and adding subsidies for home heating costs and dairy farmers have done little but stoke more controversy.

The Medicaid and food stamp cuts have attracted the most fire, and barely passed the House 217-215 before Thanksgiving, with no Democratic support. Republicans recessed before attempting to pass the tax cuts.

Much of the roughly $11 billion in cuts over five years proposed by the Senate for Medicaid, a health care program for the poor that many elderly use to pay nursing home costs, were recommended by state governors. They contend the program is becoming burdensome for the states, which must come up with money to match federal funding. Democrats have portrayed the reduction in the growth of Medicaid spending as dire, but even liberal analysts concede they are not severe. One provision would increase co-payments from $3 to $5, and another would allow elderly nursing home residents to shield $750,000 in home equity, raised from $500,000 after Republican moderates objected.

The cuts are "not awful," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry now at the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

"It's less about the magnitude and more about why should you be asking poor people to pay anything more for health care at the same time that you're giving brand-new tax cuts to the most fortunate," Furman said. "That is what is just completely wrong with this picture.

"A go-it-alone Republican strategy works when you're trying to cut taxes or increase spending, but when you're trying to make tougher choices, the only way to do it is to work together with the other party for shared sacrifice," Furman said. "Budget reality is starting to catch up with the Republican Party."

Heavy U.S. borrowing with much more on the horizon is stoking concern about a potential financial crisis. Any one of several big economic imbalances -- including looming pressures on the federal budget, the zero U.S. savings rate, the historically high trade deficit, a real estate boom that has supported consumer spending -- could provoke a sudden financial shift, economists say.

"It's not unrealistic to think that if we continue to delay -- and the Baby Boomers do start to retire as early as 2008 -- that sooner or later the lenders to this country may decide it's not the best place to park all their savings," said Maya MacGuineas, director of fiscal policy for centrist New American Foundation.

Bartlett warns of a "financial Katrina."

"It's just a matter of time before we have some kind of economic event that I think is just going to change the political situation 180 degrees and make deficit reduction the order of the day," he said. "I don't know what it will be. I just know that when you've got gasoline spilling onto the floor of your house, it doesn't really matter where the spark comes from."