Fiscal Insanity from the Economic Intelligentsia

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you

Rudyard Kipling

So-called "intelligent people" are continuing to call shots and give advice to the US President and Congress that is leading us straight over the financial cliff.

Obama claims that the root causes of our financial crisis are:  a) Bush, b) Wall Street, c) Banks, and d) Republicans.


Paul Krugman, like Obama, a Nobel-prize winner (which should say something about his credibility) is a perma-Keynesian who writes for the NY Times.  I noted recently that he has been one of the prime proponents of MASSIVE  borrowing and spending by the Federal government.

Now on Sunday the 27th, he warned we are entering a Depression.  He whines about the lack of spending from government:

"you might have expected policy makers to realize that they haven’t yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy."

Gee Paul, what part of reckless spending don't you understand?  He says that not spending is a deliberate mean-spirited act:

"the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times."

It now seems that Krugman, Obama and his merry men are becoming a smaller and smaller voice, as governments all over the world wobble with crushing debts and deficits. Obama encouraged the G20 in Toronto to spend; they told him to pound sand.

Rebuffed, Obama still cannot bring himself to reduce government spending --- rather we will see some wild-ass tax proposals.  As far as he is concerned, though federal expenditures are up 21% in the last 2 years, spending isn't the problem. He wants to hike taxes, but knows he hasn't got a chance before the November elections, so he sent a veiled warning  from Toronto:

"I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up, because I'm calling their bluff, And we'll see how much of the political arguments they're making right now are real, and how much of it was just politics."

Why wait? Well, he has to wait for his blue-ribbon debt commission to come back (after the election), so he can propose taxes, taxes, taxes .. to save us.  But that committee looks like there are some no-nonsense members, like Alan Simpson, who aren't going to pussy foot around -- so that may blow up on Obama.

Of course, the root causes of the financial crises are not, according to the government:

• Reckless government spending


• Unfunded programs: social security, medicare, prescription drugs


• Unfunded government union pensions


• A non-transparent and reckless Fed, who is trying experiments never tried before


• Freddie and Fannie, encouraged by Congress, backing ridiculous loans to anyone with a dog


• And did I mention? reckless government spending

The reality is that we cannot spending our way out of an over-spending problem, regardless of what Nobel-prize winning economists say.

Allan Meltzer writes in today's WSJ: "Why Obamanomics Has Failed:

"Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it's harmful now."

The solution? Reganomics anyone?

"The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates."

Are we too late to following recovery plans like Prices's "Stop Reckless Spending" plan, or Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future"?

I'm afraid we will suffer a lot of pain before then.  Mish Sherlock wrote this week that "An Economic Depression is Here". Congress and The Fed are to blame.

Hold tight ... this won't be fun.

How Deep Is the Bottomless Pit of Government Spending?

Is it a requirement of people who run for public office that they must abandon all sense of fiscal sanity? It would seem so.

A review of the headlines over the past 2 weeks shows us that Forrest Gump was right:

Stupid is as stupid does.

Where do we start?

Governments Borrowing to Pay Debts

What would happen to your family finances if you took out a Home Equity Loan to pay the mortgage?  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out .. you will have more debt that you have to pay off down the road.  But it seems that governments all over the place have developed this very habit.  The Solution to Overspending on Credit? More Credit, of Course.

It started on June 11 when Gov Paterson of New York borrowed $6 Billion from the New York State pension fund to pay ... the New York State pension fund!  Talk about dumb!  The pension fund plans to earn 8% on its investments, but is willing to lend it to the Government for a mere 4.5% - 5.5%!  Sort of stupid .. sort of really corrupt.  When the cows come home to roost on this one, God Bless New York!

Even more frightening to us all is the bottomless liability posed by Freddie and Fannie. Fannie-Freddie Fix at $160 Billion With $1 Trillion Worst Case. Now a Trillion is a lot of money. Rather than collapse these disasters and turn mortgage underwriting and insurance back to the private sector, these living dead will suck the blood out of us for years to come ...

Government Drunk on Spending

I always preface drunken government spending comments with this quote from Ronald Reagan:

We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money.

Want to really get concerned?  Take a look at the US Debt Clock. The Total Debt Per Citizen sits at $175,281, or $669,993 per family.  Given income per family is only $62,445, it would take 10 years of working just for the government for us to pay of this debt.

Add liabilities of Social Security, Prescription Drugs, Medicare and other unfunded liabilities -- the total liabilities per citizen rises to $352,617.  Assets are $235,844.  So we are technically bankrupt. We are short $116,773 per man, woman and child in the country!!

Government Ignoring Need to Stop Spending

Encouraged by Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman who wrote even this week: The Bad Logic Of Fiscal Austerity.  He argues that borrowing a $1 Trillion and paying the interest is affordable and

not much cost to pay for generating jobs when they’re badly needed and avoiding disastrous cuts in government services.

Ah! The last thing we can do is stop government spending!  If in fact government spending was actually positive, then is there a limit?  Why not spend as much as we can borrow? (Oops! I think they are already doing that!!)  Now don't think you have permission to argue with this Nobel Laureate or the anointed economic elite.  You just don't "get it".

During the last 5 years, governments have increased their spending and hiring by leaps and bounds, while their revenues have shrink.  According to the Krugman crowd, this makes sense.

Who is Footing the Bill?

But you will pay the bills.  I extracted some figures from the Debt Clock to create the following analysis:



Private industry workers (who pay ALL the bills) comprise 51% of all people working, unemployed, retired or working for governments.  Government employees, who are 14% of this total, consume over 30% of the GDP.  So 1/2 of us have to pay for the other half ... BUT WAIT!

Only 1/2 of us who file tax returns pay federal taxes!  If we assume this is evenly distributed among private industry workers, we have 1/4 of the population paying for the largess of government!

I don't think this ends well.  It can't. It doesn't make sense. And when you need a Princeton PhD to explain why it does, I know it doesn't.

FTC Proposes to Regulate Internet News!

Today we take a detailed look at a recent FTC proposal that effectively regulates the news. You can get it here.

Hold onto your copy of the US constitution, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The FTC, packed with Obama socialists, has just published a Discussion Draft on "Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism".  These proposals seek to regulate the Internet -- not just access speeds and bandwidth, but the information itself!

Proposal 1: Control the Utterance of Facts

The FTC deplores the fact that copyright does not protect "facts" in news stories, that other organizations can "free-ride" by repeating the facts gathered by newspapers.

Advocates argue “the copyright act allows parasitic aggregators to ‘free ride’ on others’ substantial journalistic investments,” by protecting only expression and not the underlying facts, which are often gathered at great expense. They define parasitic aggregators as those that, without permission, post enough material to render the original news stories redundant. This free-riding undercuts revenue for those who make investments in journalism and undermines their incentive to do so, according to advocates. They suggest that federal hot news legislation could help address revenue problems facing newspapers by preventing this free-riding.

So the first point is : why does the FTC think they have to intervene to help one type of competitor in the media?

They go on to discuss what the moratorium period might be under federalized "hot news" rules -- rules that would prohibit, it would seem, you from tweeting information published by, say, the White House news team.  While they discuss a "2 hour" ban --- what would stop politicians and liberal courts from a 2-month ban?? ... making the only facts available from White House trusted sources.

Proposal 2: Limit Search Engine Fair Use of News

To be fair, this argument is balanced, but consider this -- that obscure blog that breaks embarrassing news might not be indexed by the search engine, ensuring that popular sites (Time, Newsweek, New York Time and other left-leaning sites) are the only ones with the "facts".

Proposal 3: License News

Getting a chill yet. They go on to say:

governments have considered how to provide adequate incentives and funding for the news and are exploring, for example, the creation of government-fostered pilot programs to investigate new business models for IP  [Intellectual Property] and discourage free-riding.

The notion: If you want to tweet a story, you pay a "micro-payment" back to the originator: the NYT, the White House news machine, etc.

They acknowledge:

A compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct.

So yes, the FTC proposes we tax the dissemination of  FACTS, clearly abridging the freedom of speech and the free press.

Proposal 4: Drop Anti-Trust Rule for Newspapers So They Can Collude to Force Consumers to Pay for News

Another chilling concept.  So let me count it up so far (and I am only on page 13 of the 47 page report) ... you can't repeat facts, you can't search news, and you have to pay to find news facts ... all under government licence.  Now, big news can syndicate their news and prevent anyone from uttering the facts they find!!!

Proposal 5: Provide Government Subsidies to Some News Organizations

Yikes! The FTC comments:

Many people, including journalists, recoil at the thought of government assistance to sustain journalism.

(Me too!)  Yet it justifies subsidies with a comment that it has been done and:

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has received direct support for over 40 years.

The FTC report waxes on for pages on the glories and success of Public Broadcasting.

“the fundamental purpose of public service media is to provide programs and services that inform, enlighten and enrich the public… CPB invests in programs and services that are educational, innovative, locally relevant and reflect America’s common values and cultural diversity.”

Can you hear the choirs singing the praises to the glories of PBS, comrade?  The FTC moans on ...

The U.S. government’s support for public broadcasting is very small compared to other democratic countries. For example, “if the United States spent at the same per capita level as Canada, our federal commitment would be $7.5 billion.” Per capita spending by Finland and Denmark is approximately 75 times greater.

So the proposal is to provide subsidies (i.e.  Place more news organizations under government funding = control).

Subsidies

• Fund AmeriCorps Journalism Division. Can anyone say "Socialism youth camp and ministry of information"?


• Direct more funds to Public Broadcasting.


• Directly fund local news.  Now who would hand out the money? Would a non-government supporting blog get funded?


• Provide tax credits for hiring reporters.


• Provide citizens with a voucher to buy non-profit news!  You have to read the entire text to grasp the Orwellian nature of this proposal.






Establish Citizenship News Vouchers. Citizenship news vouchers would allow every American tax payer to allocate some amount of government funds to the non-profit media organization of their choice. People could indicate on their tax return whether and to which nonprofit organization they want a specific amount (perhaps up to $200) to be donated, but they would not be required to designate a donation. They could split their “federal funds” donation among several different qualifying nonprofit media . Proponents of this approach suggest it would create a funding mechanism to encourage viable independent Internet journalism while avoiding government control or the creation of a bureaucracy that could influence the recipients of the money based on politics. This proposal also could give foundations a role to play. Foundations could provide start-up funding for 3 to 5 years to help new ventures, “and then see if there is popular support for the venture in the form of Citizenship News Vouchers.” If desired, this proposal could be structured to apply to commercial, as well as non-profit, news entities.






• Provide grants to universities to conduct investigative journalism.  Has anyone seen a journalism school in America that is not far left-of-center?


• Provide SBA funds to nonprofit journalism organizations.  Can you spell "ACORN"?


• Point the Voice Of America at America.


• Increase postal subsidies for newspapers.

New Taxes

The FTC paper then rambles into a long discussion of how to tax to pay for "better news".

1. 7% tax on radio and TV revenues! (Watch your cable bill folks!)


2. 5% tax on TVs and radios!


3. Tax on spectrum auction prices.


4. 2% tax on all advertising!


5. Another federal 3% tax on cell phone bills!

A Better Society for All

The FTC then waxes on about the best organization structure for news so that it serves

social purposes, such as economic redevelopment or environmental protection.

Some news entities may wish to explore hybrid organizational structures that integrate the pursuit of social purposes with business activities. These organizational designs include, among others, “Flexible Purpose” and “Benefit” corporations and low-profit limited liability companies (L3Cs). These hybrid designs may make sense for news entities, because journalism can fit a “social purpose” paradigm – that is, good journalism improves social welfare by educating the public through truthful and insightful reporting.

Gee, is current news un-truthful and not insightful? I seem to find a lot of insight but truth (from NYT, White House, etc) is sometimes hard to divine. Caveat emptor.  Social purpose non-profits?  Does it sound like George Soros is behind this?

"Innovations" To Promote Low-Cost Journalism

The report suggests government make Freedom of Information Act data (and most government information) more readily available, indexable and available (to select new organizations) for a reduced-fee.

Summary

In a nutshell, the FTC proposal suggests we:

• Abridge the freedom of speech and the press by restricting the utterance of facts reported in the news.


• Limit the ability of search engines to search news.


• License news so you pay when you repeat a fact.


• Allow news organizations to collude.


• Subsidize some news organizations, and promote non-profit news organizations for good social purposes.


• Provide you with a voucher so you can buy non-profit news.


• Tax TV, radio, TVs, radios, spectrum, advertising and cell phones.

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.  If any one of these proposals gets into any bill, it is a clear and blatant abridgment of the First Amendment.

Citizens: beware!

News Reaction:

Even the Huffington Post says to the FTC: Get off our lawn!

The LA Times ridicules it in a story: Obama's FTC plan to reinvent America's news media.

The Washington Examiner asks: Will journalists wake up in time to save journalism from Obama's FTC?

Simple and Funny - World Finance Explained

An excellent and funny explanation of world governments bailout logic (what little there is of it!)