Americanly Yours

One of this site’s readers, Zach Williams sent me this news clip from February.  In this short clip, economist Stephen Moore explains that on top the national debt that is talked about, we actually have several other national debts.  These debts include future Social Security and Medicare obligations that are above what expected contributions will be, as well as insurance guarantees made by our government.  Im pretty sure that this does not include most of the $12,800,000,000,000 [$12.8 trillion] that I reported has been spent and/or promised for bailouts and “stimulus.”

The total listed in this clip is $78,800,000,000,000 [$78.8 trillion].  This is higher than the GDP for the entire world was in 2008.  This is quite scary to me.

I dont see how this wont lead to us printing massive amounts of money to cover this debt, seeing how there isnt enough money in the world to pay it off.  Of course, if we add another $12,800,000,000,000 [$12.8 trillion], than things are going to look even worse.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Today was an interesting day for automaker news.

First, President Obama took an unprecedented step of basically firing a private sector CEO, by requesting that GM CEO Rick Wagoner step down:  “On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with administration officials.  In the course of that meeting, they requested that I ‘step aside’ as CEO of GM, and so I have.”

GM’s shareholders should have probably fired Wagoner at least 5 years ago.  They didnt.  Who ran the company should have been of no importance to the government.  However, rather than allow GM to go bankrupt, the US government (in its infinite wisdom) gave GM and Chrysler $17,400,000,000 [$17.4 billion] in loans and took an ownership stake in the two companies, effectively nationalizing 2 of the 3 American automakers.

My “favorite” part of this was that the government gave GM their $13,400,000,000 [$13.4 billion] knowing that GM planned on cutting 47,000 American jobs.  That means that we paid GM $285,000 for each job that they cut.  Just wonderful.

But, back to the issue at hand.  My opinion is that President Obama took a dangerous and shameful step by demanding the resignation of a private sector CEO.  One of my main problems with the bailouts besides the economic aspect is that they are impossible to handle objectively.  For example, Bank of America has received $45,000,000,000 [$45 billion] from the government–over 3 times the amount received by GM, yet Bank of America’s CEO Ken Lewis has kept his job.  The same is true at Citigroup and many other government owned banks including JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.

And of course there is Chrysler.  Chrysler was bailed out the same day as GM, and yet their CEO, Bob Nardelli has retained his job and has not been “asked to resign” by President Obama.

The law and our government needs to be objective and treat everyone the same way.  If the government feels that it is necessary to bailout and take over the operations of private companies, then it needs to treat all companies which receive government aid in the same manner.  It is the only fair way.

But the news doesnt end there.  President Obama also made some interesting statements today.  While he did grant Chrysler an additional month’s worth of aid and gave GM an additional two months worth of aid (by the way another example of the government active subjectively, rather than objectively), he signaled that the two companies might be forced to file for bankruptcy.  A government review board went over the restructuring plans submitted by the two companies and decided that they were not viable plans, thus allowing President Obama to take a much needed hard line on the companies.

I tenatively applaud this step.  We just have to see how this works out.

I hope that President Obama is serious when he says that GM and Chrysler will be allowed to fail if they do not take the necessary steps.  Those steps include negotiating further concessions from the labor unions and bondholders.  My guess is that the companies will be able to gain the necessary concessions and then will receive more aid from the government, allowing President Obama to gain credit for taking the hardline approach, but clearing the way for the government to send more taxpayer [or freshly printed] money to these companies.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

This past weekend, President Obama announced that he wanted to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in 2013.  You would think that this would make a deficit hawk like me happy.  It would–if it werent so misleading.

President Obama says that he wants to cut the $1,300,000,000,000 [$1.3 trillion] deficit that he inherited from President Bush down to a deficit of $533,000,000,000 [$533 billion] by 2013.  While this seems like a tough goal that will cut spending, this will actually result in increased spending.  The reason for this is simple:  the present massive deficit is an aberration from the normal, including hundreds of billions of dollars in spending that was supposed to be one time spending.  For example, included in the $1,300,000,000,000 [$1.3 trillion] deficit is the $700,000,000,000 [$700 billion] spent on the bank bailout, the additional billions spent on the bailouts of Bear Stearns and AIG, and last years stimulus plan that sent most Americans a $600 check.

In fact 2008’s deficit was $438,000,000,000 [$438 billion] a massive number, but a number that is dwarfed by the $1,300,000,000,000 [$1.3 trillion] deficit that is to be expected in 2009.  The vast majority of this money was supposed to be for one time things.  In fact, without adding the increased spending from the “one time items,” the deficit for 2009 looks a lot like the deficit for 2008.

President Obama’s 2013 budget deficit figure still represents an increase of over 21% from 2008’s number.  This “cut” looks more like an increase to me.

And Mr. Obama’s own numbers still admit that he will have a deficit of over $1,000,000,000,000 [$1 trillion in both 2010 and 2011].  No numbers were given by his office for 2012’s predictions, but lets give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that 2012’s deficit equals 2013’s deficit of $533,000,000,000 [$533 billion].  This means an increase in the national debt of at least $3,000,000,000,000 [$3 trillion]–equal to $10,000 per American.  I think the numbers will be much higher.

More on that later.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

A year ago, America was completely different than it is now.  In the last year, the government has nationalized the banking industry, taken over the worlds largest insurer (wasting well over $100 billion in the process), and taken control of two iconic car companies.  Last week, Congress agreed to a plan that will cost nearly $800 billion.  Between actions by Congress and the Obama administration, as much as $3 trillion was pledged to government bailouts last week! This amounts to 21.7% of American GDP (US GDP is 13.7 trillion).  This new spending is more than government’s entire 2008 budget of just under $3 trillion.  Every penny of this money is being financed with debt.  This will raise the size of the national debt substantially.  Our national debt currently stands at roughly $10.7 trillion.  If we add another $3 trillion to the debt, our debt will increase by 28% and will be roughly equal to our GDP!

Of course, even Mr. Obama has admitted that there is no guarantee that these plans will work.  Even more interesting, he has said that these plans will have little effect before 2010.  This is particularly interesting because the non-partisan CBO recently estimated that the recession will supposedly be over in mid 2009 even if these “stimulus” plans werent passed, meaning that Mr. Obama’s plans wouldnt even begin working until after the economy has already started to heal itself.

But, lets pretend that Mr. Obama’s boldest predictions are correct and that this plan will create 4 million new jobs (although he says it will create or save 3-4 million jobs).  Let us also assume that each of these jobs is a high paying job of $100,000 a year and that these jobs are permanent jobs that will never go away in the future, regardless of future circumstances.  According to both H&R Block’s tax calculator and the Heritage Foundation’s much simpler tax calculator, a single person earning $100,000 pays $19,472 in Federal taxes.  So, the 4 million jobs that we are pretending this plan will create will return $77.888 billion in taxes per year to the federal government.  Excluding any interest (which will likely be a hefty sum and will go countries like China), it will take the government about 35.5 years to recoup the money!

If, however, this plan still creates 4 million jobs but these jobs pay $50,000 per year instead of $100,000, the government will collect $6,606 in taxes per person totaling $26.424 billion in taxes per year.   Under these circumstances, it will take the government 113.5 years to recoup the money!

However, I made a little Excel spreadsheet assuming that the government would have to pay 3% interest on these new loans.  This is a generous assumption, considering that the average rate on treasury bills has been much higher.  I used both of the above jobs assumptions in my calculations and found that the government will actually never be able to recoup this money if interest is factored in! Check it out for yourself.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

I have some interesting quotes from President Obama which he said this week at a Democratic Party retreat:

“If you’re headed for a cliff, you’ve got to change direction.”

This is true, but the problem is that Mr. Obama has misidentified the direction of the cliff that we are headed for.  A year ago, we were about to enter what would have been a somewhat minor recession.  Mr. Bush and Congress flipped out and spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a stimulus that completely failed.  Then, rather than allowing failing business to fail, Mr. Bush and Congress bailed them out one by one and then bought a bunch more.  I am not going to fully detail this now, but in a free market system prices are important not just because they tell us the value of something, but they also contain a lot of information within any given price.  Mr. Bush and Congress should have allowed the banks and insurance companies to fail and for the debt to be repriced, rather than subsidizing bad banks and investments and keeping debt priced at the same level.  But Mr. Obama is continuing the exact same policies that got us into this mess. If you disagree, then read about how Japan’s economy stagnated for 15 years when their government shored up bad private sector bank loans.

Our economy is racing toward a cliff and Mr. Obama is hitting the accelerator, rather than slowing down or changing directions.

“When you start hearing arguments, on the cable chatter, just understand a couple of things.  Number 1, when they say, ‘Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we’ve got this huge deficit?’  First of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, number 1.”

Um… yeah you did.  But how is that an excuse for spending $800 billion.  Remember the cliff that he mentioned above?  Didnt he also mention changing directions?

“I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.”

The above quote from President Obama is almost true (the debt increased by about 85% during President Bush’s two terms).  But Mr. Obama has already requested about $1.2 trillion ($350 billion from TARP and over $800 billion from this “stimulus” bill) since he became President a few weeks ago.  That is an increase in the size of the National debt of about 10% in about 3 weeks!  Change, Mr. Obama?  Or just more of the same?

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook