Americanly Yours

I have been hearing a lot of talk lately about repudiating our national debt.

Last week, my mom even commented that she thought that we should cancel our debt so that we didnt have to pay back China.  No one can deny that my mom is very intelligent.  The old phrase “mother knows best” often applies, but in this case, mom is incorrect.

According to the US Treasury department, our national debt is currently $11,379,966,189,575.05 [$11.3+ trillion].  This amounts to over $37,000 per person! But, the above numbers dont paint the whole picture.  A while ago, I posted a link to a news story which claimed our “real” national debt totaled $78,800,000,000,000 [$78.8 trillion].

However, Richard Fisher who is President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas recently gave a very interesting interview with the Wall Street Journal.  In his interview, he talked about “the very deep hole [our political leaders] have dug in incurring unfunded liabilities of retirement and health-care obligations… [that] we at the Dallas Fed believe total over $99 trillion.” Thats $99,000,000,000,000.  But that is just the money for the unfunded liabilities and the costs of retirement and health care that have already been promised.  That number includes neither the current national debt, nor does it include the proposals by President Obama and the Democratic members of Congress to expand national healthcare.  However, even without including new proposals, the total national debt is astounding to say the least.  If you add the Dallas Federal Reserve’s estimation of unfunded liabilities with our current national debt, you reach a total of over $110,000,000,000,000 [$110 trillion]!  This amounts to a total debt of  over $360,000 for every American citizen!!!

Repudiating the debt probably sounds like a compelling idea.  After all, our national debt is massive and will continue to grow, especially as baby boomers start to retire and Social Security and Medicare costs soar while revenues for those programs drop.

[[And by the way, Mr. Fisher far from being a Republican hack who criticizes every move made by Democrats.In fact, Mr. Fisher is a Democrat who served in both the Carter and Clinton Administrations.  He was also the Democratic nominee for Senate in 1993 against Kay Bailey Hutchinson.]]

With current liabilities of over $360,000 per person, repudiating the debt may sound like a great idea.  Afterall, that is a massive sum for each America to be responsible.  In fact, there isnt enough money in the entire world to pay this debt. But, repudiating the debt is a terrible idea that must be opposed.

Yes, China and other foreign nations now own an increasing amount of our national debt.  This of course represents a massive national security risk to America (I believe that it is the greatest current threat to our National survival).  It is a security risk because the Chinese and other nations can threaten to dump their American debt holdings (making them worthless) unless we comply with their demands.  However, repudiating the debt and telling nations like China that we are not going to pay them the money they lent us in good faith may be an even greater risk to our Nation.

First of all, while China is now the largest foreign holder of our national debt, they hold less than 7% of the total debt.  Allies like Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, European nations, Mexico, India, and Israel also hold significant amounts of our national debt.  China’s holdings of our debt represents about 25% of the amount held by foreign governments.  Repudiating the debt to spite China would not only hurt China, but would also hurt many of our allies.

These nations could respond by exiting free trade agreements (if we can unilaterally declare agreements null and void, so can they).

The American public actually owns a higher amount of the national debt than do foreign nations.  As of January 31st of this year, the American public held 31% of the debt while foreign governments held 29%.  Repudiating the debt would adversely effect Americans who purchased government bonds to save for their futures.  Remember those savings bonds that your grandmother used to give you when you were a kid?  Well, those would be worthless if we repudiated the debt.  So would the treasury bonds that many older people have bought to prepare for their retirement.

Another 41% (if you add the numbers up you get a total of 101%–not my fault, these are government numbers) of the national debt is held by the government.  For example, the Social Security Administration holds treasury bills for money that it loaned to the Treasury Department.  Repudiating this portion of the debt would only mean that it would have to be reissued later when the sectors of the government that loaned money out need it in the future to manage their budgets.

[[The above numbers came from The Skeptical Optimist who used only government data.  The data is linked to in his article.]]

Besides all of this, of the $110,000,000,000,000 [$110 trillion] in total debt and obligation, only about 10% of that represents our current national debt.  Even if we repudiated the $11,379,966,189,575.05 [$11.3+ trillion] that we currently owe, we would still be responsible for a national debt of $99,000,000,000,000 [$99 trillion] in the future.  But if we repudiated the national debt, we could NEVER ever run a deficit again.  No foreign government would be dumb enough to loan money to a nation which had previously declared that its debt no longer existed.  That would be the definition of bad banking.  No financial advisor could ever recommend US bonds for his clients without being laughed at.

The political and economic costs of repudiating the debt are extremely high.  Like it or not, we are stuck with this debt.  However, we can think of this as a lesson.  If we balance the budget in the future and pay back the debt over the next 30 years (the maximum time a US treasury bond can be issued for) we will have plenty of time to think about the costs of running large deficits for so long.  All of the interest on the debt which is paid out should serve as a lesson for future generations of Americans about the importance of living within their means.

Repudiating the debt would make it impossible to pay for the bloated government programs which have already been promised to generations of Americans.  Im 100% for balancing the budget.  I believe that we should balance our budget and begin to wind down our entitlement and discretionary programs as fast as possible.  This debt should be taken care of the right way.  In this case, the right way happens to be the hard way:  We must oppose new government programs and discretionary spending, we must balance our budget, we must cut taxes to ensure economic growth, and we must pay back our national debt to those who have put their faith in us and loaned us money.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

[I wrote this article earlier and WordPress messed up and deleted most of it.  I had to rewrite the final 2/3 of this article.  I think I wrote it better the first time, but enjoy.]

I am not going to get into the philosophical reasons why I am opposed to income taxes in this piece article.  I am however going to explain why lower tax rates are better than higher tax rates.

Here is a chart that was sent to me by Mike at The Young Conservative Blog.  It shows the highest federal individual income tax rate.  It also shows the tax receipts received by the federal government as a percentage of GDP.

[Check out Mike’s blog, theres a lot of interesting stuff there.  Also, here is a Wall Street Journal article about Hauser’s Law.

I think this is pretty remarkable.  While the highest individual income tax rates in this country dropped from 91% down to 28%, and then rose back up to the current 35%, tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has remained at a fairly stable level of 19.5%.  Cutting the rates from 91% to 70% in a few years didnt really affect the receipt rate, nor did increasing them from 28% to 40% in a few years.

Now, you might say that the reason that the tax receipts as a percentage of GDP remain pretty much the same is that when taxes on the rich are cut, the tax burden falls more heavily on the poor.  However, you may recall the chart that I posted regarding tax burden.  I was able to find an acrhived copy of the chart that the government removed from its website here.  I dont know how long it will stay up.

This chart clearly shows that the rich have paid an increasing portion of the total income taxes collected since 1979.

In 1979, the top income tax rate was 70%.  The government collected about 19.5% of GDP through income taxes, and the top 20% of wage earners paid 64.9% of all income taxes.  The top 40% of wage earners combined paid 85.1% of all income taxes.

In 2005, the last year for which data is available, the top tax rate was 35%.  The government still collected about 19.5% of GDP through income taxes, however, the top 20% of wage earners now paid 86.3% of all income taxes (a higher percentage than was paid by the top 40% of wage earners in 1979), and the top 40% of wage earners paid 99.4% of all income taxes collected.

I know this seems counterintuitive, but cutting taxes on the rich–and all Americans–actually increased the tax burden on the rich.  2005’s top tax rate (35%) was exactly half of what the top tax rate was in 1979 (70%).  Yet, the rich paid a much higher percentage of income taxes in 2005 under a lower tax rate than they did in 1979 under a higher rate.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I found this spreadsheet when I was trying to prove to someone that President Bush’s tax cuts favored the rich and hurt the poor.  I was wrong.  In 2000, the top 20% of earners paid 81.2%of all income taxes.  By 2005, this proportion had grown to 86.3% of all income taxes.  The tax burden of the top 40% increased from 94.7% in 2000 to 99.4% in 2005.  In fact, every quintile in the “bottom 80%” of wage earners paid a smaller proportion of the total income taxes in 2005 than they did in 2000.  Broad based tax cuts benefit all wage earners.

Cutting taxes allows Americans to keep more of their hard earned money.  This in turn leads to increased spending, savings, and investment.  These three factors lead directly to increased GDP growth.  Increased GDP growth means higher tax revenue for the government (which will always collect around 19.5% of GDP through income taxes).

I have already demonstrated that the government will collect roughly the same percentage of GDP–19.5%–through income taxes no matter what the top tax rate is.  This is true whether that rate is 92% or 28%.  I have also demonstrated that cutting taxes on the rich and all Americans has actually increased the tax burden on the rich.  Finally, I have explained that cutting taxes leads to higher GDP (which equals higher tax receipts).

I see no further arguments against cutting taxes on all Americans including the wealthy.

Rather than raising the tax rates on the wealthy back to what they were in 2000, the President and Congress should consider drastically cutting income taxes for all Americans.  This will lead to increased economic growth which will in turn lead to higher tax revenues for the government.  Most importantly, doing this would allow all Americans to keep more of their hard earned money.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Check out this chart from Coyote Blog before reading on:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/02/voting-with-their-feet.html

I find this to be very interesting.  With the exception of Louisiana, every one of the States listed in the bottom 10 is a State that is heavily unionized, has more social programs, and higher corporate taxes (and even Louisiana has high corporate tax rates).

The States with the highest positive net migration, however, are all “business friendly” states.  In these States, unionization is minimal, corporate taxes are generally low, and social programs are not as abundant.

You might think that people would want to live in places where corporations are taxes at a higher rate (so that they pay their “fair share).  You might think that people want to live in a place where there are more social programs to help those who are less fortunate.

The numbers, however, tell a different story.  While sticking a faceless corporation with a higher tax bill sounds great, higher taxes mean more expensive goods and either fewer jobs, or jobs that pay less (or give fewer benefits).  Social programs might help people temporarily, but they are no substitute for jobs.  The States above that taxed their corporations at higher rates and spent more of their budgets on social programs saw people leave.  Those people came to States like Georgia, Texas, and Tennessee.  States with low (or no) corporate income taxes and little if any union control over jobs.

While automakers in Detroit are moving out and leaving the country, foreign automakers from Toyota, to Kia, to Honda have built plants in the South where labor unions do not have an iron grip and corporations are not taxed for the “social good.”

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal back in September comparing the economic policies of Michigan with those of then-Senator Obama.  Here is an interesting excerpt from that article:  “While the population of the three highest-performing states grew twice as fast as the national average, per-capita real income still grew by $6,563 or 21.4% in Texas, Florida and Arizona. That’s a $26,252 increase for a typical family of four.”

Policies of higher corporate taxation, heavy union control, and costly government programs impede economic growth. Would you rather have a government run safety net, or an extra $6,563 for each person in your family each year?

And more importantly, will people begin to leave this country if we pursue these policies on a national level?  They just might.  I just might too…

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Sorry for the lack of updates. I have been sick most of the week and am just now starting to feel better…

The big news is the “stimulus” package that is about to be passed whether or not the American people want it to.

My friend Art sent me this article from the Wall Street Journal which talks about what all is included in the “stimulus.”  It is pretty ridiculous.

But on top of this, there are are some truly outrageous things in the bill.  Under the terms of the bill, illegal immigrants who have been working in this country illegally will be able to get a tax rebate check of $500 per person.  Seriously.

This bill also gives money to dairy farmers to take their dairy cows out of production in order to raise the price of milk and create a greater profit for the dairy industry.  This type of government intervention is not only wrong, it is very dangerous.  Remember that less that a year ago, there was a global “food crisis” going on in which hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people were on the verge of starving.  By paying farmers to not produce food and drink, our government is playing a very dangerous game.  But this is not a game.  This is real life.  If government intervention causes the price of food to go up, people could actually die.

Here is an interesting article from CNN that was sent to me by two of my friends, Squeak and Hawk (yes, I have a friend named Squeak and a friend named Hawk).  This talks about solutions that Libertarians have come up with to address the current [government manufactured] crisis.  I dont support all of them and there are at least two that I completely disagree with, but they are all better than what we are going to end up spending the money on.

I want to write more, but this is getting to be too long.  Ill have an article for yall tomorrow.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook