• Tag Archives debt
  • Debt Ceiling Deal: DC Wins, Americans Lose

    Washington, DC, Wall Street, and central bankers around the world rejoiced this week as Congress came to an agreement to end the government shutdown and lift the debt ceiling. The latest spending-and-debt deal was negotiated by Congressional leaders behind closed doors, and was rushed through Congress before most members had time to read it. Now that the bill is passed, we can see that it is a victory for the political class and special interests, but a defeat for the American people.

    The debt ceiling deal increases spending above the levels set by the “sequester.” The sequester cuts were minuscule, and in many cases used the old DC trick of calling reductions in planned spending increases a cut. But even minuscule and phony cuts are unacceptable to the bipartisan welfare-warfare spending collation. The bill also does nothing to protect the American people from the Obamacare disaster.

    As is common in bills drafted in secret and rushed into law, this bill contains special deals for certain powerful politicians. The bill even has a provision authorizing continued military aid to opponents of the Ugandan “Lord’s Resistance Army,” which was the subject of the widely-viewed “Kony 2012” YouTube videos. Most of these unrelated provisions did not come to public attention until after the bill was passed and signed into law.

    Members of Congress and the public were told the debt ceiling increase was necessary to prevent a government default and an economic crisis. This manufactured fear supposedly justified voting on legislation without allowing members time to even read it, much less to remove the special deals or even debate the wisdom of intervening in overseas military conflicts because of a YouTube video.

    Congress should have ignored the hysterics. A failure to increase government’s borrowing authority would not lead to a default any more that an individual’s failure to get a credit card limit increase in would mean they would have to declare bankruptcy. Instead, the failure of either an individual or a government to obtain new borrowing authority would force the individual or the government to live within their means, and may even force them to finally reduce their spending. Most people would say it is irresponsible to give a spendthrift, debit-ridden individual a credit increase. Why then is it responsible to give an irresponsible spendthrift government an increase in borrowing authority?

    Congress surrendered more power to the president in this bill. Instead of setting a new debt ceiling, it simply “suspended” the debt ceiling until February. This gives the administration a blank check to run up as much debt as it pleases from now until February 7th. Congress can “disapprove” the debt ceiling suspension, but only if it passes a resolution of disapproval by a two-thirds majority. How long before Congress totally abdicates its constitutional authority over spending by allowing the Treasury permanent and unlimited authority to borrow money without seeking Congressional approval?

    Instead of seriously addressing the spending crisis, most in Congress would rather engage in last-minute brinksmanship and backroom deals instead of taking the necessary action to reign in spending. Congress will only take serious steps to reduce spending when either a critical mass of Americans pressures it to cut spending, or when investors and foreign countries stop buying US government debt. Hopefully, those of us who understand sound economics can convince enough of our fellow citizens to pressure Congress to make serious spending cuts before Congress’s reckless actions cause a total economic collapse.

    Full article: http://the-free-foun … g/tst10-21-2013.html


  • The USA Defaults – on Its Constitution (Again)

    It is Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution of our great nation. (I choose still to use the word “great” because I don’t identify this nation with its government.)

    “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.”

    Compare and contrast with the President’s comment of a week ago: “As reckless as a government shutdown is … an economic shutdown that results from default would be dramatically worse” or the opening of his address to the nation a couple of days later, in which he talks of meeting “Republicans and Democrats from both Houses of Congress in an effort to … remove the dangers of default from our economy.”

    Let’s be clear.

    If anyone who has sworn an oath of office to uphold the Constitution would threaten any default by the USA when the USA has a) the revenue to meet the interest obligations on its debt and b) (for shame) the ability of a sovereign issuer of its own currency to pay all its debts at any time c) seen this coming for ages, and therefore had plenty of time to prepare for it, then he is doing little other than threatening willfully to violate his oath.

    The credit of the USA should never have been in question and never had to be. As all of this nonsense of the last couple of weeks has been going on, everyone involved should have been repeating that part of the 14th amendment out loud, reiterating that all debts would be paid first out of government revenue simply because that is the supreme Law of the land – and because, therefore, their integrity as takers of the oath to uphold the Constitution would not allow them to threaten impeachable behavior for political ends – or, for that matter, for any ends whatsoever. Their priority would then have been to put in place the practical mechanisms for ensuring that would be done.

    Full article: http://www.dailypaul … s-constitution-again


  • A rising torrent of debt and destruction

    From April 1917 to November 1919, when President Woodrow Wilson borrowed $30 billion to pay for World War I, he was able to do so because of the promise he made to lenders that the commitment to repay them would be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

    At the time, the government’s total debt was about $14 billion, so Wilson’s painful gambit tripled it.

    In reality, it was not the full faith and credit of the federal government that promised to repay; it was not the creditworthiness of the federal government at stake; it was not the federal government that paid back the money that was borrowed. That’s because the government has no credit or creditworthiness or disposable wealth. Only the taxpayers have that.

    This is not an academic difference. Wilson knew his creditors could not seize government buildings if he or a successor could not repay the loans in a timely manner. However, the Internal Revenue Service could seize private wealth if taxpayers didn’t cough up.

    At the time, the federal income tax was new. In order to get it passed in Congress, Wilson promised that the tax rate on personal incomes would never exceed 3 percent of adjusted gross income, and that it would only be assessed on adjusted gross incomes north of $10,000 a year — the rough equivalent of $250,000 today.

    Wilson also had a brand-new bank with its own legal printing press at his disposal: the Federal Reserve. With its power, the Federal Reserve could print and lend all the cash it wanted, flood the economy with money and cheapen the value of the dollar. When Wilson’s $30 billion debt was repaid, it would be done with dollars worth far less — and thus less painful to extract from taxpayers — than those he borrowed.

    This is, of course, government-induced inflation. It was relatively new in Wilson’s era, but it has been practiced by the Fed and accepted by every president from Wilson to Barack Obama. It can be done without the consent of Congress because Congress already gave the Fed the unlimited power to print cash and lend it. Today this is done without ink and paper; rather, by pressing a few computer keys.

    Now when the president wants to borrow more than the law allows, the Fed can provide the cash, but the president needs a change in the law so as to have the legal authority to commit as-yet-unborn taxpayers to repay the government’s additional debt. While in office, President Obama has borrowed about $1.2 trillion a year with the approval of Democrats as well as Republicans in Congress.

    The lenders are quick to make their loans, because the feds have never failed to extract the cash from taxpayers or borrow more in their names to pay the debt service. Presidents and Congresses don’t worry about paying back the principal or paying the debt service as long as they can continue to borrow more in order to do so.

    As absurd as it sounds, the federal government borrows money in order to pay the debt service on money it has already borrowed and spent. Is it any wonder that today the government’s debt has reached $17 trillion?

    In his zeal to persuade Congress to let the government borrow another trillion dollars over the next nine months, Mr. Obama has stated that raising the debt ceiling will not add to the nation’s debt. He is either willfully ignorant or Clintonesque in his use of misleading words.

    He knows the feds never have declined to borrow whatever they want, whenever they want it, up to the limit of their legal borrowing authority. They have done so with their eyes on only immediate political needs, with disdain for the economic consequences and with contempt for the future.

    However, the future cannot sustain this much longer. The half-trillion dollars a year the feds now pay in debt service on current and ancient debt is equivalent to one-fifth of all the yearly revenue collected in taxes. The $1.2 trillion the feds borrow and spend each year is the equivalent of half of all the yearly revenue collected in taxes.

    If the mindset of “borrow and spend and damn the future” persists, American society as we know it will collapse as taxpayers reach the tipping point beyond which it will no longer make sense to earn income.

    Do you think this sounds apocalyptic? Think again. Nearly half of the taxpayers in America are there already. Why should they work, they no doubt reason, when the feds will continue to tax and borrow and transfer wealth to them?

    Full article: http://www.washingto … debt-and-destructio/