The Difference 2% Makes

When she opened her statement from Payroll,
Unaware of how Washington may roll,
She had to recount
The take-home amount:
"My disposable income's gone AWOL!"

Fertile Ground

A politico trained in agronomy
Was convinced he could grow the economy:
"To start with manure
'S the best way for sure,
So bullsh*t's incumbent upon-a me."

If there's one phrase that unites Washington these days, it's "to grow the economy."  Passions may boil over whether it's better to direct such growth from "the middle out" or "from the top down;" whether "the job creators" or "America's working families" comprise the more fertile soil in which to germinate the economy's roots; but there is no doubt as to the choice of metaphor.  In the newly redesigned New Republic's Jargonist column, Noreen Malone finds that "growing the economy" is a relative neologism in our old republic, first popularized by Bill Clinton in 1992.  Prior to that, the preferred metaphor imagined the economy as "an engine," on the basis of which the partisans could dispute how many cylinders it had, or whether it was firing on all of them.  Perhaps it is time to bring back Adam Smith's "invisible hand," although, in our hypersexualized era, we may not yet be ready for its inappropriate touch.

In Lieu of Geithner

Said Obama: "In term number two,
For Treas'ry I want Mr. Lew.
I'll rely on his talents
To find fiscal balance,
And fight with Republicans, too."

It's reported that President Barack Obama will nominate Jacob ("Jack") Lew, his former budget director and current chief of staff, to succeed Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary.  As the mainstream media will tell you, this signals a change in focus from the global financial crisis that dominated the President's first term, toward budget fights with Congress, and long-term fiscal sustainability.  The Wall Street Journal characterizes Mr. Lew as "a veteran of numerous Washington budget battles, stretching back to his work as a senior congressional aide in the 1980s." Oddly, there is little initial signaling of congressional opposition to this proposed nomination, despite Mr. Lew's inflexible reputation and angry clashes with Republican aides during the 2011 debt ceiling fight. Former Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, may have summed it up best: "He's a tough guy to negotiate with. He has his positions and he doesn't give much ground, though he's really a nice person."

Mint the Coin

With the Debt Ceiling coming up soon, it
Is time (although some may impugn it)
For coining a halt
To a US default
With a really big monet'ry unit.

A one-trillion coin, it is said,
Could be minted and shipped to the Fed,
In order to pay
What the US of A
Might be forced to renege on instead.

This sizeable denomination
Would be kept out of mass circulation,
The better to sidestep
That such an untried step
Precipitates hyperinflation.

When Republicans finally come round
From running bond issuance aground,
It's back to the Mint
For the Coin, where its stint
Will be wound up with melting it down.

So let's mint The Coin out of platinum!
Though objections there be, we may flatten 'em.
There are ways besides cash
'Round the Debt Ceiling clash,
But there's nothing as clever as that in 'em.

It's an idea so crazy, it just might work: the US Treasury could circumvent the looming debt ceiling showdown by minting a very large denomination platinum coin of, say, $1 trillion. The coin could be deposited in Treasury's account at the New York Fed, where the new funds could be used to pay any of the Federal government's many obligations. First proposed in a comment on an economic blog in 2010, the Coin is within the legal powers of Treasury, which "may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time." Never mind the fact that this law was intended to facilitate minting bullion coins for numismatists - it's on the books. Of course it's absurd to speak of minting a $1 trillion coin to keep the government out of default, but the debt ceiling itself is absurd, as is the threat to throw the nation into default for political purposes. So, it's a case of fighting crazy with crazier.

The "Mint The Coin" movement has been gaining steam thanks to the (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) advocacy of such leading economic writers as Bloomberg's Josh Barro and Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal. For those who fret that the issuance of a $1 trillion coin would ignite inflation of Zimbabwean proportions, a former head of the US Mint (who wrote the 1996 platinum coin law) has weighed in with a cogent explanation of why that would not happen. It all comes down to a choice: would we rather the US Treasury default, or do something absurd?

Kicking The Can Down The Cliff

Under watchful regard of a nation
In Twenty-Thirteen celebration,
Congressional members
Took leave of December
By rigging the rules of taxation.

With many a jubilant *clink*,
The deficit promised to shrink,
But much is depending
On questions of spending,
And soon we'll be back at the brink.

The prospects are less than appealing
For the next round of Washington dealing,
Especially if
There's a new Fiscal Cliff
When Treasury hits the Debt Ceiling.

As everyone knows, the US Congress passed an emergency measure on New Year's Day to avert the worst of the automatic tax hikes that were to take effect under the "Fiscal Cliff" provisions that it enacted after last year's debt ceiling fight. For those who want to know what the latest tax deal means for them personally, Matthew O'Brien has a couple of helpful charts in The Atlantic. The bottom line is that, while everyone's tax rates and payments are now less than they would have been under the full Fiscal Cliff, most Americans will see another 1.5% of their income going to taxes, and the well-to-do will feel 3-8% poorer. Ironically, some of the most fortunate taxpayers are those whose income is between $200-500 thousand. They have mostly avoided marginal tax rate increases, which apply to income above $400,000 ($450,000 for joint filers) and will not pay more in alternative minimum tax, which has been permanently "patched".

Those who may have worried that a bipartisan agreement on taxation signals a change in the ways of Washington will be reassured to know that the deal has preserved an impressive array of obscure tax breaks for special interests, as the New York Times reports.

However... the thornier questions of cutting expenditurses (or at least, reducing their long-term growth) have been pushed off by a month, as has the always-explosive question of raising the Federal debt ceiling. Another high-stakes political standoff is therefore guaranteed, which means that the celebrated tax deal is actually not much to celebrate.

Lesson of the Year

In 2012 I concluded
That my vote for the House is deluded,
Since the shape of my district
Regrettably IS tricked
To keep the opponent excluded.

As we count down the hours of 2012 with no deal reached in Washington on the basic questions of government revenues and expenditures, many wonder how it is possible for the Congress to remain so deadlocked in the face of a clear electoral outcome for the nation as a whole. The answer is, in part, that members of the House of Representatives do not answer to the nation as a whole, or even to the whole of their own districts. Rather, because most Congressional districts are gerrymandered to ensure the continued representation of the incumbent party, the typical house member feels most beholden to the extreme elements in that party who participate most intensely in the primary election.

In 2013, we must resolve to undo this gerrymandering, as a first step toward truly representative government.

It's Beginning to Look A Lot Like...

It's beginning to look a lot like Cliffmas
Evvvv'rywhere you go.
They're intractable on the Hill,
The President's stronger still,
He's setting his toboggan in the snoooww...

It's beginning to look a lot like Cliffmas;
Soon the bells will chime,
And the posturing will be worst
On January First,
When we're ouuut o-o-of tiiime.

The President and his Republican Congressional opposition continue to sing from different hymnals on the major issues of taxation, while trying to reach a long-term deficit reduction deal that will avoid the "Fiscal Cliff." On a related note (see what I did there?), Matt Miller hypothesizes an Endless Cliff in the Washington Post:

It seems almost certain that any new deal that is struck, either before January 1 or some time afterwards, will involve some minor near-term “action” or “down payment” combined with the creation of a new fiscal cliff of unpleasant consequences to be triggered sometime in 2013 if a broader deal on tax and entitlement reform is not reached.

This, because a divided Washington needs “a forcing device” to instigate action.

But what will have changed later in 2013 to produce a different outcome? Arguably nothing. And so we have the prospect of another deal with illusory progress later in 2013, along with the creation of the next forcing device. Which eventually forces the next sham deal and the creation of the next forcing device.

It's beginning to look a lot like only a major political disruption - such as Congressional district un-gerrymandering, a Democratic sweep of the next midterm elections, or the complete removal of money from politics - could stand in the way the Endless Cliff Hypothesis becoming reality.

(Embedded music track powered by mp3skull.com)

No Cliffhanger

A pundit, politically touting,
The conventional wisdom was flouting,
When he roundly dismissed
The Fiscal Abyss
As "Over, except for the shouting."

The Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal declares that today's stock market is in the throes of a "Morning Money Ben rally." That's because Politico's Ben White has made the gutsy call that the fiscal cliff is already over. Swimming against the current of mainstream media coverage of this supposed January 1 cliffhanger, Mr. White points out the essential difference between the political situation today and that which prevailed during the Debt Ceiling debacle:

Nearly every signal from Republicans suggests they understand they have lost the war over taxes going up on the wealthiest Americans and are just trying to figure out how to get the least objectionable deal that includes real spending cuts and a trigger for tax and entitlement reform. It’s clear from polling that the GOP will get the blame if taxes go up on everyone on Jan. 1 and any subsequent damage to the economy and markets will fall squarely at the party’s feet. Republicans are no longer ignoring such polls.

In a somber counterpoint to Mr. White's analysis, Mr. Weisenthal reminds us that the greater political difficulty for President Obama this time may lie on his own Democratic side, in getting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to play ball in the field of Social Security and Medicare cutbacks.

A Perfect Scandal

In DC, it's a welcome distraction
From each warring political faction:
Invoking, in speeches,
Security breaches
From man-on-biographer action.

It appears that the affair of CIA director David Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, is the perfect Washington scandal, giving the mainstream media just enough connection to supposed "national security issues" to justify around-the-clock coverage of a tabloid story. This was made abundantly clear today during President Barack Obama's midday press conference.  The President spoke on progress in negotiating a long-term budget deficit solution that would avoid the fiscal cliff (or "austerity bomb," as I like to call it), with special attention to his insistence on letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the top 2% of income earners.  The first question went to the AP's Ben Feller, who asked:"Can you assure the American people that there have been no breaches of national security or classified information in the scandal involving Generals Petraeus and [John] Allen?"

Now, this is a non-question, since it is already evident that there was no breach of national security, and we already know that Ms. Broadwell had classified information on her computer.  Of course, Mr. Feller's question gives him an opening to write a lede containing the keywords "sex scandal", which is much juicier than leading with "tax cuts" or the "fiscal cliff". However, this is a time when the nation needs to focus on its long-term sustainability, and the Ben Fellers of this world should be helping us to do so - as should the Dr. Geese.

Rhyme & Reason on the Fiscal Cliff

If rational ladies and chaps
In Congress agree to put caps
On deductions from taxes,
Then revenue waxes,
With deficits waning, perhaps.

But merely increasing the revenue,
For sustainable budgets, would never do.
Our care for the aged
Must now be re-gauged,
If balance long-term we endeavor to.

To establish a little more surety
For Medicare and Social Security,
We must compensate
For our slowing death rate
By raising the age of maturity.

The Congress may not be remiss
In horsetrading that against this,
For to hope there is reason
That Washington's seizin'
Escape from the Fiscal Abyss.

Over the weekend, Dr. Goose was seized by optimism when he read Greg Mankiw's latest blog post regarding the resolution of the fiscal cliff. In a post entitled "How To Raise Tax Revenue From The Rich Without Increasing Tax Rates," Prof. Mankiw writes:

According to the Tax Policy Center, if we cap itemized deductions at $50,000 and keep tax rates as they are today, we would raise $749 billion in tax revenue over ten years. Moreover, according to the TPC's distribution table, 96.2 percent of the extra revenue would come from the top quintile, with 79.9 percent from the top one percent.

This elegantly simple modification to the tax code, which was also floated by Mitt Romney during his presidential campaign, could be the core of a compromise on the federal budget. The quid pro quo would be a reduction in the growth rate of spending by "gradually but significantly increasing the age of eligibility for Medicare and Social Security." Of course, there's more to it than this, and the devil, as always, is in the details, but it does give one hope to see a simple framework on which reasonable people can come together.

In a related point, I like the term "austerity bomb" as a more descriptive alternative to "fiscal cliff" for describing what will happen if no budget deal is reached.

Post-Election Analysis

The super PACs failed in their mission
To win with financial munition.
Though pols who would carry
Find cash necessary,
It's not a sufficient condition.
* * *
The House GOP had consistently
Obstructed Obama insistently,
But now they're at pains,
Having garnered no gains,
To avoid going cliff-diving fiscally.
* * *
The nation would like to see whether
The parties can now work together
To right our finances,
Or what are the chances
That partisanship rules as ever?

The results of the 2012 US elections have provided rich fodder on which political junkies of all stripes may chew. The New York Times reported this morning that wealthy sponsors of conservative super PACs got no return on the investments that they made in such vehicles as "American Crossroads." Co-founded by Karl Rove, this super PAC, along with the affiliated "Restore our Future," collected about $300 million, seemingly for naught. Haley Barbour, the former Mississippi governor and Republican party chairman who helped raise money for the two groups, consoled himself that their spending helped keep the race as close as it was.

House Republicans seem to be chewing a little more thoughtfully these days, as evidenced by their newly cooperative rhetorical stance with regard to the "fiscal cliff." Speaker John Boehner struck the new tone in remarks at the Capitol: "Mr. President, this is your moment. We’re ready to be led — not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. We want you to lead, not as a liberal or a conservative, but as president of the United States of America." Of course, many have already predicted such conciliatory talk, followed by a reversion to partisanship, so we must be cautious in our expectations.

Krugman Examines the Ryan Plan

That dapper young Congressman Ryan
Was sellin' what many were buyin'.
A wonk came along,
Announced he was wrong,
And proved it without even tryin'.

"My plan," said the Chair of the Budget,
"Will balance the books, as I judge it."
Said Krugman: "Your cuts
Are unspecified, but
Any figure looks fine if you fudge it."

"To cite what I find so offending
In the plan that the Chairman's intending,
Have a look at the dents
That he'd make in Defense
And in Other Discretion'ry Spending."

"They'll cut, say the Chair and his staff,
From 12 points to 3 1/2.
Since the Pentagon's spent -
On its own - 4%,
This projection is good for a laugh."

"If you doubt this Princetonian nerd,
Let the CBO have the last word:
'The specifications
For these calculations -
At this point - have yet to be heard.'"

Paul Krugman, in his New York Times blog, asked What's In The Ryan Plan and determined: not much. His dismissive critique of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's US federal budget proposal is based on the analysis of the Congressional Budget Office, which found that the plan's headline numbers were unsupported by specific proposals to achieve them.

Sermon on the Fiscal Mount

In Congress, there's no more finessing this:
Our budget is bound for the precipice.
The free ride is ending
(Low taxes, high spending),
Though Washington's slow in addressing this.

With the US in fiscal distress so,
We could levy more from the noblesse, though
The mean millionaire
Pays more than their share,
(If billionaires still somewhat less so).

Some say for the deficit's end,
We must simply rein in what we spend,
Though cutting back solely
Would undermine wholly
The programs on which most depend.

It's time for the US community
To realize that none have immunity;
To fix our finances,
The most likely chance is:
In sacrifice, we may find unity.

The preceding limerick homily, in this summer of the Fiscal Cliff, was inspired by David Wessel's column in The Wall Street Journal, in which he points out that there are no easy, scientific solutions to the question of "tax fairness," and by extension, deficit reduction. Mr. Wessel's figures demonstrate that, while taxes on the rich have come down over the last 30 years, so have those on everyone else. Somewhat sparingly, he does mention that the super-rich - the 0.1%, the Forbes 400 - do pay less than the "merely" rich because of their reliance on income from dividends and capital gains, which are taxed at only 15%. The aforementioned inequity notwithstanding, it appears insufficient to look for deficit reduction only by "asking the rich to pay their fair share," as it does only by "cutting out-of-control spending." In other words, we can't solve our fiscal problems only by asking the other person to take the hit.

Hat tip to Barry Ritholtz for highlighting the key facts of Mr. Wessel's column.

Tax Cut Extension

Said Obama: "My favorite motif
Is of middle-class tax-rate relief,
For the push that it prods
As well as my odds
Of remaining Commander-in-Chief."

JOBS Act

When streamlining stock regulation
With the goal of employment creation,
The access to mammon
May jumpstart the scammin'
By persons of low reputation.

Washington has descended to the point where, if you see bipartisan agreement on any economic issue, you have to suspect the worst. Such is the case with the so-called JOBS Act (Jumpstart Our Business Startups). In her Bloomberg column, Susan Antilla writes: "Though the JOBS Act was packaged as a plan to streamline rules to help small companies crank out jobs, even its cheerleaders have come up with scant evidence the law will boost employment much, if at all. In an election year when pragmatic politicians are laboring to come off as allies of deep-pocketed business donors, the JOBS Act is a slapdash attempt at securities-law deregulation, plain and simple."

Remember the ZZZZ Best carpet-cleaning company, one of the most notorious investment frauds of the '80's? One of the perpetrators of that fraud says: “I wish legislators would consult with people like me before they write something like this. I could tell them, ‘I know what your intent was with this wording, but we can get around it so easily, it cracks me up.”’ Mark Morze, a self-described reformed scammer who now lectures on how to guard against people like himself, gives his expert opinion that the JOBS Act has real potential for abuse.

Hat tip to Jordan Terry a.k.a. @The_Analyst.

Overheard in the Supreme Court

"I've studied Congressional acts a lot
On the government's power to tax a lot,
Which I'll argue today,
Though tomorrow I may
Invoke contradictory facts a lot."

Intense public interest in the Supreme Court hearing on the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) means that even the most obscure preliminary arguments are followed with intense focus. Thus, the Wall Street Journal's article on the opening arguments was among the day's most popular, though it should normally have made one's eyes glaze over. The first day's argument turned on whether the penalty for non-compliance with mandated insurance is a tax. If so, argued Washington trial lawyer Robert Long, it is covered by the Anti-Injunction Act, which holds that taxes cannot be legally challenged until they are effective; in this case, that's not until 2014. The Obama administration, which evidently wants to get the legal challenges over with, did not agree, saying that the penalty is not a tax under the AIA. However, they intended to argue the next day that the penalty is covered by the government's constitutional power to levy taxes; certainly a nuanced position, to say the least.

That January Deadline

An economist whispered: "I fear
That the time for can-kicking draws near;
For tax cuts on income
And payroll (and then some)
Expire the first of the year."

Alan Blinder must hope that Congress doesn't want to "shoot the messenger." The Princeton economist and former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve reminds them and us that, in January 2013, deadlines loom for:

• the expiration of

the Bush tax cuts

the 2% payroll tax cuts

extended unemployment benefits

and

• the imposition of automatic spending cuts from the failed deficit reduction super committee.

Taken together, these falling cans - if not adroitly kicked further - would take 3.5% from America's GDP at one stroke. Time for those Congressional punters to start warming up...

State of the Union: Commando-In-Chief

"Though obstructionists threaten to ruin it,
Those who know what they say don't impugn it:
When I sound the attack,
Our economy's back
Like the Navy SEAL Bin Laden unit."

US Pres. Barack Obama, seeking to tie his military successes to hopeful signs in the economy, gave his economic-themed State of the Union address a military motif. The speech began with a salute to returning Iraqi war veterans, and ended with a tribute to the amazing teamwork of the Navy seal unit that killed Osama bin Laden. These twin martial references helped the president emphasize two key points: first, that there is much on which the President and Congress can work together as a team for the good of the American people; second, that there is much that I, as Commander-in-Chief, can order without you.

The Fight before Christmas

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House
Each rep wished to go home to children and spouse;
When what to their wondering eyes should appear,
But a tax cut expiring at the end of the year.

The Speaker maneuvered to tie its extension
To a pipeline Obama would rather not mention;
But the President managed to win to his side
The bulk of the voters, who fitfully cried:

"On Boehner, Pelosi, McConnell and Reid -
Put cash in the pockets of workers in need!"
And Republicans claimed, 'ere they drove out of sight:
"We had all the votes, but Barack won the fight!"

House Republicans finally caved in the latest high-stakes Washington duel, over a two-month extension of the cut in payroll taxes to 4.2% from 6.2%. The issue provided a means for President Barack Obama to combine middle-class advocacy with tax cutting, a feat of political jiu-jitsu he could use in undermining the GOP House majority. Speaker John Boeher's bid to combine a year-long extension with the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline failed, as both the press and the public saw his party as the obstacle toward tax relief for the average family. 

* * * 

As the Night Before Christmas approaches, Dr. Goose wishes a Happy Holiday to all those who will celebrate around the world this weekend, and joins you is wishing Peace on Earth and Goodwill to All.

Corzine's Congressional Testimony

"A billion-point-two, evidently,
Has failed to be found, accidentally;
Though we foundered, it's true,
When our funding withdrew,
Our finances were fine, fundamentally."

Ex-MF Global CEO Jon Corzine told the House Agriculture Committee that he was "devastated by the enormous impact on many people's lives" when the giant futures broker went bankrupt. In his first public appearance since the firm's collapse, Mr. Corzine expressed regret but not remorse. MF Global's failure was, in his view, precipitated not by his misjudgment in holding a $6.3 billion leveraged position in European bonds, but rather the market's sudden lack of confidence in in the firm's balance sheet. Regarding the notoriously missing $1.2 billion in MF Global customers' funds, Mr. Corzine testified: "I simply do not know where the money is."