Category Archives: Economy

Markets and Uncertainty: The Uneasy Union of Policy and Free Enterprise

Posted on by

Coming off the heels of the vote to raise the debt ceiling, the U.S. bond rating downgrade and the market volatility that resulted, it’s a wonder investors can keep up with the constant frenetic activity happening on Wall Street.  As result of these uneasy economic times, President Obama has attempted quell jittery investors by claiming the historic strengths of the economy are still intact.  “The United States is still a AAA nation,” argues the President which appears, from the standpoint of investors, to be nothing more than a simple ploy at rhetoric to boost confidence in the market.  The problem is, all President Obama’s talk flies in the face of reality.  The market, made of the millions of daily decisions of individual investors, does not trust the actions of the President’s regime.

As a result, the Federal Reserve stepped in and tried to ease this uncertainty in the market (and lack of trust in the President’s policies) by announcing a two-year rate freeze keeping its key interest rate at near zero until 2013.  The goal: provide the market with the stability it desires in the face of Schizophrenic government policy.  Regime uncertainty is the core problem which destabilizes the market.  When market actors are uncertain in how to plan for the future; business, firms, and individual market participants pull back and act very cautiously.  They simply do not invest in any long-term projects for fear of the unknown and this includes both capital investment (machines, buildings, etc.) and labor investment (they fail to hire).  The Obama administration has firms guessing, which forces the engine of economic growth (the private sector) to take few risks and pull back.  The President’s healthcare legislation is a perfect example of policy that creates this uncertainty, and thus causes businesses to pull back for fear of how policy will impact the future.

So, has the Federal Reserve solved the problem?  Does the certainty of low interest rates provide the stability necessary for the market to flourish?  The answer to these questions is twofold; maybe in the short run but with a significant cost.  Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, appears to have a very short memory.  His decision to lock in the Feds key interest rate for two years is one that looks an awful lot like typical public policy.  That is, a focus on short-term impact with a “let’s hope for the best” in the long-run.  The policy process encourages a myopic view of the world because it is so often driven by election cycles.  Hence President Obama’s push for a “Big Deal” in the debt ceiling debate in order to get issue off the table for his 2012 Presidential campaign.

Yet, Fed policy should focus much more on the long-run.  The Federal Reserve is, in theory, insulated from the political process as the chairman serves a 14-year term.  Mr. Bernanke does not have to worry about the economic climate during the 2012 election, yet the move to lock in a two-year interest rate is bound to result in short-run stability but with a serious long-term cost.  One need not go back further than the economic boom of 2003-2007 to see the severe consequences of artificially low interest rates.  The housing bubble which burst to usher in the recent recession and economic downturn was caused in large measure by interest rates that were kept too low by the Fed.  Money was too cheap, lending standards were too generous (also a result of government policy), and economic collapse resulted.  Why does Mr. Bernanke want to put in place similar economic conditions that led to this collapse?

The answer here is the same as what has plagued the uneasy relationship between markets and government for centuries.  The belief is simple, we must do something.  The government must do something, or as Keynes argued decades ago, “In the long-run we are all dead.”  So, use any policy tools available to intervene in the market to ward off calamity.  Thus, the Americans and Europeans are scrambling to use policy in order to stabilize the market.  The reality is all these policy tools have short-run effects and huge long-run costs.  Is the Fed setting up the U.S. economy for another bubble?  It appears that this is a very real cost to the two-year interest rate lock.  Bubbles eventually burst, and when the price of money is artificially lowered an economic bust always follows.

Why Democrats Hate a Balanced Budget Amendment

Posted on by

My latest piece, “Why Democrats Hate a Balanced Budget Amendment” was just published at BigGovernment.com.  You can read my piece about the struggle for a Balanced Budget Amendment at their site or you can read it in its entirety below:

WHY DEMOCRATS HATE A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

By Peter Frank

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2011/07/26/Why-Democrats-Hate-a-Balanced-Budget-Amendment

With Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nv.) leading the charge that killed the Cut, Cap and Balance Act(it apparently was the “worst piece of legislation” he’d ever seen), and a new deal to break the impasse over raising the debt ceiling looming, it’s appropriate to ask why Democrats hate the idea of a balanced budget amendment.

Americans are forced each day to live with a balanced budget – families can only spend more than their income for a short time without ultimately going into default. Firms in a private market must live with a balanced budget or they’ll quickly exit industry.

So, why do Democrats hate the idea of a balanced budget amendment? Such an amendment would force Congress to spend within its means. What’s the problem with forcing expenses and revenue to equal each other? It seems to make sense in the absence of some mechanism (like profits and losses in the private market) to incentivize a prudent use of resources, that politicians should be bound to spend within their means.

It’s not that Democrats don’t believe in fiscal discretion or think there are no consequences to amassing a massive debt for future generations to pay. President Obama has repeatedly stated that deficit reduction is a priority, and he favors a “big deal” to both raise the debt limit and reduce spending by billions. Democrats in Congress have supported these goals of working hard to reduce the deficit over the next decade. Listening to lawmakers speak about their desire to cut spending, one would expect wide-spread bipartisan support for a balanced budget amendment.

Not so fast.

The bottom line for Democrats is that a constitutional law forcing spending and revenue to equate signifies a massive loss of political power. Democrats in Congress claim that a balanced budget will devastate the economy because they will not have the ability to spend discretionary dollars whenever they see fit (i.e. when they deem it necessary for the economy). House minority whip Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) said they he wouldn’t support it because it would “make it virtually impossible to raise revenue” (i.e. taxes). I’ll let Michelle Malkin handle the fallacies in Hoyer’s reasoning.

Democrats refuse, no matter how fiscally wise, to give up the substantial power that comes with spending taxpayer (and borrowed) dollars. The President and Congressional Democrats want to solve the deficit problem by cutting future program spending while raising the debt ceiling in order to save America from default. Imagine trying to encourage a teenager to pay off his first credit card by increasing the loan limit and telling him that in the future he’ll have to buy fewer clothes. It just doesn’t make sense.

The problem with the Democrats approach is that it fails to force future lawmakers to live within a budget and to provide any long-term incentive to align spending with revenue. The answer is a balanced budget amendment, yet Democrats are unwilling to cede their unmitigated spending power. They’d rather raise the debt ceiling to keep their power safe. The recent financial crisis and the subsequent economic downturn shows exactly how billions of dollars are spent based on congressional “insight,” with little effect.

The problem of knowing where to spend, when to spend, and how much to spend is a problem that is appears unsolvable inside the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

We can expect the many newly elected Republicans in the House to continue trying to limit the power of government (and their power to spend). Limiting power is a tough sell in Washington today, especially when Democrats are looking to swing the election victory pendulum back in their corner.

Why You Should Care About the National Debt Ceiling

Posted on by

Everyone needs to be aware that the debt ceiling is currently set at an incredible $14.294 trillion.  I tackle this debt ceiling and the federal government’s impending shut-down (circle April 8th on your calendar) in my latest BigGovernment.com piece.  Check it out here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2011/04/01/Why-You-Should-Care-About-The-National-Debt-Ceiling or in its entirety below.

WHY YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT THE NATIONAL DEBT CEILING

by PETER FRANK 1 Apr 2011 

With the Federal government scheduled to shut down on April 8, Congress is not only debating where to spend trillions of dollars in the next fiscal year, but also whether to raise the roof, i.e. the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling simply represents a cap on the total debt the U.S. government can hold, and it is currently set at a whopping $14.294 trillion. Though the resolution for this limit was signed a mere year ago, we are quickly approaching the limit and should reach it sometime in the first week of April. Keep in perspective that it would take more than 31,000 years of earning $1 a day to make a measly $1 trillion of the total debt. The government has added to the total debt every year since 1960 (except for two years). Worse yet, it has added over $5 trillion in the past three and a half years alone. Wouldn’t common sense indicate that there’s little room to borrow more? Apparently not.

The reality is that many lawmakers want to “stabilize the debt” by increasing the debt ceiling. Of course, you can’t stabilize trillions of dollars. So essentially, the government ends up selling more bonds just to pay interest on the national debt and pay for new spending.What’s a few more hundred billion when you already owe several trillion?

Often, to explain how we must increase the debt ceiling, government plays on one major fear – the fear of U.S. default. Those in support of raising the debt ceiling argue that if it’s not increased the government will not be able to meet obligations. They essentially say the country will go bankrupt. To prevent this very issue, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1963. The problem with this rationale is that it’s like urging a boat to take on more water to keep it from sinking. Imagine meeting with your financial planner and hearing him say, “In these tough financial times I recommend you add to your debt in order to stay solvent.” I hope you would quickly find a new financial planner.

In the realm of “real world” spending, consumers cannot increase their total debt with a simple declaration. As consumers approach a high level of debt, their ability to take on more debt is checked by the price (interest rates) and the risk premium they represent to a possible lender. Obviously, no mechanism of natural market discipline exists for government. So instead, the debt ceiling becomes an artificial barrier which is put in place to demonstrate the illusion of fiscal responsibility. Opponents of raising the debt ceiling agree.

When the debt ceiling is reached, it will be the first time we’ve done so without raising the limit. Though there will be implications, don’t expect a government shutdown. For one, the treasury will be unable to borrow more money to meet federal government obligations. Scary? Absolutely, but it might not be a bad thing considering no legislation to date has worked to curb out of control spending. Congress would likely have to pass legislation mandating that the first checks the government writes each month pay for debt service, which would undoubtedly leave fewer dollars available for all other spending. (In a dream world this repercussion would lead government to tighten their belts and make cost effective saving measures). What is certain is that a failure to raise the debt ceiling would not result in government default. Congress has more than enough at its disposal to pay U.S. Treasury bond obligations. The fear of default is misguided.

In a March 30 Wall Street Journal column, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio wrote that he (and others) will only vote to raise the debt ceiling if it’s the last raise ever made and if its accompanied by several measures to tighten and reign in spending. With such emphatic promises from political heavyweights like Rubio, you can bet on a hot debate in coming days.

Public Sector Unions Are Bargaining For Your Salary

Posted on by

Check out my latest piece at Carolina Journal: http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?id=7502  or read the entire piece below!

Public Sector Unions Are Bargaining for Your Salary
By Peter Frank
Mar. 10th, 2011

WINGATE — As Wisconsin and other states come to grips with massive budget shortfalls, and protesters seek a voice in the
painful process of spending cuts, we find ourselves questioning the role of public sector unions today.
Look at the basic structure of public vs. private unions. At the core of their collective goals, unions are trying to advocate for the
rights of their members, but this is where the similarity ends. Public sector unions are bargaining over tax dollars, so there is
little discipline or limitation for what they can bargain. Private unions are faced with a very different situation. They are simply
trying to attain a share of the corporate profits, and their bargaining power exists only if they produce a product that consumers
want. Public unions negotiate with those who they help elect to ensure they receive above average pay compared to the private
sector.

Take the current bargaining dispute between the NFL players and owners. Each party walks a fine line because if consumers
get fed up with their haggling, and stop purchasing tickets and merchandise, neither side will get a slice of the $9 billion
industry. Or consider the United Auto Workers in Ohio and Michigan who are no longer employed because General Motors had
to restructure and close over 14 production facilities.

Public sector unions try to explain their plight in terms of basic rights. Yet there is no basic right to negotiate with monopoly
power extracting resources from a democratically elected government. For the teacher union in Wisconsin, collective bargaining
means that those who supply their labor to the public school system essentially can fix their wages and benefits and force all
workers to join the union (or pay not to join). As one commentator put it, it’s equivalent to all airline companies meeting to fix
ticket prices and capacity — obviously a practice that would swiftly be stopped under antitrust law.

These unions essentially are claiming they have an unqualified right to bargain for more taxpayer funds. In Wisconsin, the
average public school teacher earns approximately one-and-a-half times what the average American worker earns. Should they
have the right to bargain for higher wages, improved pension programs, and additional worker benefits without any market
discipline? The problem is there is no “fair” way to set up a public sector union to incorporate a mechanism for compensating
workers without appealing to political patronage. The recent headlines in Wisconsin are a prime example of this problem.

Public sector employee unions should not have an unchecked ability to extract tax dollars from the state budget for their own
well-being. They simply shouldn’t have the right to bargain for more taxpayer dollars without any accountability.
Liberal legislators who are “fighting for working families” clearly don’t see this side of the argument. The transactions costs would be high, but why not put a salary or pension increase to the voters each time a public sector employee asks for more funds? No one is hoping for this outcome, but it does reveal the absurdity of unmitigated bargaining power. How manyAmericans have the ability to negotiate for the salary they desire, and the ability to bind their employer with unqualified monopoly power on the supply of their labor?

At its core, the debate over public sector union power is a debate over the public vs. private provision of goods and services.
The matter doesn’t center on some opposing moral issue of giving workers what they deserve vs. stripping school teachers of
a dignifying wage.

Americans must come to grips with an imperfect system of deciding what government workers rightfully earn as they educate
children and police our streets, while public sector unions must consider the reality that most of us rely on market forces and
the desires of consumers to determine our bargaining power.

State of Spending Address Proves Budget is Top Concern

Posted on by

With the highly anticipated State of the Union Address now behind us, its clear to see that spending was a top priority for Obama during the discussion.  Whether or not this rhetoric will continue out through the election season remains to be seen.  In my latest op-ed for the Richmond County Journal I discuss the points raised in the State of the Union and offer my own analysis.  You can read the original op-ed on the newspaper’s site or you can read the piece in its entirety below.

 

State of Spending Address proves Budget is top concern

RALEIGH — If President Obama’s State of the Union Address proved one thing, it’s that spending is out of control. Even more evident in his collectivist rhetoric was a clear misunderstanding of what it will take to fix our budgetary woes. The president called for a freeze on spending while advocating increased financial support of education, rail transportation, and research, among other special initiatives. He offered far more examples of how he would spend rather than how he would save.

So how does the administration intend to make sense of this spend-to-save policy? Simply re-interpreting costs and revenue changes their math, and it all starts with its views on taxation.

One of the most popular tools in the government arsenal to control human behavior is taxation. If the government wants less of something like cigarette smoking or gasoline consumption, it taxes it. A tax on cigarettes presumably leads to less smoking, and the government says that is good. But, when the government advocates a tax on income that will work like any other tax, and reduce the incentive to earn income, they say the “tax to deter” rule doesn’t apply.

Rather than viewing the December tax cut extensions as a benefit to American citizens, the government calls the extension of rates a “cost” to the federal government. This argument takes focus away from earners generating wealth in the private sector, because a “cost” to the federal government is really a gain to earners. Moreover, if the federal government wasn’t spending billions more than it “earned” in tax revenue each month, an extension of the current tax rates would never provoke discussion of the “cost” of existing tax policy.

The initial approach to the tax bill debate was the Obama administration’s masterful attempt to couch the issue as an extension of mistaken Bush-era policy. The debate became focused on revenue alone and how the government must fund its ballooning debt. And, the underlying assumption was that Bush-era economics led us astray from an optimal tax rate.

Is this really the case? Were the tax rates that existed under the Clinton administration perfect and we are now suffering after those golden years? Should the American people pick some optimal level of personal spending and then hope their income matches up?

All talk about optimal tax rates and the extension of Bush tax cuts focuses the discussion solely on government revenue. Where is the debate over government spending as it relates to taxation? Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., briefly touched on the issue in the Republican response to the State of the Union by acknowledging the government’s tendency to control and tax too much. Sadly, the president publicly came to the conclusion that the current tax rates were OK to keep because they were for the good of the country (and the good of his re-election). The reality is that the president believes that keeping taxes at the current rates will “cost” billions over the next few years. A tax rate has never cost the government a dime (apart from collection costs).

The recent tax bill marks the beginning of what is certain to be an ongoing debate as Congress moves through this session. Now that the current tax rates have been extended, House Speaker John Boehner and his colleagues should change the focus away from what rates will “cost” toward how federal spending can get in line with revenue.

Whether or not the current tax rates are extended, the federal government does not have an impending revenue problem; it has a spending problem.

Is this the year Congress finally will stop ignoring the truth about our ballooning budget crisis and come together to make hard decisions? In November 1973, Sen. Jesse Helms, backed by a small group of his conservative colleagues, offered a balanced budget amendment that was tabled by a 46-43 vote. Sadly, the same fiscally destructive tradition has been repeated each year as some version of a balanced budget amendment is offered with great fanfare, then rejected by the very people who have sworn to “faithfully discharge the duties of their office.”

Perhaps leaders and citizens alike will heed the advice of Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee. “Our debt is out of control,” he warned. “What was a fiscal challenge is now a fiscal crisis. We cannot deny it; instead we must, as Americans, confront it. … So hold all of us accountable.”

Government’s refusal to act will not change until Washington stops considering taxes as income. Voters, armed with the sage advice of economists, must voice their opinions. Change will come when informed voters demand it.