Will America Become Detroit, Part 6: The World Police Turn in Their Badges

"Beware of entangling allances"
-Pres. George Washington

"A Policeman's Lot Is Not A Happy One"
- From "The Pirates of Penzance" by Gilbert and Sullivan

Now that U.S. presidential nominees are decided by primaries, the party conventions have become pointless, predictable bores. They are little more than rallies disguised as deliberative bodies. Both conventions are so scripted that the few moments that stand out are those where some participant tosses down the script and improvises. One of those moments this year came from Senator Rand Paul's Republican convention speech. At a convention where military one-upmanship was the coin of the day, Sen. Paul made the case that to balance our budget, "Republicans must acknowledge that not every dollar spent on the military is necessary or well spent". This is a brave admission; even Democrats such as Leon Panetta argue that even the recent slowing of military spending increases threaten our security. Although Sen. Paul's views on military spending are in the minority, soon the debt crisis will bring these views into the mainstream. When we absolutely must make the hard choices, it will soon come to light that much of our military spending has nothing to do with defending our nation, and some of our military efforts actually damage our security.

Defending Everyone Against Everyone Else

The 2012 U.S. military budget accounts for 41% of all military spending done on this planet. Our military spending is more than that of Russia, China and our NATO allies combined. Why does it cost so much to defend a nation surrounded by two oceans, and bordered by two very friendly neighbors? The answer is that much of the U.S. defense budget goes to defending other nations. America maintains 900 military bases in 130 countries. Our nation has 119,000 troops in Europe, 37,000 in South Korea, and 45,000 in Japan. There 44 American military bases in Germany alone. The average American taxpayer pays more for these bases than the average German taxpayer does.

A large part of why the U.S. defense spending is so high is that it includes a huge ersatz foreign aid program where we take on the defense duties of many of our allies. This is a great deal for the countries we defend: their tax burden is lessened, this in turn gives them a competitive advantage over us, and fewer of their young people are asked to sacrifice their lives. But is this a good deal for us? And if not, how did we end up in this situation?

The Diplomatic Equivalents of the Helium Reserve

We are all aware of Department of Defense programs that were continued far beyond any practical purpose. The National Helium Reserve, originally set up to make sure we had helium for our dirigibles, continued until 2007. The horse mounted cavalry was maintained as late as 1942. And don't forget the Mohair subsidies ooriginally enacted during WWI guarantee enough wool for soldiers uniforms. These subsidies continued until recent years, in spite of the fact that no uniforms have been made from mohair for more than half a century.

The State Department has its own share of programs that go on far past the time where their original rationale made any sense. The prime example of this is NATO, started in 1949 to help European nations rebuilding after the devastation of WWII to defend themselves against the Soviet bloc. This treaty was originally intended as a temporary measure, to help out until these nations could defend themselves. Dwight Eisenhower, as NATO Supreme Commander said that “if in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.” As a perfect illustration of the Reagan maxim that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program, NATO is still going strong after more than six decades, long after all the member nations have recovered from WWII, and even long after the Soviet threat has disappeared into history.

A similar situation exists in South Korea. After the end of the Korean war, one could make the case that it was in America's best interest to help our war-torn ally defend herself against communist aggression. But more than half a century later, South Korea now has a GDP 20 times the GDP of North Korea. If South Korea cannot defend herself now, when will she be able to do so?

When Defense Works Against Security

It is bad enough that American taxpayers are forced to pay for defend nations other than their own. What makes matters worse is what the CIA calls blowback, where the unintended consequences of American military ventures actually worsen our security. Major security failures such as 9/11 were retaliations for U.S. wars fought on foreign soil.

What Rand Paul said about defense spending may be controversial in 2012, but as the debt crisis comes to a head and every tax dollar needs to be accounted for, Paul's call for a closer look at defense spending will become more mainstream. Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution points out the need to provide for the common defense. But this meant the defense of the United States, not that of the world. It is time to end our role as world policeman, and concentrate on protecting our own citizens.

Will America Become Detroit, Part 5: Debt Will End Corporate Welfare as We Know It

"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."
- "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
- Frederic Bastiat

The coining of a new word, or the re-introduction of a long dormant word, can often advance our understanding of important issues. A prime example is the word "corporatism" that pervades much of current political discourse to derisively describe economic policies designed around the needs of the present leading corporations. A prime example of corporatism is the bank bailouts of 2008, a bi-partisan policy that eventually were condemned by both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements.

Real Capitalism Versus Crony Capitalism

Before this word gained popularity, many ascribed the attributes of corporatism to free market economics. This is rather ironic: the eighteenth century term for the corporatist ideology is mercantilism. Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, strongly refutes the tenants of mercantilism in his opus "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". In a true free market, the government does not show favoritism to the elite corporations. It is the consumer, not the state, that picks winners and losers in a free market economy. Corporatism is not only a highly unfair public policy, it is also poor economic policy. A company favored by corporatism is shielded from competitive pressures, and hence does not make the improvements that the unprotected companies would. Competition has given us the iPhone and Android cell phone technology. Corporatism has given Bangladesh a typewriter industry that survived until this decade.

Corporate Welfare: Supported by Many, Liked by No One

The most outrageous form of corporatism is corporate welfare, where the government actually subsidizes particular businesses. This practice is denounced across the political spectrum, which raises the question as to why it is so prevalent. The problem is that welfare is in the eye of the beholder. Voters often fail to see that aid to the industries that they work in as welfare, and will cast their votes to save that aid.

A prime example of this is our agriculture subsidies, a program that protects farmers' income with price supports that keep domestic food prices artificially high. Our agricultural policy keeps U.S. sugar prices at twice the world level. As a result, candies such as Life-Savers are no longer made in this country. The high sugar prices have also forced American soft drink manufacturers to use high fructose corn syrup in place of sugar. The politically connected farm lobby have also pushed ethanol usage, a real boon for corn farmers but an expensive burden both at the pump and at the grocery store. Ethanol is not even good for the environment; producing ethanol uses more fossil fuel than it replaces, which is why Al Gore no longer endorses it. The only advantage to the ethanol program is that it makes farming more profitable.

Why, in a democracy, do these programs that benefit a few at the expense of the many stay alive for so long? The problem is that we do not directly vote on issues like this; instead, we vote for representatives, who will be voting on many issues. When choosing a representative, voters tend to focus on the few issues that are most important to them. Although most voters believe (correctly) that they would benefit from eliminating corporate welfare, very few voters have that as their top issue. The top issue for most voters is aid for their own industry, i.e. what is clearly corporate welfare to anyone outside that industry. This is why corporate welfare constantly wins elections, in spite of its unpopularity.

Putting Corporate Welfare on the Table

In the battle over corporate welfare, the debt crisis could be a game changer. The federal spend approximately $100 billion per year on corporate welfare, which is more than what it spent on welfare for individuals. When the nation's debt is called, these expenditures has to be on the table. We simply cannot afford to maintain all of these corporate welfare programs. At that point, how can one make a politically viable pitch for saving any of these programs?

In short, the debt crisis will force a type of welfare reform for corporations, similar to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. Proponents for the 1996 welfare reform act argued that recipients are better served by being transitioned to some form of self reliance when possible. Soon, it will be widely recognized that this same principle applies to corporations: they should not be dependent on the government.

Will America Become Detroit, Part 3: Paul Ryan, Rambo, and J. Alfred Prufrock

"We fail far more often by timidity than by over-daring."
- Ray Stannard Baker

"Do I dare eat a peach?"
- From "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" by T. S. Eliot

The most controversial deficit reduction plan was put forward by Wisconsin Representative and Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan. In 2008, he introduced H. R. 6110, entitled "Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2008", as a plan to balance the budget and create jobs. This proposal has garnered both high praise and scathing condemnation.

• Democratic co-chair of President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform called the Ryan plan “sensible, serious . . , and honest”.
• In April at an Associated Press Luncheon, President Obama denounced Ryan's plan as "nothing but thinly-veiled Social Darwinism."
• New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote "Today, Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, is scheduled to release the most comprehensive and most courageous budget reform proposal any of us have seen in our lifetimes"
• Even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have blasted the Ryan plan, writing that it fails to meet a basic moral test.

As is often the case, the truth lies between the extremes. Paul Ryan's plan would not produce a future ripped from the pages of Oliver Twist. On the other hand, the plan would also not succeed in its primary mission of eliminating the deficit. The reason why the Ryan proposal would fail is that, contrary to what both his supporters and critics contend, this plan is actually too timid to be effective. Contrary to popular rhetoric, the senator who is likened to Rambo is much closer to J. Alfred Prufrock. 

Bill Clinton, Social Darwinist?

One of the more popular attacks on the Ryan plan is that it would cut spending much too quickly, threatening our fragile economic recovery. President Obama even went so far as to call the plan a "prescription for decline". Everyone agrees that spending cuts are inevitable, but Obama asserts that these cuts must be done more gradually to preserve both the safety net for the poor and this nation's greatness.

This argument focuses its line of attack on the notion that Ryan's plan spends considerably less than recent federal budgets, a major talking point for the plan's proponents. So how does the Ryan plan compare to federal spending levels, or for that matter, how does it compare to Obama's proposal? An analysis of the numbers shows how Washington's definition of a cut differs from the rest of the nation: the only sense in which Ryan's budget for the next 10 years can be considered a "cut" is in the sense that spending will not increase a fast as politicians originally planned:

• Even after adjusting for inflation, Ryan's plan for the each of the next ten years would be 46% higher than Bill Clinton's last budget; and
• In this 10 year period Ryan plan spends only 5% less than Obama's proposed budget.

If Paul Ryan is a Social Darwinist, wouldn't that make Bill Clinton one as well? And if we are to believe that the Ryan plan would put us on the path to decline, why should we have any confidence in a plan that only differs from the Ryan by only 5%?

Voting for the Party That Will Throw Granny Off a Cliff

The most contentious issue with the Ryan Plan is the entitlement program reforms. As an alternative to the current defined benefit program, Ryan proposed block granting the program, and an opt-out for younger people who wish to vest in private retirement plans instead of Social Security and Medicare.

The imminent debt crisis has finally forced a senator to touch the "third rail" of American politics. And predictably, his opponents have played upon the public's fear of changes in these popular programs. The Agenda Project produced an infamous ad depicting Paul Ryan throwing an old woman off a cliff. The Romney campaign responded by producing its own ad, attacking Obama's plans to divert Medicare "savings" to pay for Obamacare. So which party will really preserve Medicare as we know it?

The honest answer is neither party: no matter who wins the elections here and in the next few decades, our entitlement programs as we know them will come to an end, period. These programs are completely and utterly unsustainable. As early as 2008, the trustees reports for Social Security and Medicare place their unfunded liability (that is, what they are obligated to pay out minus anticipated revenue) at $101 trillion. Given that our annual GDP is around $14 trillion, this is a hole that even a 100% tax rate cannot fill. A health care economist put the Medicare situation in far stronger language (warning: possibly NSFW) here.

Ryan's plan is probably insufficient to fix the entitlement crisis, but it is better than the current administrations' non-plan. In reality, the most likely outcome for the entitlement programs is that they will become means tested. But saying that is not politically popular (ask Ron Paul and Gary Johnson), so the two major party candidates will continue to argue over which one will push granny off the cliff.

Watching the Glaciers Speed By

For all the hoopla about the rapidity of the Paul Ryan's cuts, what is amazing is how agonizingly slow this plan is in terms of solving the debt crisis. CBO projections show that the plan won't even produce a balanced budget until 2040. Even this is based on optimistic assumptions, such as that no other national crises will arise in the next 28 years, and that congress will remain committed to this plan for nearly three decades. Part of the problem is that Senator Ryan has his own sacred cows: he leaves the budgets for defense and the war on terror untouched. Given the severity of the debt problem, everything should be on the table. The Pentagon and the Office of Homeland Security both have a lot of waste that could be eliminated.

To really fix the debt crisis, what is needed is a plan far more bold than the Ryan plan. But since Washington views this plan as reckless, what will actually be implemented is something weaker, and therefore even more inadequate, than the Ryan plan. This is the strongest evidence yet that no serious remedy will be attempted until it is too late, i.e. in financial terms, America will become Detroit.

What we are facing is nothing short of default of our nation. Granted, the consequences of this will be terrible: treasury bonds are frequently purchased because of their reputation for stability. Many who are depending on these bonds, including some who were dependent on them for their retirement, will be devastated. But there will be a few upsides to this crisis, as will be detailed in the next installments.

Will America Become Detroit, Part 2: Popular Solutions That Are Bound to Fail

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
- H. L. Mencken

"In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back."
- Charlie Brown, from Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz

The U.S. government debt crisis has garnered enough attention that pundits from across the political spectrum have weighed in on the issue by proposed solutions that are pleasing to their core constituencies. As we look at these proposals, it is easy to see why they are crowd pleasers, but they all have one serious defect: they won't solve the problem.

Don't Worry, Be Happy: S&P Says We're OK

One popular solution to America's debt crisis is to contend that the problem does not really exist. CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria summarized this point of view as "America is not Greece". Debt crisis skeptics content that America is prosperous, competitive, and has a high bond rating, hence she should have no problem borrowing money at reasonable rates for the foreseeable future.

The problem with debt crisis denial should have become clear with the financial crisis of  4 years ago: bond ratings, along with other measures of credit worthiness, can change blindingly fast. Standard & Poor's rated Lehman Brothers AAA 72 hours before they filed for bankruptcy. And as late as December of 2009, Moody's rated Greek bonds a high A, only to drop that rating to Junk level in the following months. So three years ago, we could have argued that "Greece is not Greece"!

The ratings from firms such Moody's, Fitch, and S&P are merely numerical measures of human trust in the institutions being rated, hence they can change just as quickly as our emotions change. If creditors change their opinion of American credit worthiness, the ratings may change even faster than they did for Lehman Brothers and Greece, due to one disquieting fact in the back of investors' minds: the U.S. government is too big to be bailed out by anyone.

Denial of the debt problem is a temporarily comforting, but ultimately dangerous, solution. One needs to look at the Motor City to see how it plays out. America may not be Greece, but it may very well be Detroit.

Eat the Rich!

Michael Moore, among others, want us to balance the budget by raising taxes on the rich. This method has tremendous appeal, for everyone assumes that "rich" means "people who make more money than me". Wouldn't it be great if the debt could be paid off purely by stereotypical Thurston Howell III millionaires who need only sacrifice a few yachts and mansions?

Michael Moore's "Eat the Rich" solution plays well, but would it actually fix the problem? Michael Moore doesn't run the numbers, but Veronique De Rugy at George Mason university has. Her study of historical U.S. revenue data, from 1930 to 2010, shows that the government has generally has been unable to raise more than 19% of the GDP in taxes. The few times we have been able to raise 20% of the GDP in taxes has been a few years at the peaks of boom cycles. This data include the Halcyon days of the 1950's, when the highest federal tax bracket was over 90%. In short, our government is already raising close to the maximal amount of money it can raise, no matter what we do with rates.

Upping the tax rates on the highest earners can have some rather nasty negative consequences. The rich are not all Thurston Howell III clones; they also include some of the world's best developers and entrepreneurs. Excessive taxes might encourage these people to move elsewhere, and the economic activity that they would generate will move with them. This happened in 1960's Britain, where 95% tax rates caused the "brain drain", where the best British minds went overseas to protect their wealth. The "brain drain" phenomenon even inspired a Beatles song.

Well, desperate times call for desperate measures. Maybe we need to be even tougher on the rich than America was in the 1950's or Britain was in the 1960's in order to raise the money we need. Again, this scenario does not hold up once you run the numbers. Fellow blogger iowahawk computes what we could raise by the most extreme "Eat the Rich" tax schemes, including taxing 100% of all income above $250K, confiscation all the wealth of America's richest families, and all the profits of our largest companies; he finds that even these most extreme measures will just barely cover this year's budget, with no hope of covering next year's.
When you do the math, it turns out that the only way we could possibly maintain our current level of spending would be to tax the middle class so much that they would be forced to lower their standard of living. Don't hold your breath waiting for a politician to tell you that.

Next Time

In the next FatherBrain post, we look at the controversial Paul Ryan plan (I think Sen. Ryan had his first name legally changed to "controversial"). The usual complaint is that this plan cuts spending too sharply. This post will make the case that the real problem with the Ryan plan is that it does not cut enough.

Will America Become Detroit?

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be"
- Hamlet Act 1, scene 3

"You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store"
- From "Sixteen Tons" by Merle Travis

Detroit News editorial writer Shikha Dalmia has written a sobering op-ed about my former home town's financial crisis. Detroit's leaders seem to be in a state of denial about the severity of the problem. This Op-Ed argues that bankruptcy may be the best option for Detroit, since it would force the changes needed to get the city's debt under control.

It is sad to see what has happened to this once great city, but it is hardly surprising. The city has been spending far beyond either current or projected revenue for many years now. Bowing to political pressure, the city council has been kicking the can down the road for as long as possible. But now, they have run out of road.

But those from other American cities should neither scorn nor pity the city of Detroit. The nation as a whole are following the same trajectory that Detroit followed years ago. So what prevents our country from meeting the same fate as this tragic city? Neither party has offered a serious plan for getting government debt under control. We hear a lot about climate change denialism, but this nation's undoing may well turn out to be deficit denialism.

Wait a Minute! Didn't We Fix This in the 90's?

As late as the last years of the Clinton administration, our government was not running up the deficit. Today, a third of all federal spending is borrowed. How did this our nation go so far wrong in the last 12 years? To answer this question, let us compare the year 2000 budget to this year's budget. Adjusting for inflation (2012 dollars) and population growth,

• In 2000, the government took in $2.5 trillion dollars and spent $2.0 trillion; and
• In 2012, our nation will take in $2.4 trillion dollars and spend $3.8 trillion. 

Revenue is down from 2000, but given how much weaker the economy is now, what is really surprising is that the revenue is not down even further. Spending, on the other hand, has gone out of control. Even after adjusting for population and inflation, spending has nearly doubled. If our government spent at year 2000 levels, we would still have a budget surplus.

In short, the problem is spending, not revenue. But spending cuts are more popular in the abstract than they are in practice, hence neither major party has put out serious proposals for reigning in the red ink.

Is Our Situation That Bad? No, It's Even Worse!

As the national debt clock so vividly displays, the U.S. federal deficit is rapidly approaching $16 trillion. But as stunning as that figure is, it is only a small part of our shared indebtedness. This figure does not include the unfunded liabilities of entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The unfunded liabilities of these two programs dwarf the $16 trillion figure. The 2012 Medicare trustees report estimates a shortfall of $27 trillion, and the 2012 Social Security trustees report places its unfunded liability at $8.6 trillion. And these trustees reports estimates are on the conservative side!

Another debt problem that U.S. governments, at all levels, have woefully underfunded their pension plans.We have seen the trouble this creates in California, Wisconsin, New Jersey, as well as Detroit. As the baby boom start retiring in droves, this problem will trigger more municipal bankruptcies. And the feds will not have the money to bail them out.

The Lighter Side of Default

We have general agreement that our current spending is unsustainable. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to identify the debt crisis as the greatest threat to our nation's future. My next post will look at both party's (wholly inadequate) proposed solutions. But at this point, it is safe to say that, irrespective of who wins in November, this crisis will be dealt with the same way it was in Detroit: at the very last minute, using desperate measures. But cheer up: the impending U.S. default may be very painful in the short run, but it will force some very positive changes in our governance. Follow up posts will explain why the coming storm will be followed by brighter days. Watch this space.

The New Industrial State is Not Too Big to Fail

"There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after."
- Ecclesiastes 1:12

"Your castles may tumble (that's fate after all)
Life's really funny that way
No use to grumble, smile as they fall
Weren't you king for a day?"
- From "Wrap Your Troubles in Dreams" (1931), lyrics by Ted Koehler and Billy Moll

The news coverage of Steve Jobs' retirement from Apple predictably discussed his greatest successes: the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. But many articles about this event also covered his failed projects: the Apple III, the Apple Lisa, and the NeXT workstation. This is commendable, for Jobs' clunkers are an important part of the story. We learn more from failure than we do from success. If Jobs did not learn from his blunders, he might never have come up with the iPhone.

There is a failed project that can teach us a lot about our current financial crisis: the book "The New Industrial State" by famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith, based on a lecture series broadcast by the BBC. The main theme of this book is that the large corporations are no longer subject to market forces. Galbraith contends that the big industry leaders can use a combination of leverage, advertizing, and consolidation to squash any competitor that threatens them. The book focuses on several large corporations that J.K. Galbraith contends will always dominate their industry.

So what's the problem with this book? Well, it was first published in 1967, and as fans of Mad Men can tell you, the markets have changed quite a lot since the 1960's. Back then, General Motors made more than half of the cars sold in the U.S., as well as a significant share of some foreign markets. So naturally "The New Industrial State" assures us that GM is one of the companies that need not worry about competition. When it comes to computers, whether we are talking about hardware or software, the book asserts that the one company that matters will always be IBM. And what about retail? Remember, 1967 is before Walmart or even Kmart made it big, so the book's examples of the forever dominant retailers are Sears (currently on the ropes) and Montgomery Ward (went bankrupt in 2000, although recently revived as an online store). These 1960's corporate giants lost their market dominance to new companies whose innovations won over the customers. The history of the last few decades provides the definitive rebuttal to "The New Industrial State": even the largest corporations must remain competitive to stay alive.

The basic premise of "The New Industrial State" is widely believed today. If only I had a dime for each prediction that the internet will no longer be a venue of free speech because soon one company will take over the internet. Funny thing is, the company that is predicted to take over the internet keeps changing: Netscape, Microsoft, AOL, Google, and Facebook have all been projected to be our future on-line overlord. In 5 years, there will probably be some company not in this list that will be viewed as the future emperor of the internet.

Some very important insights in our current economy can be learned from the failure of "The New Industrial State".

• There is no corporation that is "Too Big to Fail". When a corporation falters, there are plenty of other companies that will pick up the slack. In the 1970's, A&P went from the largest grocery chain in the country to a chain that operated in a handful of east coast states. The closures of all those A&P stores did not cause mass starvation, for these closures were matched by openings of other grocery stores.
• The 2008 bailouts of failed large corporations were therefore unnecessary and counterproductive. At a time when the federal government could ill afford it, taxpayer dollars were wasted to reward poor corporate decisions at the expense of those companies that served their customers better.
• The government should not be in the business of picking market leaders. Keep in mind that John Kenneth Galbraith was an award winning economist who advised presidents FDR and JFK. If Galbraith could not predict which companies would prevail, what chance do we have that our current experts can safely invest our tax dollars in future winning companies? This is the sort of hubris that lead to the Solyndra debacle.

Like the Apple III, "The New Industrial State" is a flawed work, but we can learn a lot from its errors. One wonders if the president's economic team understand where Galbraith went wrong, so that they can avoid repeating his mistakes.

Solving the Budget Crisis Through Theft

"If you steal from one author, it's plagiarism. If you steal from two, it's research."
- John Burke

"PlagiarizeLet no one else's work evade your eyes
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes
So don't shade your eyes
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'"
- From "Lobachevsky" by Tom Lehrer.

The federal budget fight has been unusually acrimonious. On July 14, Obama walked out of the budget talks. On July 22, Boehner walked out of the budget talks. And throughout these talks, the American public has been walking out from both parties, and for good reason: neither party has been serious about tackling the debt crisis. Sure, both sides crow about how they have proposed drastic cuts, but these spending proposals are "cuts" only in a sense that is accepted no where else than Washington. What they mean by cuts is that they propose spending less than projected 2011 spending. Neither the "Cut, Cap, and Trade" proposal nor the president's most recent proposal would reduce 2011 spending to less than the previous year, even after adjusting last year's spending for inflation and population growth. The Republicans have been reluctant to really address the looming entitlement crisis. Congressional Democrats are even worse on this issue, threatening to block any entitlement program changes, while hypocritically complaining that the Republicans are too inflexible about taxes.

We need not worry the August 2 deadline, however. For starters, the default deadline is bogus anyways: the government need not default nor miss sending Social Security checks if the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2. But now that both sides have propped up this phony crisis, they will have to save face by coming up with some compromise before the "deadline". The bigger problem is that the compromise that the president and congress will likely fall far short of what is needed to reassure the rating services such as Standard and Poor's. They want to see creditable deficit reduction if U.S. government bonds are to retain their AAA ratings. If U.S. bonds are downgraded,

1. Bond holders will be hurt; and
2. The costs of U.S. borrowing will balloon.

So we may dodge the August 2 bullet, only to be hit with the S&P bond downgrade.

Dramatic action is required to prevent our bond rating dropping to AA. We need a deficit reduction plan, and fast. One effective approach would be to find a previous successful budget, and steal it. In short, we can solve our money problem by theft - not of money, but ideas.

I propose that the 2011 budget be based on the U.S. budget from 2000, one of the last budgets assembled before the 2 recent spendthrift administrations. This budget covered the basic government functions while spending less than the revenues collected. This budget was put together by a Democratic president working with a Republican congress - if they could do it, why can't we? When you adjust the 2000 budget for inflation and population growth, it comes out to $1,965,999 million. This would allow us to meet the S&P deficit reduction limits without taking the perilous action of raising taxes in a troubled economy. So one simple approach would be to adopt the 2000 budget, adjusted for inflation and population growth. This is the one sequel that we would all welcome.

Critics will immediately point out how the world has changed since 2000. We are now fighting 3 simultaneous wars, we have a slew of new agencies that have cropped up to fight the "War on Terror", a bunch of new Czars, not to mention ambitious new programs such as designing and building a whole new rail system. How could the 2000 budget cover these programs that did not exist 10 years ago? To this argument, I would reply that a large part of the reason we are in this mess is that we adopted expensive new programs without figuring out how to pay for them. We simply cannot afford all of them, so we need to prioritize. Given that we almost certainly cannot do both, should we engage in nation building in 3 middle east countries, or should we rebuild our own nation? Do we really need all these agencies that we were able to get along without for two centuries, and if so, could we pay for them by making cuts elsewhere in the 2000 prototype budget? If we really need the TSA, could we pay for it by eliminating the Import-Export bank or by cutting farm subsidies paid to millionaire farmers?

Real budget reform is possible. In fact, it is inevitable: the only real question is whether we fix the budget ourselves now or let our creditors decide how to fix it in the future. With the 200 budget austerity program, we can avoid default, avoid a credit downgrade, pay down the deficit, revive the economy, and then we can party like it's 1999.

Should Someone Take the Fall for the Central Falls Pension Mess?

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
- George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman" (1903)

"With great power comes great responsibility."
- Stan Lee / Steve Ditko / David Koepp, "Spiderman" (2002)

Many state and local governments are burdened with unfunded pension liabilities. Recently it was revealed that Central Falls, Rhode Island, a small, impoverished city, has a pension obligation of $80 million. This is more than the city could possibly pay, so Central Falls is looking into filing for municipal bankruptcy. The backup plan is to go into receivership.

I wonder if this rash of municipal pension problems is caused in part because there is no one individual who is legally liable when a municipality makes pension agreements that are not fully funded. Private company officials have done the "perp walk" for not funding their pension obligations. But who will go to jail for Central Falls' pension promises that cannot be met? The mayor? City councilors? The city's union contract negotiators? And who, if anybody, should go to jail for the California pension mess?

Please contribute your thoughts: who, if anyone, should be held liable if a municipality does not properly fund its pension obligations? And if we do not hold any one person liable, what is the best way to prevent future pension crises? Feel free to also discuss the mothers of all unfunded liabilities, social security and medicare.

2010: The Year of Voters Behaving Badly

"If the ruler is upright, the people will do things without being ordered; if the ruler is not upright, even though he orders people to do something they will not comply."
- Analects of Confucius

"There's something wild about you child
That's so contagious
Let's be outrageous
--let's misbehave!!!"
- "Let's Misbehave" by Cole Porter.

The June 8th South Carolina Democratic senatorial primary is an important harbinger of the fall elections. Vic Rawl, the candidate supported by most of the Democratic party leaders, was expected to handily win the nomination. In a stunning upset, Rawl lost in a landslide to Alvin Greene, an unemployed veteran who did no fund raising, virtually no conventional campaigning, and whose campaign had neither a twitter account nor even a website. How could this happen?

Greene insists that he won with old fashioned stumping, driving across the state and meeting with the voters. As appealing as this explanation is, Greene does not appear to have the charisma to pull this off in his post-primary interviews. Some S.C. Democrats speculate that Greene is a Republican plant. This seems unlikely for a number of reasons. Pollsters agree that Senator Jim DeMint will almost certainly win re-election. Why would the S.C. Republicans take the risk of cheating when they can win honestly? Also, the only outside support that Greene allegedly received was the payment of his filing fee. If some conspirators came up with that fee, why didn't they back up their investment with some campaign funds? But more importantly, even if Alvin Greene were a plant, why did nearly 60% of S.C. Democratic voters pull the lever for him?

The answer is as simple as it is troubling for the major political parties. South Carolina voters resented the idea of anointing the Democratic leadership pick of Vic Rawl, and they resented it so much that they were willing to pick any other name on the ballot, even if it was someone they never heard of. This is part of a trend this year: voters in this year's primaries and special elections are refusing to follow the unwritten rules of behavior.

• The special election to fill late Senator Ted Kennedy's seat was widely expected to be over with the Democratic party primary. Conventional wisdom said that solidly Democratic Massachusetts would never replace the late senator with a Republican. Conventional wisdom was wrong; Republican Scott Brown won that race.
• In the Utah Republican senate primary, the party leaders lined up behind the incumbent Senator Bob Bennett. The Republican voters of Utah disagreed, deciding that they preferred a newcomer over their sitting senator.
• Much of the Democratic establishment, including the President, welcomed Senator Arlen Spector into their ranks and endorsed his bid to be the Pennsylvania Democratic nominee. A group of liberal Democrats disagreed, and successfully defeated Spector's nomination.
• In Arkansas, local labor groups ignored pleas from the national party and President Obama and campaigned against the re-nomination of Rep. Blanche Lincoln. Lincoln just barely won the nomination, but the aggressive primary fight has made her defeat in the general election an almost certainty.
  

This trend cuts across both party and ideological lines. Voters of all stripes are refusing to obey the unwritten rules. What has made this year's voters so ornery?

Maybe the problem could be traced to our leaders. After all, they also have unwritten rules. How good have they been at following them? Let's take a look at the Republicans. The rules say that the Republicans will avoid foreign entanglements, support free markets, cut excessive regulation and reduce deficits. For six years under the previous administration, Republicans held the presidency and a majority in both houses, and in those years:

• We entered two wars that have no clear end date;
• Congress enacted the most strongly protectionist policies since the Hoover administration, including high steel tariffs and farm subsidies;
• From 2001 to 2007, our supposed de-regulators actually added another 13,652 pages of regulations to the Federal registry; and
  
• By any measure, the federal deficit rose to a historic high.

It is interesting to note that on several of these issues (free trade, deregulation, balancing the budget), the Clinton administration had a better record of following the Republican rules than the Republicans did!

Now let us take a look at the Democrats. The rules say that Democrats will bring the troops home, counter corporate influence over our government, reign in executive power, and protect our civil liberties. Well, let's look at the record:

• In Obama's first year, he increased Afghanistan troop levels substantially;
• More than 40 former lobbyists hold senior positions in the current administration;
• Despite candidate Obama's criticism of G.W. Bush's use of the constitutionally dubious practice of evading executive limits through "signing statements", president Obama is now embracing the practice; and
• the Democrats actually worsened the already abysmal civil liberties record of the Bush administration by extending the use of warrantless wiretaps, opposed informing suspected terrorists of their Miranda rights, and even authorizing the execution of an American citizen!
  

Given the Obama record, it is no surprise that Daniel Ellsberg, the man behind the Pentagon Papers, said in a recent Der Spiegel interview

"I think Obama is continuing the worst of the Bush administration in terms of civil liberties, violations of the constitution and the wars in the Middle East."

The question is not why voters are so contrarian this year. The real mystery is why voters have been so obedient for so long. As Confucius taught us more than two thousand years ago, politicians will see better behavior only after they model better behavior themselves. In the mean time, voters will continue to reason that "If our leader won't follow the rules, why should we?"