Government solvency

Connecting the Dots – Deficit Reduction Is Not About Insolvency

Joseph M. Firestone — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:09:15 -0400

Warren Mosler

(Editor's note: I'm re-posting this here from moslereconomics.com with a follow-on commentary of my own with the permission of Warren Mosler)

From Warren Buffet to Alan Greenspan,

And from all the responses to the S and P downgrade by
economists and financial professionals from the 4 corners of the world,

THE WORD IS OUT!

The US government is the issuer of the US dollar.

So no matter how large the federal deficit might be:

The US government can always make any payments in US dollars that it wants to.
There is no such thing as the US govt. running out of US dollars.
The US government always has the 'ability to pay' any amount of US dollars at any time.

NOW CONNECT THE DOTS TO:

The US is not dependent on tax revenue or foreign borrowing to be able to spend.

And,
whereas Greece is not the issuer of the euro,
much like the US states are not the issuer of the US dollar,

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE US BECOMING THE NEXT GREECE

There is no such thing as the US getting cut off from spending
by the financial markets and forced to go begging to the IMF
to get US dollars to spend.

Nor is the US government subject to market forces driving up interest rates on US Treasury bills.

EVEN AFTER BEING DOWNGRADED US TREASURY BILL RATES REMAIN NEAR 0%

Why, because, any nation that issues its own currency also sets it's own interest rates.
So in the US, the Federal Reserve Bank votes on the interest rate

SO, THEN,

WHAT IS THE POINT OF DEFICIT REDUCTION?

Suddenly, it's NOT solvency.
The US is suddenly NOT going broke.
Social Security is suddenly NOT broken.
There is suddenly NO risk the US will not be able to make all payments as promised.

So now,

the deficit hawks must CHANGE THEIR REASONS FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION
or shut up!

they must FLIP FLOP
or shut up!

Yes, there is a new reason they can flip flop to.

Inflation.

They can start claiming the current path of deficit spending will lead to inflation.

Fine.

Bring it on!

First, they need to do the research,
as they haven't even thought about this yet.

Then they have to convince Congress to cut social security and medicare
Not because we might become the next Greece
Not because the US government checks might bounce someday
Not because the deficit will burden our grand children

But ONLY because some day,
if we don't do something when the time comes
and even though we don't have an inflation problem now,
and haven't had one in a very long time,
SOME DAY far in the future,
inflation might go from x% to y%.

Fine.

Do you think Congress would take draconian steps now,
during this horrendous recession,
to make things worse
by cutting Social Security?
and by cutting funding or public infrastructure?
and by raising taxes?

How about we get the word out and find out, thanks!

Commentary

Joe Firestone

I'll try my best to spread the news that THE WORD IS OUT! And also spread the further news that the Government can't run out of money, no matter how much it owes and that there is no solvency problem.

So there is also no deficit reduction problem, no national debt problem, or any Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid problems, or grandchildren burden problems based on fears of, or claims about, insolvency unless we pay our debts back!

I have to say however, that even though THE WORD IS OUT that solvency is not a problem, and that the austerity/human sacrifice crowd must now either fall silent or flip flop to inflation as their new rationalization for driving working people into poverty; I don't think for a minute that they will do either one.

Instead, I think they will assume that the news will never get out to most people and that they are free to go on with their same old narrative about possible insolvency making austerity necessary, without people either laughing at them or calling them liars. The MSM is unlikely to notice that the Government can create currency whenever it wants to, and they will just forget about the admissions made this week after the S & P downgrading, and reinforce the old money scarcity story, without missing a step, to please the Peter Petersons, Kent Conrads, Alice Rivlins and David Walkers of this world. The president already did this in a speech he made today.

So, I think that besides doing our best to spread THE WORD, we also need to pressure the President to prove that the United States Government has no solvency problems, and can never run out of money. In other words, we need to call for the President to use very high value Proof Platinum Coin Seigniorage (PPCS) to begin to pay back the national debt and also to create a balance in the Treasury General Account (TGA) that is so large that no insolvency claims are even thinkable.

The basic idea is to mint a $60 Trillion platinum coin, turn it into electronic credits at the Fed, use the money, first to pay down $6.2 Trillion in debt immediately and the rest as it falls due, and confront Congress with a balance of of about $52 Trillion in the Treasury General Account (TGA). Then, facing that $52 Trillion in available financial resources, and with the President using the bully pulpit, let's see the austerity/human sacrifice crowd, even with all the money in the world behind them, try to justify voting for spending cuts in entitlements and other much needed areas of domestic spending.

(Cross-posted from Correntewire.

How do vanden Heuvel and Meyerson Expect Him to Get By the Austerians

Joseph M. Firestone — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:05:52 -0400

Yesterday, must have been jobs day at The Washington Post since they ran two columns calling for job creation: one by Katrina vanden Heuvel and the other by Harold Meyerson. The crux of vanden Heuvel's column is:

Consistent, tenacious persuasion is an extraordinarily powerful tool. The Republican Party understands this. Over the past several months, it has relentlessly repeated its false mantra that spending cuts create jobs. And the public, in response, increasingly believes this to be true. What then, is to stop the president, powered by a movement of dedicated and mobilized Americans, from making his own case for the economy? What is to stop him from convincing the American people that the things the economy requires are the things we ought to be fighting for? What is required other than will? Great leaders, when confronted by crisis, act.

The answer to this question is that President Obama's been telling people since 2009 that we are running out of money and can't afford programs that aren't deficit neutral, and recently he's made clear that he's for $4 Trillion in spending cuts/tax increases including cuts to entitlements over the next decade. So how can he now argue that we can afford the many things we need to do to create jobs and improve the economy?

Katrina vanden Heuvel doesn't address this question. She advises him about what he ought do to improve the economy; but not on how he can show Congress, a media steeped in neoliberalism, and the people that not only do we need his job creation measures but also that we can afford them. Without that kind of explanation, what good is the exhortation that he should vigorously advocate for job creation policies? The first pushback he'll get to any proposal is “that's irresponsible; we can't afford it”!

I found Harold Meyerson's column a good bit more interesting than Katrina vanden Heuvel's, but no more enlightening about how to get around the “we can't afford it” objection. He says:

Which leaves us with this stark reality: If the federal government doesn’t intervene massively to help the economy, the economy will oscillate between neutral and reverse for many years.

What should that intervention look like? First, don’t just extend the 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee payroll tax, which is normally set at 6.2 percent. Eliminate the tax altogether, for employers and employees, at least temporarily. It would increase by $2,100 the take-home pay, and buying power, of workers making $50,000 annually. It would make it easier for small businesses to resume hiring. . . .

The payroll tax can’t be suspended indefinitely without compromising Social Security, which it funds. Its suspension should end when unemployment falls to a specified level — say, 7 percent.

Interestingly, this is an important provision in Warren Mosler's multi-part Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) --based proposal for creating full employment. Warren's been advocating it for 3 years now. Glad to see Harold Meyerson take it up. Meyerson goes on:

We’ll need other, less fleeting forms of stimulus, too. You should call for renewing aid to state and local governments. . . .

Warren and other MMT economists also advocate state revenue sharing. In Warren's proposal the states would be given $500 per person which they might use to prevent Government lay-offs. Some propose as much as $1,000 per person in revenue sharing.

Meyerson's next and last proposal is:

Infrastructure bank or no, you need a long-term program to make our nation navigable again. . . .

Those kinds of projects may take years to realize. Your first stimulus failed to establish a fast track for creating less-capital-intensive jobs in maintenance, rehabilitating buildings, and child- and elder care. It deferred job creation to state and local governments, which have taken forever to set up even such relatively low-tech endeavors as home-weatherization projects. This time around, you should acknowledge the bottlenecks in your first stimulus and call for a federal job corps to do this kind of work.

This is also reminiscent of an MMT proposal, specifically the MMT Federal Job Guarantee, which would end unemployment in a few months by providing a job at a living wage with fringe benefits to any American who wanted to work.

In sum, even though he doesn't admit it in his column, Meyerson's program is very similar to the program for recovery proposed by MMT economists such as Warren Mosler, L. Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton, and others. Is this a case of MMT reaching the mainstream? That may be the case; but if so it's without attribution.

Both vanden Heuvel's and Meyerson's column, while exhorting him to do things that are undeniably needed by Americans, fail to tell him how, given the Republican House, he can politically beat the drive toward austerity to get them done. Without that, it's hard to see how either of these posts can help anyone. Fortunately, I've already done that here and here.

The ONLY practical way to do it given the current political and institutional constraints in Washington is to use very high value Proof Platinum Coin Seigniorage (PPCS) to demonstrate to people that 1) the national debt is being extinguished and will be nearly completely eliminated in 3 years; 2) Congressional Appropriations for deficit spending can be made without issuing debt for the foreseeable future; 3) the Federal Government can never become insolvent (“run out of money”), unless Congress makes that happen; and 4) there's plenty of money available for not only jobs programs like Meyerson's, but also for Medicare for All, rebuilding infrastructure, creating a world class educational system, and all the other critical things the US must do to make things work here again.

The basic idea is to mint a $60 Trillion platinum coin, turn it into electronic credits at the Fed, use the money, first to pay down $6.2 Trillion in debt immediately and the rest as it falls due, and confront Congress with a balance of of about $52 Trillion in the Treasury General Account (TGA). Then, facing that $52 Trillion in available financial resources, and with the President using the bully pulpit, let's see the austerity/human sacrifice crowd, even with all the money in the world behind them, try to justify voting against a job program like Meyerson's or Warren Mosler's. Please see the posts I've linked to above for more details of my proposal.

(Cross-posted from Correntewire.

Still Superman?

Joseph M. Firestone — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 23:31:43 -0400

There have been many reactions to S & Ps action in downgrading the credit rating of the US, Apart from the widespread annoyance and repudiation of S & P and its procedures, there are some who are saying that it won't have much effect on interest rates. Others even saying that it is a “non-event,” and still others saying that S & P should be investigated and prosecuted on a number of grounds. However, I found two views of the “non-event” particularly interesting.

The first was Warren Buffet's quoted by Fox Business news:

Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett told the FOX Business Network that S&P's downgrade of the United States' triple-A credit rating "doesn't make sense."

"I don't get it," Buffett told FBN late Friday night. In fact, Buffett reaffirmed his belief in the quality of the United States' credit telling FBN, "In Omaha, the U.S. is still triple A. In fact, if there were a quadruple-A rating, I'd give the U.S. that.”

Buffett also said:

"Think about it. The U.S., to my knowledge owes no money in currency other than the U.S. dollar, which it can print at will. Now if you're talking about inflation, that's a different question."

And so, now we know that Warren Buffett gets a fundamental premise of MMT!

He knows that the US cannot become insolvent because it can make USD at will and it owes nothing that is not denominated in USD!

We can only hope that he'll clue in his friend Barack Obama that the US is NOT running out of money. Perhaps Mr. Buffett even knows about Proof Platinum Coin Seigniorage (PPCS) and he can tell his friend Barack that using it would be a good way to give S & P a sharp stick in the eye.

The other reaction was one to my post on S & P tugging Superman's cape. The commenter asserted that, considering the US Government's domination by an increasingly powerful oligarchy, “the US Government is not Superman.” This squares with views being expressed by Yves Smith and others that this downgrade is about a power struggle. People who write about this struggle characterize it differently.

I think it is a power struggle between sovereign nation states and globalizing international elites whose loyalties are to the emerging new international feudalism in which corporations and enormously wealthy individuals wield the only real power. Some write as if they think that nation states are already and irrevocably subordinate to international elites. But I think that is not yet true.

The forces of nationalism are not yet spent, and will still be used against the international elites when the reality of their growing power and its negative impacts on working people are both fully recognized. People still need nation states for physical protection. People without a favored position in the emerging plutocracy still owe their primary loyalties to their nations, and I don't think they will long accept the subordination of their national Governments and institutions to foreign powers, whether those are other nations or international financial interests. At the moment, the influence of globalizing elite institutions is very great and very real; but they still exist and function on the sufferance of nation states and their internal politics, however parasitical they may be.

Even with all its faults and the mess being made by the special interests and the parties, the US is still Superman if we can free ourselves from the constraints imposed by various Congresses in the past, and from the financial lilliputians.

1. As I say in this piece, and Marshall Auerback says in this one, the US (the Fed and the Treasury) can control interest rates contrary to the desires of the bond markets and the vigilantes. There is no realistic prospect that benchmark interest rates will go up unless the Government wants them to.

2. The US can also de-certify the ratings agencies and prosecute rating agency executives for fraud and other violations. I think they'd be well-advised to do so, if only to show S & P who's boss. And

3. The President, finally, can use very high value PPCS and kill the “austerity” trope of the international elites for good.

So, forgive me my optimism, I still think that's Superman!

(Cross-posted from Correntewire.

Standard & Poor's Tugs on Superman's Cape

Joseph M. Firestone — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 02:24:09 -0400

Last December, my friend, beowulf, had this to say at the time Moody's began to make noises about downgrading US debt. He said:

”I don’t think we’ll see Moody’s or any other rating service based in the US ever downgrade US Treasuries. It would cause a tremendous amount of financial loss and would leave Moody’s and its executives exposed to criminal prosecution. If I were Moody’s general counsel, I’d tell the CEO in no uncertain terms, Do Not Tug On Superman’s Cape.

14th Amendment, Sect. 5

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

Criminal Mischief statute

18 US 1361. Government property or contracts

"Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:

If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both."

But, Standard & Poor's has decided to tug on Superman's cape by downgrading US debt to Double A status for the first time in history. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see S & P executives frog-marched out of their offices and imprisoned for a year for violating the criminal mischief this statute. After their role in the Crash of 2008, that's the least they should get from an outraged populace. However, I have to say that their action will be of little or no consequence if the Treasury responds correctly to their foolishness.

Contrary to popular belief, and also the apparent belief of this Administration, ratings agencies and the bond market itself don't actually control the interest rates that Governments like the United States must pay. Sure, they will determine interest rates if the Government sits idly by and lets them drive the market.

However, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, can target bond interest rates and set these for the bond markets by manipulating bank reserves. Specifically, one way to do this (As Warren Mosler suggests), is that the Treasury can cease issuing long-term bonds, and sell only three-month bonds. Three-month bond interest rates are generally controlled by overnight rates for bank reserves, and overnight rates can be driven down to near zero by flooding the banks with excess reserves. That's basically how the Japanese keep their bond interest rates near zero, and that's how we can do the same.

Alternatively, another move we can make to remove the effects of the bond markets and the ratings agencies upon public finances, is for the Treasury to stop issuing debt in advance of deficit spending. If we did this, the credit rating agencies and the interest rates in the bond market would be irrelevant from that day forward. And we can do it using Proof Platinum Coin Seigniorage (PPCS) to generate revenues to pay back debt, and deficit spend current or future appropriations.

In short, the bond markets and the ratings agencies aren't in control of US public finances. They are not in a position to influence what our taxing or spending policies ought to be, or whether we will default on our obligations. So, their tug on Superman's cape is of no consequence for us, directly.

On the other hand, the ratings agencies are currently hurting US states, and Eurozone nations with their deeply corrupted ratings processes and judgments. We should take very seriously Bill Mitchell's Conclusion in his post on outlawing the credit rating agencies:

"The real question that I always ask is why governments allow these undemocratic criminal organisations to exist. They can just outlaw them. This would force the corporate players to create better ways of informing the markets about their risk characteristics and leave governments alone to do what they are democratically elected to do – advance public purpose.

(Cross-posted from Correntewire.

Brinksmanship On the Debt Ceiling

Joseph M. Firestone — Wed, 11 May 2011 21:14:11 -0400

As the United States Government approaches “running of money” to pay its bills, news articles and pronouncements by politicians about the debt ceiling dispute focus on several things. First, they talk about the dire consequences of defaulting on our obligations. Second, they talk about the need for spending cuts that will put us on a long-term path to balancing the budget, getting a Government surplus, and improving the debt-to-GDP ratio. Third, they talk about the debt ceiling preventing the Government from issuing further debt instruments to “fund” paying for its obligations. Fourth, they talk about the Republicans holding the economy hostage to force the Democrats into accepting spending cuts in very popular domestic programs, while excluding the possibility of closing the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Fifth, they talk about the brinksmanship and game-playing by both major parties, and the expectation that the debt ceiling will be raised in the end because failing to raise it will subject Wall Street and the banks to very real consequences. And sixth, they talk about the many little ad hoc things Timothy Geithner can do to put off the date when the Government “runs out of money” (now projected as August 2nd).

Geithner's expedients for putting off the day of reckoning include: draining a special $200 Billion cash management account held at the Federal reserve; borrowing money from a pension fund for Federal workers; postponing scheduled auctions selling Federal debt instruments; raising revenue by selling Federal property; raising revenue by selling the almost $600 Billion in gold held by the Federal Government, any other tricks he can think of to squeeze a few more pennies of revenue out for the Treasury General Account (TGA) at the Fed.

Amidst all this talk and writing, there's a notable absence of talk about two things that can easily be done to remove the need to raise the debt ceiling: one by Congress and one by the Obama Administration. Let's talk about Congress first.

What Congress can do to end the debt ceiling crisis, other than raising the debt ceiling, is to allow the Executive to deficit spend Congressional appropriations without issuing any additional debt. Congress can do this at any time, and the Treasury will never have to issue debt instruments again in order to deficit spend.

I know, I know, some of you reading this will think, “Is he crazy? If Congress does that there'll be runaway inflation.” Of course, I think this is just a false theory, not a fact. There won't be any more inflation resulting from deficit spending without issuing debt than there will be from deficit spending with dollar-for-dollar debt issuance as currently mandated, because deficit spending without debt, produces no more net financial assets for the private sector than deficit spending accomapnied by new debt.

But my point here is not to argue the inflation/hyperinflation issue. It is to simply point out that this way out of the debt ceiling isn't being discussed by any politicians or MSM writers or broadcasters. Their field of vision is restricted to the brinksmanship over the debt ceiling, and they're not debating the pros and cons of what Congress can do to both keep the debt ceiling where it is, while at the same time it allows the Executive to deficit spend that part of its Congressional appropriation that exceeds its revenue. Everyone seems to love the brinksmanship, and the drama, and the risk, and won't even take the trouble to compare the consequences of repealing the requirement to issue debt prior to deficit spending, with the consequences of default, increases in the debt, or cutting of popular programs.

So, why won't the MSM explain that the very existence of the national debt is most directly caused by Congress's own appropriations, coupled with their mandate that debt must be issued when the Government deficit spends? Why won't they write about the alternative of Congress just repealing that mandate and point out that it may be a way out of the brinksmanship, while, of course, being “objective” and pointing out the downside of Congress doing that, compared to the downside of Congress raising the debt limit, or raising taxes, or cutting popular programs in order to seek smaller deficits and even budget surpluses?

In general, why is it that the MSM, in case after case, filters out some solutions to problems and arrives at a small number of alternatives that from a broader perspective seem inadequate to solve the problems they're directed at. Take the stimulus program. There were many ways to pursue it. Why did the MSM focus in on President Obama's “trickle down” program and negotiations surrounding it, without ever writing about more direct stimulus measures like State revenue sharing, payroll tax holidays for employers and employees, and direct Federal job creation in the context of a Federal Job Guarantee Program?

In the area of credit card reform, why did the MSM say hardly a word about limiting Federal Card Interest rates to roughly 5 points over the credit card companies' cost of borrowing? Why didn't they say anything about the importance of immediate implementation of the reform, so the companies would not be able to raise rates and impose new fees before reforms went into effect? In the area of health care reform, why did they stop talking about Medicare for All so early in the reform process, when surveys showed that a majority of people wanted just that? More recently, in the face of many polls that show that a majority of people are against deep cuts in entitlements, or specific discretionary spending programs like Head Start, or in social safety net programs, while they also favor much heavier taxation of people with higher incomes and corporations, why isn't the MSM running stories about how much revenue would be forthcoming from these sources, if only the politicians would stop taking fair share taxation off the table?

The MSM is failing the American people. It's interpreting its job as being one of tracking the thinking of elites on policy issues and as only discussing the ins and outs of alternatives the politicians view as “serious.” MSM reporters claim that this is objective reporting because alternatives “taken off the table” are not news. But this kind of thinking means that the politicians and their paymasters determine what is news and what is not, rather than the problems we all face and alternative solutions that might best solve those problems. So, the MSM is not doing its duty in “telling the people” what's really going on.

And when it comes to the debt ceiling, it won't tell the people that the very existence of the debt isn't caused by deficit spending alone, but by deficit spending coupled with Congressional rules forcing the Government to issue debt when it deficit spends. The continuing very existence of the national debt is Congress's fault, since with no more debt issuance, the national debt would be largely extinguished within 5 years, and mostly extinguished within 10. Why don't we hear about that in The Washington Post amidst all the writing we've seen warning America about the unsustainable deficits and debt-to-GDP ratio?

Getting to what the Executive branch can do to end the debt ceiling crisis, here too, we have politicians and the MSM unable, or unwilling, to talk or write about anything the Treasury can do about the debt ceiling that goes beyond temporary expedients. The MSM is willing to talk about all kinds of Rube Goldberg schemes that Geithner might use to put off the day of reckoning implied by the debt ceiling, but they won't report on, discuss, and evaluate, the one thing that Treasury already has authority from Congress to do, that would render the debt ceiling irrelevant, and enable Treasury to deficit spend all of the appropriations that Congress has already approved for this fiscal year.

That one thing is to use coin seigniorage to generate revenue without either increased taxation or increasing debt by borrowing. In fact, coin seigniorage, can be used to extinguish the national debt, without either reclaiming currency from the private sector by taxing, or, technically, even running a Federal deficit (provided “deficit” is defined as spending – Federal revenue raised from all sources, including, but not limited to, tax revenues.) Here's how a coin seigniorage initiative by the Executive might work to end the brinksmanship on the debt ceiling, and any risk of Government default proceeding from it. The President would:

-- Direct the mint to create a jumbo platinum coin with face value $500 Billion.

-- Direct the mint to deposit the coin in its account at the New York Federal Reserve.

-- Direct the Treasury to “sweep” the mint's account to collect profits from coinage (this would result in marking up Treasury's General Account at the New York Fed by $500 Billion).

-- Inform Congress and the public that the previous actions were taken to head off any possibility of default or Government shutdown due to the House's possible refusal to raise the debt limit in the course of implementing its strategy of extracting severe budget cuts from the Administration. The President should also mention that increasing the size of Treasury's account balance at the Federal Reserve will not be inflationary because Government spending will remain exactly the same as it would have been if the coin had not been minted.

-- Wait for reactions to this move. The ensuing uproar from many quarters including the business community, many economists, and the Federal Reserve, will focus on fears of inflation, and it's likely that top economists, and some Federal Reserve officials such as Ben Bernanke will claim that spending without issuing debt to absorb the new money placed into the private economy is inflationary, because the quantity of money in the economy will increase. It's likely that this view will create quite a stir in the media, and even that the value of the dollar will go down in international markets briefly, because the expectations of people will be affected by this argument, and a limited period of “self-fulfilling prophecy” will occur.

-- Respond to this reaction by pointing out that it was forced on the Administration, which could not stand idly by while the full faith and credit of the United States was threatened by irresponsible Congressional partisans whose purpose was to take the economy hostage to force an agreement on spending cuts that are against the wishes of a substantial majority of the American people, as indicated by every public opinion poll appearing in recent weeks. The President should also point out, that even though he doesn't believe that the minting of jumbo coins to pay for spending is inflationary, for reasons he previously stated, he is willing to work with Congresspeople who think there's a possibility of inflation enduring beyond the initial psychological reaction to minting jumbo coins, and then he can suggest two proposals that Congress may want to consider to remove the need for the Executive Branch to issue jumbo coins to meet debt ceiling crises.

1) Congress could eliminate the debt ceiling so that the US has no more crises of this sort again. Congress can still cut/control spending through the appropriations process, even in the absence of a debt ceiling, and this is the appropriate way for Congress to do it so that individual Congresspeople must go on record for any cuts in Federal programs they want to make.

2) Congress could eliminate the requirement that Federal deficit spending must be matched by issuance of new debt dollar-for-dollar. The President could emphasize here that if this was done, not only would there be no more debt ceiling crises, but the Federal Government could pay off most of the national debt, except for very long-term instruments, within ten years, because the only thing that is maintaining that debt is Congress's requirement that new debt be issued in response to deficit spending.

He can also point out here that he doesn't think that the rollover of Federal Government debt is any problem for the long run because of the way the US's fiat currency system works. But for those who do think it is either a short or long-term problem, this option will eliminate any possible generational debt problem because it will eliminate the national debt which we will not then have to hand on to our grandchildren. He can then add that he knows that many will react to this proposal by saying that it will be inflationary to try to eliminate the national debt this way. But he thinks that since the amount of Government spending won't change if we implement this proposal; and the amount of Net Financial Assets Government is injecting into the economy also won't change, he doesn't think so. But if it should turn out that inflation results from this effort to pay off the national debt; then the Treasury will simply begin to issue debt again, and also adopt other measures to control inflation.

-- The President, after making these proposals, should add that the $500 Billion in revenue from coin seigniorage will probably take the Government through August or September without its having to issue new debt, and that if Congress can't come to agreement on what to do about the debt ceiling before then, he will issue a new jumbo coin, this time one having $1.5 Trillion in face value, and that he will use the new coin for program spending and also to pay off $1 Trillion of the national debt. He can also say that he hopes he doesn't have to do that, but like institutions in the private sector, the Government can't operate well in an atmosphere of psychological uncertainty. Government workers have to know that their work and family lives will not be placed under stress by partisan conflict in Washington. In addition, private sector businesses and workers are greatly impacted by any freeze in Government spending caused by attempts at hostage-taking by Congress.

I think that Mr. Obama is a winner in the scenario I've outlined. He will be much more popular than he is now by virtue of rendering the debt ceiling threat impotent, and because he will be perceived as acting strongly and cleverly to get around the Republican House to avoid a shut-down of the Government and the possibility of default. He will even be perceived as more “adult” than the other participants in the “debt ceiling crisis” because he will be implementing a technical solution to the problem that prevents the “hostage-taking” temper-tantrum foot-stamping element in the Congress from inflicting real damage on the American people.

The Republicans will come back for another bite at the shut-down apple when they take up the Omnibus spending bill. But here they will find that they won't be able to use the ballooning deficit/national debt rationalization to justify their attempts to hold the Government hostage to get cuts in discretionary spending and the social safety net. President Obama will have, by then, demonstrated that by using coin seigniorage he can take the deficit and debt issues completely off the table, and that Congress can't simply force Government to shut down by hostage-taking as long as coin seigniorage is there.

This lesson won't be as clear in the case of the $500 Billion coin, even though some of that money will be used to pay off debt. But, once people see that the national debt doesn't need to rise if seigniorage is used; it will be easy to explain that if it is used more, the national debt can actually be paid down or paid off. Of course, if the President ends up having to use the $1.5 Trillion coin, then there will be a very graphic demonstration that having a national debt is a matter of a policy choice which Congress is now making, not a matter of necessity.

After that, objections to Government spending based on the idea that it will increase the deficit and the debt will be “off the table.” And then we can move on to handle the many real problems of the American people without worrying about the purely political and psychological, but non-financial and no-economic, problems of the debt, and the deficit.

In considering either the Congressional or Executive options for defusing the debt ceiling issue, our politicians and the MSM writers who track our political games ought to keep in mind and in their many broadcasts and writings on this subject the juxtaposition of two aspects of US law, and thanks to beowulf for pointing out the juxtaposition. First, there is Sect. 4 of the 14th Amendment. It reads in part:

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

I think that office holders and others who through their brinksmanship create conditions that may cause the US to default certainly are questioning the validity of that debt.

And second, there is this Criminal Mischief statute

18 US 1361. Government property or contracts

"Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:

If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both."

Members of Congress and the Executive Branch have all taken oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution and Laws of the United States, so they are all obligated to end the debt ceiling crisis and the brinksmanship surrounding it. Congress should end the crisis now by ending debt issuance and the welfare stream it provides to the rich and foreign nations.

And, if Congress fails to do so, the President should quickly implement coin seigniorage to end the debt ceiling crisis, and also make it clear that there will be no more opportunities for hostage-taking and blackmail arising from other debt ceiling crises in the future. If members of Congress want to cut Federal programs, they would no longer be able to hide behind the deficit or debt ceiling excuses while doing it. Instead, they'll have to stand up like honest men and women and say that they're against unemployment insurance, or Medicare, or Jobs programs, or Social Security and admit that while they'll support subsidies and tax cuts for big business, and debt issuance welfare for the rich and foreign nations all day long, they're just against assistance programs for the poor and middle class because working people, unlike their privileged friends and campaign, must stand on their own two feet, subject to the vagaries of their manipulated markets, or the moral character of the nation will be a thing of the past.

(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving and Fiscal Sustainability).

Standard and Poor's: Bring It On!

Joseph M. Firestone — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:54:34 -0400

(Author's Note: In December I posted a piece on Moody's threat to downgrade the US's Rating in International Bond markets. I argued that Moody's action was foolish. Today, Standard and Poor's actually revised the US ratings outlook from stable to negative, but continued its sovereign credit rating at ‘AAA/A-1+’. This roiled the markets yesterday and led the New York Times to carry a debate among 7 economists including Randy Wray, one of the best known among economists using the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) paradigm in economics. Randy and a number of others in the Times debate, believe that the ratings change has little or no significance.

My post filed in December, presents a more detailed analysis of why Randy and the other skeptics are right, so I thought it deserved a reprise. Please use your imagination and just replace "Moody's" with "Standard and Poor's." The arguments against the ratings agency morons remain the same. In my view Congress should just put 'em out of business, and while they're at it, bring some indictments against them for the fraudulent AAA ratings they gave to the derivatives that, in turn, triggered the Crash that ruined the lives of so many people. Let's finally see some of these perps in jump suits.)

Yesterday, as reported in Money News, Moody's made me laugh, with the following pronouncements:

” . . . it could move a step closer to cutting the U.S. Aaa rating if President Barack Obama's tax and unemployment benefit package becomes law. . . .

“The plan agreed to by Obama and Republican leaders last week could push up debt levels, increasing the likelihood of a negative outlook on the United States rating in the coming two years . . .

“A negative outlook, if adopted, would make a rating cut more likely over the following 12-to-18 months.

“For the United States, a loss of the top Aaa rating, reduce the appeal of U.S. Treasurys, which currently rank as among the world's safest investments.

"From a credit perspective, the negative effects on government finance are likely to outweigh the positive effects of higher economic growth," Moody's analyst Steven Hess said in a report sent late on Sunday.”

Here Moody's is referring to the increase in the debt, and the debt-to-GDP ratio caused by the tax deal, and also to the predicted lesser value of Treasuries which will presumably lead to the US paying higher interest rates and having greater interest costs on the national debt than it otherwise would have had. In addition, Moody's believes that the likely $900 billion cost of the tax deal will make the US more likely to default on the national debt.

I found this a laughing matter for a number of reasons. First, as Jane Hamsher points, out only 5 days earlier Moody's had said there was no prospect of a ratings cut if the tax deal passed. Their sudden change of opinion greatly undercuts their credibility.

Second, as is widely known, all the ratings agencies including Moody's gave the CDOs and CDSs that led to the collapse of AIG their highest ratings. In addition they downgraded Japan's credit ratings a long time ago, with no measurable impact on its bond interest rates or costs, even though Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio has continued to increase over time and is now in the neighborhood of 200%. So, one may be forgiven for wondering why anyone should listen to the ratings ravings of Moody's and the other agencies at all. In fact, one may begin to suspect that their ratings have little influence on the bond markets, and also, given the Japanese case, that the bond markets don't control the interest rates that Governments sovereign in their own currency must pay.

default could be caused by a Congress which acts stupidly, and in a manner contrary to the Constitution, to constrain the Treasury from paying its obligations when they come due, coupled with a Treasury that accepts Congress's constraint in conflict with the clear admonition of the Constitution that the debts of the United State shall not be questioned.

The objective risk of default by the US Government is not increased by the increased size of the deficit, debt, or debt-to-GDP ratio. And Moody's view that the risk of default is increased by such increases, only shows that Moody's doesn't understand the monetary operations of nations sovereign in their own currencies. Increases in these numbers don't in any way lessen the constitutional authority of the Government (including the Congress) to spend or make money. It's basic solvency, in other words is untouched by the tax deal, and if Congress allows the Executive to use its currency powers, then the risk of default as a result of the deal is exactly zero. Whatever additional risk exists as a result of the deal, comes only from the increased likelihood that Congress, mistakenly thinking that the Government is like a household, or, or ideological reasons, determined to "starve the beast" might constrain the Executive from meeting its obligations, and declare a US default of its obligations when there is no reason to do so.

Fourth, my biggest laugh came at the underlying assumption of Moody's report, namely that its ratings and the bond market itself actually control the interest rates that Governments like the United States must pay. Sure, they will determine interest rates if the Government sits idly by and lets them drive the market. However, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, can target bond interest rates and set these for the bond markets by manipulating bank reserves. Specifically, one way to do this, is that the Treasury can cease issuing long-term bonds, and sell only three-month bonds. Three-month bond interest rates are generally controlled by overnight rates for bank reserves, and overnight rates can be driven down to near zero by flooding the banks with excess reserves. That's basically how the Japanese keep their bond interest near zero, and that's how we can do the same.

Alternatively, another move we can make to remove the effects of the bond markets and the ratings agencies upon public finances, is for Congress to stop requiring new debt issuance in coordination with deficit spending, and for the Treasury to stop issuing debt. If we did this the credit rating agencies and the interest rates in the bond market would be irrelevant from that day forward.

In short, the bond markets and the ratings agencies aren't in control of US public finances. They are not in a position to influence what our taxing or spending policies ought to be, or whether we will default on our obligations. In fact, at this point in our history, Congress is mandating that we have a national debt. It is forcing us to have one.

Congress mandates that we borrow our own previously created money from the Chinese, Japanese, and Middle Eastern nations and pay them interest on a commodity (our money), that we have an unlimited ability to create, while they also complain about the very same national debt they are always re-creating and increasing, and then tell us that we can't afford unemployment insurance, enough Federal Spending to create full employment, Social Security, Medicare for All, good educations for our kids and grandkids, and emergency programs to create new energy foundations for our economy.

Forget about Moody's! They're part of the great distraction preventing us from focusing on our real problems. There's nothing that Moody's and the bond markets can do to hurt us, unless we let them. Let's not let them. Tell them to bring it on! And, if they do, tell them to keep in mind Beowulf's admonition:

”I don’t think we’ll see Moody’s or any other rating service based in the US ever downgrade US Treasuries. It would cause a tremendous amount of financial loss and would leave Moody’s and its executives exposed to criminal prosecution. If I were Moody’s general counsel, I’d tell the CEO in no uncertain terms, Do Not Tug On Superman’s Cape.

14th Amendment, Sect. 5

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

Criminal Mischief statute

18 US 1361. Government property or contracts

"Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:

If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both."

And Bill Mitchell's Conclusion in his post on outlawing the credit rating agencies:

"The real question that I always ask is why governments allow these undemocratic criminal organisations to exist. They can just outlaw them. This would force the corporate players to create better ways of informing the markets about their risk characteristics and leave governments alone to do what they are democratically elected to do – advance public purpose.

Further. as part of my preferred financial market reforms I would render illegal a whole swag of derivative assets which would lessen the problem of pricing risk.

It is time to wean the private financial markets off these agencies. The best way would be to declare them illegal.

The last thing that a sovereign government should be doing right now is cutting back on its fiscal stimulus."

Which, of course, is exactly what Moody's wants us to do.

(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving and Fiscal Sustainability).

Moody's: Bring It On!

Joseph M. Firestone — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:21:17 -0500

Yesterday, as reported in Money News, Moody's made me laugh, with the following pronouncements:

” . . . it could move a step closer to cutting the U.S. Aaa rating if President Barack Obama's tax and unemployment benefit package becomes law. . . .

“The plan agreed to by Obama and Republican leaders last week could push up debt levels, increasing the likelihood of a negative outlook on the United States rating in the coming two years . . .

“A negative outlook, if adopted, would make a rating cut more likely over the following 12-to-18 months.

“For the United States, a loss of the top Aaa rating, reduce the appeal of U.S. Treasurys, which currently rank as among the world's safest investments.

"From a credit perspective, the negative effects on government finance are likely to outweigh the positive effects of higher economic growth," Moody's analyst Steven Hess said in a report sent late on Sunday.”

I found this a laughing matter for a number of reasons. First, as Jane Hamsher points out, only 5 days earlier Moody's had said there was no prospect of a ratings cut if the tax deal passed. Their sudden change of opinion greatly undercuts their credibility.

Third, since the United States is a nation with a fiat non-convertible currency system, with a floating exchange rate, and no debt denominated in any foreign currency, it is impossible for the United States to be forced into a default by any external party, simply because its ability to create the money it owes its obligations in is unlimited. Voluntary default could be caused by a Congress which acts stupidly, and in a manner contrary to the Constitution, to constrain the Treasury from paying its obligations when they come due, coupled with a Treasury that accepts Congress's constraint in conflict with the clear admonition of the Constitution that the debts of the United State shall not be questioned.

In short, the bond markets and the ratings agencies aren't in control of US public finances. They are not in a position to influence what our taxing or spending policies ought to be, or whether we will default on our obligations. In fact, at this point in our history, Congress is mandating that we have a national debt. It is forcing us to have one.

”I don’t think we’ll see Moody’s or any other rating service based in the US ever downgrade US Treasuries. It would cause a tremendous amount of financial loss and would leave Moody’s and its executives exposed to criminal prosecution. If I were Moody’s general counsel, I’d tell the CEO in no uncertain terms, Do Not Tug On Superman’s Cape.

14th Amendment, Sect. 5

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

Criminal Mischief statute

18 US 1361. Government property or contracts

"Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:

If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both."

And Bill Michell's Conclusion in his post on outlawing the credit rating agencies:

"The real question that I always ask is why governments allow these undemocratic criminal organisations to exist. They can just outlaw them. This would force the corporate players to create better ways of informing the markets about their risk characteristics and leave governments alone to do what they are democratically elected to do – advance public purpose.

Further. as part of my preferred financial market reforms I would render illegal a whole swag of derivative assets which would lessen the problem of pricing risk.

It is time to wean the private financial markets off these agencies. The best way would be to declare them illegal.

The last thing that a sovereign government should be doing right now is cutting back on its fiscal stimulus."

Which, of course, is exactly what Moody's wants us to do.

(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving and Fiscal Sustainability).