How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

I'm also surprised that the headline deficit wasn't even higher, given all the ginormous spending bills passed while Democrats still controlled the house in 2021-2022.

Here's my take on why that may be the case. It's largely conjecture, since I'm much to lazy to delve into details regarding the spending timeline for the appropriated funds. But to me it seems much more likely than not that politicians, who above all else want to get reelected, sought to place and sustain the economy on a deficit-financed "sugar high" that would last as long as possible. Hence the desire to extend the timeline for spending on infrastructure, chip fab subsidies, market interventions, etc.

I think that notion squares with my previous observation that the big-government crowd wanted to bake spending increases into the pie so that they could be sustained for as long as possible. Now you see that the Biden team is pushing for a $7.3 budget outline, as I posted a few days ago.

Connected with this, notice the large divergence between the monthly debt accumulation run rate during the last year and the headline budget deficit. I recently stated that the real deficit should be considered to be the actually debt increase, including all the sleight-of-hand like "off the books" spending. After all, if money has been borrowed in the Treasury markets but not yet spent, does anyone seriously believe it's going to just sit there in government accounts and not be spent sometime in the near future?

Now, if you drill down to just a bit below the surface, you may notice something very interesting. Take a look at how the Treasury General Account (TGA) has been nicely stuffed over the last 12 months.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/D2WLTGAL

As you can see, the balance tends to hang around the $300 billion level, give or take about $100 billion, unless something unusual is happening, such as when it skyrocketed in readiness for covid-related relief/stimulus.

But now it's about $600 billion higher than that approximate long-term average.

So, what the hell is going on here? Are Janet Yellen and her Treasury deputies anticipating an emergency or crisis sometime soon?

(Oh, yes! Isn't there a critical event coming up on November 5th of this year?)

If I'm a Treasury Secretary with a nearly trillion-dollar checkbook, and have available funds of $600 billion or more in excess of what is really needed for day-to-day operations, I sure do have a shot at making a lot of stuff all around the country look juicier than it really is.

Therefore, I think you can expect the Treasury to helicopter-drop cash into as many nooks and crannies of the economy as possible in order to keep the headline unemployment rate near historical lows, and the macroeconomy having a "feel" that's as nice as possible.

Very interesting! And insightful. Yes, the federal debt held by the public increased by a lot more than the amount of the 2023 deficit. The build up in the U.S Treasury General Account would appear to go a long way towards explaining the difference. And yes, it looks like Yellen has a $929 billion slush fund to spend between now and the election. It's a good time to ramp up expenditures in purple states authorized by legislation passed in 2021 and 2022.

Earlier today, I was thinking positive things about Powell and the Fed, that they're probably not going to lower interest rates solely for political purposes between now and the election. Well, it may not matter, if Yellen gets aggressive on the fiscal side.

Do any examples of the federal government's off balance sheet debt come to mind? The one thing I can think of is accounting for entitlements. I suspect if a public company accounted for its defined benefit pension plan like the federal government accounts for social security and Medicare, the SEC would be on its back worse than Enron.

[Jackie S]

Remember this. In 1969, Senator Everett Dirckson stated……..

“A billion here, a billion there, soon we will be talking about real money”.

Wow, I doubt a billion will even pay one days interest on today’s debt.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...%207%2C%201969.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

So, what the hell is going on here? Are Janet Yellen and her Treasury deputies anticipating an emergency or crisis sometime soon?

(Oh, yes! Isn't there a critical event coming up on November 5th of this year?)

If I'm a Treasury Secretary with a nearly trillion-dollar checkbook, and have available funds of $600 billion or more in excess of what is really needed for day-to-day operations, I sure do have a shot at making a lot of stuff all around the country look juicier than it really is.

Therefore, I think you can expect the Treasury to helicopter-drop cash into as many nooks and crannies of the economy as possible in order to keep the headline unemployment rate near historical lows, and the macroeconomy having a "feel" that's as nice as possible.

Considering the chips act and infrastructure bill were passed in 21/22 it's very possible that institutional bureaucracy is to blame rather than a coordinated policy of dragging out payments until election season. As anyone who has worked in the public sector can tell you there is a large lead time between when the legislation is passed and when work begins.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Remember this. In 1969, Senator Everett Dirckson stated……..

“A billion here, a billion there, soon we will be talking about real money”.

Wow, I doubt a billion will even pay one days interest on today’s debt.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...%207%2C%201969.

Dirckson was a great Senator. Too bad there isn't more like him.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Remember this. In 1969, Senator Everett Dirckson stated……..

“A billion here, a billion there, soon we will be talking about real money”.

Wow, I doubt a billion will even pay one days interest on today’s debt.

It wouldn't.

In fact, a billion bucks would only take care of the interest accrued by late morning. If we keep it up, soon a billion won't even cover us from midnight until people start firing up their coffee pots before heading to work!

Originally Posted by Tiny

Very interesting! And insightful. Yes, the federal debt held by the public increased by a lot more than the amount of the 2023 deficit. The build up in the U.S Treasury General Account would appear to go a long way towards explaining the difference. And yes, it looks like Yellen has a $929 billion slush fund to spend between now and the election. It's a good time to ramp up expenditures in purple states authorized by legislation passed in 2021 and 2022.

Earlier today, I was thinking positive things about Powell and the Fed, that they're probably not going to lower interest rates solely for political purposes between now and the election. Well, it may not matter, if Yellen gets aggressive on the fiscal side.

Do any examples of the federal government's off balance sheet debt come to mind? The one thing I can think of is accounting for entitlements. I suspect if a public company accounted for its defined benefit pension plan like the federal government accounts for social security and Medicare, the SEC would be on its back worse than Enron.

Yes, it looks like a good time for Yellen & Co. to start ramping up spending and to give preference to projects in the closest half-dozen states. (Of course, I'm not cynical or anything!)

I think the markets took Powell's comments to be a bit less hawkish than expected, since he signaled that the Fed stands ready to cut if any more weak datasets arise, even if the disinflation mission is not quite complete.

I think the big entitlement programs account for most of the off-balance-sheet spending, along with the GSEs. As I recall, there might be a number of nickel-and-dime items that add up to quite a bit, but I can't remember what they are.

Sometimes I find it entertaining to ask an AI chatbot questions, and this is what it fired back within about one second when I queried one about this:

Yes, you're correct that there are instances of off-the-books spending by the federal government that don't show up in the reported budget deficits. These off-budget items can include various forms of spending and liabilities that aren't fully disclosed in the official budget documents. Here are a few examples:

Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds: While these programs are included in the overall federal budget, they have their own dedicated trust funds, which are accounted for separately. The government borrows from these trust funds to cover other expenses, creating an obligation that doesn't always show up in the reported deficit.

War Spending: Emergency appropriations for wars and military operations are often funded separately from the main budget through supplemental appropriations bills. These funds may not be fully accounted for in the reported deficit.

Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs): Entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which support the housing market, are technically off-budget because they operate independently of direct congressional appropriations. However, their activities can still have significant fiscal implications.

Contingent Liabilities: The government may have contingent liabilities that aren't immediately reflected in the budget deficit. For example, loan guarantees provided by federal agencies can expose the government to potential future costs if the guaranteed loans default.

Federal Reserve Operations: While the Federal Reserve is independent of the federal government, its operations can impact the government's fiscal position indirectly. For example, profits generated by the Fed from its monetary policy activities are typically remitted to the Treasury, effectively reducing the deficit. Conversely, losses incurred by the Fed could have the opposite effect.

These are just a few examples, and the extent of off-the-books spending can vary over time and across different government programs and activities. While these items may not always be fully captured in the reported budget deficits, they can still have significant implications for the government's overall fiscal health and the national debt.

[Texas Contrarian]

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Senate Budget Committee chair, seems not to give a rat's ass about the budget. Seems he spends his efforts primarily on green dreams, no matter the cost. Maybe we'll somehow manage to muddle through without a catastrophic crisis anytime soon, but this is just one more piece of confirmation that we're an unserious nation; adrift with no responsible leadership.

Here's the WSJ piece from this past week:


wsj.com
Opinion | You Had One Job
James Freeman
5–6 minutes

This column recently noted the bizarre spectacle taking place in the Senate Budget Committee, where Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) has created a sort of virtual encampment for climate zealotry in place of the needed work of the committee. If future historians have to sift through the ashes of American fiscal chaos to try to understand how people in positions of authority could have been so reckless in presiding over an explosion of federal debt, Mr. Whitehouse will be among the principal research subjects.

In March Suzanne Bates reported for the Deseret News on a committee meeting attended by Sen. Mitt Romney (R., Utah):

“It’s appropriate that this hearing is being held during Academy Award season. I’m afraid what we do here is more ‘Barbie’ than it is ‘Oppenheimer,’” said Romney… Romney said the Budget Committee has spent more time talking about climate change than they have about the budget and cutting the deficit. “The public thinks we work on the budget, but we don’t,” he said, adding he wished lawmakers would meet to discuss how to “deal with the debt.”

Here we go again today as Mr. Whitehouse commandeers the Senate institution that is supposed to oversee taxpayer funds for yet another hearing devoted to his climate obsession and specifically an investigation of “Big Oil.” Imagine how much waste, fraud and abuse Mr. Whitehouse’s staff could uncover if directed to investigate the annual federal budget, currently soaring toward $7 trillion. Just think of what the committee staff might accomplish if Mr. Whitehouse would allow them to do the job taxpayers are paying them to do!

It’s too kind to call this a dereliction of duty in ignoring our nation’s budget crisis because if the result is more taxpayer funding for unproductive wind and solar projects then it makes the crisis even more severe. This is worse than neglect.

In a prepared statement today the budget committee’s ranking member, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), tries once again to remind the chairman that the assembled senators are supposed to be working on the budget. Sen. Grassley says:

While this committee continues to ignore our unprecedented debt and deficits, they’re top of mind for my constituents back home in Iowa.

Over the break, I held 10 county meetings. In each and every one, Iowans voiced their dismay at the state of our nation’s finances. They’re furious about Congress’ utter lack of attention to our bloated federal budget – as they should be.

Yes, they should. Voters in Iowa and everywhere else have every reason to be concerned about the mounting debt pile.

The Journal’s Eric Wallerstein recently reported:

The government funds its operations by selling the world’s safest bonds to investors and dealers at regular auctions. And issuance of Treasurys has exploded since the pandemic began. In the first three months of 2024, the U.S. sold $7.2 trillion of debt, the largest quarterly total on record. That surpasses the second quarter of 2020, when the government was financing a wave of Covid-19 stimulus. It also builds on a record $23 trillion of Treasurys issued last year, which raised $2.4 trillion of cash, after accounting for maturing bonds.

The size of the sales has expanded along with the market for U.S. debt. After poor demand at a series of auctions late last year jarred investors, the Treasury Department eased concerns by shifting to financing America’s deficit mostly with short-term debt. That helped, in part, because the Fed simultaneously signaled a pivot to easier monetary policy: Hopes that interest-rate cuts would come soon helped reassure investors about the Treasury’s strategy.

Now, those hopes are dwindling… The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the deficit will increase from 5.6% of U.S. gross domestic product to 6.1% in the next decade. Debt held by the public is set to expand from $28 trillion to $48 trillion in that time, up from $13 trillion 10 years ago.

What is it going to take for the Senate Budget Committee chairman to realize there’s a problem with the federal budget?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-had...toftheweb_pos3

[Tiny]

I'm really impressed with what you got out of ChatGPT TC. I didn't know AI was that advanced. Since my childhood, we've gone from the slide rule to the hand-held calculator to the PC. "Personal AI" may be the next big leap, and bigger than the others put together.

I agree with the editorial. Our budget is fucked up and we're on the road to bankruptcy. Sheldon Whitehouse and the Senate Budget Committee should stick to knitting instead of pursuing Sheldon's pet cause. I guess that's what plays well to the electorate in Rhode Island.

[Texas Contrarian]

I think ChatGPT is getting better and better all the time as the databases continue to build. No telling where we'll be in five years. (If this stuff doesn't scheme against us and take over the world!)

Ken Rogoff has a new article making the case that we're just about at the end of the road regarding what he refers to as the "magical debt thinking" that's afflicted so many people.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...rogoff-2024-04

This may be paywalled, so here it is:

The End of Magical Debt Thinking | by Kenneth Rogoff - Project Syndicate
Kenneth Rogoff
6–7 minutes

Until recently, any suggestion of fiscal prudence was quickly dismissed as “austerity” by economists on the left. But with higher interest rates fast becoming the new normal, the idea that any economic problem can be solved with more government borrowing has become untenable.

CAMBRIDGE – For over a decade, numerous economists – primarily but not exclusively on the left – have argued that the potential benefits of using debt to finance government spending far outweigh any associated costs. The notion that advanced economies could suffer from debt overhang was widely dismissed, and dissenting voices were often ridiculed. Even the International Monetary Fund, traditionally a stalwart advocate of fiscal prudence, began to support high levels of debt-financed stimulus.

The tide has turned over the past two years, as this type of magical thinking collided with the harsh realities of high inflation and the return to normal long-term real interest rates. A recent reassessment by three senior IMF economists underscores this remarkable shift. The authors project that the advanced economies’ average debt-to-income ratio will rise to 120% of GDP by 2028, owing to their declining long-term growth prospects. They also note that with elevated borrowing costs becoming the “new normal,” developed countries must “gradually and credibly rebuild fiscal buffers and ensure the sustainability of their sovereign debt.”

This balanced and measured assessment is far from alarmist. Yet, not too long ago, any suggestion of fiscal prudence was quickly dismissed as “austerity” by many on the left. For example, Adam Tooze’s 2018 book on the 2008-09 global financial crisis and its consequences uses the word 102 times.

Until very recently, in fact, the notion that a high public-debt burden could be problematic was almost taboo. Just this past August, Barry Eichengreen and Serkan Arslanalp presented an excellent paper on global debt at the annual gathering of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, documenting the extraordinary levels of government debt accumulated in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Curiously, however, the authors refrained from clearly explaining why this might pose a problem for advanced economies.

This is not merely an accounting issue. While developed countries rarely formally default on their domestic debt – often resorting to other tactics like surprise inflation and financial repression to manage their liabilities – a high debt burden is generally detrimental to economic growth. This was the argument Carmen M. Reinhart and I presented in a brief article for a conference in 2010 and in a more comprehensive analysis we co-authored with Vincent Reinhart in 2012.

These papers sparked a heated debate, frequently marred by gross misrepresentation. It did not help that much of the public struggled to differentiate between deficit financing, which can temporarily boost growth, and high debt, which tends to have negative long-term consequences. Academic economists largely agree that very high debt levels can impede economic growth, both by crowding out private investment and by narrowing the scope for fiscal stimulus during deep recessions or financial crises.