The Fiscal Times Newsletter - August 28, 2017

Quick Hits

The Fiscal Times Newsletter - August 28, 2017

By The Fiscal Times Staff
August 29, 2017

*|MC:SUBJECT|*

How Hurricane Harvey Could Transform the Budget Battle in Washington

The costs of Hurricane Harvey could climb as high as $100 billion, according to at least one estimate. While it will still take weeks for the full extent of the damage to become clear, the catastrophic flooding — and a recovery effort that is likely to take years — will almost certainly have an impact on some critical upcoming deadlines for lawmakers in D.C.

White House and congressional GOP officials told The Washington Post on Sunday that they expected to begin discussing emergency funding for disaster relief soon. Those discussions could present challenges for other items on President Trump’s agenda, from tax reform to a border wall with Mexico.

President Trump had threatened to shutdown the government if any funding bill failed to include money for the border wall with Mexico. But the need for disaster relief funding — and the political risk of failing to deliver such funding — could force the president and Congress to act more quickly to fund the government and avoid a partial federal shutdown. “That is because a government shutdown could sideline agencies involved in a rescue and relief effort that officials are predicting will last years,” Mike DeBonis and Damian Paletta of The Washington Post report.

The balance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster relief fund stood at just $3.8 billion at the end of July — with $1.6 billion of that money set to be spent elsewhere. The funds needed for Harvey recovery alone may well exceed the total disaster relief budget for the current and upcoming fiscal years, The Post noted. Also, Congress must reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, which is more than $24 billion in debt, by the end of September and ensure that its legal borrowing limit, now around $30 billion, is sufficient to cover expected claims from Harvey victims.

William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center, who served as a former GOP staff director for the Senate Budget Committee, said the hurricane could also lead to the debt ceiling being raised faster than it otherwise might have been so as to ensure that the Treasury can provide emergency cash to storm-hit areas.

That’s not to say the disaster relief funding won’t devolve into a congressional fight. Both Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012 led to budget fights in Congress in which Republicans resisted disaster funding that wasn’t offset by other spending cuts.
Share
Tweet
Forward

Tweet of the Day

#Harvey in perspective. So much rain has fallen, we've had to update the color charts on our graphics in order to effectively map it.
Share
Tweet
Forward

Top Budget Expert Thinks We’re Headed for a Government Shutdown

Noted budget expert Stan Collender – who is sometimes referred to as “Mr. Budget” and who tweets under the name, @TheBudgetGuy – says that odds are better than even that the federal government will shut down this fall. Disputes over raising the debt ceiling are also in the cards, though with slightly less probability of a chaotic ending.

Collender says in Forbes that the problem lies with the current internal dynamics of the Republicans in Congress. In any other year, single-party control would mean less chaos in budget matters, not more. But the GOP is unusually divided right now. Collender argues there are seven contentious factions that are making it hard to get things done. In the House, there’s the conservative Freedom Caucus and the more moderate Tuesday Group. The Senate is similarly divided, but there is no real alignment between the Senate and House versions of each group. Then there’s the leadership of each chamber, which have their own interests and responsibilities that sometimes clash with the others. Last but not least, there’s President Trump, who is becoming something of a party unto himself.

These seven factions could make it very difficult to solve the two pressing fiscal problems – raising the debt ceiling to avoid a potential default on U.S. debt and funding the government to avoid a shutdown – that loom before October 1.

On the debt ceiling, the Trump administration has called for a “clean” debt ceiling hike, unencumbered by any other policy changes. But the Freedom Caucus has sent mixed signals on the subject, and there’s a good chance that the hardline conservatives won’t play along with the moderates to raise the ceiling, forcing House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) to turn to Democrats for help – in which case, the Freedom Caucus could push for Ryan’s ouster, as they did with former speaker John Boehner in 2015.

On funding the government, a short-term spending bill, called a continuing resolution, seems like a relatively easy solution, even if it only puts off the budget fight temporarily. But President Trump, the ultimate wild card, has altered the game by threatening to veto any such funding if it fails to include money for a border wall. It’s all too easy to imagine that showdown ending with a shutdown.
Share
Tweet
Forward

The High Cost of Debt Ceiling Brinksmanship

Every time Congress dithers on raising the debt ceiling, the Treasury Department is forced to take “extraordinary measures” to make sure it has enough cash to pay the country’s bills in full and on time without hitting the ceiling. Kellie Mejdrich at Roll Call reminds us that these measures come with a considerable cost, even without a default on the debt.

The Treasury began employing extraordinary measures last March, when the suspension of the debt limit brokered in a budget deal in November 2016 expired. With the debt ceiling back in force, the Treasury had to look for ways to avoid hitting the limit, currently $19.8 trillion. Treasury has several options — it defines four of them here — which involve not spending all of the money is it legally authorized to spend. For example, the Treasury may avoid making full investments in pension and savings accounts of government employees, delaying payments until a later date.

These measures tend to make the financial markets nervous, especially over time as the threat of default grows, which can move interest rates higher than they otherwise would be. The Bipartisan Policy Center points out that the current debt ceiling impasse sent short-term Treasury bill rates higher in July, raising the costs of issuing debt for the U.S. government.

Looking back at the debt ceiling brinksmanship of 2011-2012, the Government Accountability Office concluded that delaying the increase in the debt limit cost the Treasury at least $1.3 billion:

“Delays in raising the debt limit can create uncertainty in the Treasury market and lead to higher Treasury borrowing costs. GAO estimated that delays in raising the debt limit in 2011 led to an increase in Treasury’s borrowing costs of about $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2011. However, this does not account for the multiyear effects on increased costs for Treasury securities that will remain outstanding after fiscal year 2011. Further, according to Treasury officials, the increased focus on debt limit-related operations as such delays occurred required more time and Treasury resources and diverted Treasury’s staff away from other important cash and debt management responsibilities.”
Share
Tweet
Forward

Robert Samuelson: Why Trump’s Tax Reform Won’t Work

It’s hard to imagine that tax reform is No. 1 on the Republicans’ to-do list when they still don’t have a 2018 budget. Worse, they still haven’t agreed to raise the debt ceiling, as the federal government continues to draw down what was $350 billion in cash reserves in January to $50.6 billion as of last Thursday, according to The Washington Post.

Maybe that’s why the Post’s economics columnist, Robert J. Samuelson, was inspired to challenge the GOP’s idea that cutting taxes is “tax reform,” which implies an improvement over the old system.

Samuelson is clearly disturbed about Trump’s tax plan, which primarily benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and adds an additional $3.5 trillion in deficits over a decade, according to the Tax Policy Center. It’s not clear how that’s an improvement.

Samuelson says, “If tax cuts were initially financed by more deficit spending, the costs of today’s lower taxes would be transferred to future generations.” That now includes the largest generation in America — the Millennials — as Baby Boomers die off.

The key argument against tax cuts, Samuelson says, is that contrary to Republican claims, they don’t stimulate significantly faster growth. “Tax cuts may cushion a recession and improve the business climate, but they don’t automatically raise long-term growth. A 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service put it this way: ‘A review of statistical evidence suggests that both labor supply and savings and investment are relatively insensitive to tax rates.’”

For Samuelson, the facts point in a different direction: “The truth is that we need higher, not lower, taxes. … We are undertaxed. Government spending, led by the cost of retirees, regularly exceeds our tax intake.”

But will Republicans raise taxes? That’s not a likely outcome given the current budget debate, which would need a dose of honesty that is sorely missing.
Share
Tweet
Forward

US Companies Push Back on One Idea for Taxing Their Foreign Profits

The corporate lobbying push on tax reform is on in full force. If you watch cable news, you’ve likely seen ads from the Business Roundtable and other groups that are already spending millions of dollars to promote tax reform on television and radio. But not all the efforts are so public.

In a piece in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal, Richard Rubin offers details on one behind-the-scenes campaign by corporations to shape tax reform. Rubin reports that a group of large U.S. companies called the Alliance for Competitive Taxation issued a policy paper earlier this month warning against the “unintended and adverse consequences” of introducing a minimum tax for foreign earnings.

Such a minimum tax is reportedly one option under consideration as part of a shift to a territorial tax system, with a lower corporate rate for domestic profits, intended to incentivize companies to bring back some of the profits they have stashed in foreign countries to avoid paying a high tax rate on those earnings at home.

The minimum rate would be below the new statutory corporate rate and act to reduce the incentive to keep foreign profits in other countries.

But the companies in the alliance, including Eli Lilly, United Technologies and UPS, warned that a minimum tax would put American corporations at a disadvantage to their global competitors.

Kyle Pomerleau of the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation wrote recently that a broad minimum tax on foreign earnings would still give companies incentive to move their headquarters out of the U.S. to avoid the tax.

But Chye-Ching Huang, deputy director of federal tax policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, tweeted Monday that multinational corporations want a “cartoon” version of the territorial tax system — one that would bring “0% US tax on their foreign profits. Giant incentive to shift profits offshore. Weak guardrails to stop it.”
Share
Tweet
Forward

More from Around the Web
Copyright © *|CURRENT_YEAR|* *|LIST:COMPANY|*, All rights reserved.
*|IFNOT:ARCHIVE_PAGE|* *|LIST:DESCRIPTION|*

Our mailing address is:
*|HTML:LIST_ADDRESS_HTML|* *|END:IF|*

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

*|IF:REWARDS|* *|HTML:REWARDS|* *|END:IF|*

Jeb Bush Fires Back at Trump, but Is Anyone Listening?

Former Florida Governor and probable 2016 Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush speaks at the First in the Nation Republican Leadership Conference in Nashua
REUTERS/Brian Snyder
By Ciro Scotti
September 1, 2015

Despite the sizzling Summer of Trump, Jeb Bush and the rest of the Republican establishment still don’t get it.

Bush just released an 80-second video entitled “The Real Donald Trump”, as flagged by Mike Allen in his Politico Playbook note this morning, in a slick effort to attack Trump by using his own words against him. That’s a classic campaign tactic, of course, and the effort by the Bush campaign is aimed at painting the bombastic real estate mogul from New York as a fake conservative – someone whose core values and views are anathema to Republicans in Iowa, where the Real Clear Politics poll average puts Trump in the lead for the GOP Caucuses with 21.3 percent.

Related: Two New Polls Show Exactly Why Donald Trump Is Winning

Here’s a sampling from the video:

Talking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, 1999:

  • “I’ve lived in New York City and Manhattan all my life, so you know my views are a little bit different than if I lived in Iowa.”

  • “I am very pro-choice. I am pro-choice in every respect.”

From a 1999 Fox News clip: 

  • “As far as single-payer [heathcare system], it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland.”

Talking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN:

  • Who would you like representing the United States in a deal with Iran? “I think Hillary would do a good job.”

  • Do you identify more as a Democrat or a Republican? “Well, you’d be shocked if I said that in many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat.”

From a 2001 Fox News clip:

  • “Hillary Clinton is a terrific woman. I’m a little biased because I’ve known her for years.”

Some of the clips are 15 years old or older and show Trump for what he was: a New Yorker with unremarkable New York liberal/centrist positions on a lot of issues.

Related: Fiorina PAC: CNN and GOP Are Conspiring Against Carly

The big question for Bush and other Republican politicians in the race is: Does it matter that much where Trump once stood or even where he now stands? If it doesn’t, that is going to make taking him down even more difficult.

What Trump is selling is unvarnished authenticity to an electorate tired of politicians who try to be all things to all people. You’re not going to catch Trump courting the gun crowd by saying he likes to hunt small varmints, like the patrician Mitt Romney did. Or donning a Rocky the Squirrel hat and riding around in a tank like Mike Dukakis did in 1988 to try to show he could be a credible commander-in-chief.

Mad-as-hell voters are sick of phoniness and goofy photo ops. When will the career politicians get that?  

The 5 Worst States for Drivers

Some Northern Virginia businessmen are so exasperated with traffic congestion that they are pushing for a tax increase for improved highway and bridges.
iStockphoto
By Millie Dent
August 31, 2015

Folks in California and Washington might want to consider installing extra security devices on their cars. Bankrate says that California ranks as the worst state in the nation for car theft, with Washington not far behind. California has 431 car thefts per 100,000 people, while Washington has 407. The national average is 220.

Theft isn’t the only problem facing car owners. Bankrate also looked at data for other factors including fatal crashes, average commute times, gasoline and repair costs and insurance premiums to create a comprehensive ranking of the best and worst state for drivers. 

Louisiana was named the worst state for drivers overall, mainly because of its above-average rate of fatal crashes. The Bayou State has 1.5 fatal crashes per 100 miles driven, while the national average is 1.1. Not surprisingly, it has the highest car insurance costs in the country. The state’s five-year average for a car insurance premium is $1,279, almost $300 more than the national average of $910.  

Related: The Amazingly Stupid Things Smartphone Users Do While Driving

Thanks to its low gas and insurance costs, below-average theft and short commute times, Idaho ranks as the best state for drivers overall. Annual gas costs come to $733, more than $200 below the national average. Car insurance costs are typically around $656 and car thefts occur at a rate of 95 per 100,000 people. The average commute time for individuals each way is 19.5 minutes, nearly five minutes below the national average.

Here are the five best and the worst states for drivers:

5 Worst States for Drivers

1. Louisiana

2. California

3. Texas

4. Maryland

5. New Jersey 

5 Best States for Drivers

1. Idaho

2. Vermont

3. Wyoming

4. Wisconsin

5. Minnesota 

Top Reads From The Fiscal Times

Google Tackles One of the Most Annoying Problems on the Internet

A Google logo is seen at the garage where the company was founded on Google's 15th anniversary in Menlo Park, California
STEPHEN LAM
By Millie Dent
August 28, 2015

We’ve all been there: You’re surfing the Web and all of a sudden voices start coming out of nowhere. Quickly, you scramble to figure out which browser tab the autoplay media is coming from, and click around wildly trying to silence the offending intrusion. 

If only there were some way to prevent such sonic irritations. According to Google, now there is. 

Finally recognizing the problem of background audio from a video or ad that starts playing in a tab you’re not using, Google Chrome is now offering a solution. While Chrome already provided an icon that told you which tab was playing the audio, new versions of the browser let you mute the tabs with one click. And it gets even better. 

Related: If You’re Reading This, Your Browser Could Be Hacked 

Chrome will no longer automatically play media from backgrounded tabs unless you actually visit the tab. Not only does this feature reduce the annoyance of unwanted sound and trying to figure out where it’s coming from, but according to Google it will also conserve power. Chrome will consume less of your battery by playing only the videos and ads in the visible tab. 

Take a (silent) bow, Google. You’ve earned it. 

Top Reads From The Fiscal Times

Facebook Hit a Mind-Boggling Milestone This Week

Reuters/Valentin Flauraud
By Beth Braverman
August 28, 2015

You know what’s cooler than having hundreds of millions of people use your product every day? Having a billion people use it in one day.

That’s what happened for Facebook for the first time on Monday when more than a billion people logged on to the social network, according to a post on CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s page. That’s one in seven people worldwide.

That means that a billion people potentially saw the ads that help generate the revenue that has powered Facebook’s growth. In particular, Facebook has been at the forefront of the shift toward earning ad dollars via online video, the fastest-growing digital advertising category.

Related: Will Facebook Kill the News Media or Save It?

Zuckerberg didn’t mention revenue in his post. Instead, he wrote that he is proud of the community built by the social network and said that connecting the world is making it a better place. “It brings stronger relationships with those you love, a stronger economy with more opportunities, and a stronger society that reflects all of our values.”

The milestone comes as the social network has been moving aggressively to monitor user habits and expand its product offerings to include instant messaging, photo-sharing and now a new virtual assistant. It has also explored moving into the e-wallet space and is reportedly looking into developing a credit rating system based on a user’s network.

While a billion users a day is nothing to scoff at, the company—as always—is dreaming bigger. Last month, Facebook finished construction of a drone that it hopes will provide Internet access to remote parts of the world. That way everyone everywhere can be wished a “Happy Birthday” by 300 people they haven’t spoken to in years.

How the Stock Market’s Wild Swings Have Helped Homebuyers

New Homes
REUTERS/Gary Cameron
By Millie Dent
August 27, 2015

The rollercoaster week on Wall Street could pay off nicely for some homebuyers. 

The sharp selloff in global markets, caused by the economic uncertainty in China, caused investors running for safety to buy up U.S. government bonds, driving interest rates down. That sent the rate on benchmark 30-year fixed-rate mortgages down to its lowest level since May.

Related: The Financial Mistake That Can Cost Homeowners 

Mortgage giant Freddie Mac said Thursday that the average for 30-year fixed-rate loans fell to 3.84 percent, with an average 0.6 points, over the week ending August 27. That’s down from 3.93 percent last week and 4.10 percent a year ago. For 15-year fixed-rate loans, the average was 3.06 percent, down from 3.15 percent last week and 3.25 percent a year ago.                                                 

The average on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages has now been below 4 percent for five straight weeks. Just how long they stay there will be determined in part by when the Federal Reserve decides to raise interest rates for the first time since 2006. Many economists had expected the Fed to raise rates next month — but that was before the stock market’s latest shakeup.

"There are indications, though, that the unsettled state of global markets will make the Fed think twice before taking any action on short-term interest rates in September,” Sean Becketti, Freddie Mac’s chief economist, said in a statement. “If that's the case, the 30-year mortgage rate may remain subdued in the short-to-medium term, providing support for continued strength in the housing sector."

Related: Rate-Hike Havoc: Can the Fed Ignore This Market Rout? 

Greg McBride, chief financial analyst with Bankrate.com, said mortgage rates may trend a bit higher from here as financial markets settle down, but he added that the Fed’s hike, whenever it comes, isn’t going to dramatically affect mortgage rates that are still historically low.

“That the initial move by the Fed is to a large extent already reflected in mortgage rates,” McBride said. “You might see a little bit of a further bump, but not much. Mortgage rates are not going to skyrocket. That’s the main point. Increases that we see in mortgage rates in the coming months are likely to be very limited."

Top Reads From The Fiscal Times