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|*

A Red-Hot Tesla Burns Rubber on Consumer Reports

Martino Castelli/Wikimedia
By Millie Dent
August 27, 2015

The Tesla Model S P85D sedan just broke the Consumer Reports rating system.

By definition, a car can’t exceed a score of 100 on the road test. But after the P85D racked up a score of 103, Consumer Reports was forced to create a new benchmark for the system and overhaul the ratings process according to a news release. The new system caused the car to slip to a score of 100.

A few characteristics of the car that allowed it to perform better in the test than any other car ever before include its rapid acceleration ability (0 to 60 mph in 3.5 seconds), its remarkable energy-efficiency (the car gets the equivalent of 87 miles per gallon) and its better breaking and handling system than the former top-scoring standard Model S. Two years ago, the base model version of the Model S received a 99 out of 100, which at the time was the highest rating ever for a vehicle.

Related: Why Americans Are Keeping Their Cars Longer Than Ever

The report is careful to note that even with a perfect score, the Tesla isn’t a perfect car. Besides a price tag of $127,820, beyond the means of the average person and the most expensive car Consumer Reports has ever reviewed, the car is louder than the base Model S and isn’t as plush as other luxury vehicles.

In addition, a long drive might be problematic if there aren’t any nearby charging stations along the route due to the vehicle’s 200-plus mile range. The rating also doesn’t account for the Tesla’s reliability, but the Model S comes with average reliability, according to owner-survey responses.

Imperfections aside, the car received an enviable final assessment. “It’s a remarkable car that paves a new, unorthodox course, and it’s a powerful statement of American startup ingenuity,” the report reads. 

North Dakota Police Can Now Legally Use Taser Drones

REUTERS/Chris Francescani
By Rob Garver
August 27, 2015

It’s a classic case of unintended consequences. A Republican lawmaker in North Dakota put forth legislation meant to prevent law enforcement officials from using unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct surveillance on private property without a warrant. It was transformed by fellow lawmakers into a bill allowing the police to mount Tasers, pepper spray, sound cannons and other “less-than-lethal” weapons on flying drones.

The legislation, House Bill 1328, was passed and signed into law earlier this year, but got little attention until this week, when a Daily Beast report pointed out the implications of the legislation: Law enforcement officers many miles away from suspects could have the authority to stun or otherwise incapacitate them.

Related: Ben Carson’s Idea for Controlling the Border – Military Drone Attacks

To be clear, the fact that something like this is technically legal doesn’t mean that state and local police departments will necessarily embrace the practice of remotely subduing suspects. Police officers are generally subject to local and departmental rules that can substantially limit what tactics are allowed.

The original version of the bill included language that would have barred law enforcement from mounting weapons of any kind on a drone: “A state agency may not authorize the use of, including granting a permit to use, an unmanned aircraft armed with any lethal or nonlethal weapons, including firearms, pepper spray, bean bag guns, mace, and sound-based weapons,” it said.

Supporters of the state’s police union introduced an amendment to the bill that would allow less-than-lethal weapons to be mounted on drones, according to the Daily Beast’s Justin Glawe. The amended bill was ultimately passed and signed into law.

Related: Europe Faces Up to Flight Safety Threat Posed by Drones

State Rep. Rick Becker this spring voiced his dismay at the changes to the bill in a public hearing, saying, “In my opinion there should be a nice, red line: Drones should not be weaponized. Period.”

Drones have, of course, been weaponized for years — the strikes just haven’t been in the U.S. If North Dakota is taking the lead, however, that might be about to change.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times

Why Big Salary Raises May Be Gone for Good

Businesswoman pulling rope
iStockphoto
By Millie Dent
August 26, 2015

If you’re hoping for a big raise this year, prepare to be disappointed. Sure, you might be among the lucky people who get a healthy bump in salary, but a recent survey by professional services firm Towers Watson found that companies are planning pay raises of 3 percent on average for workers.

A new survey by human resources and management consultancy Aon Hewitt confirms that forecast: Even as the job market continues to improve, salaried employees can expect their base pay to increase 3 percent, or about a percentage point smaller than the raises employers were handing out 20 years ago.

Related: Full Employment Alone Won’t Solve Problem of Stagnating Wages

From 1996 through 2000, salaries went up by about 4.1 percent a year, according to Aon Hewitt data. From 2011 through 2015, annual raises have averaged about 2.8 percent. And even as we get further away from the recession, that downward shift appears to be permanent, as companies look to keep a lid on their fixed costs.

"The modest increases we've seen over the past 20 years are an indication that employers have changed their compensation strategies for good, and we shouldn't expect to see salary increases revert back to 4 percent or higher levels that were commonplace in the past," said Aon Hewitt’s Ken Abosch.

Related: Obama Moves Toward Executive Action on Overtime Pay

On the bright side, at least for some workers, employers are planning on doling out more money in the form of bonuses, cash awards and other so-called variable pay. Aon Hewitt’s survey found that workers will see their variable pay rise by 12.9 percent this year.

That shift favors higher-level white-collar workers, since companies have been cutting back on bonus and incentive pay for clerical or technical workers. In 2011, only 43 percent of companies gave bonuses or other cash incentives to those hourly workers eligible for overtime pay, down from 61 percent in 2009, according to data Aon Hewitt shared with The Washington Post. On the other hand, 93 percent of companies offer incentive programs to employees with a fixed salary.

As Abosch told the Post: “It’s the haves and the have nots.”

Top Reads From The Fiscal Times

Retirement? Bah! Let’s Spend it Now

iStockphoto
By Beth Braverman
August 26, 2015

Americans may be taking their #YOLO lifestyle a bit too far. You do only live once, after all, but most people also only get one shot at retirement.

More than a third of Americans say that they’re not saving for tomorrow because they are unwilling to sacrifice their quality of life today and would rather spend their money on things like dinners and vacations, according to a new study by Charles Schwab.

Maintaining their current lifestyle was the number one reason that people aren’t saving for retirement, followed by unexpected expenses (31 percent), covering monthly bills (31 percent), and paying off credit card debt (24 percent).

Even if they’re not prioritizing saving for retirement, they do want to work for a company that offers a retirement plan. Nine in 10 of those surveyed said that they would think twice about taking a job if the company did not offer a 401(k) plan, and 80 percent said they wouldn’t be confident in their ability to save for retirement without a 401(k) plan.

Related: Here are 7 Ways People Screw Up Their 401(k)s

Those who do have 401(k) plans said they don’t feel they’re getting enough guidance. Nearly half of those surveyed said that the materials explaining investment options are more confusing than those explaining health and medical benefits.

More than two-thirds of employees said that they want personalized investment counseling, but only 12 percent are currently getting professional advice. About half of those surveyed said that they would expect better performance if they used professional advice.

Nearly three-quarters of people said they’d rather have their 401(k) balance grow by 15 percent this year than lose 15 pounds. Maybe if they stopped eating dinners out, they could have both.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

Diamond Prices Are Falling, but Don’t Rush to Buy an Engagement Ring

The Sun-Drop diamond of South Africa has been graded "fancy vivid yellow," the highest color grading for a yellow diamond. The 110.03 carats diamond sold for more than $10.9 million dollars at Sotheby's last November.
REUTERS/Michael Buholzer
By Millie Dent
August 25, 2015

Diamond prices are getting slashed, but that doesn’t mean you should run out to the jewelry store right now.

De Beers, the world’s largest producer and distributor of diamonds by value, is cutting diamond prices by as much as 9 percent, according to Bloomberg.

Diamond prices have already slumped over the past year as demand has fallen, partly as a result of the economic slowdown in China, the second-biggest market for the precious stones.

Related: Can Gold Regain Its Shine?

De Beers, which is a unit of mining giant Anglo American and controls one-third of the global diamond market, initially tried to stabilize prices by ramping down its production. It had started the year with a production goal of 34 million carats, but has twice slashed the goal to a current 29 million to 31 million carats.

That hasn’t been enough to counterbalance sagging demand, so De Beers says it will invest in a holiday marketing campaign in an attempt to boost consumer interest. The campaign will be focused in the U.S. and China, the world’s two leading diamond markets, and will primarily target men buying diamond jewelry gifts for their partners.                                                                             

In other words, you can expect to see a whole lot of diamond commercials soon — and in an interview with The Fiscal Times, one diamond industry expert predicted that the industry’s struggles will lead at least some retailers to cut prices this holiday season.

Related: Putin’s Spokesman Wears a Golden Skull Watch Worth $620K​​

The De Beers price cuts probably won’t have much effect on prices at high-end jewelry retailers such as Tiffany’s, though. These stores only purchase gems from a limited number of producers and since the diamonds they use are higher in value, their prices aren’t as vulnerable to market pressures as less valuable stones.

But it never hurts to look, right?

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times: