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|*

Here’s Why Americans Are Keeping Their Cars Longer than Ever

iStockPhoto
By Beth Braverman
July 29, 2015

As cars get more reliable Americans are holding onto their vehicles for longer than ever before. The average age of cars and light trucks is now 11.5 years old, according to a new report from IHS Automotive.

In addition to better reliability, cars are getting older because Americans bought far fewer new cars in the years following the Great Recession, as concerns lingered about unemployment and the strength of the economy.

Even as consumers have started purchasing new vehicles again, they’re still holding onto their older ones. The average length of ownership of a new vehicle reached 6.5 years in the first quarter of 2015, more than two years longer than in 2006. The number of cars more than 12 years old continues to grow and is expected to increase 15 percent by 2020.

Related: The Incredible Disappearing American-Made Car

IHS predicts that the average age of vehicles will inch up slightly over the next few years, hitting 11.7 years in 2018.

The number of cars on the road hit a record 258 million, posting a 2.1 percent increase over last year, driven by the purchase of new cars. IHS expects that volume of cars less than 5 years old will increase by 24 percent over the next five years.

Consumer sales of autos were on pace to rise 4.2 percent this month, according to TrueCar, compared to July of 2014, thanks to increased demand, summer sales events and the growing popularity of premium brands.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

The Most Expensive Cities for Singles -- and the Cheapest

San Francisco, CA
Wikimedia Commons
By Suelain Moy
July 28, 2015

Looking for love in all the pricey places? Check out these lists of the most and least expensive cities for singles before you go on that next date or plan your next move. Looking good doesn’t come cheap, and the price of a decent wardrobe and a gym membership add ups before you even step out the door.

To determine which cities were the least and most affordable for singles, GoBankingRates examined 89 cities and rated them according to four expense categories -- clothing, dates, gym memberships and rent -- using data from Numbeo.com. “Singles are more likely to exercise, and to have a gym membership,” says Elyssa Kirkham, a finance writer for GoBankingRates. “They’re more likely to rent than own a home, and spend more money on dates and clothing.”

Related: Hot New Dating Criteria: What’s Your Credit Score?

San Francisco is the most expensive city for singles, especially when it comes to rent. Rent is 30 percent more expensive in San Francisco than it is in Honolulu. The cost of a date here is $147, compared with the median cost of $109. California just might be the most expensive state to date in, claiming seven of the top 15 spots: San Francisco, Fremont, Glendale, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and Oakland.

The second most expensive city? New York City, which boasts the most expensive gym membership at $90 per month. Clothing costs here are the second-highest in the nation -- bad news for all the Carrie Bradshaws out there. And date night will set you back $145.

The most expensive date night in the country is in Washington, D.C., which came in third overall. Date night in our nation’s capital costs $166 for dinner, a bottle of wine, two movie tickets and a 10-mile taxi ride. Compare that to Chattanooga, Tennessee, which had the cheapest date night at $78.

Looking for more bang for your buck? Move to Reno, Nevada. Rent here is just 86 cents per square foot, and a night out averages $97.30. Keep in mind, though, that “the Biggest Little City in the World” was once known as the divorce capital of the world, so dating there may offer less promise than other locales.

Related: The Bad News About All the Singles in America

Most Expensive Cities for Singles

  1. San Francisco
  2. New York
  3. Washington, D.C.
  4. Honolulu
  5. Boston
  6. Fremont, California
  7. Glendale, California
  8. Anchorage, Alaska
  9. Miami
  10. Seattle
  11. Irvine, California
  12. Los Angeles
  13. San Diego
  14. Oakland, California
  15. Madison, Wisconsin

Related: Marriage?? Young Americans Aren’t Even Shacking Up

15 Cheapest Cities for Singles

  1. Reno, Nevada
  2. Tucson, Arizona
  3. Grand Rapids, Michigan
  4. Tacoma, Washington
  5. Indianapolis
  6. Mesa, Arizona
  7. Little Rock, Arkansas
  8. Albuquerque, New Mexico
  9. Huntsville, Alabama
  10. Memphis, Tennessee
  11. St. Louis, Missouri
  12. Jackson, Mississippi
  13. Stockton, California
  14. Omaha, Nebraska
  15. Chattanooga, Tennessee

Donald Trump Isn’t as Rich as He Says…but He’s Still Pretty Rich

Republican presidential candidate Trump gestures after speaking and taking questions at a rally in Manchester
REUTERS/Dominick Reuter
By Millie Dent
July 28, 2015

“I’m really rich,” Donald Trump boasted last month when he announced he was running for president. A new analysis by Bloomberg confirms that claim, but finds that the real estate mogul and presidential candidate is worth about $7 billion less than he claims.

When he announced his presidential bid, Trump touted a net worth of about $8.7 billion, a figure that soon ballooned to $10 billion. But Bloomberg calculates his wealth closer to around $2.9 billion. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a daily ranking of the world’s biggest fortunes, arrived at the value using both prior-known information and a 92-page personal disclosure form that Trump filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Related: 7 Revelations from Donald Trump’s Financial Disclosure​

The federal form that all presidential candidates are required to submit asks only for broad ranges in asset values, not specific sums. Anything above $50 million in value is lumped together in one category, which in Trump’s case left plenty of room for questions about just how valuable some of his assets are. The federal report also doesn’t require candidates to list personal property like art, clothing or real estate that’s for his own use.

The Bloomberg analysis went into much more depth, using figures such as purchase dates, square footage, rental rates and more.

The disclosure form revealed that most of Trump’s fortune comes from real estate holdings, such as the Trump Doral resorts in Florida and Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York City. Other lucrative properties include premier golf courses in the U.S., Ireland and Scotland.

Related: Donald Trump Just Showed Why His Campaign Is Doomed​​

Trump had valued his golf and resort properties at $2 billion. Bloomberg, using price-to-sales ratios for similar properties, put the value at a combined $570 million.

The Bloomberg methodology also doesn’t put much value in the Trump brand, counting only the cash being held as part of licensing or other business deals. “Trump’s own estimations,” Bloomberg noted, “include much higher values for his brand.”

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

In a Black Eye for Wearable Tech, Nike Giving Refunds for FuelBand

REUTERS/Mike Segar
By Beth Braverman
July 28, 2015

If you thought that the calorie count and steps tracked by your Nike FuelBand were inaccurate, you may have been right.

Nike and Apple have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit claiming that the companies made misleading statements regarding the product’s ability to accurately track calories and steps, according to a website maintained by settlement administrator Gilardi & Co.

The companies have denied the allegations and claim they broke no laws, but they have agreed to a settlement in which Nike will give consumers who join the class action suit by January $15 or a $25 Nike gift card. The total cost of the refunds could reach more than $2 million.

Related: Why No One is Actually Buying Wearable Tech

Anyone who purchased a FuelBand from January 19, 2012 through June 17, 2015 is eligible for the refund.

Last year, Nike began shifting its focus away from producing FuelBands, choosing instead to focus on apps, including one for the Apple watch, that support fitness tracking. The company has said it has more than 60 million digital fitness software users.

The FuelBand was an early entrant into what has become a crowded field or wearable fitness trackers, despite questions about their accuracy. However smart watches, which offer built-in fitness trackers along with other apps, may soon eclipse the demand for that standalone products.

A report released last year by tech analysts Juniper Research projected that revenue from wearable tech, would increase from $4.5 billion in 2014 to more than $53 billion in 2019.

Sweet, Sour, Salty and...Fat? Scientists Add a New Basic Taste

4) The Habit Burger Grill
Flickr/Sean Carter
By Millie Dent
July 27, 2015

The thousands of taste buds on a human tongue each contain as many as 100 taste receptors. The interaction between those receptors and the chemicals in our food determine the taste of that hamburger or salad you’re having for lunch.

Our sense of taste has long been broken into four basic categories — sour, sweet, salty and bitter. A fifth basic taste was added more recently: umami, which means “delicious” in Japanese but refers to a meaty or savory flavor sensation. Now researchers claim there’s a sixth basic taste.

Scientists at Purdue University have published a new study in the journal Chemical Sense that they say provides evidence that chemicals called nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA) — in other words, fat — causes a taste sensation that is different from the other five tastes. The researchers have proposed that the new taste be referred to as “oleogustus.” “Oleo” is the root word for oily or fatty in Latin and “gustus” means taste.

Related: The 11 Worst Fast Food Restaurants in America

The researchers emphasize that they are talking about a taste, not just the creamy mouth feel you get from eating a rich piece of meat or a dish loaded in butter.

The fat that delivers that creamy, smooth feeling is a triglyceride, made up of three different fatty acids, they explain. Oleogustus — a gag-inducing taste on its own, but much more appetizing in combination with other flavors — comes from only one of those fatty acids that breaks off from the larger molecule in the food or as you’re chewing.

This finding has the potential to generate big changes in the food industry. Understanding the taste component of fat can do more than add to our knowledge of how our brain and digestive system interact. It may also help the food industry create more appealing, and potentially healthier, products.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times: