The Fiscal Times Newsletter - August 28, 2017

The Fiscal Times Newsletter - August 28, 2017

By The Fiscal Times Staff

*|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|*

Hillary Too Expensive? Get Chelsea Clinton at a Discount

Graduating seniors line up to receive their diplomas during Commencement at Wellesley College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, U.S., May 26, 2017.   REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Brian Snyder
By Eric Pianin

If you’re turned off by the astronomical speaking fees commanded by the former Secretary of State and her former president husband, you have an option: You can go Clinton shopping.

Hillary and Bill Clinton earned in excess of $25 million for delivering 104 speeches between 2014 and the first three months of 2015, including $11 million that Hillary Clinton collected delivering 51 speeches, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Related:  Hillary Clinton’s Achilles' Heel: Trust

While Hillary’s fees varied, they typically exceeded a quarter-million-dollars a pop and went as high as $300,000, although she generally donated the funds to the Clinton family’s global foundation.

But at least one sticker-shocked university balked at her price and settled for a bargain basement alternative – daughter Chelsea Clinton.

As The Washington Post recounted on Tuesday, officials of the University of Missouri at Kansas City were in the market for a celebrity speaker to headline a gala luncheon marking the opening of a women’s hall of fame in early 2014. Initially, they thought of inviting Clinton’s 34-year old daughter to deliver brief remarks at the event.

When Chelsea’s speaking agency responded that she probably wouldn’t be available, university officials decided to “shoot for the moon” and invite her mother, the presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, to appear instead. However, they were stunned when the answer came back that Hillary Clinton indeed would be available but it would cost them $275,000.

Related: College Students Outraged over Hillary Clinton’s Massive Speaking Fees   

University officials regrouped and resumed their hunt for a speaker. Then word came back that Chelsea Clinton was available to speak after all – and for the relatively modest fee of $65,000. Likely still reeling from the Hillary demand,  university officials jumped at the offer.

Chelsea Clinton appeared at the luncheon on Feb. 24, 2014, and here’s what her schedule called for:  a 10-minute speech followed by a 20-minute, moderated question-and-answer session and a half-hour posing for pictures with VIPs off-stage. As with Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches at universities, Chelsea Clinton directed her fee to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

School officials said Chelsea’s appearance, which was covered by private donations, was well worth the money. Reactions to the story on social media were less positive, with anti-Clinton commentators having a field day mocking America’s one-time and perhaps future first family.  

The Washington Post Closes a Window on Hackers and Big Government

A lock icon, signifying an encrypted Internet connection, is seen on an Internet Explorer browser in a photo illustration in Paris April 15, 2014.  REUTERS/Mal Langsdon
Mal Langsdon
By Millie Dent

The Washington Post is pushing back against government surveillance, hackers and other nosy folks trying to get a peek at you and your data.

Starting Tuesday it will begin to encrypt parts of its website to make it more difficult to track the reading habits of visitors. The encryption will apply to the Post’s homepage, stories on the site’s national security page and The Switch, its technology policy blog.  

A display icon of a small lock in the web address bar will signal readers that pages are encrypted. In addition, the secure pages will start with the letters “https,” rather than the standard “http.”

The encryption also has the potential to make it tougher for governments to censor content. If censors are monitoring website traffic, they can see only the domain a person is visiting, not the specific page. A country would have to block the entire website if it wanted to block content.

The Post acknowledges that the additional security measures could make online advertising less attractive to companies. Advertisers might also be driven away by having to make sure their content is also secure, an extra step some companies might not be willing to take. 

The Post is the first major news organization to introduce such security measures. Last fall, The New York Times published a blog post imploring websites to implement secure connections, but it has yet to follow through on its own challenge.

However, other smaller news sources, such as the Intercept and TechDirt, use https technology by default.

Encrypted traffic is becoming increasingly common for many sites, including online banking and web-based email services. Earlier this month, the Obama administration ordered all public federal websites to begin using https technology by the end of 2016.

The social media giant Facebook announced in early June that users could encrypt notifications sent from the website to a user’s personal email address, protecting potentially sensitive emails. Facebook – as well as hackers, spies and others -- will be denied access to the user’s private encryption key.

This move prevents hackers who have accessed a user’s email inbox from being able to understand emails from Facebook without knowing their private key. While a user’s activity on the actual site will not be encrypted, this announcement could be the first in a series of moves to protect Facebooks’ user privacy.

Apple and Google have also implemented more security measures for user privacy over the last year.

The Sweet Credit-Card Perk You Have But Don’t Know About

REUTERS/Lisi Niesner
By Beth Braverman

You know that your credit card offers rewards like cash back and airplane miles, but many cards also offer automatic travel insurance, which could prove valuable on your next trip. 

Nearly 90 percent of reward credit cards offer accident insurance while you’re on vacation and 63 percent cover luggage if you use you card to pay for the trip, according to a new report by CardHub. On nearly a quarter of cards that offer travel accident insurance, coverage is more than $300,000. 

Almost three-quarters of cards that cover luggage will pay you for lost bags, while nearly half cover delayed luggage. 

Related: Credit Cards Can Be Your Best Friend—or Worst Enemy 

The report found that the Chase Sapphire Preferred Rewards Card offered the best travel insurance, followed by Discover It, Wells Fargo Propel 365 and Citi Prestige. 

Coverage amounts vary and restrictions apply, so check in with your issuer to get the details of what your card offers. 

Travel insurance isn’t the only time credit cards come in handy for travel. Some cards also offer roadside assistance. If your car breaks down, runs out of gas, or you lock your keys inside most credit cards will send roadside assistance to help you out. 

That perk, while convenient, isn’t free. The issuers usually charge you a discounted rate for the service and bill it directly to your credit card. Discover, for example, charges $70 per incidence but covers 24-hour towing, assistance and locksmith services.

Jeb Bush Wasn’t Bashful About Trading on Family Name

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush waves as he arrives to address a legislative luncheon held as part of the "Road to Majority" conference in Washington
REUTERS/Carlos Barria
By Eric Pianin

While Jeb Bush frequently is touted as both a two-term governor and a successful businessman, his often dubious record as an entrepreneur and investor has been widely documented over the past three decades. 

The 62-year-old scion of a powerful political family and now an announced candidate for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination was involved in a myriad business ventures dating back to the mid-1980s, The Washington Post noted on Monday in the latest media examination of Bush’s entrepreneurial exploits as he tried to amass his fortune. 

Related: Jeb Bush Shows Some Fire in Campaign Launch 

Bush brokered numerous real estate deals in Miami, helped to arrange bank loans in Venezuela, marketed shoes in Panama, sought out Mexican investors for a building-materials company, advised transnational financial services firms — you name it. He also made a boatload of money by sitting on a handful of corporate boards. And ever since he left the Florida governor’s office in 2007, Bush — like Democrat Hillary Clinton — has raked in substantial income by giving speeches while also consulting and managing investments for others. 

“Jeb Bush had a successful career in commercial real estate and business before serving as Florida’s governor,” Kristy Campbell, a spokeswoman for Bush, told the Post. “He has always operated with the highest level of integrity throughout his business career.” 

And yet the Post’s lengthy review of Bush’s business career — culled from records, lawsuits, interviews and newspapers accounts dating back more than 30 years — reveals a picture of a young man on the make who “often benefited from his family connections and repeatedly put himself in situations that raised questions about his judgement and exposed him to reputational risks.” 

Related: Can Jeb Bush Unite the GOP’s Establishment and Religious Wings?   

Five of Bush’s former business associates have been convicted of crimes; one remains an international fugitive on fraud charges. Bush has disavowed any knowledge of the wrongdoing and conceded that some of the businessmen he met in Florida took advantage of his relative youth and naiveté. 

One thing that comes through loud and clear in the Post report is that Jeb Bush had no compunction about trading on his family name in trying to make a buck. 

Major case in point: In early 1989, seven weeks after his father, George H.W. Bush, took office as president, Jeb Bush took a trip to Nigeria with the executive of a Florida company called Moving Water Industries. Bush had just been hired to help market the firm’s water pumps. 

With no less than a special escort from the U.S. ambassador to Nigeria, Bush and his new boss met with the nation’s political and religious leaders as part of the company’s effort to land a deal that would be worth $80 million. 

“My father is the president of the United States, duly elected by people that have an interest in improving ties everywhere,” the young Bush told the group. “The fact that you have done this today is something I will report back to him very quickly when I get back to the United States.” 

Just days after Bush returned to the U.S., his father sent the president of Nigeria a handwritten note thanking him for hosting his son. Not surprisingly, Moving Water Industries eventually landed the deals it was seeking, according to the Post.

How to Save Greece? Try a Fundraiser

A Greek national flag and a European Union flag flutter under storm clouds in Athens May 28, 2015. REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis
© Alkis Konstantinidis / Reuter
By Suelain Moy

With Greece facing a loan payment of 1.6 billion euros to the International Monetary Fund on Tuesday, a man in London named Thom Feeney took it upon himself to launch a fundraising campaign for the financially strapped country on Indiegogo, an international crowdfunding site. As of late Monday afternoon, more than 400 people have pledged about 7,000 euros to the “Greek Bailout Fund,” and those numbers are climbing steadily.

Feeney says on Indiegogo that he is frustrated with European ministers and “all this dithering over Greece.” As Feeney states, “The European Union is home to 503 million people, if we all just chip in a few Euro then we can get Greece sorted and hopefully get them back on track soon. Easy."

He says he can clear the whole mess up with a contribution of just over three euros from each European. “That’s about the same as half a pint in London or everyone in the EU just having a Feta and Olive salad for lunch.”

Incentives for donors include a postcard with an image Alex Tsipras, the Greek Prime Minister, for a donation of three euros, and a Greek feta and olive salad for six euros. Ten euros gets you a small bottle of ouzo, and a pledge of 25 euros will earn you a bottle of Greek wine.

So far at least 90 donors will be expecting postcards, 35 can look forward to a salad, 40 have signed up to receive a bottle of ouzo, and 30 can expect a bottle of wine. But whether anyone will actually receive their rewards remains to be seen. Like the Greek creditors, the donors will have to wait and see if their payments ever arrive.

Update: As of Tuesday morning, more than 10,000 people have donated about 170,000 euros, and the numbers continue to rise. Feeney has stated that all the money will be returned if the fundraiser fails to reach its target.