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|*

The Class of 2015 Isn’t Ready to Join the Workforce

iStockphoto
By Beth Braverman
May 27, 2015

The improving economy means that more employers are offering decent jobs to the Class of 2015, but many of those new graduates don’t feel ready to join the working world.

Only 35 percent of students believe that college was effective in preparing them for a job, and even fewer — 20 percent — feel very prepared to enter the workforce, according to the 2015 Workforce Readiness Survey by McGraw Hill Education.

More than half of students surveyed said they never learned to write a resume in college or how to conduct themselves in a job interview. Nearly 60 percent said they didn’t know how to network or search for a job.

Related: Why the Class of 2015 May Actually Get Good Jobs

The job market has loosened up this year — employers expect to hire nearly 10 percent more new college graduates this year than last year, according ot a study released last month by the National Association of Colleges and Employers. Still, the best gigs remain very competitive, and students who don’t know how to navigate the job search process may find themselves at a disadvantage. 

Two-thirds of those surveyed said that they wanted to get more internships or professional experience while in school, and about 60 percent wanted more time to focus on career prep.

Colleges regularly tout their career services departments, but the students surveyed for this report gave those offices poor marks. Only a third thought that their school’s career services department was effective, and a quarter had never used career services.

Cyber Thieves Hit the IRS—and 100,000 Taxpayers

REUTERS/Kacper Pempel/Files
By Brianna Ehley, The Fiscal Times
May 26, 2015

Identity thieves hacked into an Internal Revenue Service data system earlier this year, potentially gaining access to personal financial information for at least 100,000 taxpayers.

The IRS issued a statement today saying that its online system, “Get Transcript,” was breached between February and May, the Associated Press first reported. The portal possesses information including tax returns and other taxpayer data stored by the IRS.

Related: Tax Thieves Could Boost Their Income by 262 Percent

The IRS’s statement said the tax thieves were able to penetrate the system because they had knowledge of 100,000 taxpayers, including dates of birth, Social Security numbers and tax filing details.

The massive hack comes as identity theft is at a record high. Earlier this year, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reported that 1.6 million taxpayers were affected by identity theft in 2014 – compared to just 271,000 in 2010.

The IRS’s ability to catch fraudsters was even added to the GAO’s “High Risk List” or the list of federal programs that are most-vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse.

Auditors attribute the increase to the uptick in electronic filing, which is more convenient for tax filers, but also easier for fraudsters to file fake returns.

TIGTA says the IRS doled out more than $5.8 billion in fraudulent refunds related to identity theft during the 2013 filing season.

The shift to electronic filing is also apparently making taxpayer information even more vulnerable according to the latest breach.

Related: IRS Struggles to Help Victims of Identity Fraud

The hack is obviously bad news for the agency, which is already struggling to address cases of identity theft as they stack up. TIGTA reported the IRS took about 278 days on average to resolve identity theft cases in 2013, despite the agency claiming that it takes about 180 days or six months to resolve issues of identity theft.

When it does complete cases, the IG found that about 10 percent of the “resolved” were riddled with errors.

The latest report comes at a tough time for the IRS, which is struggling with a recent round of budget cuts and is operating with an even greater workload while enforcing at least 40 new tax provisions under the president’s health care law.

The agency said it has temporarily suspended the online service that was the subject of the breach until the vulnerabilities are resolved.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

Charter to Buy Time Warner Cable: Winners and Losers

REUTERS/Mike Blake
By Yuval Rosenberg
May 26, 2015

Charter Communications on Tuesday said it will acquire Time Warner Cable in a deal valued at more than $55 billion. Charter will also buy Bright House Networks, a smaller cable company, for $10.4 billion. The two deals combined will make Charter into the second-largest cable and broadband provider in the U.S., with about 24 million subscribers, behind only Comcast, which has about 27 million subscribers.

WINNERS

Time Warner shareholders: An extra $10 billion over the $45.2 billion Comcast had offered sure makes for a nice payday after the earlier deal got scrapped. “Time Warner Cable has succeeded in extracting a fantastic price for its shareholders, far exceeding our expectations,” Morningstar strategist Michael Hodel wrote Tuesday. Hedge fund managers John Paulson of Paulson & Co. and Chris Hohn of Children’s Investment Fund Management reportedly both had sizable holdings in Time Warner Cable.

Time Warner Cable subscribers: The company’s service is reviled by customers. Charter’s isn’t exactly beloved, either, and subscribers may not see any immediate changes, but Charter promises that the deal will translate into faster broadband for subscribers and more free public Wi-Fi. Whether it actually does or not, the deal seems to spell the end of the Time Warner Cable name. Subscribers won’t miss it.

John Malone: The Liberty Media billionaire finally gets the megadeal he’s been looking for to make Charter Communications into a major industry power. If the deals goes through, the company would become the second-largest cable and broadband provider in the country, with some 24 million total subscribers.

Related: Charter and Time Warner Cable Merger: It’s All About Broadband

LOSERS

Comcast: At least CEO Brian Rogers was graceful about the prospect of a larger competitor. "This deal makes all the sense in the world,” he said in a statement. “I would like to congratulate all the parties."

Television content providers: One rationale for the deal is that the scale of the combined company will afford it more leverage in its negotiations with programmers.

Cable customers and online video watchers? The proposed deal still concerns consumer advocates like those at public interest group Free Press. “The issue of the cable industry's power to harm online video competition, which is what ultimately sank Comcast’s consolidation plans, are very much at play in this deal,” said Derek Turner, research director for Free Press. “Ultimately, this merger is yet another example of the poor incentives Wall Street’s quarterly-result mentality creates. Charter would rather take on an enormous amount of debt to pay a premium for Time Warner Cable than build fiber infrastructure, improve service for its existing customers or bring competition into new communities.”

Bloomberg for President? Today There Was a Telling Tweet

Iron Horse Entertainment/Reuters/The Fiscal Times
By Ciro Scotti
May 26, 2015

Who is the only person who could nail the Democratic nomination for president if Hillary Rodham Clinton falters? According to USA Today columnist Michael Wolff, it’s not declared candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont or about-to-declare former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley or progressive champion Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Nobody has the cash — which Wolff pegs at close to $2 billion — that would be required to mount a competitive race except for one potential candidate who been down the “will he or won’t he?” road before: former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Wolff calls the self-made billionaire the obvious and only alternative because of his money, first and foremost, but also because of his “progressive social conscience with pro-growth-economic views.”

Related: Is America Ready for a Liberal Rock ‘n Roll President?

Of course, there is no reason to take Wolff seriously. Since leaving City Hall, Bloomberg has been busy reestablishing his direct control over Bloomberg L.P., the financial data and media behemoth he founded, and he hasn’t even offered a tease about possibly running.

But this morning, the Wolff column was tweeted out by Kevin Sheekey, who managed Bloomberg’s three winning campaigns for mayor. Sheekey, a former deputy mayor, is currently head of government relations and communications at Bloomberg.

“Next February say, if the sky falls in on Hillary — one or more of the storm-cloud scenarios breaking over her head — would Michael Bloomberg step up?” Wolff asks.

Kevin Sheekey probably knows the answer.

Billionaires: 10 Intriguing New Facts About Who’s Getting Rich Now

Bank clerk counts Chinese yuan banknotes at a branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China in Huaibei
© Stringer China / Reuters
By Ciro Scotti
May 26, 2015

A new Chinese billionaire was created almost every week in the first quarter of 2015, according to a just-released report by UBS and PwC.

"Asia's billionaires make up 36 percent of self-made billionaire wealth, overtaking Europe for the first time and second only to the U.S.," said Antoinette Hoon, private banking advisory services partner for PwC in Hong Kong. “Looking forward, we expect the region to be the center of new billionaire wealth creation.”

Related: 6 Traits of an Emerging Millionaire: Are You One?

The report, which looked at data for 1,300 billionaires over 19 years, found – unsurprisingly -- that entrepreneurship is a powerful force for wealth creation. “Billionaires: Master architects of great wealth and lasting legacies" also noted that many billionaires are embracing philanthropy to build a legacy.

Here are 10 other findings of the report:

  • 917 self-made billionaires generated more than $3.6 trillion of global wealth between 1995 and 2014.
  • Of them, 23 percent launched their first business before age 30; 68 percent before turning 40.
  •  The second-highest number of self-made American billionaires (27.3 percent) in the last two decades came out of the tech sector.
  • Finance produced 30 percent of U.S. billionaires, but they aren’t as rich as their counterparts in tech; their average net worth is $4.5 billion, compared with $7.8 billion for tech moneybags.
  • In Europe and Asia, self-made billionaires mostly made their money in the consumer industry. Their wealth averages $5.7 billion. Tech entrepreneurs in Europe and Asia were the second-richest group with an average worth of $3.8 billion.
  • More than two-thirds of global billionaires are over 60 years old and have more than one child.
  • The average age of Asia billionaires is 57, 10 years younger than in the U.S. and Europe.
  • About one fourth of Asian billionaires had impoverished childhoods, compared with 8 percent in the U.S. and 6 percent in Europe.
  • 60 percent of self-made billionaires in the U.S. and Europe retain their businesses, 30 percent dispose of part of their business via an IPO or trade sale, with 10 percent selling outright.
  • In Europe and Asia, billionaires are most likely to create a business dynasty, with 57 percent of European and 56 percent of Asian billionaire families, respectively, taking over the family business when the founder retires. In the U.S., just 36 percent of businesses remain family-run once the founder retires.