Is it worth saving money anymore?

I still believe in keeping some savings, but what about long term financial planning?



I'm 31. Where should I be financially?

[...] Once you have a retirement goal in mind, you want to be able to refer to benchmarks along the way to see how you're doing. Otherwise, you could find yourself at the end of your career well short of the savings you'll need.

The best yardstick is the size of your nest egg relative to your income. To quit working at 65 with a decent shot at replacing 80% of your pre-retirement earnings, you'll need savings equal to roughly 12 times your income (that assumes you'll collect Social Security but no pension). [...]

I used to believe in this kind of advice. I still do, in theory. But is it worth doing NOW, when our money is being devaluated?

In my youth, till I learned to manage my money properly, I went hungry a few times between paychecks. Then, after going into debt with credit cards, I learned to save money to pay off the debt. After that, I was good at saving money so I kept doing it, enabling me to buy property. Since then, I've always had savings. But nowadays, I keep thinking I need to spend it, before it becomes worthless. Like it happened in Germany in the 1920's, where people's entire life savings were wiped out overnight.

James Turk did the following interview with Moneychanger.com. Turk maintains that our currency has already collapsed, that we are already in the "process", and it just hasn't reached critical mass yet. The interviewer argues forcefully against Turks assessments, but Turk holds his ground, answering a lot of good questions by the interviewer. Here's a sample:

JAMES TURK ON THE DOLLAR’S COMING COLLAPSE

[...]
Moneychanger Since, at least the New Deal and the succession of Roosevelt and all his monetary/inflationary tricks, people have been predicting that the dollar would collapse. Aren’t you ashamed to come along 70 years later and predict again that the dollar is going to collapse?

Turk By any logical interpretation the dollar has already collapsed. Today’s dollar only purchases five cents of what it purchased in the 1930s, ten cents of what it purchased in the 1960-70s, and maybe 50 cents of what it purchased in the 1980s. So inflation has already brought the dollar to an ongoing collapse. The sound money people have been warning about this through the decades: the dollar is no longer an effective form of currency.

That raises another question: will the dollar’s problems become more severe? That’s where it becomes a bit more troublesome in terms of projecting and looking at the future. Can this decades-long situation continue, or must it end in some cataclysm? In our view it must come to end in a cataclysm, and that’s what we lay out in the book.

Moneychanger But isn’t the word “collapse” misleading? The people who mange the dollar, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, have managed the collapse from 1934 until 2004, 70 years, so that the economy did not collapse along with the dollar. Can you really call that a collapse? Also, what’s to prevent their managing it a bit longer, through this decade? Even if it loses (as I expect) at least 75% of its value in this decade -- and it’s already lost nearly 30% from February 2002 to March 2004 -- it still won’t disrupt the economy too terribly.

Turk Let’s look at the first part of that question, the claim that the economy hasn’t collapsed. You’re widening the point that I was making earlier about the dollar collapsing in terms of purchasing power. When you bring the economy into the discussion you have to ask yourself another question. Are people better off now than they were 20-30 years ago? Looking at real wealth and adjusting for the dollar’s debasement, people are less wealthy today than they were 20-30 years ago. Incomes are lower today than they were 20-30 years ago, partly because the dollar’s been debased, partly because people take home less money after taxes. By any logical measure, I don’t think people are as well off as they were in the 1960s or 1950s when the dollar problems weren’t as severe as they’ve become in recent decades.

But there’s more to that question: we’ve created a debt mountain, a debt bubble. Bubbles always pop. We mortgaged our future trying to maintain standards of living by debasing the currency and borrowing. This is unsustainable and will ultimately bring about the dollar’s collapse.

Moneychanger But the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have managed the collapse. That’s what they do. They are crisis managers. They exist to manage the debasement of the dollar so that this infection does not give the whole economy a fever resulting in death. Would you agree?

Turk Yes, and as a clear result of their managing an unsustainable situation, we have less and less freedom. The Patriot Act just presents the latest example. Look at US financial history. They continue to erode and encumber our freedom. Why? Because they recognise that the present system is not sustainable and they are trying to keep the bubble in the air.

Moneychanger You claim the present system is not sustainable. Allan Greenspan says it is. George Bush says it is.

Turk Well, are they going to tell you that it’s not sustainable?

Moneychanger No, but they have 70 years of success to argue on their side. What makes it different this time? In the dollar’s darkest hours of 1980, when gold hit $850 and silver $50 and they pushed interest rates over 20%, well, yes, it’s a crisis, but we’ll muddle through this one, too. They’ve been muddling through since 1934. What is to prevent their muddling through this time? What specific things will make the dollar collapse this time? By “collapse” I don’t mean “erode” or even “erode quickly”, but I mean collapse in the sense that currency collapsed in Germany in 1923 or Argentina in 2002.

Turk That is exactly what I envision for the dollar. To answer your question we have to consider both supply and demand. In recent decades demand for the dollar has been, more or less, fairly consistent. As the financial bubble has been inflated and the Debt Mountain was built, people have continued to demand the dollar. They still use it for their day to day transactions. But what happened in Argentina and in Germany in the 1920s? Eventually, in a very short period of time, people realised that the hollow promises they were using for currency weren't worth what they had previously valued them to be. Then began the flight from the currency. The demand for those currencies dropped dramatically. In a long-term time frame, you could say almost overnight, but it was really over a period of weeks and months. People moved out of that currency as quickly as they could into other alternatives.

Demand for the dollar will ultimately drop for essentially the same reasons that demand for the Argentine peso and the Reichsmark dropped: they were fiat currencies oversupplied to the market.

Today far too many dollars are sloshing around the global economy. All it takes is a little break in confidence, then people quickly understand that the dollar is not worth the paper it’s printed on. There are a lot of hollow promises backing your dollar. That will lead to the flight from the currency that will ultimately bring the dollar down. But it’s the same outcome for every fiat currency. That’s the point that Americans don’t yet get. There is no logical reason why the dollar should end any differently than any other fiat currency.

Moneychanger But help me see the unseen. In 1923 Germany the people had already suffered through the inflation of World War I. They had seen their currency lose value as prices rose 800%, they had caught on. That “catching on” was necessary to precipitate the flight from the currency.

In Argentina in the decades of the 1980s and 90s, they had three different currencies, if I’m not mistaken. It may have been four, I can’t keep up with it. All Latin America has a century-long tradition of monetary instability. In the U.S. the last two generations have grown up without seeing gold in circulation, the last generation has grown up without seeing silver in circulation. Since 1971, the whole world has been on a fiat standard. Every currency has been inconvertible, backed by nothing. So why would American confidence break now? They don’t know anything else. They have only known a regime of inflation and ever-depreciating dollars. What will put the idea in their mind now that they have to flee out of dollars?

Turk What will trigger the flight from the dollar? We can’t really predict that. It could be some geopolitical event, some domestic financial event, a bankruptcy of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. We just don’t know what the specific trigger will be.

Look at the overall picture of what the dollar is today, and ask yourself a question. Do I want to prepare for this coming event by moving assets out of dollars into other alternatives – other currencies, precious metals, tangible assets. Never mind asking what specific event will starts the flight.

Where we stand today in this country is not unlike where Russians stood in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. If you had possessed the terrific foresight to say that in two years the Russian Rouble will collapse and the Soviet Union will be history, the average Russian would have just laughed at you. And you know what he would have said? “The government will never let that happen.” Exactly what Americans say today.

“The government will never let that happen.”

But the reality is that the market is bigger than the government. Truth can be hid for only so long, and we have been hiding the truth. We’ve been creating illusions of prosperity, while in reality we’ve been consuming infrastructure and building a debt mountain. The Debt Mountain is ultimately going to be the problem that causes the dollar to collapse. [...]

Turk claims that we have not had a sound currency since 1934, even though a sound currency was written into our constitution. He also predicts the American people will demand that we go back to it.

This interview was made in 2004. Yet he predicts some things that have since happened, or are happening now. Read the whole thing, it's a real eye-opener.

What can we DO about any of it? Idaknow. Do what we can, I suppose, to get ready for the Brave New World of Finance that seems to be inexorably coming our way?


Related Links:

Commentary: Stimulate the economy, not government

What would a U.S. currency collapse look like?

Argentina's Example: Are we heading there?

Our true national debt: $130,000,000,000,000.
     

Is the Tea Party's approach to debt flawed?

At first I assumed that this article was just another hit piece against the Tea Party. But I think it's more subtle, and on reading it, I think it does bring up some interesting points:

National debt: Where the Tea Party is wrong

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- First, let's give the Tea Party props for thinking critically about how much money the government should spend -- energizing the debate about the national debt.

Now for the fact check: Some of the Tea Party arguments for how to address deficits are just plain misguided.

Here are four assertions Tea Partiers make that don't pass the sniff test.

1. To kill debt, cut spending but don't raise taxes: A staple Tea Party promise is to cut spending and keep taxes low.

"[Americans] want spending cuts now, not in ten years. They don't want more job-killing tax increases," Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois said in a recent statement.

Walsh went on to say that the $100 billion in spending cuts that many in the House GOP wanted to make over the next seven months "is what tackling the deficit looks like."

Not quite.

For starters, the cuts proposed by the House GOP primarily hit non-defense discretionary programs, which make up less than 15% of the total budget

Budget experts on the left and right say successful debt reduction can only occur when spending is cut across all areas of the budget.

And excluding revenue increases from the mix is the equivalent of one hand clapping: ineffective given the size of the country's debt.

Ronald Reagan, often revered as the king of small government and low taxes, signed into law some of the biggest tax cuts in modern history. But Reagan also approved some of the biggest tax increases, too. And he did so to help reduce swelling deficits.

Reagan raised more revenue not by raising tax rates but by making it harder to evade taxes and by reducing the number of tax breaks on the books. [...]

Read the whole thing, which contains embedded links and a video too.

I could nit-pik some things, but there are some relevant points made. Because we already are in debt, we have to manage the existing debt, while simultaneously trying to reduce it. So many things are interconnected, if you suddenly cut off some things, there will be chain reactions in other areas. It's almost like we have to back our way out of some things, before we can start cutting them.

Just as it took time to get this messed up, it's going to take some time to get out. But thrashing about wildly could be just as bad as paralysis. We need to find that middle path that works, with minimal time wasted and optimal damage control. It may mean some compromises for an interim period. I pray that Congress is up to the task. They must be.

I think this would be the best approach for Congress to follow:

Budget cutting, the REASONable way

It's workable, and makes sense in so many ways.
     

Does gridlock mean bigger government?

It would, by default. What could make a difference? Perhaps the Toomey bill:

Debt-Limit Remedy Gives Fiscal Hawks Leverage

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? House Republicans can pass all sorts of legislation to reduce the burden of government spending, but they don't control the Senate and they can't override a presidential veto. President Barack Obama, meanwhile, lacks the power to compel Congress to approve Democratic goals, including higher taxes.

This is a recipe for gridlock. And gridlock means bigger government: Democratic proponents of the status quo are in much stronger position to prevail because there are few ways for budget cutters to exert their will.

But there is some hope because of a "must-pass" piece of legislation. The president wants Congress to increase the statutory debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion so that government operations remain unaffected. Republicans oppose this business- as-usual approach and are insisting on real fiscal reforms in exchange for a higher ceiling.

[...]

Quite simply, Toomey's bill would require the federal government to fulfill obligations to bondholders before making any other disbursements.

To the extent that investors actually are worried, Toomey's legislation would remove ambiguity and, to borrow from the title of the bill, make clear that the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government would be preserved.

Toomey's proposal has generated a lot of angst among Beltway insiders because it would change the political dynamics of the budget fight. Politicians love to pontificate about the dangers of debt, but many of them are MIA when it comes to putting real limits on the growth of government spending.

It's much easier to put the budget on auto-pilot and delay tough choices, which is usually what happens with closed-door budget compromises in Washington.

Powerful Weapon
If the Toomey legislation is adopted, fiscal reformers will have a powerful weapon at their disposal. Secure in the knowledge that default no longer is a possibility, they can be much tougher in their negotiations with the politicians who favor the status quo. [...]

THAT would be change I could believe in.
     

Budget cutting, the REASONable way

Reason.tv: Budget Chef Presents: How to Balance the Budget W/O Raising Taxes!

Using just a big piece of pork, a large knife, and a small knife, the budget chef shows how to balance the federal budget by 2020.

As a special treat, he does it without raising taxes from the current Bush-era rates!

It seems like a complicated preparation at first, but it's so simple that almost any elected official should be able to pull it off like a pro!

Domestic and foreign investors will love this, and it will also help create a stable environment conducive to long-term, sustainable economic growth.

Between 2011 and 2020, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that total federal outlays - for defense, agriculture subsidies, Medicare, Social Security, you name it - will total a whopping $42.1 trillion (in 2010 dollars). To bring outlays down to revenue, we need to cut a total of $1.3 trillion in total expenditures over the next 10 years.

That sounds like a really tall order until you realize that it cutting just 3.6 percent a year for each of the next 10 years. To put it in dollar terms, it means cutting about $130 billion a year from budgets that will average over $4 trillion.

That's not so hard now, is it? By making small, systematic cuts to a federal budget that is larded up with more fat than an Ponderosa buffet, we can balance the budget without even nicking essential services. [...]

The video is just a summary. It's based on a much more detailed article:

How to Balance the Budget Without Raising Taxes
The 19 Percent Solution

A value-added tax, a soda tax, a gas tax, banning earmarks, freezing a portion of federal spending at "pre-stimulus" levels - there’s no shortage of ideas being thrown out to fix the country’s disastrous balance sheet, which threatens not just near-term economic recovery but the possibility of long-term growth. Like last week's report from the president's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, most of the current plans to fix the country's finances rely more on increases in revenues than on cuts in spending. In part due to its heavy reliance on revenue hikes, the commission, charged with balancing the budget by 2020, failed to win enough votes of its own members to present its recommendations to Congress.

Which raises the question: Can America really reduce its debt and deficit without raising taxes to job-killing rates or cutting essential services to developing-world levels? The answer is not simply yes, it's that we have to.

Raising government revenue - taxes - substantially is not only bad policy, it has proven difficult and ultimately unsustainable for any length of time in the past 60 years. Since 1950, annual government revenue, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), has averaged just below 18 percent despite every attempt to jack it up or tamp it down. Our post-World War II experience shows that if the government is going to live within its means, it can't spend much more than 18 percent of GDP. Period.


Which is one reason to be happy that the debt commission's recommendations won't be presented to Congress anytime soon. The report assumes revenue equal to 21 percent of GDP and struggles to get spending to "below 22% and eventually to 21%" of GDP. That’s a recipe for disaster that would guarantee deficits and red ink.

Similarly, former Sens. Bill Bradley, John Danforth, and Gary Hart, working with the Committee for a Responsible Budget, have offered up a plan to balance the budget by 2020 that relies on revenue hitting 20.8 percent of GDP, a level that hasn't been achieved once in the past 60 years. Republicans have not advanced any realistic near-term plans. Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wisc.) Roadmap to the American Future does not balance the budget until 2063. The pre-election GOP’s Pledge to America is worthless since it fails to provide specifics (and to the extent it does, it is no good).

The current situation is a bipartisan disaster that requires immediate action. Since Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001, total federal spending has increased by a massive 60 percent in inflation-adjusted 2010 dollars. In fiscal year 2010, which ended September 30, the federal government spent $3.6 trillion, or 25 percent of Gross Domestic Product. That’s the most spending, in terms of percentage of GDP, since 1946. Likewise, last year’s $1.5 trillion deficit, as a percentage of GDP, was the largest deficit since 1945.

Most economists talk about a debt-to-GDP ratio of 60 percent as a trigger point that makes investors very nervous about a country's ability to pay its obligations. The debt to GDP ratio was 63 percent this year and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects it will be 87 percent in 2020. Just three years ago, it was 36.5 percent. Not good signs.

So, what would it take to bring federal spending into line with plausible levels of revenue?

The CBO, the non-partisan agency charged with estimating the effects of legislation on government costs, has produced a long-term budget outlook in which Bush-era tax rates remain unchanged. Their conclusion is that over the next decade, "government revenues would remain at about 19 percent of GDP, near their historical averages." That's actually a bit higher than the historical average, but is within the bounds of reason. [...]

There's a lot more. Read the whole thing, the original article also has many embedded links too. It's so refreshing to read about real, actual, REASONABLE solutions!

     

The Bond Market won't wait much longer

A Race Against Time To Balance the Budget

[...] Even as Greece, Spain and Ireland raise the specter of sovereign debt crises, even as France and Britain take bold action to bring their excessive spending under control (at the price of major street violence in their capital cities) American politicians focus on the general unacceptability of a proposal that includes anything that doesn't quite fit their ideological predilections. If they can't have it exactly their way, then they don't want it at all. They are prepared to just coast forward at multi-trillion dollar yearly deficits, leaving only a string of condemnatory press releases in their wake.

But there are Cassandras out there warning against such delays. This spring, Fed Chairman Bernanke warned Congress that the United States could soon face a debt crisis like the one in Greece.

"It's not something that is 10 years away. It affects the markets currently," he told the House Financial Services Committee. "It is possible that bond markets will become worried about the sustainability (of yearly deficits over $1 trillion), and we may find ourselves facing higher interest rates even today."

Just last weekend, the former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying he believed "something equivalent to what Bowles and Simpson put out is going to be approved by Congress. But the only question is whether it is before or after a crisis in the bond market."

He said the risk is that the deficit, which hit $1.3 trillion this year, could spook the bond market. That would result in long-term interest rates moving up rapidly and could lead to a double-dip recession.

The Fed chairs are not alone. According to Bloomberg News, earlier this year, New York University professor Nouriel Roubini, who predicted that last crash, said that "the U.S. may fall victim to bond "vigilantes" targeting indebted nations from the U.K. to Japan in a potential second stage of the financial crisis."

"The chances are, they are going to wake up in the United States in the next three years and say, 'this is unsustainable.'"

Roubini suggested that "the public debt burden incurred after the 2008 bank panic may now cause the financial crisis to metamorphose.

"There is now a massive re-leveraging of the public sector, with budget deficits on the order of 10 percent" of gross domestic product "in a number of countries," Roubini said. "History would suggest that maybe this crisis is not really over. We just finished the first stage and there's a risk of ending up in the second stage of this financial crisis."

Of course, we may get lucky. But the sad thing is that we don't even have to fully implement a ten-year deficit reduction plan to vastly reduce the risk of a bond crisis. If we were to enact a serious, credible plan -- even if it didn't begin to bite for a few years, that would probably assure the bond market that we are taking care of the problem.

By immediate action, I mean that Congress and the president go into intense negotiations this coming January and keep at it until we have a plan that brings us back to fiscal probity and is reflected in a budget resolution and the early appropriation and authorization bills. It will take about six months of intense, good faith work. [...]

Clearly it can be done, but how much longer are we going to procrastinate? Timing matters. We must keep pressure on the GOP to hold the course on fiscal responsibility, and to do what is necessary. Too little, too late, could have extremely dire consequences. It's fixable, but we have to act NOW.


Also see:

Has US Currency already "collapsed"?

The book "When Money Dies" is back in print

What happens when Tax Cuts Expire in 2011?

Our true national debt: $130,000,000,000,000.

Argentina's Example: Are we heading there?

     

California Sinks, as Texas Rises

Financially speaking, that is:

California Suggests Suicide; Texas Asks: Can I Lend You a Knife?

In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits.

California has drifted far away from the place that John Gunther described in 1946 as “the most spectacular and most diversified American state … so ripe, golden.” Instead of a role model, California has become a cautionary tale of mismanagement of what by all rights should be the country’s most prosperous big state. Its poverty rate is at least two points above the national average; its unemployment rate nearly three points above the national average. On Friday Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was forced yet again to call an emergency session in order to deal with the state’s enormous budget problems.

This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests.

In the new year, the once and again Gov. Jerry Brown, who has some conservative fiscal instincts, will be hard-pressed to convince Democratic legislators who get much of their funding from public-sector unions to trim spending. Perhaps more troubling, Brown’s own extremism on climate change policy–backed by rent-seeking Silicon Valley investors with big bets on renewable fuels–virtually assures a further tightening of a regulatory regime that will slow an economic recovery in every industry from manufacturing and agriculture to home-building.


Texas’ trajectory, however, looks quite the opposite.[...]

Read the whole thing and see how. Count the many, many ways. See how bad things have gotten in California. Even I was shocked.

Texas is the living contrast, showing that there IS a way out for California, if they will take it. If not... NO BAILOUTS. Let them go bankrupt, and
dissolve their government employee unions. Some people need to learn the hard way, that you can't spend money you don't have.
     

Federal deficit-cutting commission gets real

I hadn't much hope for this commission, but I may have to change my mind:

Deficit-Cutting Chairmen Call Washington's Bluff

Perhaps you don't want to play poker with Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles.

Mr. Simpson, the Republican and former Senator from Wyoming, and Mr. Bowles, the Democrat and former White House chief of staff, are chairmen of the federal deficit-cutting commission charged with devising a way to reduce the red ink Washington is producing. They oversee an 18-member, bipartisan panel that is supposed to come up with a plan by Dec. 1, provided they can get 14 of the 18 commission members to agree on something.

That's a big if. But the two have at least increased the odds of success with the clever way they rolled out their own personal recommendations Wednesday on how to suck up that red ink.

Specifically, they jolted the capital by laying out ideas to achieve some $4 trillion in deficit reduction by 2020. Look carefully at what they did and how they did it, and you'll see that their effort was designed to box in those on all sides who would rather talk in high-sounding generalities about the deficit than deal with the unpleasant specifics.

That doesn't mean they will succeed, but their tactics have at least given them a better shot.

Consider: [...]

Read the whole thing. It seems well thought-out, and they announced it publicaly rather than privately, so it can't just be ignored. It surpasses the requested reduction amount, and has wiggle room for adjustments. Sounds like a great starting point.

     

National Debt, Deficits and our National Security

Deficit Balloons Into National-Security Threat

[...] The U.S. government this year will borrow one of every three dollars it spends, with many of those funds coming from foreign countries. That weakens America's standing and its freedom to act; strengthens China and other world powers including cash-rich oil producers; puts long-term defense spending at risk; undermines the power of the American system as a model for developing countries; and reduces the aura of power that has been a great intangible asset for presidents for more than a century.

"We've reached a point now where there's an intimate link between our solvency and our national security," says Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior national-security adviser in both the first and second Bush presidencies. "What's so discouraging is that our domestic politics don't seem to be up to the challenge. And the whole world is watching."

In the 21st-century world order, the classic, narrow definition of national-security threats already has expanded in ways that make traditional foreign-policy thinking antiquated. The list of American security concerns now includes dependence on foreign oil and global warming, for example.

Consider just four of the ways that budget deficits also threaten American's national security:

• They make America vulnerable to foreign pressures.

The U.S. has about $7.5 trillion in accumulated debt held by the public, about half of that in the hands of investors abroad.

Aside from the fact that each American next year will chip in more than $800 just to pay interest on this debt, that situation means America's government is dependent on the largesse of foreign creditors and subject to the whims of international financial markets. A foreign government, through the actions of its central bank, could put pressure on the U.S. in a way its military never could. Even under a more benign scenario, a debt-ridden U.S. is vulnerable to a run on the American dollar that begins abroad.

Either way, Mr. Haass says, "it reduces our independence."

• Chinese power is growing as a result.

A lot of the deficit is being financed by China, which is selling the U.S. many billions of dollars of manufactured goods, then lending the accumulated dollars back to the U.S. The IOUs are stacking up in Beijing.

So far this has been a mutually beneficial arrangement, but it is slowly increasing Chinese leverage over American consumers and the American government. At some point, the U.S. may have to bend its policies before either an implicit or explicit Chinese threat to stop the merry-go-round. [...]

It goes on to give many more examples of the threats this is creating to our sovereignty and our national security. Yikes. What ARE we doing? And what should we be doing differently, to stop or reverse this trend?

More on that theme follows, in this interview with David Walker, author of the book "Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility." Here is an excerpt of the interview:

What Every American Should Know About the National Debt

[...]

Q. Who do we owe the money to?

A. Fifty percent is owed to foreign lenders. China is number one, Japan is number two, a block of oil producing nations comes next.

Q. Do you think that affects our foreign policy toward China?

A. Yes, it does. It's already been manifested because one of the reasons American tax payers now guarantee $5 trillion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt is because the Japanese and the Chinese demanded it.

Q. Is there a point at which China could say, 'We've decided to stop lending you money?'

A. What's more likely is that China will say, 'We're not going to lend you money unless you pay us higher interest rates.'"

Q. What should people expect their elected officials to do if they're acting responsibly and taking care of the country?

A. In the short term the deficits are going to be high because of the recession, because of two wars, because of unemployment, but what we need to deal with is the structural imbalance. Once the economy recovers, once unemployment gets down, and the wars are over, we still have large and looming deficits. That's what threatens the ship of state.

President Obama says he wants to freeze a part of discretionary spending for three years. That's a good first step, but we're going to have to do a lot more than that. He supports pay-as-you-go rules, but there are big loopholes in the pay-as-you-go-rules. Thirdly, he talks about creating a fiscal commission that would make recommendations on tougher budget controls, Social Security, Medicare and tax reforms. We clearly need to do that to engage the American people and to get a vote in Congress in 2011. That's very, very important to maintain the confidence of our foreign lenders...if we lose the confidence of our foreign lenders, we're in deep trouble.

Q. What does trouble look like?

A. That means the dollar will drop dramatically, interest rates will go up, unemployment would go up dramatically and you'll have something much worse than a recession. It would be ugly. The important thing is we can avoid that and that's what the book's about. [...]

More and more this is becoming obvious. When will the the politicians in D.C. "get it?" Walker has written a book about solutions, it's not as if there aren't any. We need to start applying those solutions NOW.
     

We Must Dump the Republican Baggage

I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but the Republicans must own up to this, so they can then dump it and change course. IF they want their credibility back.

Karl Rove’s Hypocritical Call for Fiscal Rectitude

[...] I’m a big fan of condemning Obama’s big-government schemes, but Rove is the last person in the world who should be complaining about too much wasteful spending. After all, he was the top adviser to President Bush and the federal budget exploded during Bush’s eight years, climbing from $1.8 trillion to more than $3.5 trillion. More specifically, Rove was a leading proponent of the proposals that dramatically expanded the size and scope of the federal government, including the no-bureaucrat-left-behind education bill, the two corrupt farm bills, the two pork-filled transportation bills, and the grossly irresponsible new Medicare entitlement program.

Not surprisingly, Rove even tries to blame Obama for some of Bush’s overspending, writing that “…discretionary domestic spending now stands at $536 billion, up nearly 24% from President George W. Bush’s last full year budget in fiscal 2008 of $433.6 billion. That’s a huge spending surge, even for a profligate liberal like Mr. Obama.” This passage leads the reader to assume that Obama should be blamed for what happened in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, but as I’ve already explained, the 2009 fiscal year started about four months before Obama took office and 96 percent of the spending can be attributed to Bush’s fiscal profligacy. Yes, Obama is now making a bad situation worse by further increasing spending, but he should be criticized for continuing Bush’s mistakes.

Rove then has the gall to complain that Obama is “…growing the federal government’s share of GDP from its historic post-World War II average of roughly 20% to the target Mr. Obama laid out in his budget blueprint last February of 24%.” Yet a quick look at the budget data shows that the burden of federal spending jumped from 18.4 percent of GDP when Bush took office to more than 25 percent of economic output when he left office. Even if the (hopefully) temporary bailout costs are not counted, Bush and Rove are the ones who deserve most of the blame for today’s much larger burden of government. It should be noted, by the way, that none of the new spending under Bush was imposed over his objection. He did not veto any legislation because of excessive spending. [...]

Read the whole thing, for the embedded links.

In 2000, for the first time since I became and eligible voter, I did not vote in the presidential election. Both choices seemed equally awful. I'm sure I was not the only one who felt that way, which is why I think the election was so close.

In 2004, I nearly didn't vote again, for the reasons mentioned in the above article. But John Kerry seemed possibly worse, so I held my nose and voted for George Bush. I hoped, in vain, that W would embrace fiscal conservatism. It was not to be.

Republicans really need to dump this baggage they've collected. If they hang on to it, I'm not sure I can be bothered to vote anymore.
     

The euro and the yen have surpassed the dollar as the favored currency by central banks

From Neal Boortz:

HOW'S THE HOPEY, CHANGEY, SPENDY THING WORKING OUT FOR YA?

When Barack Obama was elected, he and the Democrats insisted that we could spend our way out of this crisis. Remember that? Remember the $787 billion stimulus bill that needed to be passed IMMEDIATELY in order to start our economy on its way to recovery? Yeah ... the bill that was essentially written by hard-left, anti-capitalistic activist groups like The Apollo Alliance. Well more than six months later, we have unemployment creeping up on 10%. And we have this ..... from Bloomberg:

President Barack Obama's effort to lead the world economic recovery by spending the U.S. out of its recession is undermining the dollar, triggering record commodities rallies as investors scour the globe for hard assets.

Did you hear that, folks? Isn't that just wonderful? Isn't that just the type of change you voted for? All of this spending ... all of this printing of money ... all of these government dreams and schemes and bailouts .... they are starting to affect America. Big time.

The dollar went into "crisis mode" earlier this week when the euro and the yen surpassed the dollar as the favored currency by central banks.

Thank you Oh Great Chosen One ... the American dollar on the back bench. That's the type of change we voted for, isn't it?

Then we get reports like this from the New York Post:

After printing up trillions of new dollars and new bonds to stimulate the US economy, the Federal Reserve chief is now boxed into a corner battling two separate monsters that could devour the economy -- ravenous inflation on one hand, and a perilous recession on the other.

"He's in a crisis worse than the meltdown ever was," said Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital. "I fear that he could be the Fed chairman who brought down the whole thing."

Bringing "the whole thing" down! Even MORE change you can believe in!

Don't you see what has happened here, folks? Obama has succeeded in weakening America. Low interest rates, flooding the economy with money by simply printing it, a mounting pile of debt. So now ask you again ... how's this hopey, changey, spendy thing working out for ya? Better yet, how is it going to work out for your grandchildren?

I keep hearing on from the MSM that the recession is over, yet unemployment continues to rise. And that continues to affect what could otherwise be a recovery:

HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT ADDS TO THE DEFICIT

Speaking of unemployment ... that, too, is having an impact on our massive government deficit, which is currently $1.4 trillion in 2009. This makes perfect sense if you think about it.

High unemployment means two things: more taxpayer dollars spent on unemployment checks and less tax revenue. This will cost the government about $100 billion a year.

I bring this up for one reason and one reason only. The Democrat solution to this is to throw more money at the unemployed ... to extend unemployment benefits. In the meantime, they wish to increase taxes on the very people who would be able to create jobs for these people .. to get them off the government dole. Creating jobs, not spending money, is the solution.

There. How hard was that?

I don't see anything being done to create jobs, only things being done to cripple, limit and restrain those who can, could and would create jobs.

If you think that a 1.4 TRILLION dollar deficit is bad, consider that our national debt is pushing 12 TRILLION dollars, and climbing:

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

Our situation is becoming increasingly unsustainable, as we continue to do exactly the wrong things to get out of the hole our government is digging us into.
     

Has US Currency already "collapsed"?

A post I did a while back, "What would a U.S. currency collapse look like?", has been getting more hits and rising up in my site meter. I found out it's been linked to at Ask.com, regarding the search words "currency collapse". I went to that page, and there were many interesting links to that topic. Here are a few that I found informative:

How Does a Currency Collapse? and the U.S. $?

When a currency loses the confidence of its people, its fall becomes exponential, as has happened to the Zimbabwe $, where in 1982 one U.S.$ equalled 1 Zimbabwe $. Today around Z$200,000 buys one U.S. $ if you can find someone idiot enough to sell one for the Z$.

In day-to-day terms, the smallest note in Zimbabwe a Z$500 is the size of a U.S.$. The price of a single-ply sheet of toilet paper is more expensive at around Z$867.

The U.S.$ is nowhere near there, but clearly the U.S. Administration has no plan or even desire to rectify the U.S. Trade deficit. Consequently, we are seeing a growing number of Central Banks turning to the Euro for its reserves and away from the U.S.$.

Whilst most observers and particularly U.S. observers like to have tangible facts and numbers with which to mathematically gauge the present and the different possible futures, a collapsing currency situation is not as neatly gaugeable. Indeed it is driven in stages of ‘confidence’, which are rarely measurable in advance.

For instance we see today the move of the Pension and other long-term funds into the gold E.T.F. one finds there are no mathematically measurable factors with which to measure the pace of change to these funds. Yes, the number of ‘Road-shows’ the World Gold Council does affects this move to some extent, but how do you measure the spread of that knowledge and resulting investment in the E.T.F.s outside of that? How does one measure the forces causing uncertainty and falling ‘confidence’.

It is an emotional progression, one that moves in lurches as particular incidents destroy confidence limb by limb. In such a climate a steady degeneration of confidence lead to an effect we shall call a "plateau - cliff" process.[...]

Read the whole thing. See the steps of the "process". See the graph. Yikes.


Then James Turk does an interview with Moneychanger.com. Turk maintains that our currency has already collapsed, that we are already in the "process", and it just hasn't reached critical mass yet. The interviewer argues forcefully against Turks assessments, but Turk holds his ground, answering a lot of good questions by the interviewer. Here's a sample:

JAMES TURK ON THE DOLLAR’S COMING COLLAPSE

[...]
Moneychanger Since, at least the New Deal and the succession of Roosevelt and all his monetary/inflationary tricks, people have been predicting that the dollar would collapse. Aren’t you ashamed to come along 70 years later and predict again that the dollar is going to collapse?

Turk By any logical interpretation the dollar has already collapsed. Today’s dollar only purchases five cents of what it purchased in the 1930s, ten cents of what it purchased in the 1960-70s, and maybe 50 cents of what it purchased in the 1980s. So inflation has already brought the dollar to an ongoing collapse. The sound money people have been warning about this through the decades: the dollar is no longer an effective form of currency.

That raises another question: will the dollar’s problems become more severe? That’s where it becomes a bit more troublesome in terms of projecting and looking at the future. Can this decades-long situation continue, or must it end in some cataclysm? In our view it must come to end in a cataclysm, and that’s what we lay out in the book.

Moneychanger But isn’t the word “collapse” misleading? The people who mange the dollar, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, have managed the collapse from 1934 until 2004, 70 years, so that the economy did not collapse along with the dollar. Can you really call that a collapse? Also, what’s to prevent their managing it a bit longer, through this decade? Even if it loses (as I expect) at least 75% of its value in this decade -- and it’s already lost nearly 30% from February 2002 to March 2004 -- it still won’t disrupt the economy too terribly.

Turk Let’s look at the first part of that question, the claim that the economy hasn’t collapsed. You’re widening the point that I was making earlier about the dollar collapsing in terms of purchasing power. When you bring the economy into the discussion you have to ask yourself another question. Are people better off now than they were 20-30 years ago? Looking at real wealth and adjusting for the dollar’s debasement, people are less wealthy today than they were 20-30 years ago. Incomes are lower today than they were 20-30 years ago, partly because the dollar’s been debased, partly because people take home less money after taxes. By any logical measure, I don’t think people are as well off as they were in the 1960s or 1950s when the dollar problems weren’t as severe as they’ve become in recent decades.

But there’s more to that question: we’ve created a debt mountain, a debt bubble. Bubbles always pop. We mortgaged our future trying to maintain standards of living by debasing the currency and borrowing. This is unsustainable and will ultimately bring about the dollar’s collapse.

Moneychanger But the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have managed the collapse. That’s what they do. They are crisis managers. They exist to manage the debasement of the dollar so that this infection does not give the whole economy a fever resulting in death. Would you agree?

Turk Yes, and as a clear result of their managing an unsustainable situation, we have less and less freedom. The Patriot Act just presents the latest example. Look at US financial history. They continue to erode and encumber our freedom. Why? Because they recognise that the present system is not sustainable and they are trying to keep the bubble in the air.

Moneychanger You claim the present system is not sustainable. Allan Greenspan says it is. George Bush says it is.

Turk Well, are they going to tell you that it’s not sustainable?

Moneychanger No, but they have 70 years of success to argue on their side. What makes it different this time? In the dollar’s darkest hours of 1980, when gold hit $850 and silver $50 and they pushed interest rates over 20%, well, yes, it’s a crisis, but we’ll muddle through this one, too. They’ve been muddling through since 1934. What is to prevent their muddling through this time? What specific things will make the dollar collapse this time? By “collapse” I don’t mean “erode” or even “erode quickly”, but I mean collapse in the sense that currency collapsed in Germany in 1923 or Argentina in 2002.

Turk That is exactly what I envision for the dollar. To answer your question we have to consider both supply and demand. In recent decades demand for the dollar has been, more or less, fairly consistent. As the financial bubble has been inflated and the Debt Mountain was built, people have continued to demand the dollar. They still use it for their day to day transactions. But what happened in Argentina and in Germany in the 1920s? Eventually, in a very short period of time, people realised that the hollow promises they were using for currency weren't worth what they had previously valued them to be. Then began the flight from the currency. The demand for those currencies dropped dramatically. In a long-term time frame, you could say almost overnight, but it was really over a period of weeks and months. People moved out of that currency as quickly as they could into other alternatives.

Demand for the dollar will ultimately drop for essentially the same reasons that demand for the Argentine peso and the Reichsmark dropped: they were fiat currencies oversupplied to the market.

Today far too many dollars are sloshing around the global economy. All it takes is a little break in confidence, then people quickly understand that the dollar is not worth the paper it’s printed on. There are a lot of hollow promises backing your dollar. That will lead to the flight from the currency that will ultimately bring the dollar down. But it’s the same outcome for every fiat currency. That’s the point that Americans don’t yet get. There is no logical reason why the dollar should end any differently than any other fiat currency.

Moneychanger But help me see the unseen. In 1923 Germany the people had already suffered through the inflation of World War I. They had seen their currency lose value as prices rose 800%, they had caught on. That “catching on” was necessary to precipitate the flight from the currency.

In Argentina in the decades of the 1980s and 90s, they had three different currencies, if I’m not mistaken. It may have been four, I can’t keep up with it. All Latin America has a century-long tradition of monetary instability. In the U.S. the last two generations have grown up without seeing gold in circulation, the last generation has grown up without seeing silver in circulation. Since 1971, the whole world has been on a fiat standard. Every currency has been inconvertible, backed by nothing. So why would American confidence break now? They don’t know anything else. They have only known a regime of inflation and ever-depreciating dollars. What will put the idea in their mind now that they have to flee out of dollars?

Turk What will trigger the flight from the dollar? We can’t really predict that. It could be some geopolitical event, some domestic financial event, a bankruptcy of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. We just don’t know what the specific trigger will be.

Look at the overall picture of what the dollar is today, and ask yourself a question. Do I want to prepare for this coming event by moving assets out of dollars into other alternatives – other currencies, precious metals, tangible assets. Never mind asking what specific event will starts the flight.

Where we stand today in this country is not unlike where Russians stood in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. If you had possessed the terrific foresight to say that in two years the Russian Rouble will collapse and the Soviet Union will be history, the average Russian would have just laughed at you. And you know what he would have said? “The government will never let that happen.” Exactly what Americans say today.

“The government will never let that happen.”

But the reality is that the market is bigger than the government. Truth can be hid for only so long, and we have been hiding the truth. We’ve been creating illusions of prosperity, while in reality we’ve been consuming infrastructure and building a debt mountain. The Debt Mountain is ultimately going to be the problem that causes the dollar to collapse. [...]

Turk claims that a sound currency was written into our constitution, and he predicts the American people will demand that we go back to it. And that we have not had a sound currency since 1934.

Also, this interview was made in 2004. Yet he predicts some things that have since happened, or are happening now. Do read the whole thing.
     

Understanding the meaning of "Trillions"

Nowadays we are seeing numbers mentioned in government spending, that should belong in astronomy rather than accounting. They are so HUGE, it's hard to grasp. Here are some sites that can help:

What does one TRILLION dollars look like?

All this talk about "stimulus packages" and "bailouts"...

A billion dollars...

A hundred billion dollars...

Eight hundred billion dollars...

One TRILLION dollars...

What does that look like? I mean, these various numbers are tossed around like so many doggie treats, so I thought I'd take Google Sketchup out for a test drive and try to get a sense of what exactly a trillion dollars looks like.

We'll start with a $100 dollar bill. [...]

It's a good visual presentation. Here is one example of what One Hundred Million Dollars (in $100 bills) would look like, stacked on a palette:



Follow the link to see what a Trillion Dollars would look like in $100 bills. It's mind boggling. Then multiply THAT by 10, and you will have our current National Debt. Unbelievable... and unsustainable.

HT: Walker at Subtle oak flavor; Pleasing finish


Here's another article that tackles the topic:

Obama’s dangerous budget leaves GOP at loss for words

[...] Insensitivity to scope is a major obstacle to understanding the Obama administration’s $3.6 trillion 2010 budget. People simply have trouble understanding a number so big. A recent poll asked Americans how many million are in a trillion. Twenty-one percent of respondents got the answer right — it’s a million million. Most people thought it was a lot less.

Republicans are facing that obstacle as they try to explain the dimensions of Obama’s spending plan. The GOP pollster told me he tries to explain it by asking people to think of a dollar as a second — one dollar, one brief tick of your watch. A million seconds, the pollster explained, equals eleven days. A billion seconds equals 31 years. And a trillion seconds equals 310 centuries.

The task of educating voters got a little more urgent Monday, when the government announced the not-terribly-surprising news that federal tax revenues will be smaller this year than previously thought. After a review of the Obama budget’s numbers before formal submission to Congress, Budget Director Peter Orszag said this year’s deficit will be $1.841 trillion — $89 billion more than previously estimated. If you’re listening to the ticks of your watch, that’s about 570 centuries. [...]

570 centuries worth of seconds... dang. Such numbers, applied to currency and accounting balance sheets, are very scary indeed. And for good reason.
     

What!?! AP isn't gushing with Obama praise?

Is the honeymoon over? It may be for some reporters, I was surprised to see this article from the Associated Press:

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

WASHINGTON – "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

[...]

A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." — in Missouri.

THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months — a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion. [...]

Wow. Considering the source, and how most of the MSM has been gushing with praise, this is almost strong criticism. If you read the whole thing, there are more Obama statements, about health-care and Social Security, that are given the "Fact-Busting" treatment in this style.

I could get used to this! Is it an aberration, or a new trend by the AP? I guess we'll see as time goes on.
     

Tax Day, Tax Protests, Bi-partisan Outrage

Tax Day Becomes Protest Day
How the tea parties could change American politics.

Today American taxpayers in more than 300 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies -- dubbed "tea parties" -- to protest higher taxes and out-of-control government spending. There is no political party behind these rallies, no grand right-wing conspiracy, not even a 501(c) group like MoveOn.org.

So who's behind the Tax Day tea parties? Ordinary folks who are using the power of the Internet to organize.

[...]

I spoke to an organizer for the Knoxville tea party who said that no "professional politicians" were going to be allowed to speak, and he made a big point of saying that the protest wasn't an anti-Obama protest, it was an anti-establishment protest. I've heard similar things from tea-party organizers in other cities, too. Though critics will probably try to write the tea parties off as partisan publicity stunts, they're really a post-partisan expression of outrage.

Of course, it won't be the same everywhere. There are no national rules, and organizers of each protest are doing things the way they want. And that's the good news and the bad news for Democrats. It's not a big Republican effort. It's a big popular effort. But a mass movement of ordinary people who don't feel that their voices are being heard doesn't bode well for the party that positioned itself as the organ of hope and change.

Will these flash crowds be a flash in the pan? It's possible that people who demonstrate today will find that experience cathartic enough -- or exhausting enough -- that that will be it. But it's more likely that the tea-party movement will have an impact on the 2010 and 2012 elections, and perhaps beyond.

What's most striking about the tea-party movement is that most of the organizers haven't ever organized, or even participated, in a protest rally before. General disgust has drawn a lot of people off the sidelines and into the political arena, and they are already planning for political action after today. [...]

The article goes on extensively about the bi-partisan nature of these protests. RNC chairman Michael Steele wanted to speak at one of the tea party events, and he was denied. For many people it isn't about partisan politics, it's about taking our government back from the "professional politicians" who don't listen to us taxpayers. I doubt these protests are going to be a mere "flash in the pan". We are talking about serious debt here, that will have to be paid off for generations. Dangerous debt that could drag us down. It can't just be swept under the rug.

These protests are happening because politicians on both sides are ignoring the tax payers. And I expect that most of the politicians will continue to do so, for as long as they can. As a result, I predict the protests will continue, and grow stronger. We'll see.


Related Link:

A Tax Day Tea Party cheat sheet: How it all started
     

Blue Dog Democrats poised to make Trouble?

House Democrats Slash More Than $100B From Obama's Plan

House budget leaders have sliced more than $100 billion from President Obama's spending plan, and today they unveiled a $3.45 trillion budget blueprint for the fiscal year that begins in October.

Much of the difference comes from a decision by House leaders to jettison Obama's plan to seek more cash for the Treasury Department's financial-sector bailout, a decision that would reduce the projected deficit but not prevent the administration from requesting the money.

The result is a spending plan that would drive the annual deficit to $1.2 trillion next year, compared with $1.4 trillion under Obama's request. Over the next five years, the deficit would fall to just under $600 billion, requiring the nation to borrow $3.9 trillion, compared with $4.4 trillion under Obama's plan.

Like a competing proposal unveiled in the Senate, the House plan would permit lawmakers to pursue Obama's priorities on health care, education and energy only if those initiatives do not increase the deficit. Unlike the Senate, the House is proposing to use a procedural shortcut to push Obama's health-care and education proposals through the Senate without Republican votes. [...]

There are other adjustment's being attempted to the President's budget, too. You can read the rest for the details. I call 100 billion a good start, but it mustn't stop there. More has to be done to bring down the deficit. Not doing that was the mistake of the prior administration, and correcting it should be a priority in the present one.

Also see: Those damn Blue Dog Democrats
     

Where a true bi-partisan approach could help

I think it's given that, since we have a Democrat controlled government, they are going to spend a lot of money. I've resigned myself to that; it's unalterable at this point. If it were done wisely, it might even do some good. But I wish I was not seeing numbers that are so large they belong in Astronomy textbooks, instead of our government budget.

There was an interview recently with Republican Judd Gregg, who made what I thought were some very important observations, demonstrating ways that real bipartisanship could work if given a chance:

Bankrupt Nation?

[...] VAN SUSTEREN: If someone doesn't buy our debt, if a foreign country is unwilling to buy our debt, and we have exploding amount of deficit, we print more money, right? Is that how it's done?

GREGG: We buy our own debt.

VAN SUSTEREN: We buy our own debt, and then essentially, inflation gets very high, so that a loaf of bread is very expensive. Is that in theory how -- is that how we (INAUDIBLE)

GREGG: In a worst-case scenario, that's what would happen. You basically what's known as monetarize your own debt, where you come in and the Federal Reserve prints money in order to buy up our debt, and that creates inflation.

[...]

VAN SUSTEREN: So right now, you support the administration's effort to restimulate -- to sort of stimulate the economy and -- with a stimulus bill of some sort...

GREGG: I didn't support the stimulus.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, not -- maybe not with the package inside in, but the whole concept that we need to stimulate the economy now because we're in a recession -- is there anything different that you would do right now?

GREGG: Absolutely. Right now, I would -- if I'd sent this budget up here, I would have put in instructions to bring under control the rate of growth of spending in the out years. What they've done is they've taken spending as a percent of gross national product up to 23 percent. Historically, the last 40 years, it's been 20 percent of GDP. That 3 percent is a huge amount of money on an economy our size. We've got to get it back down to 21, 22 percent, at the most. And the way you do that is you limit the rate of growth of entitlement spending.

VAN SUSTEREN: And is that something we do next budget? I mean, it can be...

GREGG: No, we should do it right now.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do it right now. If we don't do it right now, and it doesn't look like we're going to do it right now, what's the practical effect on us?

GREGG: Well, in the short...

VAN SUSTEREN: And by us, I mean the American people, you know...

GREGG: In the short term, we'll survive this, but in the long term, we're going to end up with debt accelerating at a rate that we can't afford to pay it off in a way that's going to continue [SB: cripple?] our productivity as a nation. Basically, if you triple it -- double the debt in five years and triple it in ten, years, you're basically putting yourself in a position where just supporting that debt, the cost of supporting that debt's going to eat up huge amounts of resources that should otherwise be going to making you more productive.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you know of any Democratic U.S. senators that are pushing back on this budget that's being proposed by the president?

GREGG: Well, there are a lot of Senators -- there are a lot of people here in the Senate, a lot of Democratic members who are very concerned about this issue. And there are a number of proposals that are very bipartisan to try to address this issue. For example, Conrad/Gregg, which is a proposal which basically puts in place a process to force us as a government to face up to some of these policy issues and make some tough decisions. That's got very broad bipartisan support. All it needs is a little push from the White House, and we probably could put it across the goal line.

VAN SUSTEREN: Have you ever had this discussion with the president?

GREGG: I have. I've had it with the president, as have many of my colleagues. This is not a unique discussion. And the president is -- understands the issue. His staff understands the issue. The problem that they have, I guess, or the concerns that they have is they've got a very big and robust agenda. They intend to expand the size of government significantly, and I think they're not wanting to step back yet and say what's the long-term implications of this.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is their sort of agenda for the government independent of the way that they are looking at the economy -- I mean, have they decided that, This is what we want to do with the government, so we're going to -- we're going to go this direction, and we think it's going to help the economy, but that's more important than sort of trying to micromanage the economy right now?

GREGG: Well, obviously, in the short term, they've got to spend a lot of money. I accept that fact. And they've decided to do that, and I support, for example, the initiatives by Secretary Geithner. But at the same time, this is a two-track exercise. In the short term, we may have to spend some money, but in the long term, we have discipline our spending. And they haven't put in place the process for disciplining the spending long term. In fact, they've done just the opposite. Their proposal as they sent it up radically expands the size of government in the area of health care, in the area of student loans, in the area -- in a variety of areas, energy, and in just discretionary spending.

VAN SUSTEREN: Secretary Geithner -- going to go, stay? Should he go? Should he stay?

GREGG: He should stay. And the proposal he came out with out today is a reasonable proposal, and let's hope it works because we need it. [...]

It's interesting that he supports what Geithner is doing, and that he accepts that the Democrats are going to spend a lot of money. Still, he wants to bring the deficit under control. To me, that's the best we can expect from bipartisanship at this point. Damage control. I don't see any other possibilities right now, and Gregg's approach seems realistic and sensible given the circumstances we find ourselves in. Republicans need to work with the Democrat Bluedogs and anyone else who will listen, and try our best to control spending, and bring the deficit down before it causes a currency collapse. Thankfully some people are actually looking forward to where all this is taking us.

It's an interesting interview, hard to take excerpts from, it's worth reading the whole thing.


Related Links:

The Devaluing of American Currency Continues
     

The Devaluing of American Currency Continues

Commentary: Time for another tea party?

[...] as the federal government continues to print money that isn't worth the paper it's written on and as our national debt soars past $11 trillion, a United Nations panel is set to recommend that the world ditch the U.S. dollar as its reserve currency in favor of a shared basket of currencies.

One of the enduring strengths of the dollar has been that it has always been the currency of choice in times of crisis. But that's not the case anymore. Our ballooning deficits have driven down the value of the dollar so much that the Chinese government recently asked for guarantees from Washington that the Treasury bills they own are safe. [...]

If the dollar is perceived as unreliable, it could lead to global "dumping" of all assets in American currency, further devaluating the dollar.

Fed to pump another $1 trillion into U.S. economy

[...] to the surprise of investors and analysts, the committee said it had decided to purchase an additional $750 billion worth of government-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities on top of the $500 billion that the Fed is already in the process of buying.

In addition, the Fed said it would buy up to $300 billion worth of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months.

[...]

In effect, the central bank has been lending money to a wider and wider array of borrowers, and it has financed that lending by using its authority to create new money at will.

Since last September, the Fed's lending programs have roughly doubled the size of its balance sheet, to about $1.8 trillion, from $900 billion. The actions announced on Wednesday are likely to expand that to well over $3 trillion over the next year.

Despite a trickle of encouraging data in the last few weeks, Fed officials were clearly still worried and in no mood to cut back on their emergency efforts.

Fed policy makers sharply reduced their economic forecasts in January, predicting that the economy would continue to experience steep contractions for the first half of 2009, that unemployment could approach 9 percent by the end of the year and that there was at least a small risk of a drop in consumer prices like those that Japan experienced for nearly a decade.

The Fed rarely buys long-term government bonds. The last occasion was nearly 50 years ago under different economic circumstances when it tried to reduce long-term interest rates while allowing short term rates to rise. [...]

So we are creating this massive debt for ourselves, which is also devaluating the dollar internationally, which also weakens it at home. We have to pay interest on this debt, which keeps growing. What happens when interest rates go up, the interest on our debt it compounded, nations globally begin dumping our currency, and we can't borrow any more? And that causes a massive run on our banks, requiring the Fed to print up even more money, in order to comply with the FDIC? You might as well ask, What would a U.S. currency collapse look like?
     

The GOP's credibility issue about spending

Does the GOP lack credibility in their spending complaints? There is a good case for that made in the following article by Edward Lotterman:

GOP late to the party in condemning deficit spending

Republicans opposed to the Obama administration's fiscal stimulus bill fretted noisily about 'spending money we don't have' and 'passing a burden on to our grandchildren.'

Their concern for fiscal prudence is laudable, but not credible, given the past 60 years. While Republicans had a deserved reputation for fiscal probity from Lincoln through Nixon, their contempt for balanced budgets since 1981 is at the root of our national debt problems.

In response to questions from readers about the size and history of the national debt, I made some simple tabulations. I took the gross federal debt listed in the 2009 Economic Report of the President, the last one prepared by the George W. Bush administration. To its data for 1940 through 2008, I added the Bureau of Public Debt's estimate of the debt as of Feb. 15.

I then adjusted it for inflation, using the consumer price index. (Using a different, broader index, the GDP deflator, would be slightly better, but it does not go back to 1940.) To make comparisons with current legislation simple, I converted all the figures to December 2008 dollar equivalents. [...]

It's worth reading the whole article. As much as I would like to argue against it, I can't. If the shoe fits... and I'm afraid that it does. I think it's also one of the big reasons that the Republicans were voted out.

So I have to wonder, if many of the Americans who voted Democrat this time, were hoping that we would see more fiscal responsibility, things like a balanced budget, that we had under Bill Clinton? Because if that was their expectation, then they are bound to be disappointed by current fiscal policy.

The thing is, even with Bill Clinton, he only balanced the budget because he had a Republican majority in congress opposing his spending plans. He had to compromise. The Democrat majority we have now is under no such pressure.

The lesson to be found in this graph? I think it's that if we want a balanced budget, we need to have a balanced government too. Maybe we can get one in two years time. Maybe. But how we are going to climb out of the hole that's being created now, I don't know.


Related Links:

Deep Impact: The Federal Deficit

Is Obama compounding Bush's mistakes?
     

Deep Impact: The Federal Deficit

From Maynard at TammyBruce.com: The Federal Deficit

This graph, taken from this Wall Street Journal article, shows what we're up against. It's a crime beyond imagination against the American people.

This monster is not of Obama's creation. It's a product of long-term rot and corruption; the consequence of fools and demagogues pandering to the lowest common denominator, promising ever-more goodies to an ever-needier mob.

For a brief moment, I hoped the shock of the current crisis would bring an element of reality to the debate in Washington. Certainly Obama would do the right thing. Not because he wanted to, you understand, but because he had no choice. I thought the nation had reached that late stage of addiction where the addict has hit bottom, and finally faces his issues head-on.

I stand corrected. We haven't hit bottom yet, but Obama is working on that. His "stimulus" package may become our final binge. What Reagan did to the Soviet Union, Obama is now arranging for us.

This is only the beginning. [...]

He goes on to say that as the baby boomer generation continues to age, demands on Social Security and Medicare will increase, consuming a greater portion of the GNP than the entire current Federal budget.

And hardly anyone is talking about the compounded interest on all the debt. What do you think will happen if interest rates rise? We just keep printing more money? Can you say "Currency collapse"?

This isn't about partisan politics. It's just simple math. Does anyone in the Federal government know how to do that anymore?


Related Links:

Is Obama compounding Bush's mistakes?

What would a U.S. currency collapse look like?

Washington really is broken. See how it "runs"
     

What would a U.S. currency collapse look like?

Since the '70's, our government has steadily been printing more money:


This graph in a recent post by Pat (Inflation and our "funny money" supply) is startling in it's implications. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have done anything to stop the devaluing of our currency since the 1970's. In fact, they all have been printing even more money and devaluing it even further. When will it stop? Will it stop? And if it doesn't stop? Where will it lead us?



I've been reading a book called "PATRIOTS: surviving the coming collapse. It's a novel, in which a severe economic meltdown in the USA takes place. It was the description of the understated "crunch", the economic collapse when the dollar fails, that really gave me the creeps. What would the collapse of the American dollar actually look like?

The story starts with the US having 19 trillion dollars of debt, with interest on the national debt consuming 96% of government revenue. Most of it is "off budget", like the debts for the Iraq war, but it's still national debt. There is still interest to pay on it.

Ok, at this point you might say, "19 TRILLION DOLLARS of debt? No way, it could never happen." I would hope it wouldn't. But if you told me 10 years ago that we would even be talking about trillions of dollars of debt today, I would have said "No way, our government would never be that irresponsible". Yet, here we are. And our government has been taking debt "off budget", and borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. If they think it's ok to run debt up another 1 trillion, or 3 trillion... once you say it's alright to go down that road, then where does it stop? How much is too much?

In the story, European bankers start to express doubt that the US government can make the interest payments on it's growing debt, with serious results: foreign central banks and international monetary authorities began to dump their trillions of dollars in U.S. Treasuries. Foreign investors begin liquidating their U.S. paper assets.

The value of the dollar plummets. Businesses fail. Unemployment goes to 20% and higher. Ultimately it leads to a stock market collapse, and domestic runs on U.S. banks begin. Like in the Great Depression of the 1930's long lines of people form at the banks, wanting to withdraw all of their money. But unlike the 1930's, this time there is the promise of FDIC, "All deposits insured to $100,000." But the only way to let everyone withdraw their money, is to print even more money. This leads to hyper-inflation; the more money the government prints, the less it's worth. Think of Zimbabwe as a recent example.

In the novel, the government can't stop the inflation unless they stop printing money, but they can't stop printing more, because people are demanding their FDIC protected cash. With the resulting hyper inflation, soon a can of beans costs $150.00.

Now this is, to me, where the story really gets scary. I figured that if a 1930's type "depression" happened, it would be bad, but we would all somehow muddle through it, just as we had in the 1930's. But there are some significant differences between then and now.

In the 1930's, the government hadn't over-borrowed and raked up trillions of dollars in debt. In the 1930's, roughly half of American families lived on farms. They may have been made poor by the Depression, but they still had means to grow their own food and scrape by.

Nowadays, the population of the United States is much larger. The majority of U.S. citizens live in cities. Only 2% of the population lives on farms anymore. The majority of Americans must buy their food at stores. Think what would happen if they could no longer do that?

The story goes on to describe a situation where American cities are gripped with rioting and looting. The National Guard and the Army Reserve are called up to quell the rioting, but many of them don't report in, because they are staying home to protect their families.

Inner city areas are burned to the ground, and no one can stop it. Factories near cities close down "temporarily", but never open again. The Freeways that run through the cities become impassable, due to the riots, and due to fuel shortages, with people running out of gas and leaving their cars on the roads.

Most of the goods and fuel shipments in the US are transported on 18 wheel diesel trucks that use the interstate highway system. They all pass through cities. The cities become impassable, so the shipments of goods and fuel stop.

Trains pick up some of the slack, but not enough, and even they are vulnerable; mobs soon learn they can rip up the tracks to derail the trains, and loot them.

Without fuel shipments to power plants, the electrical grid begins to shut down. The few remaining factories that are operating are shut down by this, as well as the oil refineries that make our fuel. Even the refineries can't produce enough of their own electricity to keep operating, because they, like everyone else, always assumed they could count on the national power grid.

As the power grid shuts down from lack of fuel, so do the telephones, the internet, radio and TV stations. We are plunged back into the dark ages, literally. Our civil institutions and the rule of law break down completely.

THAT never happened in the 1930's.

You'll have to read the book for the complete picture the author paints. Now I grant you, the author is a survivalist. His reason for writing the novel was to use it as a vehicle to teach many of the survivalist strategies and related knowledge he has compiled, in the context of a story where such knowledge would be applied. Therefore, he has painted the bleakest picture possible, as a canvass for that story (See review in link below).

One can argue that a real crash might not be so... severe? I'm sure there are lots of variables, but the story Rawles tells is very compelling none the less. If nothing else, you have to wonder, WHERE is all this endless deficit spending leading us? The disaster described above is completely avoidable, but will we? It often seems like everyone in government is either oblivious to or unwilling to deal with the dangers of huge deficits and inflated currency.

I know that with a personal or a family budget, if you start having "off budget" debts, your finances will be headed for trouble. Government budgets are no different. We must all live within our means. The consequences of ignoring that could be too horrible.

As for this book, I have to read it in parts, and then give it a break. It's intense. I'm not really of a survivalist mind-set. I like to be an optimist, balanced with a boy-scout "be prepared" attitude. The book is full of all sorts of useful tid-bits of information, such as "how long can you store gasoline before it's no longer useful in an automobile?" (about two years, unless you add chemicals to extend it's life). But the story... argh. I don't want to go there, not even mentally.

But even worse would be to go there actually, in reality. That's why I made this post about it. Let's NOT go there.

Lest this all sounds too depressing, the author says on his website that each of us has to decide for ourselves how bad things could get, and what preparations we want to make. Fair enough.

I hesitated to make this post at all, lest it sound too grim. I'd like to just forget about it, but then I keep seeing headlines like this one today:

New Bank Bailout Could Cost $2 Trillion

Our national debt is already more than 10 trillion dollars. Where is it going to stop? It just makes me want to ring the warning bell. Forewarned is forearmed.

We should not go down this road. But if the nation does anyway, we had best keep our wits about us, try to steer for "damage control", and make preparations along the way as we think might be wise for our circumstances. And never give up hoping, praying, and affirming the best outcome.


Related Links:

Patriots: a customer review on Amazon

An Economic 9/11? A Depression? Trends...

The Federal Deficit and the American Dollar


UPDATE 07-08-10:

Has the slow portion of the collapse already begun? A case is made for it:

Has US Currency already "collapsed"?

Has our nations current financial policies accelerated the collapse process? We may see as soon as next year:

What happens when Tax Cuts Expire in 2011?

Is there anything that can be done about it? I'm not sure, but I think the November elections this year will be our last chance to vote in politicians who can deal with the reality of our present situation:

Our true national debt: $130,000,000,000,000.

November is probably our last chance to stop the runaway gravy train, before it derails.