The Spending Crisis

Breathe a sigh of relief – the debt ceiling has been raised. 

By and large, it’s pointless. Both parties have raised the debt ceiling time after time.  Its purpose is to limit the national debt, but since it always gets raised, it limits nothing. Often it has been merely a procedural vote – little debate, no Pomp and Circumstance, just a couple of votes, a quick signature, and more debt. 

Let’s talk about the real crisis – spending. The runaway federal spending is cause for concern from both parties. It’s a concern for everyone except President Obama, who wants to raise the debt ceiling so he can continue buying votes with our money, and the money of generations that have yet to exist. Obama wants to raise the limit by $2.7 trillion dollars.  He’s calculating that $2.7 trillion in new debt will last until after the 2012 elections. He doesn’t want to have this debate again before asking for your vote. 

Think about that. It’s 15 months until the election. From 1776 until now, our nation has accumulated $14.3 trillion in debt.  Obama wants authority to borrow and spend 1/5 of that in 15 months. Despite his rhetoric, he has offered no plan to reduce the debt or deficit. Republicans insist that the additional debt limit be matched by spending cuts over the next 10 years. The federal government will be borrowing something like $180 billion each month, and reducing spending only $22.5 billion per month. The spending cuts may not happen at all or may be reversed by future congresses. 

The debt ceiling will be raised. Even so, we still face the very real possibility that our debt will be downgraded. It was threatened before the debt limit debate, not because of a possibility of immediate default, but because of a potential future default. If our economy collapses under the extraordinary spending and debt, America will not be able to pay its obligations. That is the real crisis.

The Strawman Cometh 

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. Margaret Thatcher 

I am honored that Senator Lois Tochtrop responded to my columns about unemployment insurance (UI) (go here and here for my articles). Although she called my writings inaccurate, she never actually refuted anything I wrote. She prefers to mislead us with strawman arguments.

She tells us that employers would not forego hiring to avoid paying a payroll tax of $3.29 per week. But that’s per employee. $3.29 times 95 employees is enough to provide a job that’s substantially more than the average $125 per week unemployment benefit. One in five youths (who might like to work for minimum wage) is unemployed. They are sitting by idly while others accrue unemployment benefits. 

Tochtrop states that the Federal Reserve Board says “unemployment benefits are not important factors in the increase of unemployment or the length of unemployment.” I never argued that it does. Quite the contrary, UI is a disincentive to layoffs. If there are additional costs for layoffs, an employer thinks twice before hiring. 

She tells us that unemployment benefits creates more economic stimulus than tax credits for corporations. I’m not certain where tax credits came in to this discussion. I fear that Tochtrop believes that money is something government allows individuals and businesses to keep. She also seems unaware of what truly drives economic expansion and creates jobs – capital investment. An entrepreneur nearly always has to invest money to start or expand a business. This comes from some sort of savings. 

Tochtrop and her colleagues passed a law last year (HB 1128) that “will guarantee the long-term solvency of the Unemployment Insurance program.” Tochtrop is at best misleading. 1128 merely alters the manner in which higher unemployment taxes will be confiscated. Government programs will always be solvent as long as government is willing to extract money from citizens by force.

Private Sector Jobs - Our Only Salvation

“I will not be satisfied until everyone who wants a good job that offers some security has a good job that offers security”. President Obama said that, speaking recently at an energy-efficient lighting plant.

Whew. I feel better. And more secure. Who wouldn’t want a good job with security? After all, with job security you don’t have to work. You just have to show up. And Obama is setting the bar pretty low - you only have to want the job.  

It seems like a nice sentiment, but it is neither achievable nor desirable. 

There was a time when people had to work to make an effort to get and keep a job. They did that because they had needs and wants.  If you needed food or shelter you got a job that would allow you to pay for food and shelter.  Need a car? Get a job.  Want a better car? Get a better job. Whatever you needed or wanted, working was the way to get it. 

Government likes to give to those who have needs. During the Great Depression the government created jobs through the Work Projects Administration (WPA) and gave them to needy people. During its eight years, nearly eight million Americans received paychecks from the WPA. This was part of the “New Deal,” a huge expansion of the federal government that was intended to end the Depression. 

It failed. As Henry Hazlitt writes in his classic and highly recommended book, “Economics in One Easy Lesson”:

For every public job created by [a] bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. . . . But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $10 million taken from the taxpayers.  

The Depression was prolonged by government-created jobs and excessive government spending. In 1939, Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary Walter Morgenthau said, “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . .I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . And an enormous debt to boot!” 

As money wends its way through the economy it generally ends up in one of two sectors – government or private. In general, government does not produce. It does not create things and sell them for profit. It does not seek a profit on its employees. It does not save money to invest in a capital project that will generate a profit. Simply put, money that ends up in the government’s coffers does not grow. Only in the private sector does money create more money. Advocates for more government spending claim that each dollar spent by government grows the economy, a “multiplier effect.”  That may be true, but private sector spending has a much greater multiplier. Private spending, savings, and investment turned America into the wealthiest nation in history. Excessive government spending threatens to destroy that wealth. 

Obama will not be satisfied until everyone that wants a good secure job has one.  My fear is that he will keep trying.  The stimulus plan started by Bush and put on steroids by Obama has been an abysmal failure. Obama laughed when he pointed out that stimulus projects were not as “shovel ready” as he thought. His arbitrary and capricious administration has prolonged this recession. Now Obama wants to spend more and tax more. That might work in the short term, but only until the economy collapses further under the weight of an incomprehensively large national debt.  

Government’s role, particularly during this recession, should be to provide the conditions (not incentives) necessary for expansion of the private sector. Get out of the way and leave the wealth and spending to us.