Federal Reserve Bank Smugness

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco published a strikingly smug assessment of the fiscal challenges now being confronted by states across the US:

The current fiscal crises that most states are facing are generally the result of a severe macroeconomic downturn combined with a limited ability of the states to respond to such shocks. States are facing increased demand for public services at the same time revenue is falling. Federal stimulus support for state budgets is winding down over the next two years. Rainy-day funds are all but exhausted. Thus, state fiscal crises aren’t likely to go away soon and will probably get worse before they get better. The solutions states employ to close projected budget gaps will have painful effects on state residents and businesses but pose a more modest risk to the national recovery. Historically, the health of the national economy determines the health of state finances, not the other way around. Sustained improvement in the national economy is essential for states to grow their way out of their current problems and improve their fiscal conditions.

Clearly, state governors and legislators can expect little sympathy or support from the Federal Reserve any time soon...

Source: Gerst, J & Wilson, D (2010, June 28), Fiscal Crises of the States: Causes and Consequences, FRBSF Newsletter.

The Repeal Amendment

The so-called "Repeal Amendment" is a bold proposal by states' rights advocates to thwart the growth of Federalism and to protect the prerogatives of states through an amendment to the US Constitution. What is interesting about the proposed amendment however, is that the conservative Tea Party movement seems to be leading the initiative. Keep in mind that Republicans have generally been advocates of Federalism and the transfer of power from the states to the Federal government. Indeed, Abraham Lincoln was a moderate Republican throughout his political career, and eventually lead the US through the Civil War (1861-1865) as President, the result of which was the onslaught of radical Federalism at the expense of states' rights.

The proposed text for the Repeal Amendment follows:

Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.

Follow the link below to learn more:

The Repeal Amendment

Independence Day

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

~ John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr, Thomas Lynch, Jr, Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

The Coming Inflation

As reported by Bloomberg:

Forty-six states face budget shortfalls that add up to $112 billion for the fiscal year ending next June, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington research institution. State spending is 12 percent of US GDP. “States are going to have to cut back spending and raise taxes the same way Greece and Spain are,” says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.... State leaders won’t be able to ride out this cycle the way they have in the past. The budget holes are too large. For the first time since 1962, sales and income tax revenue fell for five straight quarters, through December 2009, according to the Nelson A Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York at Albany.... If they fail to act, state fiscal positions will steadily erode and hurt the US economy through 2060, according to a March 2010 report prepared for Congress by the US Government Accountability Office.

Of course, the US cannot turn its back on its states the way that the EU can turn its back on its members. Assuming budget cuts fail at the state level (as I predict they will), the US will have no recourse but to rout government spending and indebtedness through monetary expansion and inflation. In my opinion, an inflationary economic surge is a foregone conclusion regardless of which political party is in power.

Source: Robinson, E (2010, June 25), States of Crisis for 46 Governments Facing Greek-Style Deficits, Bloomberg.

Related Posts:

The United States is not the European Union

Greece: What Economic Austerity Looks Like

How Would Californians React to Economic Austerity...?

How Would New Yorkers React to Economic Austerity...?

Main Street Money

Given the extent of the Main Street Depression now raging across America, and given that monetary and fiscal policies have left America with insufficient legal tender to conduct local and regional commerce, should municipalities, counties, and even states consider issuing their own "scrip" as a means to expand the available money supply?

National Park Bank of New York Clearing House Certificate for $500 (1873)

During past depressions in the US, the appearance of local currencies in the form of "depression scrip" became commonplace (see examples). California has recently experimented with issuing warrants to its citizens in lieu of tax returns (see last example). The use of local and regional currencies is not without precedent in the US.

Five Dollar Certificate issued by the San Francisco Clearing House (1907)

Town, cities, counties, and states across the US are being strangled by deficits, and the supply of legal tender for commerce is simply inadequate to sustain current spending levels and public services. Should these same entities consider issuing their own currencies as a way to supplement the local money supply and maintain current levels of public employment and services? So far, a Main Street economic recovery appears elusive, especially given that our nation's fiscal and monetary policy-makers view local prosperity as a by-product of national prosperity. I would not be surprised to see local, regional, and even state currencies sometime in the near future.

Five Dollar Certificate issued by the Chicago Clearing House (1933)

Public entities that create their own currencies could use these "dollars" to pay public employees, contractors, suppliers, and pensioners. Additionally, public healthcare programs funded by states could be paid for using local currencies as services are rendered. Finally, local currencies could be used to pay public taxes due from taxpayers and business entities within those jurisdictions. Of course, this would mean that what America knows to be a "dollar" would become somewhat confusing. However, the creation of local and regional currencies could very well be a useful way for states to manage their budget deficits, or at least until the US money supply becomes more robust on a local and regional basis.

Warrant issued by California (2009)

The shortage of money in various localities and regions across the US has created a crisis, especially given that the nation's largest banks and corporations are continuing to hoard cash for whatever reasons. Perhaps expanding the Main Street money supply can be accomplished without the consent of the US Federal Reserve after all.

Delaware to Legalize Online Gambling

According to Alexandra Berzon (2012, June 27) of the Wall Street Journal:

Delaware's legislature on Wednesday passed a law that could make the state the first to open its population to a full range of legal online gambling, including Internet blackjack, poker and slot games.... The bill is expected to be signed by the state's governor and comes in the wake of a Justice Department legal interpretation last year that allowed states to authorize Internet gambling within their borders.... Delaware's move marks a significant step in the long-running debate between the US government, states and gambling companies over whether and how online gambling will become legal in the US It is also likely to help spur legislatures and lotteries in other states to legalize or implement Internet gambling, a long-predicted change that is taking more time to materialize than some observers expected.... The Middle Atlantic region has become a hotbed of gambling competition, and Delaware's move could create a domino effect there, experts said. Earlier this year, nearby Maryland's legislature passed a budget that included $2 million from expected online lottery sales.

Read More

Delaware Governor Jack A Markell is expected to sign the legislation into law shortly. I expect that surrounding states will soon revisit their own online gambling laws, if only as a source of revenue.

Source: Berzon, A (2012, June 27), Delaware Lawmakers Clear Online Gambling, Wall Street Journal.

Related Posts

How to Save the Euro? Lessons from the US

by Jacques Melitz © VoxEU.org

Earlier this year, the fiscal situation in Greece caused turmoil across Europe. This column examines why the financial difficulties of several state governments in the US are not having similar impacts on its economy.

The problems of the Eurozone this year brought to light some failures of the system. Nevertheless, the resulting drop in confidence in the system has gone further than we might have expected. Questions have even arisen about the survival of the system (see Baldwin 2010 and Blejer and Levy-Yeyati 2010 for discussions). Yet monetary systems do not tend to dissolve simply because of faulty performance. On the contrary, as a rule they endure even when they function very badly. It takes a political force majeure to bring about the break-up of a single currency area, typically without connection to monetary performance. Why, then, has the possible default of a country engaged in irresponsible fiscal policy and accounting for only 3% of the Eurozone’s GDP raised questions about ‘saving the euro’ and the survival of the Eurozone?

The issue has not received the attention it deserves. It is often simply taken for granted that the departures from the Stability and Growth Pact provide a sufficient reason for the earthquake that has shaken the whole currency area. Yet if we look around the world past and present, the mismanagement of finances by regional governments has no particular tendency to bring down entire monetary systems, far from it. In line with the usual – I think superficial – diagnosis of the ailment, proposed remedies for the Eurozone centre on strengthening the Pact, increasing joint political control over fiscal policy, and providing joint insurance against government default, or some mixture of the three. But what if a vital element of the problem is really the official doctrine that sovereign default is incompatible with the euro? What if the scale of the crisis that took place this year has resulted from financial markets’ conviction, based on this doctrine, that the future of the euro was at stake? What if assuring the long-run sustainability of the euro means convincing those markets, quite differently, that nothing as manageable as a Greek default can upset the Eurozone?

Lessons from the US

That is precisely what the US example would suggest and what I will defend. With this idea governing beliefs, the right road ahead looks quite different. It means shifting the emphasis away from avoiding government defaults toward assuring the stability and the solvency of the banking system at all times, regardless of the financial difficulties of some member governments.

In the US, default on state and municipal contractual obligations is very much a possibility whenever lower-level governments are in financial trouble; bailout cannot be taken for granted. New York City defaulted in 1975, the biggest default of all by a lower-level government unit since World War II took place in 1983 when the Washington Public Power Supply System went into bankruptcy, and Orange County defaulted in 1995. Various municipal governments have been on the verge of default at times in the last few decades, including Philadelphia and Cleveland. There is also no Stability and Growth Pact in the US. Yet financial discipline is considerably higher in the US at the state government level than in the Eurozone at the national level. All states except Vermont have balanced-budget rules; but these rules are self-imposed. It is easy to argue that this difference in fiscal discipline on the two sides of the Atlantic is related to the fact that when push comes to shove in the US and a lower-level government unit cannot or will not meet its debt obligations, the lenders can expect to take a big part of the hit.

Some rudimentary analysis is relevant. Consider any government unit unable to print money and without any prospect of a bailout. Theory tells us that credit rationing is very much a possibility. As the interest rate that such a government offers on its debt goes up, extra lending dries up completely at some point as the expected rate of return on the government debt falls. This must happen because higher nominal interest rates impair the government’s solvability and bring default nearer. Risk aversion simply lowers the interest rate at which credit rationing begins.

Suppose we compare the situation in the US and the Eurozone since the 2007-2009 financial crisis in this light. The crisis brought about dire financing problems for many lower-level government units in the US and some national governments in the Eurozone. According to the spreads on credit default swaps, California and Illinois now have a higher probability of non-performance on public debt than Portugal and Spain. This has been true for months. Consider next the difference in response in the States and Europe. Recently Illinois simply stopped paying $5 billion of bills. In June of last year California issued vouchers for wage payments. In addition, savage cuts in public services have begun and are now threatened in various states in difficulty, not only these two. Nevada has made startling reductions in spending on higher education and welfare. In the case of Portugal and Spain, nothing so drastic has happened thus far. There have been occasional spikes in interest rate spreads over German bunds of 100 to 200 percentage-points above usual levels. Both Spanish and Portuguese governments have also been forced to plan greater austerity and reduced government deficit spending. Meanwhile, they have been able and willing to keep borrowing.

Why the difference between the Eurozone and the US?

Part of the explanation may be that Portugal and Spain are more able to raise tax revenues than US states. But another part is the higher probability of a bailout in Europe. The example of Greece is to the point. Greece has been able to continue borrowing this year at interest rates typically around 200 percentage-points above Portugal and Spain on 10-year government bonds (and since May more than 500 percentage-points higher than German bunds). If you do the math, it is clear that this could never have happened without a high probability of a bailout. In fact, you do not need to do the math: there have been occasions in February/March and particularly May when some Greek issues would clearly have failed without the assurance of public lending and ECB support. If Greece can borrow on the probability of a bailout, so could Portugal and Spain.

Based on this evidence, the current Eurozone strategy of treating government default as anathema permits member governments to sink into deeper waters, weakens the forces that would otherwise exist toward self-imposed budget restraints, and thereby raises the probability of a bailout. But an actual bailout is perhaps the most likely setting for the breakdown of the Eurozone. If taxes ever need to rise all over the Eurozone in order to bail out a member government, one can easily imagine a pullout by Germany, followed by the Netherlands and Austria (if no others), in order to form a separate monetary union.[1]

What are the dangers of the opposite strategy of mimicking the US instead and moving toward heavier reliance on markets to discipline member governments and to price sovereign risk? The answer lies in the external effects of government default on the payment system and the banks, and this problem would be aggravated by contagion. But those dangers exist in the US as well. If the US federal government were to allow Illinois or California to default on state government debt in today’s circumstances of widespread financial difficulties across the states, there is a serious threat that interest premia would go up on the debt of most state governments and a wave of state defaults would follow. For this reason, the federal government might well step in. But if we look at the institutional manner in which the US deals with the problem, we find the answer to lie in country-wide prudential rules for banks and central bank powers of lender of last resort. There is no general announcement that state government default is incompatible with the dollar. Instead there is a strict separation of the issue of joint support of the financial system and joint support of financing by the sub-government units in the country. Would Europe not be wise to adopt the same strategy and to cease to conflate the two issues?

Tweaking the Pact

What this would mean, of course, is adopting Eurozone-wide prudential rules on banks, providing the ECB full powers of lender of last resort, and, very significantly, dismissing the idea that the Stability and Growth Pact is the pillar on which the whole Eurozone project stands. This idea is highly perilous.[2] Markets believe it, and at times of financial precariousness, what markets believe is extremely important. According to my proposal, the Pact could still be upheld as a code of good behaviour which improves public finances in Europe and facilitates the task of the ECB. But the basic philosophy would be that if any individual member government in the Eurozone engages in irresponsible fiscal conduct, contrary to the Pact, the creditors and its taxpayers would bear the brunt of the consequences. Everything would be done to assure the stability of the financial sector in the Eurozone and the lack of repercussions on the risk premiums that the more financially responsible member governments need to pay. Banks might be bailed out but not governments. Any aid to member governments, if it came, would not concern the euro system but the IMF or if any aid did come from the EU it would be part of a programme that could as well have existed had the euro never appeared and would be clearly sealed off.

VoxEU Editors' note: This article will appear as a roundtable discussion in Miroslav Beblavy, David Cobham and Ludovit Odor, eds., The euro area and the financial crisis, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.

References:

Baldwin, R (2010), A re-cap of Vox columns on the Eurozone crisis” VoxEU.org, 13 May.

Blejer, M and Levy-Yeyati, E (2010), Leaving the euro: What’s in the box, VoxEU.org, 21 July.

Economist (2010), Can pay, won’t pay, June 19.

Poterba, J (1996), Do budget rules work? NBER Working Paper 5550, April.

Public Bonds (2010), Municipal bonds and defaults, downloaded 23 August.

Reinhart, C M and Rogoff, K (2009), This time is different: eight centuries of financial folly, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sinn, H-W (2010), Rescuing Europe, CESifo Forum, special issue, August.

Notes:

[1] Many would say that Greece has already been bailed out. But so far no holder of Greek debt has yet suffered a credit event. Further, no one outside of Greece has yet paid any taxes to fulfil a claim on Greek debt. Thus, according to my usage, no bailout has happened. However, none of the argument hinges on this choice of words.

[2] If we really think that a government default would bring the euro under, we must conclude that the euro has no long-run future ahead – that it is doomed. A reading of Reinhart and Rogoff (2009) should convince anyone.

Republished with permission of VoxEU.org

The Political Economy of Government Employee Unions

by Thomas J DiLorenzo © 2011 LewRockwell.com

The main reason why so many state and local governments are bankrupt, or on the verge of bankruptcy, is the combination of government-run monopolies and government-employee unions. Government-employee unions have vastly more power than do private-sector unions because the entities they work for are typically monopolies.

Prof Thomas J DiLorenzo (1954- )

When the employees of a grocery store, for example, go on strike and shut down the store, consumers can simply shop elsewhere, and the grocery-store management is perfectly free to hire replacement workers. In contrast, when a city teachers' or garbage-truck drivers' union goes on strike, there is no school and no garbage collection as long as the strike goes on. In addition, teachers' tenure (typically after two or three years in government schools) and civil-service regulations make it extremely costly if not virtually impossible to hire replacement workers.

Thus, when government bureaucrats go on strike they have the ability to completely shut down the entire "industry" they "work" in indefinitely. The taxpayers will complain bitterly about the absence of schools and garbage collection, forcing the mayor, governor, or city councillors to quickly cave in to the union's demands to avoid risking the loss of their own jobs due to voter dissatisfaction. This process is the primary reason why, in general, the expenses of state and local governments have skyrocketed year in and year out, while the "production" of government employees declines.

For decades, researchers have noted that the more money that is spent per pupil in the government schools, the worse is the performance of the students. Similar outcomes are prevalent in all other areas of government "service." As Milton Friedman once wrote, government bureaucracies – especially unionized ones – are like economic black holes where increased "inputs" lead to declining "outputs." The more that is spent on government schools, the less educated are the students. The more that is spent on welfare, the more poverty there is, and so on. This of course is the exact opposite of normal economic life in the private sector, where increased inputs lead to more products and services, not fewer.

Thirty years ago, the economist Sharon Smith was publishing research showing that government employees were paid as much as 40 percent more than comparable private-sector employees. If anything, that wage premium has likely increased.

The enormous power of government-employee unions effectively transfers the power to tax from voters to the unions. Because government-employee unions can so easily force elected officials to raise taxes to meet their "demands," it is they, not the voters, who control the rate of taxation within a political jurisdiction. They are the beneficiaries of a particular form of taxation without representation (not that taxation with representation is much better). This is why some states have laws prohibiting strikes by government-employee unions. (The unions often strike anyway.)

Politicians are caught in a political bind by government-employee unions: if they cave in to their wage demands and raise taxes to finance them, then they increase the chances of being kicked out of office themselves in the next election. The "solution" to this dilemma has been to offer government-employee unions moderate wage increases but spectacular pension promises. This allows politicians to pander to the unions but defer the costs to the future, long after the panderers are retired from politics.

As taxpayers in California, Wisconsin, Indiana, and many other states are realizing, the future has arrived. The Wall Street Journal reports that state and local governments in the United States currently have $3.5 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. They must either raise taxes dramatically to fund these liabilities, as some have already done, or drastically cut back or eliminate government-employee pensions.

Government-employee unions are primarily interested in maximizing the profits of the union. Consequently, they use civil-service regulations as a tool to protect the job of every last government bureaucrat, no matter how incompetent or irresponsible he or she is. Fewer employed bureaucrats means fewer union dues are being paid. Thus, it is almost guaranteed that government-employee unions will challenge in court the attempted dismissal of all bureaucrats save the occasional ones who are accused of actual criminal behavior. This means that firing an incompetent government school teacher, for example, can take months, or years, of legal wrangling.

Politicians discovered long ago that the most convenient response to this dilemma is to actually reward the incompetent bureaucrat with an administrative job that he or she will gladly accept, along with its higher pay and perks. That solves the problem of parents who complain that their children's math teacher cannot do math, while eliminating the possibility of a lawsuit by the union. This is why government-school administrative offices are bloated bureaucratic monstrosities filled with teachers who can't teach and are given the responsibilities of "administering" the entire school system instead. No private-sector school could survive with such a perverse policy.

Government-employee unions are also champions of "featherbedding" – the union practice of forcing employers to hire more than the number of people necessary to do the job. If this occurs in the private sector, the higher wage costs will make the firm less competitive and less profitable. It may even go bankrupt, as the heavily unionized American steel, automobile, and textile industries learned decades ago.

No such thing happens in government, where there are no profit-and-loss statements, in an accounting sense, and most agencies are monopolies anyway. Featherbedding in the government sector is viewed as a benefit to both politicians and unions – but certainly not to taxpayers. The unions collect more union dues with more government employees, while the politicians get to hand out more patronage jobs. Each patronage job is usually worth two or more votes, since the government employee can always be counted on to get at least one family member or close friend to vote for the politician who gave him the job. This is why, in the vast literature showing the superior efficiency of private versus government enterprises, government almost always has higher labor costs for the same functions.

Every government-employee union is a political machine that lobbies relentlessly for higher taxes, increased government spending, more featherbedding, and more pension promises – while demonizing hesitant taxpayers as uncaring enemies of children, the elderly, and the poor (who are purportedly "served" by the government bureaucrats the unions represent).

It is the old socialist trick that Frédéric Bastiat wrote about in his famous essay, The Law: The unions view advocates of school privatization, not as legitimate critics of a failed system, but as haters of children. And the unions treat critics of the welfare state, not as persons concerned with the destruction of the work ethic and of the family that has been caused by the welfare state, but as enemies of the poor.

This charade is over. American taxpayers finally seem to be aware that they are the servants, not the masters, of government at all levels. Government-employee unions have played a key role in causing bankruptcy in most American states, and their pleas for more bailouts financed by endless tax increases are finally ringing hollow.

Republished with kind permission of LewRockwell.com

US Policy Makers Preparing for State Defaults (Bankruptcies)

According to Mary Williams Walsh of the NY Times (2011):

Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.

State defaults leading to some form of public bankruptcy will make the Wall Street crisis pale in comparison. Defaults in states such as California, Illinois, and New York would no doubt become the main events of the ongoing economic crisis in America.

Source: Walsh, M W (2011, January 20), Path Is Sought for States to Escape Debt Burdens, NY Times.

Still Serving: United States Army Retired

I, William Jeffrey McKibbin, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

At heart, I will always be a soldier. My name appears on the retired rolls of the US Army.

Related Posts

The European Union is not the United States

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's recent agitations for global austerity measures should be kept in perspective by the deficit hawks in the US. For example, it is quite easy to imagine Germany turning its back on Greece in her hour of need. However, I doubt seriously that the US would be able to turn its back on California or New York should these states fall into default. The European Union is not the United States.

Germany (green) and Greece (orange)

Related Posts:

Greece: What Economic Austerity Looks Like

How Would Californians React to Economic Austerity...?

How Would New Yorkers React to Economic Austerity...?

Future Skill Shortages in the US Economy? Sorting Out the Evidence

by David Neumark, Hans Johnson, and Marisol Cuellar Mejia © 2011 VoxEU.org

The impending retirement of the baby-boom cohort represents the first time in the history of the US that such a large and well-educated group of workers will exit the labour force. Despite the gloomy outlook of recent research, this column suggests there is little likelihood of large-scale skill shortages emerging by the end of this decade.

Ageing workforces pose challenges to governments around the world. While fiscal issues surrounding pension and social security have been very much in the news, a less well-known issue concerns skills.  The impending retirement of the baby-boom cohort brings with it the potential for skill shortages. The boomers are well-educated, having come into adulthood as the nation was rapidly expanding post-secondary educational opportunities. In earlier decades, younger workers replacing older workers were both much more educated and much more numerous. But the baby boomers are nearly as educated as current younger cohorts (Figure 1) and are large in number. Thus, their retirement will slow the growth of skill levels in the workforce, leading to shortages if skill demands continue to increase.

Figure 1. Number of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree by age group (25-44 and 45-64)


Source: Decennial Census (1990 and 2000); American Community Survey (2008)

Carnevale et al (2010) recently projected large shortages by the end of this decade: “By 2018, the postsecondary system will have produced 3 million fewer college graduates than demanded by the labour market” (p 16). But Harrington and Sum (2010) criticise these projections, instead seeing over-education or “mal-employment” – college workers in jobs that do not require college degrees – as “perhaps the most pressing problem facing college graduates in the nation today….”

Our projections of skill supplies and demands for the US economy stake out a middle ground. We foresee rising demand for highly-educated workers. But in the near term this rising demand will by and large be met by rising education levels among the US population, suggesting little risk of a substantial workforce skills gap. At the same time, there are greater risks of skill shortages in states with large and growing, and less-educated, immigrant populations. And over the longer-term, as more baby boomers retire, there is greater risk of substantial skill shortages nationwide.

Projections of skill supplies and demands through 2018

Our demand projections rest on US Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS) projections of employment growth by occupation to 2018 (Lacey and Wright 2009). To project the education requirements of future jobs, we could also rely on the BLS, which classifies occupations by educational requirements. However, using data from the American Community Survey (ACS), we find substantial labour market returns, within occupations, to educational levels beyond those that the BLS deems “required” (see Neumark et al 2011). We therefore instead use empirical evidence on employment practices to estimate and project workforce skills needs, starting with the baseline education distribution of workers by occupation in 2008 and applying recent trend growth in education distributions within occupation (using ACS and Decennial Census data). Applying these estimates to the occupational projections, we obtain projected skill (education) demands.

To project supply, we construct new population forecasts that take account of nativity (unlike US Census Bureau population projections), and we project population by education, and labour force participation. Three important factors underlie our projections:

• First, that young adults will continue to experience improvements in educational attainment compared to the preceding cohorts;
• Second, that there will be continued upgrading of educational attainment levels of older workers; and
• Third, that labour force participation rates will continue to rise for more highly-educated older adults, and that past patterns in retirement will prevail for the baby boom as it reaches retirement ages.

In Table 1, we compare our preferred educational attainment projections (supply) with the employment projections (demand), in levels and shares. These projections do not point to significant impending shortages of skilled workers in the US through 2018, as the projected demand and supply shares by education are quite similar. We do see projected shortages for people with an Associate’s degree (356,000), and some excess supply of less-educated workers (those with some college or a high school degree or less). Our comparisons are based on projected total labour force supply of workers, and do not include forecasts of unemployment. If we adjust the 2018 supply projections for unemployment rates by education category as observed in 2008, then the projected shortage of workers with an Associate’s degree or higher expands to around 800,000, still far less than Carnevale et al predict.

Conflicting evidence

We have explored numerous explanations for why Carnevale et al (2010) project much more substantial skill shortages. The difference is primarily attributable to the data they use (the Current Population Survey, or CPS). In particular, the CPS data show a higher share with college degrees at the 2008 baseline, and faster growth of these shares over time, both of which lead to considerably higher projected demand for workers with college degrees in 2018. But the CPS data appear problematic. First, the CPS data appear to overstate the share with Associate’s degrees, because the CPS equates occupational or vocational programmes with college degrees, whereas the ACS data do not. The CPS data also show much faster growth rates in the share with Bachelor’s degrees or higher.

We verified that these data differences explain the differences between our demand projections and theirs. Moreover, in both data sets the shares in each education category in 2008 appear anomalous, whereas education trends through 2007 were much more similar. We therefore redid the demand-side forecasts using data from 2000-2007 (rather than 2000-2008) to estimate the within-occupation trends in education, in which case the entire difference between the projections was attributable to the different baseline educational distribution in the CPS. Finally, because Carnevale et al use a supply projection from a completely different source, it seemed likely that using CPS on both the demand and supply sides of the market should substantially reduce the sensitivity of the projections to the definition of education, which we verified. Using CPS data on both sides of the market leads to much milder projections of skill shortages than the dramatic shortages that Carnevale et al project.

The Harrington and Sum criticism of the projections in Carnevale et al (2010) could equally well be directed at our projections. They argue against using observed educational distributions within occupations to measure educational requirements, and instead believe that the BLS determinations of skill requirements are accurate. Although they do not develop projections, our full paper (Neumark et al, 2011) shows that if we project skill demands based on BLS skill requirements, we project massive oversupply of skilled workers. So Harrington and Sum are right that conclusions about skill shortages depend critically on how one measures skill requirements.

However, the argument that BLS skill requirements are accurate is belied by the evidence that there are substantial economic returns, within occupations, to education levels above those “required” according to the BLS. Although Harrington and Sum (forthcoming) present some evidence that appears to suggest the opposite, their evidence is based on earnings regressions that omit occupation controls, leading to spurious evidence of lower estimated returns to education for those in occupations that use less-educated workers. For example, Harrington and Sum (2010) tell the “story” of bartenders (college degree is not required) and compensation and benefits managers (college degree required). The question is not whether bartenders earn less than compensation and benefits managers, but whether the return to education within for bartenders is less than the return to education for compensation and benefits managers. We therefore conclude that the Harrington and Sum critique of using observed rather than “required” education to capture skill demands is unfounded.

Skill shortages in some states?

Although we do not project significant near-term skill shortages nationwide, the situation could differ in states with large and growing Hispanic immigrant shares in which older adults nearing retirement ages are notably better educated than young adults. States that fit this profile include California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. The importance of these demographic changes is illustrated by a simple exercise where we project supply for the nation, but substituting California’s ethnic composition in 2018 for that of the entire US. In other words, we ask the question, would there be a national skill shortage if the country had California’s demographic mix? The answer is yes: we project a deficit of 3.1 million workers with an associate’s degree or higher. Of course, domestic migration could ameliorate some of these shortages.

Skill shortages in the longer term?

The longer-term perspective is also less sanguine. Our projections extend to 2018 because the BLS occupation projections end there. But the majority of boomers (two of every three) will be younger than age 65 in 2018, whereas by 2030 all of the boomers will have passed age 65. We expect that projections of the US economy to 2030 would show a continuation of greater rates of growth in industries and occupations that employ highly-educated workers, consistent with the long-standing trend in the US, and accentuated by the increased demand for healthcare as the baby boomers enter old age. Yet the size of the baby boom cohort coupled with its high education levels imply that the replacement of older with younger cohorts will not lead to rising education levels to anything like the extent to which it did in the past (Figure 1). It is plausible, then, that general skill shortages would be much more evident in projections extended out a couple more decades.

The research on the projections was supported by the Gates Foundation and the AARP Foundation. The views expressed are the authors’, and do not reflect the views of PPIC or the AARP or Gates Foundations.

References

Carnevale, Anthony P, Nicole Smith, and Jeff Strohl (2010), Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements Through 2018, Centre on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University.

Harrington, Paul E and Andrew M Sum (2010, November), “College Labour Shortages in 2018?”, New England Journal of Higher Education.

Harrington, Paul E and Andrew M Sum (2011), “Recent Projections of Labour Shortages Through 2018: From Great Recession to Labour Shortages? A Critical Look at the Evidence”, forthcoming in Monthly Labour Review.

Lacey, T Alan, and Benjamin Wright (2009), “Occupational Employment Projections to 2018”, Monthly Labour Review, 132(11), November, 82-123.

Neumark, David, Hans P Johnson, and Marisol Cuellar Mejia (2011), “Future Skill Shortages in the US Economy?”, NBER Working Paper No. 17213.

Republished with permission of VoxEU.org

Geithner on Default

What follows is Congressional testimony by Treasury Sec Tim Geithner regarding his views on Federal default:

Default by the United States would precipitate a crisis worse than the one we just went through. I think it would make the crisis we went through look modest in comparison. It would force us of course to cut critical payments to our seniors and it would be a reckless, irresponsible act to this country. I find it inconceivable that the Congress would not act to increase the limit.

It would be catastrophic. I mean, if you call into question the willingness of the government of the United States to meet its obligations, you will shake the basic foundation of the entire global financial system. It is inconceivable that America would do that. And of course I am totally confident that Congress will act to avoid that.

It will raise dramatically the borrowing costs permanently for all Americans. Every business for a very long period time would face a much higher cost of borrowing. Every family would face a much higher cost of borrowing. Unemployment would rise dramatically. Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of businesses would fail. And of course you would shake the confidence of the world in U.S. financial assets and Treasuries. It would be a deeply irresponsible act, again inconceivable.

Clearly, Tim Geithner is not in favor of a national default -- that leaves austerity measures (as in spending cuts and tax increases) and monetary expansion (as in inflation) as the only remaining courses of action for fiscal policy-makers. The future of Federalism hangs in the balance...

Source: Geithner: Raise Debt Ceiling or Risk Another Financial Crisis (2011, April 5), Martinsville Media.

PS: I suppose the US could instead "eat" its way out of this economic crisis by building new businesses that can compete in the global marketplace, but that's just a suggestion...

Related Posts

What is Money?

Last month, Gov Gary Herbert of Utah signed legislation that makes gold and silver coinage issued by the US Treasury an alternative form of "legal tender" for Utahns (Riley, 2011). Other states are considering similar legislation, including South Carolina, Virginia and New Hampshire (Benko, 2011). Hence, Americans may soon be holding and spending multiple forms of money by necessity, especially if inflation benights the value of Federal Reserve Notes globally. In the coming years, society could see all of the following forms of money in cash register drawers.

The question of "what is money" is likely to become more than a rhetorical muse in the coming years...

Sources:

Riley, C (2011, March 29), Utah: Forget Dollars. How About Gold? CNN Money.

Benko, R (2011, March 2), Gold and Silver: The States' New Currency? Christian Science Monitor.

Related Posts

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 is a Good Law

Pres George W Bush signed into law the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which states:

Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.... If a decoration or medal involved in an offense... is a distinguished-service cross..., a Navy cross..., an Air Force cross..., a silver star..., a Purple Heart, or any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal..., the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

The Medal of Honor [click to enlarge]

As far as I am concerned, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 is a good law that should remain in force. Our nation needs this law in order to recognize for posterity the distinguished service of its military veterans. Such honors are not intended to be taken lightly by society.

Source: Stolen Valor Act of 2005, 109th Congress, 2005–2006.

Related Posts: The Man in the Arena

The “Orderly” Insolvency of States

German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently stated that the European Union needs a process for the "orderly" insolvency of its members. Does the US also need a process for the “orderly” insolvency (bankruptcy) of its states...?

The Cause of Americanism

Americanism is about allegiance to our nation's customs, institutions, and way of life, all of which are missions of the American Legion.

The American Legion was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic veterans organization. Focusing on service to veterans, servicemembers and communities, the Legion evolved from a group of war-weary veterans of World War I into one of the most influential nonprofit groups in the United States. Membership swiftly grew to over 1 million, and local posts sprang up across the country. Today, membership stands at over 2.4 million in 14,000 posts worldwide. The posts are organized into 55 departments: one each for the 50 states, along with the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, France, Mexico and the Philippines.

I am proud to be a member (paid up for life) of the American Legion. Follow the link below to learn more:

American Legion

Related Posts

Breakaway Wealth

According to Peter Whoriskey of the Washington Post (2011):

The evolution of executive grandeur — from very comfortable to jet-setting — reflects one of the primary reasons that the gap between those with the highest incomes and everyone else is widening.

For years, statistics have depicted growing income disparity in the United States, and it has reached levels not seen since the Great Depression. In 2008, the last year for which data are available, for example, the top 0.1 percent of earners took in more than 10 percent of the personal income in the United States, including capital gains, and the top 1 percent took in more than 20 percent. But economists had little idea who these people were. How many were Wall street financiers? Sports stars? Entrepreneurs? Economists could only speculate, and debates over what is fair stalled.

Now a mounting body of economic research indicates that the rise in pay for company executives is a critical feature in the widening income gap.

The largest single chunk of the highest-income earners, it turns out, are executives and other managers in firms, according to a landmark analysis of tax returns by economists Jon Bakija, Adam Cole and Bradley T Heim. These are not just executives from Wall Street, either, but from companies in even relatively mundane fields such as the milk business.

The top 0.1 percent of earners make about $1.7 million or more, including capital gains. Of those, 41 percent were executives, managers and supervisors at non-financial companies, according to the analysis, with nearly half of them deriving most of their income from their ownership in privately-held firms. An additional 18 percent were managers at financial firms or financial professionals at any sort of firm. In all, nearly 60 percent fell into one of those two categories.

Other recent research, moreover, indicates that executive compensation at the nation’s largest firms has roughly quadrupled in real terms since the 1970s, even as pay for 90 percent of America has stalled.

Source: Whoriskey, P (2011, June 18), With Executive Pay, Rich Pull Away from Rest of America, Washington Post.

Repairing Sovereign Indebtedness: Get Ready...

Sovereign indebtedness in democratic states can only really be resolved via three methods (or some combination thereof):

1. The default route (cancellation of debts)
2. The austerity route (drastic spending cuts and tax increases)
3. The inflation route (“printing” money)

The Course Forward

Given that governments will not risk losing their sovereign borrowing power, the default option becomes unlikely. Moreover, given that voters will never consent to significant cuts in public programs or dramatic increases in taxes, the austerity route becomes equally unlikely. This leaves the inflation route (or “printing” money) as the most likely course forward for democratic states. Note that an important side-effect and key attraction of the inflation route for sovereign governments is to reduce the size and scale of public debt and entitlements through the inflation mechanism itself.

Best Advice

My best advice for workers is to get ready for inflation. Once the government embarks on the inflation route, unemployment will increase and remain high for the duration. Also, cost-of-living increases in pay and benefits will lag the inflation rate significantly. Even a 6-9% inflation rate over 7-10 years could mean at least a 40% reduction in real wages (and fixed pensions). Convert all existing debts (and especially mortgages) to fixed rate notes now, and eliminate all variable rate debt from your life, including credit cards. The greatest challenge for workers during periods of inflation is the risk of unexpected unemployment as firms and governments alike reduce real spending and investment under inflationary pressures. Again, get ready...

Related Posts:

How High Can Inflation Go...?

Using Inflation to Erode the US Public Debt

Implications of the Financial Crisis

Understanding US Debt via Excel + PowerPivot

For those interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the US national debt, I commend Tyler Chessman's new book, Understanding the United States Debt (2011) and its companion website. Excel (Microsoft) and PowerPivot (Microsoft) users in particular will want to follow the link below to download a free copy of the PowerPivot-enabled Excel workbook (requires Excel 2010 with PowerPivot installed).

Companion Website

To order a copy of the book, follow the link below.

Order Book

Related Posts