GAO: Cost of financial meltdown: $22 trillion

And, as Elizabeth Warren pointed out, nobody has gone to jail for it. Because it was caused by stupidity and greed.  I mean, it was the business cycle. No, wait, it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! Yeah, that's the ticket....

Financial Crisis Cost Tops $22 Trillion, GAO Says

By Eleazar David Melendez

February 14, 2013 | Huffington Post

URL: http://huff.to/WsgcIk

U.S. taxes & spending: Key facts

Here are somewhat random but indisputable facts on U.S. federal taxes and spending, all of it hyperlinked:

Corporate tax:

·        The U.S. collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world:  about 1.3 % of GDP in 2010, compared to 5 % in the 1950s.

·        WSJ citing the CBO: Corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1 % of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, the lowest % since 1972.

·        26 Fortune 500 companies paid no net federal income tax from 2008-2011.

·        WSJ:  More than 60 % of U.S. businesses with profits over $1 million pay zero corporate tax, since they are structured as pass-throughs.

·        Citizens for Tax Justice: From 2008-2010, 280 profitable Fortune 500 companies collectively paid an income tax rate of 18.5 % vs. the statutory 35 % rate, while receiving $223 billion in tax subsidies.  And at least 22 companies used offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands (like Mitt Romney does).

Individual taxes:

·        CBO:  In 2009, the same year the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party was born, Americans paid the lowest average federal tax rate (17.4 %) in 30 years.

·        Bush tax cuts will cost $5.4 trillion if extended in full from 2013-2022. Romney-Ryan claim they will close tax loopholes and broaden the tax base, but repeatedly refuse to give specifics, most recently on FoxNews.

·        DC Johnston/Reuters: Per capita federal tax revenue was 31.5 % less in real terms in 2011 than in 2001, because of the recession but also Bush’s tax cuts.

·        On the “47 % who pay no income tax:”

o   Only about 17 % of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts; in 2007, it was 14 %.

o   CBO: the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4 % of income in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available.

·        Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy:  The bottom 20 % of U.S. households pay more of their income in state and local taxes than does the top 1 %.

·        Tax Policy Center: Romney’s tax plan would result in "large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers."

·        The Estate (“Death”) Tax affects only 0.6 % of Americans whose death would lead to the payment of any estate taxes.  Only 2.7 % of Americans receive an inheritance over $50,000.  However, elimination of the Estate Tax would cost $253 billion from 2012-2022. 

·        David Stockman, Reagan’s director of the OMB, told CNBC: "We couldn't afford those tax cuts back when they were implemented by Bush. We can't afford them now."

  

Spending and deficits:

·        NYT:  Before President Obama even took office, the CBO projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Bush’s spending and tax policies. (The actual deficit in FY 2009 was $1.4 trillion.)

·        NYT: Only 17 percent of the increase in government debt in 2009 and 2010 was because of discretionary spending of any kind, including the stimulus bill.

·        More than 1/3 of the Recovery Act’s (stimulus bill) cost to-date has been for tax credits: $298 billion.

·        PolitiFact:  Growth in government spending under Obama is lower than at any time since President Eisenhower (adjusted for inflation).  Deficits have increased, nevertheless, because of a down economy and resulting lower tax receipts – and the Bush tax cuts.

·        OMB: Contrary to Romney’s claims, defense spending increased under President Obama, from $661 billion in 2009 to $693 billion in 2010 to $705 billion in 2011.

·        GAO:  Interest paid on the federal debt as a percentage of annual federal spending is lower under Obama – 6.4 % in 2011 – that at any time since the 1970s.  And the interest paid on federal debt as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest since WWII.

·        OMB:  As a result of recessionary unemployment, "income security" payments built into our system before Obama took office, such as unemployment insurance, disability pay, food stamps and housing assistance, increased from $431 billion in 2008 to $533 billion in 2009 to $622 billion in 2010 and slightly decreased to $597 billion in 2011. 

·        OMB federal debt figures (p. 140):  2009: $ 11.88 trillion; 2010:  $ 13.53 trillion; 2011: $14.76 trillion. That was a $2.88 trillion increase, or 24 %, over 3 years for President Obama.  Meanwhile, from 2002 to 2009, the federal debt increased from $6.2 trillion to $11.88 trillion.  That was a $5.88 trillion increase, or 91 %, over 8 years for President Bush.

·        Taken together, tax credits in the Recovery Act (stimulus bill) , and the payroll tax reduction for 160 million Americans in 2011 and 2012, both passed by President Obama, gave Americans $298 + $240 billion = $538 billion in tax relief.    

·        The non-partisan Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget projects that, without offsets that Romney’s campaign refuses to explain, his tax plan would increase the federal debt by $2.6 trillion.
·        Non-defense discretionary spending totaled 18 % of the federal budget in 2012. It includes: border control, education, environment, food safety, infrastructure, housing, veterans' healthcare, disaster relief, public safety, scientific research, etc.  

Baker: Failing arithmetic on national debt

Baker is the first pundit I know of who has made this point:  

While our debt to GDP ratio is approaching levels not seen since the years immediately following World War II, there is another key ratio that has been going in the opposite direction. This is the ratio of interest payments to GDP. This fell to 1.3 percent of GDP in 2009, its lowest level since World War II. While it has risen slightly in the last couple of years, the ratio of interest payments to GDP is still near a post-war low.

This gives us yet another example how the U.S. Government is not like a household.  How many of us can pay a lower interest rate as our debts grow bigger?  You and I can't.  But the USG can and does.    

Baker goes on to illustrate how interest owed on the national debt is more important than the absolute dollar value of outstanding debt, or the debt-to-GDP ratio:

Suppose that we issue $4 trillion in 30 year bonds at or near the current interest rate of 2.75 percent. Let's imagine that in 3 years the economy has largely recovered and that long-term interest rates are back at a more normal level; let's say 6.0 percent for a 30-year bond.

In this case the bond price would fall by over 40 percent meaning, in principle, that it would be possible for the government to buy up the $4 trillion in debt that it issued in 2012 for just $2.4 trillion, instantly lowering our debt burden by $1.6 trillion, almost 10 percentage points of GDP. If we had been flirting with the magic 90 percent debt to GDP ratio before the bond purchase, we will have given ourselves a huge amount of leeway by buying up these bonds.

Of course, this would be silly. The interest burden of the debt would not have changed; the only thing that would have changed is the dollar value of the outstanding debt. Fans of the 90 percent debt-to-GDP twilight zone theory may think that the debt burden by itself could slow the economy, but in the real world this doesn't make any sense.

Let's recall that America's debt-to-GDP ratio was nearly 120 percent after WWII.  "Yeah, but that was WWII!" you might say, "And after the Great Depression! No comparison!"

Well, yeah, it's hard to compare a war that lasted four years with two simultaneous wars that have lasted about 10 years and counting.  Meanwhile, the Great Recession wiped out $15.5 trillion in U.S. wealth -- about equal, coincidentally, to one year of U.S. GDP, and our total federal debt.  

And Dubya's Great Recession cost us 8.8 million jobs (more than the previous four recessions combined); as a result, many of those jobless people have qualified for "income security" payments built into our system that didn't exist in the 1930s, such as unemployment insurance, disability pay, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. Income security outlays increased from $431 billion in 2008 to $533 billion in 2009 to $622 billion in 2010 to $597 billion in 2011.  Next, more people opted for early Social Security benefits, plus they got a 5.8 percent cost of living increase in 2009, and for the first time the program ran a deficit.  Social Security outlays jumped from $617 billion in 2008 to $683 billion in 2009 to $706 billion in 2010 to $731 billion in 2011.  And let's not forget national defense spending, which increased from $616 billion in 2008 to $661 billion in 2009 to $693 billion in 2010 to $705 billion in 2011.

Finally -- and this is the factor so many people, especially on the right, overlook -- decreased economic activity -- combined with an extension of Dubya's tax cuts -- led to lower income and corporate tax receipts (and FICA receipts): down $419 billion in 2009 and $360 billion in 2010, compared to 2008.  

Meanwhile, overall spending increased $535 billion in 2009 (most of it thanks to Dubya) and $475 billion in 2010, compared to 2008.  

(See all the OMB's historical spending and revenue data here.)

So there are objective reasons why our deficits and debt have climbed.  It's ludicrous to blame it all on $475 billion in stimulus spending.

Next, let's look at the GAO's historical picture of annual net interest paid on the federal debt as a percentage of annual federal spending.  In 2011, interest payments were 6.4 percent of federal outlays.  From Reagan thru Dubya, that figure never fell below 7 percent.  In the decadent '80s it never fell below 8.9 percent.  In the dot-com '90s it never fell below 13.5 percent.  

Sure, interest rates will eventually go up as the economy recovers.  But first it has to recover.  Economic recovery should be our top priority right now, not paying off our debt when we enjoy historically low interest rates and suffer historically high unemployment.  Debt reduction now, which would cut GDP and raise unemployment, is putting the cart before the horse.

Just trying to put things in perspective.  Not that my Tea Partying friends will care....

Debt Worries: Economists Fail Arithmetic, Again

By Dean Baker

September 24, 2012 | Huffington Post

URL: http://huff.to/UzBh4o

GAO probe vindicates ACORN

ACORN Totally Vindicated of All Wrongdoing -- What Was That 'Scandal' All About?

A preliminary probe by the U.S. GAO has found no evidence of mishandling the $40 million in federal money ACORN and affiliates received in recent years.

By John Atlas

June 17, 2010 | AlterNet

URL: http://www.alternet.org/news/147248/acorn_totally_vindicated_of_all_wrongdoing_--_what_was_that_'scandal'_all_about/

GAO: Bush Admin. inflated progress in Iraq

So, the GAO says the Pentagon and the Bush Admin. have no real strategy to make Iraq independent, and that the Pentagon has fudged its progress on key indicators per Bush's "New Way Forward" for Iraq. (That so-called strategy's 18-month timeline expires in July, by the way. Time for a "New New Way Forward" -- perhaps using McCain's much more realistic 100-year timeline!)

Government Study Criticizes Bush Administration's Measure of Progress in Iraq

By James Glanz

June 24, 2008 | New York Times