Scott Grannis, the Calafia Pundit, plots a currency course that does’t turn America into a third-world economy:
My pal Don Marron breaks it down:
A few days ago, CBO released its latest snapshot on the federal budget, documenting the remarkable challenges of fiscal 2009, which ended on September 30. The key phrase in the report is “in over 50 years” as in:
From the Congressional Budget Office:
According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period. The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period. In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.
At the Atlantic magazine symposium I am attending, former Federal Reserve chairman again said he thinks taxes are going up and that a value-added tax would be the “least worst” way of doing it. This dovetails nicely with what I wrote yesterday:
The great Dan Clifton of the Strategas Research finds this gem:
Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, told the National Economists Club that today’s deficits are more troublesome than in the early 1980’s. Projected deficits are twice the deficit in the early 1980’s but more importantly there is a growing disconnect between current law and provisions set to expire which will eventually be extended. Most notably there is (and will be) growing pressure to extend the expiring stimulus provisions in addition to the usual expiring provisions.
Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey has gotten hold of an internal CBO report distributed to Congress that predicts Social Security will start running a cash deficit next year as opposed to 2019. And even that, apparently , is based on some pretty rosy revenue projections. Indeed, over the span of 2017, 2018, 2019, SS will run a $126 billion deficit, according to the CBO. Gee, and you wonder why the Chinese are getting skittish about the dollar?
Bruce Bartlett makes the case that a) either taxes need to be raised or spending cut to bring America back to fiscal solvency, b) there is little historical evidence that spending can be cut, and thus c) taxes are headed higher. Certainly Congress has show itself willing to raises taxes (1982, 1991, 1993) by large amounts and not cut spending. Both the 2005 effort by the Bush administration to fix Social Security and the current effort to reign in healthcare costs are further evidence. Yet you certainly wouldn’t want to close the hole purely by raising taxes, would you? I think they would have to rise by 50 percent, IIRC. We would definitely be on the wrong side of the Laffer curve then. Spending is really Obama’s Nixon-to-China opportunity …