What's the big deal about the debt ceiling?

This piece should scare you.  It was written by a top notch economist, in plain language. I urge you to read it http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/the-loss-of-u-s-pre-eminence/?_r=0.   It in part answers some of the questions I have been hearing lately that pretty much all can be summed up as, “What’s the big deal about the debt ceiling?”

The debt ceiling is the United States Government’s limit on the amount of debt the Treasury Department is legally allowed to issue.  Think of it as the limit on your credit card, but the consequences of exceeding it are much more dire. Among other things, this debt is accrued interest on amounts already borrowed and payments due for money Congress already authorized and appropriated for spending.  To not allow an increase to the debt ceiling is tantamount to being told you could buy something, but when the bill comes not given the money to do so.

The blog included above points out the current fiscal and political environments are sowing the seeds for the decline of the US from its pre-eminent position economically.  Economics is weird.  Is it a science or an art? Is it mathematics and statistics or psychology?  The basis for all economics is the idea of utility; how much an individual wants something.  Utility explains why gold costs more than silver, Coke costs more than Kroger cola and someone is willing to spend $5,000 on Prada; yet pretty much all sugar costs the same.  We as consumers, all things being equal, assign intrinsic values to items based on perception and past performance; and are willing to pay more for items with intrinsic value.  Without utility, advertisers would not have a job.  This phenomenon is the basis for everything we purchase.

Utility plays a role in currency and sovereign debt.  At different points in the recent past, up to 90% of global financial transactions passed through the US, daily.  The United States dollar is the most well respected piece of currency in the world, therefore gets used all over the world.  It is the confidence in the United States economy (not necessarily Government) that accounts for use of the US Dollar, and purchase of US debt.  Without this confidence, the US will have to pay more through higher interest rates.  Recent examples of this are the lack luster performance of debt issuances by Ireland, Spain, Greece and Malta.  A sharp increase in the cost of issuing debt will immediately drain funds from the US economy and begin hyperinflation like that seen in Mexico and Venezuela.  Albert Einstein once said the greatest power in the universe is compound debt.

As for the global economy, simply look to the reaction to defaults by Greece and Malta.  Greece caused a recession in the entire Eurozone, and some experts believe muted growth of both the US and Chinese economies due to the reduction of imports to the Eurozone.  Malta, a very small island nation, almost caused another recession in the Eurozone.  The US Economy is magnitudes of order greater than either Greece or Malta.  The results of a US default would also be magnitudes of order greater.  Too big to fail?  Definitely!

The silence from industry as discussed in the blog above is a warning.  Regardless of personal opinion on Obamacare, Keystone XL or changes to the tax code, Congress and the president CANNOT let this happen.  It’s not a question of whether or not there will be a global recession if the US defaults.  It’s only a question of how severe.  And when the dust settles, the US may no longer be at the top of the heap.

Gun control does not have to infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

Due to recent shootings in Chicago and at the Navy yard, the topic of gun control again crashes to the headlines.  Gun control advocates, led by President Obama, have already come back out; soon to follow will be the gun owner advocates trying to refute them.  Let us start by looking at the first gun law which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  Assuming the individual right theory, it seems pretty plain the people of these United States shall not have their right to bear arms infringed.

Many laws have been floated attempting to restrict “assault weapons”, “automatic weapons” or magazine size.  Some have argued, an individual does not need a “military style rifle” to go hunting or that a shotgun is sufficient for home security.  To these, I point back to the Second Amendment; which makes no reference to recreational use or sufficient to protect yourself.  Regardless of your opinion of gun ownership, a Constitutional Amendment is required to enact laws such as these.  The Constitution was written to be amended, and it has happened 27 times.

Second Amendment advocates also extend this idea to complete background checks and registration.  With the exception of private to private transactions, how is a background check a bad thing?  To the gun sellers that bemoan the additional costs, then don’t sell guns.  Beyond that, it is a bit scary the local, state and federal repositories for criminal information are so incomplete and disjointed.  Regardless of gun laws, updating these systems has to happen.  As an analogy, when my son entered Kindergarten I had to agree to a background check to be allowed to be a chaperone.  And you know what, I did not have a problem with protecting my son and his classmates by having a review of all those that have access to them. How is this any different?  Extending even further, using this same idea and combining with some conspiracy theory, gun control opponents claim the Government would use the registration to confiscate all weapons. As a society, we register cars, homes and even our children; none of which have been confiscated by the Government.  With that, legally made weapons are already registered with the ATF; is it such a stretch to confirm to whom the weapon belongs?

As usual, the simple truth lies somewhere in between.  Without a Constitutional Amendment, laws limiting the type and power of a weapon will not, and should not, stand.  If two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states agree these types of controls are necessary for the safety of US citizens, then get it done.  Short of that, proper background checks and registration are reasonable, common sense controls that do not infringe on a citizen’s right to possess a firearm.

Tough medicine needed for Social Security

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office announced Federal debt could match GDP in 25 years. In large part, this is due to the continuation of large increases in costs for “entitlement” programs.  Without cuts to those programs or increases to revenues (i.e. taxes), the fiscal stability of the US economy is in jeopardy. It is time to take some bad medicine.  It is time for Congress and the White House to issue an apology to everyone under the age of 40 (which includes this writer).

Social Security is not an entitlement.  It is a Depression Era promise the US Government made to its citizens; we will not allow Americans fall to the wayside.  It was written in a time with unemployment rates never seen before, or since; rampant poverty; and where each successive generation was not only larger, but also outlived the previous. But, look at the title Social SECURITY; not Social PENSION, Social RETIREMENT PLAN or Social THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU UNTIL YOU DIE. The intent was never as the plan has largely been implemented.

Today’s demographics cannot support a top heavy system with a larger population receiving outlays than the ones making contributions; especially when the population receiving outlays has life expectancies far greater than when the law was written. An annuity basic: the longer the annuity has to pay the larger the principal OR installment payments (i.e. taxes).  Because of this, when I was a financial planner, contrary to my training which taught building a retirement plan depended on employer plans (pension or 401k), personal investment and Social Security, I advised clients to depend only on employer plans and personal investment.

I, with many of my Generation X, Y and Millennial brethren, have no expectation we can rely on Social Security in our golden years.  It is time to make the necessary changes, write the apology and tell these generations not to plan on having it.  The key word is plan. This is not a call to repeal Social Security.  The program itself needs to exist for SECURITY.  However, lines need to be drawn, and adhered to, on total wealth.  It is absurd to think Warren Buffett receives a Social Security check.  More absurd is to continue to allow $1.3 Billion in mis-payments.  Increased funding for technology and personnel to verify enrollment, claims and payments will save tenfold the cost.  These are simple, common sense changes that can save the Social Security system as a whole, and will directly contribute to stabilizing the US economy.

For those in these generations that contend it is not fair to continuing paying into a system they are not guaranteed to receive a benefit from, the payment will come either way.  Rather to plan my own retirement and pay into Social Security at a decreasing amount over the next 20 years, then continual increases to the general tax rate which in the end would strip away a much greater amount from my weekly check.  The total cost in increased tax revenue and extra costs associated with economic instability will be far, far greater.

*Matthew R. Jewell: Currently a Contracts Manager for a large organization; former financial planner and holder of Series 6 & 63 Securities, Life and Health Insurance Licenses; Bachelor's Degrees in Mathematics and Economics from the University of Detroit Mercy and Master's of Business Administration from Wayne State University 

A Government shutdown is not leverage

Is the United States the greatest country with the best medical care in the world? An affirmative answer to this question is incongruent with allowing a large population of US citizens to subsist on little to no health care.  Albeit a clumsy effort, the Affordable Care Act attempts to address this incongruence. Either we act like the greatest country in the world, or continue on a hypocritical path. 

A primary argument of detractors to the Affordable Care Act focuses on the increased costs and expense borne by taxpayers. Based on this reasoning, the Act has foisted billions onto the national debt that will subsequently be saved with its repeal. This is a fallacy in that these costs already existed, paid by consumers, state and federal governments.  Prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act, a similar amount of costs were passed onto consumers as a hidden tax through: laws preventing hospitals from turning away people in distress; 4000% variances for the same joint replacement surgery; excessive and sometimes unnecessary prescription costs covered by the faceless healthcare insurer, unseen or unconcerned by the consumer; and lack of preventative care leading to increased Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security Disability claims. Unable to avoid or unwilling to limit these costs, hospitals and insurers pass these costs onto those that do have the ability to pay. 

No doubt, the final form of the Affordable Care Act and its implementation have serious faults.  The Federal Government provides affordable healthcare to hundreds of thousands of individuals which looks nothing like the Affordable Care Act. Historically, government engineered markets have not proven successful. With that, while the Affordable Care Act recognizes the variance of markets between regions and states, providing States funding if only they follow rigid rules (and some yet completed rules) fails the test of ask me to do it or do it yourself, but don’t ask me to do it and then tell me how. Finally, the bungling attempt to solve the problem of ensuring everyone truly participates and has sufficient healthcare coverage, resulting in a Supreme Court ruling. All of these are serious faults with the Affordable Care Act in its current form.

Even so, attempting to defund the Affordable Care Act in order to starve it is near sighted and misguided.  The Affordable Care Act is a law.  Laws can be changed.  Opponents to the Affordable Care Act have been unwilling or unable to come up with reasonable changes or a reasonable replacement. The current leadership in the White House and Senate will not allow repeal, but may agree to changes. Instead, opponents threaten to shut down the entire Government like a petulant child threatening to take their ball and go home. Ignoring the fact Congress has not passed a budget in 4 years, one of its main purposes, the current Continuing Resolution is not directly related to the Affordable Care Act.  Further, neither is the upcoming battle over the debt ceiling.  Though not as easily measured as within appropriations in the federal budget, complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act would return society to imbalance and insidious hidden taxes tantamount to the cost of the Act itself.

*Matthew R. Jewell -  Currently a Contracts Manager for a large organization; former financial planner and holder of Series 6 & 63 Securities, Life and Health Insurance Licenses; Bachelor's Degrees in Mathematics and Economics from the University of Detroit Mercy and Master's of Business Administration from Wayne State University