The Stimulus Bill – it’s about government growth, stupid!

“It’s the economy, stupid” was a popular phrase during President Bill Clinton’s first run for the White House when he challenged President George H. W. Bush in 1992. Fast forward to 2009 and Congress has passed a $787 billion “stimulus” package that is supposed to create jobs and invest in America’s future.

Government has this nasty habit of passing “temporary” legislation. In Canada our 1917 Income War Tax Act is a classic example. This was a temporary national general tax on personal and corporate income (the first in Canada) meant to help fund Canada’s costs associated with World War I. Last time I checked this temporary tax is still imposed – every two weeks for most people.

Last week the US Congress passed a 1,073 page “bi-partisan” (243 House Democrats, 57 Senate Democrats and 3 Senate Republicans) stimulus bill as a one-time jolt to the US economy. If we are to believe one of President Obama’s chief advisors, David Axelrod, this bill is the answer to all of America’s woes. It will create jobs. It will invest in infrastructure. It will save the US from the brink of depression. It will prove that President Obama is the world’s saviour.

The Wall Street Journal ran a piece this weekend which detailed each category and associated amounts of spending under this bill. After printing the 38 page article, (I read better off of paper than the computer screen. I do re-use paper where it is possible), I spent some time sifting the data to determine how much of the $787 billion is actually meant for investing in America’s future and how much is going to “temporarily” expand the size of government.

These are important distinctions. I’m not generally a supporter of government intrusion or bail outs, but if it is accepted that government is going to provide stimulus (and it is) then the stimulus should be in the form of capital investments and not ongoing program expenditures.

Capital investments in roads, railways, telecommunications infrastructure, satellite communications, hospitals etc. will provide long term benefits. Ongoing programs will do nothing more than permanently expand the size of America’s government.

In broad strokes, I’ve defined:

1. Investment as capital expenditures that invest in plant and infrastructure.
2. Programs as spending that will either need to be cut once the tap is turned off or be maintained by the government in perpetuity (remember Canada’s temporary 1917 Income War Tax) with increased taxes.
3. Tax adjustments as anything that provides a deferral of tax (not actually a reduction), acceleration of write downs (not really a tax deduction), tax credits (refundable and non-refundable) and tax reductions.

Here’s a summary of how this bill spends taxpayers’ money:

 

Aside from the concept of a government stimulus, the thing that concerns me the most about this huge government stimulus is that 43% of the money (almost $332 billion) is allocated to programs that will be anything but temporary. Once the stimulus runs out, the US government will either need to keep funding these programs or the people they employ will be out of work.

Only 19% of the stimlus is marked for investing in America’s future. If this were truly a “job creation” program and not a “government expansion” program, I propose that none of this misplaced stimulus would be for programs and all of it would be alocated to rebuilding US plant and equipment.

I haven’t performed the same analysis on Canada’s recent budget, but am interested in seeing any research that you may have done.

Should bank executives pay be pegged to that of the US president?

 

Barack Obama will make $400,000 this year as President of the United States.  Some are arguing that as part of the bank bailout, auto maker bailout, everybody who’s taken too much risk bailout, the government should peg senior executives’ pay at companies that take TARP funds to no more than the President’s remuneration.

I have referenced a January 30, 2009 post from http://dealbreaker.com that does a decent job of breaking out the president’s total remuneration.   Not knowing residential rental rates in downtown Washington DC, I don’t know that I agree with the $100 per sq. ft. he quotes for use of the White House (he’s also made the mistake of counting the whole house at 55,000 square feet where, to be fair, he should only be including the residence’s square footage – the rest is office and ceremonial space).

Notwithstanding this, Dealbreaker’s post clearly shows that while POTUS is only paid $400,000 to run the world’s largest and most successful nation, his total remuneration package is very healthy.  With this in mind, I don’t know that the US government should be benchmarking its TARP recipients’ senior executive pay to POTUS!

http://dealbreaker.com/2009/01/no-more-than-the-president-of.php

Hand on hot stove = pain

In the interest of full disclosure, I do believe that government has a role in society.  Protecting property rights, enforcing the law and keeping our borders secure are some of the most important functions.  However, manipulating the economy, owning businesses or running businesses are not functions government is equipped to do well.

I have been very disappointed that over the course of this economic unwinding the press (some of it well respected) and so-called “free market” economists have jumped on the Keynesian bandwagon with such great fervour.  It seems that everywhere I turn there has been a newspaper or an economist arguing for a big stimulus and a fast stimulus.  

My disappointment has been a bit muted more recently because some pundits are beginning to question the size and effectiveness of the American stimulus package and our more modest “made in Canada” version.  

As we are all now well aware, the American mortgage market got way out of hand with people taking on debt that they had no ability service.  Then these debt obligations were being packaged up, securitized and resold on the basis that, because these sub-prime mortgages were distributed piece-meal through these securities, the risks were mitigated.

You’ll see a previous post of mine (read it here) where I outline, from my perspective, the cause of our current malaise.  History aside, fundamentally we had people borrowing money they couldn’t afford to pay back.  They were banking (pun intended) on their real estate rising in value in perpetuity.   They took risks that were far too big – they were excessive.

Now the aberration of the current stimulus package, with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) leading the way, is that it is ultimately going to promote excessive risk.  The US government has put $45 billion each into Citigroup and Bank of America instead of letting them die.  By propping up these failed enterprises, the US government has sent the loud and clear message that business can take massive risk and reap the rewards (bet big, win big) and, at the very worst, come out even if things go south.  

The government has removed the down side of risk. 

Think about this in terms of a poker game.  If players know that worst case scenario was to come out even then they would always bet huge sums on risky hands.  Without the potential to lose their entire float, there is no incentive for a player to think about the potential reward or loss in light the risk he is taking.  This is the same behaviour we will begin see from private enterprise like US banks and auto makers.

Scarcity and incentives are two tenets of economics.  We all make decisions to invest, save or spend our money.  If we remove incentives created by risk then that it is not hard to see how our decisions will be distorted.  

When kids put their hands on a hot stove there is a repercussion.  Similarly, there must be repercussions for a failing business.  There must be pain.