Budget Battles Ahead
I began writing this note on New Year's Day; the holiday season is over all too early for me as I contemplate the coming year. Along with other investors, I have many worries, but at the top of my list is the budget battle that will be fought in Washington, every state capital and most capitals of high-income countries abroad. As I finish this note, Republicans are now in charge of the House of Representatives.
The U.S tax battle on the federal level was fought and resolved a few weeks ago, but only temporarily. In early December, President Obama's Deficit Commission (officially, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform) presented its report, with the provocative title "The Moment of Truth." Unfortunately, the report seems to have dropped out of the news already.
I have read a huge amount of recent press commentary on what lies ahead, but some key issues are missing.
-
The Deficit Commission argues that government promises made must be kept; however, it will be impossible for the federal government to keep all its promises. The same is true for many state and municipal governments and for governments abroad. I will focus on the U.S. federal government but similar issues arise with other jurisdictions. The essential fact of the fiscal condition of the U.S. government is that promises now on the books cannot all be kept because there are no tax rates consistent with the functioning of a market economy that will raise sufficient revenue. If you doubt that statement, spend some time reading budget projections by the Congressional Budget Office and the work of Lawrence Kotlikoff, an economist at Boston University.
-
The deficit was not created in a year and will not be fixed in a year. Churchill, in his first speech to Parliament as Prime Minister in 1940 promised, "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat." The British people knew what was ahead. I fear that our political leaders are not preparing people properly for what is ahead. Governments will have to take away or cut back numerous popular programs. Many innocent people who thought they had benefits coming to them will be sorely disappointed -- indeed, badly hurt in some cases.
-
One of the Commission's most interesting recommendations was that federal revenues should be capped at 21 percent of GDP. That recommendation received little public comment, and the Commission did little to argue the case for it. Our leaders need to set clear targets for spending reduction year by year to provide more discipline in Congress. Perhaps the Obama budget document will do just that. But, I am not optimistic. The budget issue must be framed in terms of the path of spending and not just the path for the deficit, because it is spending commitments in current law that are leading to fiscal ruin.
-
How did we get into this mess? Accounting is a dull subject to some, but is part of the answer. Without full accrual accounting, governments have been able to make promises for the future that are never reflected in current budgets. Now the bills are coming due. In the past, each year's legislative actions should have led to a current budget item reflecting the actuarial increase in promised future outlays. Instead, the future commitments were systematically hidden. We desperately need a reform of government budget accounting.
-
Tea party activists are much in the news. Are tea party leaders prepared to govern? Can the House Republican leadership provide enough inspiration so that tea party leaders will accept the responsibility of getting control of government budgets over the coming decade? As many have noted, it is now put up or shut up time on government spending; we need specifics for what is to be cut.
-
Ronald Reagan understood the future dangers of the Social Security and Medicare Systems, but backed off his efforts to deal with the problem. He believed, correctly in the 1980s, that defeating the Soviet Union and restoring growth to the U.S. economy were higher priorities. U.S. leaders today have multiple priorities but government finances have moved up the list. Other priorities can be addressed only within a framework of sustainable government finance.
-
Of all the budget issues, the most difficult is Medicare. The Affordable Care Act passed last year probably made the problem worse. We are well along the path of Soviet style central management of medical care. The Soviets could not make central planning work and we will not be able to make it work either. But understand this: a system with more private responsibility for medical care will mean that those who have not planned well or who are unlucky will not have ready access to government-provided care. We offer shelter to the homeless, but not a free 15-room mansion. We can offer basic medical care to everyone but not state-of-the art modern medicine to every member of an aging population. Churchill prepared the British for what was ahead, but where are the U.S. leaders who are preparing us for what is ahead?
-
What is the political strategy of the two political parties likely to be? In a matter of weeks, there will be a battle over the debt ceiling. In 1995, the battle over the debt ceiling between Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton led to a government shutdown. That outcome was widely viewed as a political disaster for the Republicans, which would seem to put President Obama in a strong position. What leverage do the two sides have this time? Can President Obama simply hang tough knowing that failure of the House to pass a debt ceiling increase will lead to U.S. default? Or, can Republicans frame the issue so that Obama is held responsible for default because of his refusal to negotiate and compromise? What is the likely strategy of the House leadership in dealing with the adamant tea partiers? These questions are extremely important for investors trying to figure out the likely course of events. As I read the mainstream press, I really do not understand who holds which cards.
-
What we do know is that the situation cannot be understood without knowing what the political games are. Each political party wants the other go first in proposing budget cuts, so the proposals can be criticized before the relevant interest groups. Whether these games will converge to genuine progress remains to be seen.
It seems to me naïve to expect significant progress in reducing the long-run federal deficit this year. Jockeying for position ahead of the 2012 Presidential election will explain much of what we are likely to observe. Still, it does not seem too much to ask that our leaders develop broad principles for dealing with the deficit. Why shouldn't Republican leaders embrace the Deficit Commission's target of capping federal revenues at 21 percent of GDP? Arguing that spending and revenues should be "lower" without any specifics whatsoever is not responsible governing. Nor is it responsible for Democrats simply to want "more" to fill "unmet" social needs. If 2011 does not see some effort to develop specifics of some sort, then the nation will not make any genuine progress in dealing with the deficit.
It is logical that the House will first defund projects and programs primarily supported by Democratic constituencies. Wind energy subsidies might be an example, as they please environmental groups. However, such programs have already created vested interests, such as companies that build and service wind turbines. Whacking away at such programs will enable Congress to claim progress on reducing spending, but spending reductions will have to reach deep into Republican constituencies as well. Investors in certain industries may be in for some rude shocks.
For investors, failure of the government to make genuine progress will mean increasing peril over time. If the United States cannot begin to address its long-run budget problems -- above all reductions in scheduled spending -- then the issue for investors will increasingly be when to bail out and what to bail into. Even with a budget stalemate, that macro issue will not arise in 2011.
The 2012 election will be fought over budget successes and failures this year and plans for the future. How those issues are framed will have much to do with how well the winner in 2012 will be able to govern.
Ensure you sign up to our newsletter to stay informed as these and other dynamics unfold.
Tweet
Author: William Poole
William Poole, Senior Economic Adviser
Merk Investments LLC
William Poole is Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, Senior Economic Adviser to Merk Investments and a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the University of Delaware.
Poole retired as President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in March 2008. In that position, which he held from March 1998, he served on the Federal Reserve's main monetary policy body, the Federal Open Market Committee. He directed the Bank's main office in St. Louis and its three branches in Memphis, Little Rock and Louisville.
At Merk, Poole contributes to the economic and monetary policy research and analysis providing valuable insights to the portfolio management team. In addition, Poole continues to be an active and sought after speaker and author.
Before joining the St. Louis Fed, Poole was Herbert H. Goldberger Professor of Economics at Brown University. He served on the Brown faculty from 1974 to 1998 and the faculty of The Johns Hopkins University from 1963 to 1969. Between these two university positions, he was senior economist at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington. He was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers in the first Reagan administration, from 1982 to 1985.
Poole received his AB degree from Swarthmore College in 1959, and MBA and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Chicago in 1963 and 1966, respectively. Swarthmore honored him with the Doctor of Laws degree in 1989. He was inducted into The Johns Hopkins Society of Scholars in 2005 and presented with the Adam Smith Award by the National Association for Business Economics in 2006. In 2007, the Global Interdependence Center presented him its Frederick Heldring Award.
Poole has engaged in a wide range of professional activities, including publishing numerous papers in professional journals. He has published two books, Money and the Economy: A Monetarist View, in 1978, and Principles of Economics, in 1991. During his 10 years at the St. Louis Fed, he gave over 150 speeches on a variety of topics. In 1980-81, he was a visiting economist at the Reserve Bank of Australia and in 1991, Bank Mees and Hope Visiting Professor of Economics at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. At various times, he served on advisory boards of the Federal Reserve Banks of Boston and New York, and the Congressional Budget Office.
The Merk Absolute Return Currency Fund seeks to generate positive absolute returns by investing in currencies. The Fund is a pure-play on currencies, aiming to profit regardless of the direction of the U.S. dollar or traditional asset classes.
The Merk Asian Currency Fund seeks to profit from a rise in Asian currencies versus the U.S. dollar. The Fund typically invests in a basket of Asian currencies that may include, but are not limited to, the currencies of China, Hong Kong, Japan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.
The Merk Hard Currency Fund seeks to profit from a rise in hard currencies versus the U.S. dollar. Hard currencies are currencies backed by sound monetary policy; sound monetary policy focuses on price stability.
The Funds may be appropriate for you if you are pursuing a long-term goal with a currency component to your portfolio; are willing to tolerate the risks associated with investments in foreign currencies; or are looking for a way to potentially mitigate downside risk in or profit from a secular bear market. For more information on the Funds and to download a prospectus, please visit www.merkfunds.com.
Investors should consider the investment objectives, risks and charges and expenses of the Merk Funds carefully before investing. This and other information is in the prospectus, a copy of which may be obtained by visiting the Funds' website at www.merkfunds.com or calling 866-MERK FUND. Please read the prospectus carefully before you invest.
The Funds primarily invest in foreign currencies and as such, changes in currency exchange rates will affect the value of what the Funds own and the price of the Funds' shares. Investing in foreign instruments bears a greater risk than investing in domestic instruments for reasons such as volatility of currency exchange rates and, in some cases, limited geographic focus, political and economic instability, and relatively illiquid markets. The Funds are subject to interest rate risk which is the risk that debt securities in the Funds' portfolio will decline in value because of increases in market interest rates. The Funds may also invest in derivative securities which can be volatile and involve various types and degrees of risk. As a non-diversified fund, the Merk Hard Currency Fund will be subject to more investment risk and potential for volatility than a diversified fund because its portfolio may, at times, focus on a limited number of issuers. For a more complete discussion of these and other Fund risks please refer to the Funds' prospectuses.
This report was prepared by Merk Investments LLC, and reflects the current opinion of the authors. It is based upon sources and data believed to be accurate and reliable. Opinions and forward-looking statements expressed are subject to change without notice. This information does not constitute investment advice. Foreside Fund Services, LLC, distributor.
Copyright 2010-2011 Merk Investments LLC
Circle Us