Boomergeddon Watch: The Ring of Fire

Bill Gross, the head of PIMCO, the world’s largest bond manager, has published a jeremiad that makes my “Boomergeddon” thesis look Pollyanna-ish by comparison. To avoid an economic meltdown, says the money mogul, the United States needs to close its fiscal gap by $1.6 trillion, equivalent to 11% of the GDP. In my book, I anticipated the need to close the budget gap by a measly $1 trillion — and found the task to be so daunting as to be almost impossible.

My thought in trimming spending and/or raising revenues by $1 trillion a year was to create a U.S. budget surplus over the course of a normal economic cycle, factoring in modest surpluses during boom years and modest deficits during recessions. But Gross looks beyond the current business cycle, emphasizing crushing long-term obligations to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements that are only beginning to kick in and will become more onerous in the decades ahead. Scarily, in his most recent essay, he doesn’t even mention the debilitating burden of paying interest on a national debt that recently passed $16 trillion and is growing relentlessly higher.

Looking at the fiscal balance sheets of the world’s major economies (as well as Greece for a point of comparison), Gross shows the U.S. in a fiscal “ring of fire” in the company of the United Kingdom and Japan. As seen in the chart above, the current deficits of all three countries are as high as Greece’s and their structural (long-term) fiscal gaps are larger.

Armageddon is not “around the corner,” Gross opines, but he does see the possibility of a “fiscal train wreck over the next decade.” It is often said that the U.S. is the cleanest of the dirty shirts, implying that we have less to fear than others do. Gross disagrees. “When it comes to debt and to the prospects for future debt, the U.S. is no ‘clean dirty shirt.’ The U.S., in fact, is a serial offender, an addict whose habit extends beyond weed or cocaine and who frequently pleasures itself with budgetary crystal meth. Uncle Sam’s habit … will be a hard (and dangerous) one to break.”

Bacon’s bottom line: Like some 50 million other Americans, I watched the presidential debate last night between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Obama struck me as not the least bit serious about the nation’s fiscal gap. Cutting defense spending and raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires won’t get close. Romney, for his part, was more emphatic last night about what spending he would not cut than what he would. For his plan to work, his formula of lower tax rates (coupled with closing loopholes), more fossil fuels production and less regulation must spark an economic boom that grows the U.S. out of its malaise. While I do believe that his proposals would have a positive impact, it’s an act of faith to think that growth would surge strongly enough to close the fiscal gap. I fear that we’re in too deep. Obama and Romney both fall short.

Unlike our political leaders, Bill Gross isn’t running for office, so he is not averse to telling American the truth. He is in the business of making money for his investors, which requires viewing the world with steely-eyed realism. As Virginians, we would be better advised to heed Gross than the pandering of national politicians. And we should conduct our  state and local budgetary affairs with the expectation that a fisc storm is coming.

— JAB


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. reed fawell Avatar
    reed fawell

    I too worry about a coming Armageddon. These sorts of events happen with regularity. Witness the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. And now perhaps there is a Fifth Horseman – Financial Collapse and Meltdown.

    But there is a cautionary and hopeful note. Recall the 1970’s Population Explosion. How within decades it was going to wreak Famine across the Globe. The concern, based on Historical Experience, was completely plausible at the the time.

    Nevertheless, since that Doomsday scenario was predicted, the World’s Population did indeed Explode. But Famine did not follow in it’s Wake.

    Why?

    Apparently because the man’s ingenuity (Largely propelled by the free market Capitalist system) developed revolutionary new ways of agricultural production that turbo charged the food supply, so that it outraced explosive demand cause by the Population Explosion. And also science developed for the first time in the History of the World way to restrain Population with the need to call in the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Neither development could have been predicted.

    Question: Can the same happen with out looming financial collapse? I don’t know. But I am sure that the chances of it happening are exponentially higher if Mitt wins the upcoming Presidential election.

    1. reed fawell Avatar
      reed fawell

      Also, there is the paradox that history changing Birth Control turns Historical Experience on its Head, giving rise to the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse – Financial Collapse.

      1. reed fawell Avatar
        reed fawell

        correction to statement above: And also science developed for the first time in the History of the World a way to restrain Population withOUT the need to call in the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

  2. You completely lose credibility when you toss in social security and here’s why.

    You are manufacturing the liability because social security, by law cannot pay out more than FICA generates in revenues.

    Now we could debate what should be done to keep benefits from being reduced but the real bottom line on Social Security is that if nothing is done – there will be no deficit or liability.

    so that whole line of thinking is bogus to the bone but it is typical for the propaganda being spewed.

    Medicare on the other hand – Parts B, C and D are a serious issue but when you include this with SS – you destroy your credibility as explained above.

    There is a whale of a lot of ignorance on Medicare due to two things. A. – the sound bite nature of the propaganda and people’s lazy behaviors in terms of finding the facts B. – the intention of the ideologues to NOT deal with facts but instead to engage in misinformation and disinformation.

    The very first question is how much does Medicare currently impact the budget. If you cannot or will not answer that question and all you want to do is talk about how it will “explode” – again without real data – then the whole dialogue is ideological in nature and not specific to the realities.

    Then when you add this to the bigger narrative of countries going broke – ostensibly because of their inability to handle their social insurance programs – the narrative comes across as basically anti-govt – i.e. that no govt can provide social insurance without going broke.

    Here’s the facts. Medicare Part B current costs the budget about 100 billion dollars. Social Security costs the current budget 2% of the FICA tax that was reduced as a stimulus (and agreed to by the GOP).

    The big problem with Medicare is Part C which is the gap/supplemental coverage that pays for the 20% that part B does not cover.

    The problem is that the 20% in Part B was intended to be the skin in the game that seniors would have in using Medicare – that anything they had done – would required 20% of their money. That was supposed to keep a damper on excessive use especially for discretionary medical expenses like hip and knee replacements.

    But what has happened is we added a new Medicare – Part C – and it is subsidized and here’s the terrible fact. Part B which pays for providers costs the budget about 105 billion but Part C – the subsidized gap coverage for the 20% not covered by Part B costs the budget 116 billion.

    The 700+ “cut” that Obama proposed was cuts to the Part C subsidy which would require people to pay more to get it – thus reducing the subsidized costs of Medicare.

    But what happened? It got demagogued. Not that it really matters because 90% of people don’t bother to get the facts to start with and are persuaded by sound bites.

    here are the “facts” by the way. I highly recommend taking a look:

    http://dhhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2010budgetinbriefl.html

  3. Oh..and on the chart – where is Singpore, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand?

    The problem with these charts is they focus on the countries that have some issues and delete the countries that don’t and thus promote a context that is basically biased rather than showing the real world context – for all countries.

    If you showed the full context – you’d see that some countries have issues, others are better off and some countries are just fine.

    but doing that would destroy the underlying premise that countries with social insurance are all doomed to fail.

    and that’s my problem with the narrative. It’s simply false.

  4. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Well, Ole Mitt did kick Obama’s ass up one side of the stage and down the other last night. I guess working without teleprompters is risky business.

    LarryG says, “You are manufacturing the liability because social security, by law cannot pay out more than FICA generates in revenues.”.

    Of course, this is wrong. If Social Security could not pay out more than it takes in then the trust fund would not be depleted.

    Let me guess – the trust fund doesn’t count. Because … social security is not a retirement system, it is an insurance policy masquerading as an annuity in a “pay as you go” system which has built up a huge surplus that still isn’t big enough.

    It takes the federal government to come up with crap like that.

    Singapore, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand?

    Total population = 41.8m

    USA

    Total population = 314.5m

    The chart correctly shows large countries and correctly excludes tiny countries.

    LarryG – have you considered a position as an Obama debate coach? I understand there is an opening.

  5. re: ” Of course, this is wrong. If Social Security could not pay out more than it takes in then the trust fund would not be depleted.

    Let me guess – the trust fund doesn’t count. Because … social security is not a retirement system, it is an insurance policy masquerading as an annuity in a “pay as you go” system which has built up a huge surplus that still isn’t big enough.”

    the trust fund is not what funds social security – it’s FICA. I cannot believe your ignorance on this. The trust fund is nothing more than an account that FICA goes into and then is taken out for benefits and what is left over is the “surplus”.

    We’ve been over this several times. There are more than 100 trust funds in the govt including the gas tax, pensions for the military and healthcare for the military and civilian DOD, airport fees, etc.

    they all work the same way.

    Social Security is a pay-as-you-go insurance annuity.

    It’s just like a lot of annuities that people get when they retire – both private sector and the govt including the military.

    the fundamental point about SS is that it is funded from FICA and by law – it cannot pay out more than FICA generates.

    When things get out of whack – because of demographics, changes are made but until those changes are made – it can only pay out what FICA generates.

    It’s this kind of ignorance that the right wing fosters with it’s propaganda.

    It’s almost a willing ignorance for those who don’t really want to know the facts to start with because it would then mess up their ideological leanings – confirmation bias at work.

    How can we make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what we need to do (or not) if people simply do not want to know the truth and facts?

    How can we even have an informed debate if people don’t really want to know the facts upon which to base their views?

    it just blows me away that this is how we have political dialogue now days. totally bizarre but I do admit – very real…

    re: Obama and the debate

    clearly something was wrong and some day we’ll know.

    I suspect either Obama was physically sick or he did it on purpose so that Romney would move left politically and morph into a RINO.

    The second possibility is amusing. The right wing is so desperate that they’d cling to a RINO to regain the Presidency.

    The fact that Romney was lying out his butt further spiced things up.

    talk about etch-a-sketch.. the man changes his positions as easily as pigeons poop.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      What is it with you and math?

      You claim the law prohibits more from being paid out in Social Security benefits than is taken in by FICA. That’s wrong. Today, the benefits being paid out to Social Security beneficiaries are a combination of what’s being collected as FICA and a drawdown of the trust fund. In other words, more is being paid out than is being taken in by FICA taxes.

      Please address this fact or correct your erroneous comment.

      You exist in the liberal echo chamber. You repeatedly make untrue statements in the hope that people will eventually believe those statements. Your endless diatribe about the reasonableness and soundness of Social Security is intended to make the program seem logical and predictable. It is neither. It is just another example of a Big Government program run amok.

      “I suspect either Obama was physically sick or he did it on purpose so that Romney would move left politically and morph into a RINO.”.

      Heaven forbid that The Chosen One might have simply lost the debate!

  6. ” You claim the law prohibits more from being paid out in Social Security benefits than is taken in by FICA. That’s wrong. Today, the benefits being paid out to Social Security beneficiaries are a combination of what’s being collected as FICA and a drawdown of the trust fund. In other words, more is being paid out than is being taken in by FICA taxes.”

    why are you LYING DJ? Is it a congenital thing with you guys?

    The extra money in the trust fund CAME FROM FICA TAXES.

    Are you ignorant of this ? Do you not know that the money in the trust fund came from FICA or are you just simply lying like others who do not want to actually debate on facts?

    there is no endless diatribe here other than what emanates from the right wing.

    Social Security needs to be reformed. No question about it. But in the bigger scheme of things in terms of budget, deficit and debt, SS is a gnat on a dogs butt – but you guys want to make it an issue in the CURRENT deficit – why?

    and WHY do you characterize it as having long-term unfunded liabilities when, by law, it cannot spend more than it FICA generates.

    Why do you say that?

    If you want to debate the CONCEPT of SS that would be one thing but to argue based on just plain lies seems to be what the right prefers these days.

    We cannot ever get to any agreement on what to do or not if one side simply will not deal with the truth and facts.

    Like I said.. it’s bizarre but unfortunately it’s real. We’re dealing with people who cannot accept realities and are motivated by things that simply are not the truth.

  7. The Republican plan can never work. If the economy expands, they will demand lower taxes and smaller government again. This is a never ending saga that guarantees there will never be enough revenue and there will alays be too much overnment.

  8. . Today, the benefits being paid out to Social Security beneficiaries are a combination of what’s being collected as FICA and a drawdown of the trust fund.

    ===========================================

    OK, But the trust fund consists of money formerly paid in from FICA taxes.

    The fact that the money was actually borrowed from the trust fund and spent on other things is moot, except for the fact that the money will have to be repaid out of general revenue.

    Or, we can just all call ourselves liars and cheats and throw the old folks on the ash heap.

  9. re: “greedy grays” and the “trust fund”

    DJ is either plain ignorant or willfully ignorant of the SS trust fund.

    He acts like the fund has money in it that did not come from FICA taxes to begin with.

    Does he not understand how the trust fund really works or does he simply not care because he’s opposed to the “greedy gray” social insurance program?

    He should say which it is.

    Does he support SS as a concept but not really understand how it works or is he basically opposed to the CONCEPT of Social Security?

    The problem with the right is that they attack social security on a false basis – purposefully spreading disinformation about things like the trust fund and they use those arguments to “prove” that social security cannot “work” – but in reality – they really do not care if social security can work or not because they are fundamentally opposed to the CONCEPT of Social Security.

    But they know that if they told the truth – that the American people would never agree – so they attempt to convince people that it is failing as a program – and they trot out one lie after another to “prove” their point.

    Folks like DJ – and to a certain extent Jim B essentially parrot this stuff – either because they accept it as true or they really disagree with the basic concept and readily agree to use talking points that are little more than purposeful misinformation and disinformation.

    It really is beneath the high standards of this blog.

    Just once, I’d like to see a clear and concise description of what Social Security is and is not – in this blog.

    here’s a start in case we never see that post:

    http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp

    unfortunately the other big problem is that a lot of folks just don’t want to know the facts anyhow. It takes too much time to read and inform themselves so they are content to swallow whatever sound bites are being promoted by those organizations with an anti-SS agenda.

  10. Those who know my views – know that I favor personal responsibility and fiscal conservatism. I favor toll roads. I favor parents paying more of the costs of schools, I favor citizens paying for subdivision roads and I think the earned income/child tax credits and education loans and credits are way too rich.

    I also believe that Medicare is a serious budget problem because we subsidize it way too much and the people who get it do not have enough skin in the game, so I DO favor increasing the premiums and reducing benefits to bring that program under budgetary control. But if we do not offer Medicare, then 2/3 of the seniors likely could not find affordable insurance in the “free market”. So the basic idea behind Medicare is needed but the program has gotten way out of hand and we now have people who have millions in assets paying a hundred dollars a month for health insurance and that’s just plain wrong on a number of levels.

    I would also say that we are picking on Medicare for health care costs that apply to everyone, even those with private policies and will threaten everyone, especially those NOT on Medicare if we continue to refuse to address the problem, yet we choose to not focus on health care costs overall but instead blame Medicare (and MedicAid).

    We do not, for instance, blame TriCare which pays for health care for the military and it’s costs are just as out-of-control, yet we have no plan to “fix” TriCare.

    In this context, SS has no such significant issues. It needs to be reformed but tell me what other program – in the govt or private industry looks ahead 75 years actuarially? If the rest of the govt were run like SS is run in terms of looking ahead for cost trends, and automatically scaling back benefits so that it does not exceed revenues and go into deficit, we’d be far better off.

    But in the incessant ” we re going broke and the sky is falling” blathering, we blame everything to include SS … it all gets heaped into the same thing – no matter if it is true or not. It’s part of a bigger agenda that social insurance programs will bankrupt any/all countries that have them.

    Finally – we talk about long term consequences but ignore the short term realities – like the fact that right now, today, SS is a gnat on a dogs butt in terms of the trillion dollar annual deficit. No matter, in the eyes of the ideologues, we have to kill it too..

    and this is what I object to – the disingenuous and frankly just plain false premises that are being promoted in the cause of dealing with the budget deficit and debt.

    I provide a simple one page financial description of Medicare.

    http://dhhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2010budgetinbriefl.html

    My suspects are that the average person has no idea of these specifics even though they take sides on the issue – including accepting the prescripts of those who would do away with Medicare all together if they had their true druthers.

    These programs are too complex and people are too lazy to inform themselves so they align themselves with advocacy groups – left and right including the sound bite ideas they promote – things like looking at “unfunded liabilities’ on a 75-year horizon line for the programs that they oppose in concept while not using that same approach for programs they like.

    So the bottom line is that people are too lazy or busy to find the facts themselves and the advocacy groups know this – and take advantage of it.

    All I recommend is NOT taking them at their word – finding the facts, and calling them on those facts, when it’s clear they are being dishonest and biased.

    A most obvious and blatant example of this is the Social Security issue.

Leave a Reply