Archive for the ‘Federal government’ Category

CBO on Obama budget

Sunday, March 7th, 2010

Those who say the deficit is nothing to worry about are probably wrong. Maybe we shouldn’t worry today about squashing it today, when we are trying to climb out of a huge recession, but we should worry today about squashing it someday.

The Congressional Budget Office just released its analysis of President Obama’s 2011 budget, and its not totally reassuring.

The deficit would be $1.5 trillion this year and $1.3 trillion next year. There is a bit of good news — if one defines that term very, very loosely — buried in there. The deficit would be 10.3 percent of gross domestic product this year, but then tumble to 8.9% next year. The 2009 deficit was 9.9% of GDP.

Here’s the really scary thing: government debt would increase from 53 percent of GDP last year to 90 percent of GDP in 2020. Interest payments would increase dramatically.

The president also piles up some BS about the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, estimating them at $50 billion after next year. CBO instead keeps them at the current $130 billion.

The best news, though, is the president’s health care reform would reduce the deficit by $.2 trillion.

Let’s do it, for reasons related both to ethics and economics.

Federal accounting just a mess

Monday, March 1st, 2010

The federal government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to get us out of this recession, and promises to keep strict track of where it is going and how it is spent.

It’s just all those other trillions that the feds can’t fully explain.

Government bookkeeping is so bad that the Government Accountability Office can’t determine just exactly what our national fiscal condition is.

“Certain material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and other limitations on the scope of our work resulted in conditions that prevented us from expressing an opinion on the fiscal year 2009 and 2008 financial statements other than the Statements of Social Insurance,” Acting Comptroller Gene L. Dodaro reported last week, adding that “Material weaknesses resulted in ineffective internal control over financial reporting (including safeguarding of assets).”

Makes you feel happy about paying those federal income taxes, doesn’t it?

Reading Dodaro’s statement makes you wonder why some of these people have jobs. The GAO, Dodaro said, can’t render an opinion on the government’s financial statements for three big reasons:

(1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that have prevented DOD’s financial statements from being auditable, (2) the federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and (3) the federal government’s ineffective
process for preparing the consolidated financial statements. In addition, the financial statements of the Department of Homeland Security and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2009 and 2008 were not auditable or were not subjected to audit by agency auditors.

The federal government could not determine exactly how much in “improper payments” it was making, although the amount is estimated at $98 billion, nor could the government ”reasonably assure” that appropriate action is being taken to stop them.

The government also could not identify and resolve information security control deficencies or — ready for this one? — “effectively manage its tax collection activities.”

The GAO sounds a very loud warning that both parties in Congress have thus far elected to ignore:

Looking ahead, the federal government will need to determine the most expeditious manner in which to bring closure to its financial stabilization initiatives while optimizing its investment returns. In addition to managing these actions, problems in the nation’s financial sector have exposed serious weaknesses in the current U.S. financial regulatory system, which, if not effectively addressed, may cause the system to fail to prevent similar or even worse crises in the future. The current system, which was put into place over the past 150 years, is fragmented and complex and simply has not kept pace with the major financial structures, innovations, and products that emerged during the years leading up to the recent financial crisis. Consequently, meaningful financial regulatory reform is of utmost concern.

All this is really scary stuff, brought to the country by one of the most credible sources there is. Anybody in Washington listening?

Obama’s budget, explained

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

A really nice, non-technical synopsis of President Obama’s budget proposal is available from the National Priorities Project, which also offers a Wisconsin perspective. Obama has proposed freezing discretionary funding, which translates into a $74.8 million, 0r 51%, cut in the state’s Community Development Block Grant allocation for FY11. Much of the reduction likely is due to the expiration of stimulus funding, but with the economy still on the brink and jobs still disappearing, this state and this community is in for a world of hurt unless something changes.

More pain: the state’s share of low-income heating assistance declines $60.5 million,or 47%,  in 2011.

Explain the health care bill before the final vote

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

Maybe it really is time for a third party.

Truly, truly showing that the Dems don’t get what’s going on, White House adviser David Axelrod went on ABC’s “This Week” and came up with this one about the health care bill:

As a political matter, the foolish thing to do would be for anybody else who supported this to walk away from it,” he said. He added, “The underlying elements of it are popular and important, and people will never know what’s in that bill until we pass it, the president signs it and they have a whole new range of protections they never had before.

Is it asking too much to be clued in before the bill is passed? Isn’t that how it is supposed to work?

Tax credit gone wrong

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

The first-time homebuyers’ tax credit was probably a bad idea to begin with, but it has been made worse by its expansion and poor oversight.

The credit started out as part of the recession-busting $787 billion stimulus package adopted by Congress. The provision allowed first-time homebuyers a tax credit of up to $8,000. The credit, according to reports, did indeed stimulate the housing market, generally on the lower end where first-time homebuyers tend to buy. It also likely propelled into the market buyers who wanted to take advantage of the credit, but who cannot really afford the monthly mortgage payment of their new digs.

Congress, with the support of the White House, then extended the credit, raising the income limit for eligibility from $75,000 for a single purchaser to $125,000 and from $125,000 to $225,000 for a couple.  The new legislation also provides a $6,500 credit for folks who have been in their current home for at least five years and who want to move.

Well. What a bad idea. Most likely, papering the country with $6,500 to $8,000 subsidies just increases housing prices by that amount. The subsidy very well may motivate people who were planning to move anyway to do so, and again will encourage people who can’t really afford to buy to act against their long-term best interests. On the bright side, real estate agents will be getting larger commissions because sales prices will be a bit higher.

And when the subsidies go away, sales will, to a significant extent, go away. Will Congress continue to subsidize this specific industry even beyond the traditional home mortgage interest deduction that already has really bad sprawl effects?

Unfortunately, too, the tax credit of the stimulus bill is more or less a warm welcome to fraud. According to OMB Watch:

The problem is that the IRS did not require additional documentation for the new credits and deductions. For instance, the Recovery Act provides funding for the First-Time Homebuyer Credit, which provides a fully refundable $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers, but the IRS does not require additional documentation for this credit, such as a HUD Settlement Statement, nor does it check the return against any third-party source, such as a housing database. Tax filers can claim the housing credit without providing any proof that they actually have purchased a house or even that a purchased house is a first-time purchase for the taxpayer.

So the tax credit may be a bad idea, but at least the IRS isn’t insisting that people claiming it abide by pesky legalities.