Can Obama Pull a Jackson?

It was the eight of January, 1835 when officials from across the country gathered in Washington DC for a meeting presided by President Andrew Jackson when it was officially announced the United States had paid all debts to other nations for the first time in history. Not only was the country out of the hole but for the time being, we were running a national surplus.

Right from the start debt was a choice for the United States. Following the Revolutionary War, as we were founded we had the simple option to default and forget about wartime loans. All the bonds and grants to the government would be forgotten but at the cost our credit, economic stability and credibility as a state.

So the US decided to take on its debt which for the same reasons as today, wasn’t very easy to finance. The debt wasn’t expanding at quite the rate it does today but neither was it shrinking. Then along came Andrew Jackson who as a land speculator in the West had gone in the red after a deal gone bad. His experience led to a campaign oriented around economic stability and would go on to enter office despising banks and considering debt a moral failure of sorts.

And so he went to work almost immediately, and shut down the National Bank. He then began selling US assets primarily in through federally held land in the West. Further, he ruthlessly blocked spending bills, vetoing expenditure of nearly any form. Though some questioned the integrity of his practices, there no doubt that it worked. Money poured into our coffers as spending simultaneously shrunk and the miraculous result was the erasure of our remaining $58 million debt within 6 years.

 And so it was on the eight of January, 1835 when Jackson realized he had the wonderful new dilemma of what to do with his extra reserves now. There was no National Bank anymore so he decided to divide the money and grant it to states by population. And sure enough that’s when the good times ended. The states weren’t quite as cautious as Mister Jackson and began a land purchasing bubble not hugely unlike our housing bubble, which soon grew out of control. Jackson noticed this and stepped in but immediately realized he was too late. By requiring land to be purchased in gold or silver, we saw a crash causing a recession that would drag on for six years. And just like that, with the pop of a bubble we said goodbye to a year long debt-free US.

Even when accounting for inflation, the debt Jackson tackled pales in comparison to the burden we carry today. Last Wednesday, President Obama proposed a combination of long-term spending cuts particularly in national defense, tax hikes and changes to welfare programs. Personally, with my limited economic knowledge, I believe each of these is exactly what we may need. Spending as our dear old President Jackson demonstrated is the obvious and possibly most important point. Tax increases (audacious considering elections are approaching) may very well be a fact that we are just going to have to learn to live with if we ever plan on lowering our deficit. Lastly, welfare programs at the moment have already been identified as facing huge sustainability issues particularly in the case of Social Security so reform is necessary in any case.

                 If these measures were to take effect and be as successful as planned, the national debt would be reduced by $4 trillion in the next 12 years. This goal is ambitious to say the least especially considering years past, but offers the kind of hope and worthy cause America needs at the moment to handle a task as daunting as this. So though for now the debt clock continues ticking, the beginning of our journey to the end just may be in sight.

Too Big to Fail!

Over the past year or so you’ve probably heard the term “too big to fail”. The term implies exactly what it says; these companies are so large and interconnected to other services in our economy that the failure of any one of them would have significant implications on the entire financial systems. In fact some people believe that any one of these corporations could destroy our economic foundation as a whole. For this reason, the phrase became the backbone of government bailouts that took billions upon billions out of a heavily indebted treasury to support these businesses.

Though these bailouts were admittedly successful and will for the most part be repaid over the years, they placed immense stress on our fiscal system and often came very close to not working. And hence recent legislation, specifically the Dodd-Frank bill. Under the law, companies titled too big to fail would have to not only create a safety blanket of reserve capital but also create a sort of will that would detail their shut down process in case. Furthermore, all of this will be subject to extra scrutiny by regulators.

I personally completely agree with this proposition as it’s the first concrete and system-wide step in the right direction. Though many of us saw the negative consequences of the recession, little has been done in the way of preventing its recurrence on a large scale. For reorganization beyond the responsibility these times have instilled in us individually, I think legislation such as this is going to prove absolutely imperative.

So now the question for Dodd-Frank is who would fall under the category of too big to fail? At this point, any bank holding over $50 billion in assets immediately makes the cut. But other companies aren’t going to be nearly as easy to judge nor will deciding how many companies will be on the list going to be easy. Right now the primary contenders are insurers like AIG, hedge funds, asset managers and extremely large corporations. As the decision process continues however, lobbying persists as companies try to get themselves off the list. I find this absolutely terrible as I’m sure many of you do. For now we can simply hope that necessary reform takes place unaffected by money or power.

Capital City: Zug, Population: 15

                60 Minutes recently reported on over $1.2 trillion that has weaseled its way out of US coffers into the hands of foreign governments.   What is this treasure trove; it’s investment, capital and primarily corporate taxes on billions in revenue from US companies whose assets have been shifted offshore to avoid our aged, outrageously high tax rates.

                To report, they traveled to a tiny unheard of town in Switzerland called Zug specifically to its economic development office. Zug in past years has worked with companies to offer a tax rate lower than Switzerland’s which itself is far less than the US. In effect, this tax haven within a tax haven allows for a mere 15-16% corporate tax rate. The result is that many companies move their corporate headquarters to Zug… well sorta. To explain let’s look at Transocean, the company involved in BP’s recent oil spill catastrophe, which moved and now claims to be internationally head quartered in Zug. Sounds like a pretty big move right? Transocean maintains about 1300 employees in Houston and less than 15 in Zug none of whom is even the CEO. In fact international headquarters comprise of a relatively small office in a rented business complex which somehow transfers the company’s citizenship to Switzerland. And this story isn’t all that uncommon.

                The obvious solution would be to impose tighter restrictions which congress did in 2004 only to see these companies relocate altogether or lawyers find new loopholes to avoid full payment. Sleazy as this may seem, companies have a very valid point in searching for low tax alternatives. Un-American as their actions may seem, these actions funnel money into the hands of shareholders many of whom are Americans.  When taxes result in about 60 to 90% lower tax rates, companies simply cannot refuse.

                However, this occurs at the cost of thousands of American jobs. In the example of Ireland, nearly 60 US companies employ over 100,000 Irish workers on a 12.5% tax rate. As they put it on 60 minutes, our treasury effectually subsidizes investment in Ireland. And it’s really not that hard in today’s world. With everything computerized and digital, moving a company is as simple as moving a folder or code or data center to another country.

                The solution quite simply is to reduce tax rates but that could mean trillions in lost revenue. This is quite obviously impractical and until a better solution can be found, the US will continue to lose business to foreign states.