It’s easy to look at the protesters and the politicians in Greece ”” and at the other European countries with huge debts ”” and wonder why they don’t get it. They have been enjoying more generous government benefits than they can afford. No mass rally and no bailout fund will change that. Only benefit cuts or tax increases can.

Yet in the back of your mind comes a nagging question: how different, really, is the United States?

The numbers on our federal debt are becoming frighteningly familiar. The debt is projected to equal 140 percent of gross domestic product within two decades. Add in the budget troubles of state governments, and the true shortfall grows even larger. Greece’s debt, by comparison, equals about 115 percent of its G.D.P. today.

The United States will probably not face the same kind of crisis as Greece, for all sorts of reasons. But the basic problem is the same. Both countries have a bigger government than they’re paying for. And politicians, spendthrift as some may be, are not the main source of the problem.

We, the people, are.

Read it all.

The United States posted an $82.69 billion deficit in April, nearly four times the $20.91 billion shortfall registered in April 2009 and the largest on record for that month, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday.

It was more than twice the $40-billion deficit that Wall Street economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast and was striking since April marks the filing deadline for individual income taxes that are the main source of government revenue.

Department officials said that in prior years, there was a surplus during April in 43 out of the past 56 years.

Read it all.

The top U.S. securities regulator said no single event had been found to explain Thursday’s mysterious market plunge, but the shocking drop was unacceptable and additional safeguards were coming.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro said on Tuesday it would take time to pinpoint the cause but reiterated an agreement with major exchanges to strengthen trading curbs in response to large market moves.

Read it all.

Carolyn Schapper was an Army sergeant who served in Iraq with a military intelligence unit north of Baghdad. Today, several years out of uniform, she keeps up with veterans online ”” on Facebook, blogs and chat groups.

Schapper taps on her computer at her kitchen table and pulls up a community on the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America site.

“They’ve got 11 people online now doing a chat,” she says of the nonprofit group. “So there are about seven different groups that didn’t exist three years ago that you can start communicating with people online.”

She says that veterans of today don’t go to American Legion halls or the VFW for a drink and a game of pool. They’ve created a virtual community.

Read or listen to it all.

What we’re seeing in Greece is the death spiral of the welfare state. This isn’t Greece’s problem alone, and that’s why its crisis has rattled global stock markets and threatens economic recovery. Virtually every advanced nation, including the United States, faces the same prospect. Aging populations have been promised huge health and retirement benefits, which countries haven’t fully covered with taxes. The reckoning has arrived in Greece, but it awaits most wealthy societies.

Americans dislike the term “welfare state” and substitute the bland word “entitlements.” Vocabulary doesn’t alter the reality. Countries cannot overspend and overborrow forever. By delaying hard decisions about spending and taxes, governments maneuver themselves into a cul-de-sac. To be sure, Greece’s plight is usually described as a European crisis — especially for the euro, the common money used by 16 countries — and this is true. But only to a point.

Euro coins and notes were introduced in 2002. The currency clearly hasn’t lived up to its promises. It was supposed to lubricate faster economic growth by eliminating the cost and confusion of constantly converting between national currencies. More important, it would promote political unity. With a common currency, people would feel “European.” Their identities as Germans, Italians and Spaniards would gradually blend into a continental identity.

None of this has happened. Economic growth in the countries using the currency averaged 2.1 percent annually from 1992 to 2001 and 1.7 percent from 2002 to 2008. Multiple currencies were never a big obstacle to growth; high taxes, pervasive regulations and generous subsidies were….

Read it all.

Fannie Mae asked the U.S. government for an additional $8.4 billion in aid after posting an $11.5 billion net loss for the first quarter, the latest sign that the bailout of the mortgage investor and its main rival, Freddie Mac, is likely to be the most expensive legacy of the U.S. housing-market bust.

Fannie’s losses reflected continuing weakness in the housing market and would have been worse without accounting changes that reduced its deficit. The quarterly loss was an improvement from the $23.5 billion loss for the year-ago quarter and marked the 11th consecutive quarterly loss for the Washington-based firm.

The company has now racked up losses of nearly $145 billion, or nearly double its profits for the previous 35 years. While many of the nation’s biggest banks have repaid their government loans and some are back to racking up big profits, Fannie and Freddie are still suffering from the housing-market crisis.

Read it all.

Update: FNM’s balance sheet could very well be hiding even more losses. Ugh–read it all also.

The tattoo on Christian Berrios’ right forearm says “Knowledge is Power.” For a high school dropout in a city with shuttered textile plants and 18% unemployment, he needs all the knowledge he can get.

Berrios will graduate in June from YouthBuild, one of many national service programs that got an infusion of federal aid under last year’s economic stimulus law. He’ll get his high school equivalency degree as well as “green” construction skills to help him navigate a difficult job market.

“It’s tough out there,” says Berrios, 22, who wants a college degree in psychology. “I feel we got a better chance at scoring a better job.”

Read it all.

Spiraling debt is Uncle Sam’s shock collar, and its jolt may await like an invisible pet fence.

“Nobody knows when you bump up against the limit, but you know when it happens it will really hurt,” said fiscal watchdog Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The great uncertainty about how much debt is too much has tended to make fiscal discipline seem less urgent, rather than more. There is no obvious threshold beyond which investors will demand higher real yields for holding U.S. debt. Vague warnings from ratings agencies about the loss of America’s ‘AAA’ status haven’t added much clarity ”” until recently.

Read it all.

The basic flaw in the IMF-EU sponsored program to restore Greek fiscal sustainability through a program of draconian public expenditure cuts is that if successfully implemented it will have the unwanted effect of increasing rather than reducing Greece’s public-debt-to-GDP ratio. Since if Greece’s nominal GDP were to decline over the next few years by 30 percent as a result of a deep recession and price deflation, Greece’s public-debt-to-GDP ratio would arithmetically rise from its present level of around 120 percent towards 175 percent. It is calculations of this sort that have recently led Standard and Poor’s to warn Greek bond holders that they might eventually retrieve only 30 to 50 cents on the dollar on their bond holdings.

A major write-down of Greece’s $400 billion sovereign debt would deal a serious blow to an already enfeebled European banking system, which holds the majority of that debt. Indeed, if Greece’s debt does need to be written down by anywhere near the Standard and Poor’s estimate, one could see the IMF having to revise up by at least 20 percent its present estimate of the European banks’ likely loan losses from the 2008”“2009 global economic crisis.

The even greater risk to the European banking system from a Greek failure is that it would bring very much into play Portugal, Spain, and Ireland. These countries, which between them have around US$1.5 trillion in sovereign debt, suffer from similar, albeit less acute, public finance and international competitiveness problems. And they too are stuck in a Euro-zone straightjacket that severely constrains their ability to deal with these problems in a credible manner.

In considering the timing of the Federal Reserve’s exit strategy, Bernanke would make the gravest of errors were he to underestimate the potential fallout of a Greek failure on the U.S. and global economies….

Read it all.

US mortgage giant Freddie Mac saw a loss of $8bn (£5.3bn) in the first three months of 2010 and said it would ask for a further $10.6bn in state aid.

The firm has made a number of federal cash requests since it was taken over by regulators in September 2008.

And it said it would continue to need government funds with the US housing market not yet fully recovered.

The new request brings the total cost for rescuing Freddie Mac to $61.3bn.

Read it all.

THE drama over Europe’s sovereign debt might seem good ammunition for American deficit hawks. Not so. As Barack Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission held its first meeting on April 27th, the rising cost of government debt across southern Europe was, if anything, being used to draw a favourable contrast between the American and Greek fiscal positions.

Nevertheless, the American fiscal picture has darkened considerably, thanks to the recession. The projected 2010 deficit, of around 11% of GDP, contrasts with one of 1.2% as recently as 2007, while the net public debt has climbed from 36% to 64% of GDP. These figures look good beside those of Greece, where debt may touch 150% of output by the middle of the decade. There is still enough gloom, however, to trigger concern over the potential for rising interest rates and continued fiscal weakness as America’s baby-boomers start to retire.

The good news is that the deficit is forecast to fall as the federal stimulus unwinds and growth returns.

Read it all.

We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street’s money with it, and the government can’t really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what’s in them and no one””literally, no one””knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed “dot-gov.”

It is not that no one’s in control. Washington is full of people who insist they’re in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It’s that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: “We control everything” and “You’re on your own.”

All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.

Read it all.

From the summary–

Sovereign Debt Problems in Advanced Industrial Countries

 Most advanced industrial countries in worst ever peacetime fiscal shape
 Sovereign default can become the least bad solution for a country
 Sovereign default risk outside Greece low but non-negligible
 Most countries will eventually choose a ”˜fiscal pain’ solution
 Debt restructuring, possibly with haircuts, likely to be part of the ”˜fiscal pain’ package
 Inflationary solution to public debt burden highly unlikely in Europe, unlikely in US
 Euro Area needs mutual fiscal insurance mechanism to survive and prosper
 Restoring fiscal balance will be a drag on growth for years to come for advanced industrial countries

The whole thing (a 68 page pdf) is here.

Nobody would ever dispute that the U.S. economy has managed to see its government spend its way into some sort of statistical recovery ”” though it is more evident in the output and sales data than in the income data. Look at the largesse ”” a 0% policy rate, a $2.3 trillion Fed balance sheet loaded up with mortgages, a $1.4 trillion fiscal deficit loaded with bailouts and freebies and accounting changes that have allowed the banks to mark-to-model their way back towards earnings heaven. If the economy was not recovering without Uncle Sam’s generosity, then that would truly be a big story.

But Mr. Market at some point will have to confront the future. The time gap between recessions is shortening now ”” we went 10 years from 1990 to 2000, then 5 years from 2002 to 2007 and the next recession, following this pattern, is likely going to occur within the next 2-3 years. And, unlike the start of the last recession when the government had so many arrows in its quiver, there are none today to help lift the economy again.

Going into the 2007 downturn, the budget deficit was $160 billion. There was ample room for fiscal stimulus. The funds rate was 5.5% and could be cut 550bps ”” now it is at 0%. The Fed’s balance sheet could be allowed to triple without reviving inflation expectations ”” good luck the next time around.

Read it all.

…a good number of economists and banking experts are worried. They think the odds of a future bankruptcy-or-bailout dilemma will remain uncomfortably high even if reregulation passes.

For starters, there are the cross-border problems; in the midst of a crisis, governments may have trouble cooperating. Then there is the fact that the regulators have never before tried to shut down anything as complex as a multibillion-dollar financial firm. “It’s really hard ”” really hard,” says Robert Steel, who worked on the financial crisis in the Bush Treasury Department and later was chief executive of Wachovia. “Anyone who says they know exactly what we should do is overconfident.”

Another former top government official adds, bluntly, “Don’t kid yourself into thinking that if J. P. Morgan were on the rocks, it would disappear.”

Above all, no one knows what the next crisis will look like. So no one can be sure exactly how to prevent it. In all likelihood, Wall Street will eventually figure out ways around technocratic rules ”” and technocrats ”” and create trouble that today’s proposals don’t anticipate.

The beauty of a bank tax is that it acknowledges as much.

Read it all.

With that as the backdrop, it would amount to progress if both parties, via the debt commission, agreed that two big steps can’t be avoided:

”¢ The tax system has to be changed. The U.S. doesn’t have a system that can fund the government the country wants. The Tax Foundation says the levies paid by the top 1% of taxpayers now exceed those paid by all of those in the bottom 95%. And the Tax Policy Institute says almost half of all filers will pay no 2009 income taxes at all, because of various exclusions and credits””up, by some estimates, from a quarter in 1990.

This may be great for those who like soak-the-rich rhetoric, but it’s no way to finance a country. More than that, it’s a bit of a hoax on middle- and lower-middle-class Americans. They certainly pay payroll taxes, and the more they are excused from the income tax-system, the more likely it is that they will be hit with sneakier and less-progressive taxes. Tax reform””a flatter tax system, a value-added tax, something””is needed.

”¢ Americans have to change how they think about retirement. When the economy recovers and costs for recession-related bailouts, stimulus spending and unemployment benefits are resolved, we’ll still be left unable to really afford our Social Security, Medicare and long-term-care commitments. When the easier stuff is done, this is the hard reality, requiring a new and nonpoliticized national discussion.

Read it carefully and read it all.

The one thing we know about the financial “reform” now moving toward what looks like eventual congressional approval is that it will be oversold, says economist Robert Litan of the Kauffman Foundation. We will be told that it will forever prevent a repetition of the recent financial crisis; that it will root out corruption on Wall Street; that it will eliminate “bailouts”; that it will protect consumers against greedy lenders. In the present anti-Wall Street mood, no one wants to be accused of coddling America’s money merchants.

What can we really expect?

History counsels caution. Every financial reform, even if mostly successful, ultimately gives way to another because there are unintended consequences or unforeseen problems. Sheila Bair, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., has noted that the reforms of the early 1990s, which curbed risk-taking within the banking system, perversely shifted lending to the largely unregulated “shadow banking system” — mortgage brokers, specialized lenders and “securitization.” The central aim of today’s reform is to avert another financial panic. A panic is not a bubble or just big losses. These are inevitable and, in part, desirable: Without losses, investors would become reckless. A panic is a stampede of selling and hoarding, driven by fear, that threatens the financial system and, through it, production and jobs. A panic occurred in September 2008 when Lehman Brothers failed. Distrusting most financial institutions, investors and money managers fled to safety (a.k.a. Treasury bills).

By its nature, a panic is unanticipated. Reform may resemble generals fighting the last war….

Read it all.

President Obama challenged some of the nation’s most influential bankers on Thursday to call off their “battalions of financial industry lobbyists” and embrace a new regulatory structure meant to avert another economic crisis.

Speaking in the bankers’ backyard, at the Cooper Union in Manhattan, Mr. Obama castigated the “failure of responsibility” by Wall Street that led to the financial crisis of 2008 and pressed his case for what he called “a common-sense, reasonable, non-ideological” system of tighter regulation to prevent any recurrence.

“That may make for a good sound bite, but it’s not factually accurate,” Mr. Obama said. “It is not true. In fact, the system as it stands is what led to a series of massive, costly taxpayer bailouts. And it’s only with reform that we can we avoid a similar outcome in the future. In other words, a vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailouts. That’s the truth. End of story.”

He said scrupulous business leaders had no reason to resist his regulation plan. “The only people who ought to fear the kind of oversight and transparency that we’re proposing are those whose conduct will fail this scrutiny,” he said.

Read it all.

“The bashing of Wall Street is something that should worry everybody,” [Michael] Bloomberg declared last week.

The Republican-turned-independent mayor’s positions have made him a lone wolf among left-leaning officials in the city. Local lawmakers and others rallied at City Hall on Tuesday in support of financial reform, some holding signs that read “Goldman Suchs.”

Bloomberg plans to attend Obama’s speech at The Cooper Union college Thursday but demurred when asked whether he was concerned about what the president would say.

Read it all.

Seventy-nine percent of investors say it’s likely Goldman Sachs committed fraud – but only 39% of Americans believe the government’s investigation of Goldman is based on a legitimate concern about fraud.

Read it all.

CHARLIE ROSE: Goldman also says it’s wrong in law and in fact. Where’s it wrong in law?

DAVID BOIES: Well, I think what they mean — I think what they mean is based on the facts that are in there, it’s not an illegal conduct.

The issue is whether there are more facts that would bring it under conventional law. As Michael says, this is an unusual case. This is the first time you’ve seen a case like this. I happen to think it’s no coincidence it comes out just at the time that the administration is going after the financial regulatory reform in Congress.

CHARLIE ROSE: Wait. You think the administration had some influence with the SEC in terms of bringing this complaint now?

DAVID BOIES: I think that there’s a climate in Washington that is — wants to show aggression in terms of regulation. I think that — that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

But I think you’ve got to be careful that when you bring an SEC complaint as opposed to bring a bill to change procedures or to add new regulations that you’ve got something that is improper under existing law.
And looking at the complaint, I don’t see where that is right now.

Watch it all (a little over 34 minutes).

President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.

Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, “I want to get a better picture of what our options are….”

After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is “not considering” a VAT.

Read it all.

Washington is gearing up for a big debate: What to do about the exploding national debt, the unsustainable annual budget deficits and what to do about the Bush tax cuts that expire at the end of the year.

Alarm bells are ringing over the size of the national debt, now equal to 84 percent of the country’s gross national product — the highest level since after World War II. The credit-rating agency Moody’s is hinting that the federal treasury’s Triple A bond rating is in jeopardy and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is warning that China, the United States’ largest foreign creditor, may start charging higher interest rates.

“The arithmetic is, unfortunately, quite clear,” Bernanke said. “To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.

“These choices are difficult, and it always seems easier to put them off — until the day they cannot be put off any more.”

Read or listen to it all.

How big a government do we want — and what can we afford? In closing deficits, what’s the best mix between tax increases and spending cuts? What programs are outmoded, ineffective or unneeded? How much should we tax the young and middle-aged to support the elderly? Should wealthier retirees receive skimpier benefits? Should eligibility ages for benefits be raised?

The basic budget problem is simple. For decades, the expansion of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — programs mostly for the elderly — was financed mainly by shrinking defense spending. In 1970, defense accounted for 42 percent of the federal budget; Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were 20 percent. By 2008, the shares were reversed: defense, 21 percent; the big retirement programs, 43 percent. But defense stopped falling after Sept. 11, 2001, while aging baby boomers and uncontrolled health costs keep retirement spending rising.

Left alone, government would grow larger. From 1970 to 2009, federal spending averaged 20.7 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). By 2020, it could reach 25.2 percent of GDP and would still be expanding, reckons the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of President Obama’s budgets. In 2020, the deficit (assuming a healthy economy with 5 percent unemployment) would be 5.6 percent of GDP. To cover that, taxes would have to rise almost 30 percent.

A VAT could not painlessly fill this void. Applied to all consumption spending — about 70 percent of GDP — the required VAT rate would equal about 8 percent. But the actual increase might be closer to 16 percent because there would be huge pressures to exempt groceries, rent and housing, health care, education and charitable groups. Together, they account for nearly half of $10 trillion of consumer spending. There would also be other upward (and more technical) pressures on the VAT rate.

Read it all.

Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

The move marks the first time that regulators have taken action against a Wall Street deal that helped investors capitalize on the collapse of the housing market. Goldman itself profited by betting against the very mortgage investments that it sold to its customers.

The suit also named Fabrice Tourre, a vice president at Goldman who helped create and sell the investment.

In a statement, Goldman called the S.E.C. accusations “completely unfounded in law and fact” and said the firm would “vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.”

Read it all.

The next day, at a breakfast with reporters in Washington, Douglas Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, confirmed that his economists have begun studying how to write a value-added tax, a form of national sales tax, because of growing congressional interest in drafting such a measure.

Elmendorf reminded the journalists of the grim news contained in his agency’s analysis of President Obama’s budget proposals. Agreeing with Bernanke that the current course is “unsustainable,” he said that unless something changes, the U.S. will emerge from the Obama years spending one-quarter more than it collects in revenue — 25 percent compared to 19 percent of the gross domestic product.

Closing the gap “can’t be solved through minor changes,” he said. Revenues projected under current laws would barely be sufficient to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense and interest on the national debt. Everything else would depend on finding new revenues — or borrowing.

Read the whole piece.

The danger now is red ink, not Redcoats.

In recent years, a modern-day Paul Revere has been found in David Walker, the former U.S. Comptroller General, who has been visiting every state to warn of the consequences of the nation’s fiscal course.

The majority of our representatives have, so far, closed their ears to the message.

But on Wednesday, Mr. Walker’s warnings were echoed by the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, who stepped out of character to alert Americans in plain language:

“To avoid large and ultimately unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above….”

Read it carefully and read it all.

If China’s shift is a real one, there appear to be three possible sources of change:

1) Domestic factors and actors convinced China’s leadership that diminishing marginal returns for keeping the yuan fixed and masively undervalued had kicked in;

2) China responded to mounting multilateral pressure and feared being isolated at the upcoming G-20 meetings.

3) China responded to threats of unilateral U.S. action, such as being named as a currency manipulator, and/or calls for a trade war….

Read it all.

The Federal Home Loan Banks are a frequently overlooked band of government-chartered cooperatives whose name screams systemic risk with every word. Federal means Uncle Sam. Homes are a declining asset. A loan is money out the door. And banks are the things that get taxpayer bailouts when they’re too big to fail and enough of their loans go bad….

Last week, the FHLBs, which is pronounced “flubs,” published their combined audited financial statements for 2009. And at first glance, it might seem like they had a profitable year. Net income was about $1.9 billion, the banks said, up 54 percent from the year before.

The most striking part about that dollar figure was what it didn’t include: About $8.8 billion of paper losses from their portfolios of mortgage-backed securities. By the banks’ own description, these losses were “other than temporary,” meaning the values of the investments aren’t expected to recover soon.

The reason those losses weren’t included in earnings? The Financial Accounting Standards Board rewrote its rules a year ago so they wouldn’t have to count, following an intense campaign by the banking industry and its friends in Congress….

Read the whole thing.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

Read it all.