顯示具有 Government 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Government 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2011年6月26日 星期日

釋油儲一箭三鵰 中美歐同坐一船

6月26日,周日。星期六,老畢寫國際能源組織(IEA)協調成員國釋放六千萬桶戰略油儲,讀者tigeri君在《信壇》留言賜教,提出「美國唔出QE3,明年又有總統競選,要吊住美國經濟條命,再加上滯脹陰霾,於是放少少石油出來試試水溫」。讀者還建議老畢探討政府救市於國於民是利是弊。

這個話題,好嚴肅。然而,放眼世界,美國固然不斷印鈔力挽狂瀾,無法再印便改弦更張干預油市;歐洲無視規例原則,一再注資打救弱國;中國對內以鼓勵建設保障房消弭外需放緩,對外則買完「歐豬」再買匈牙利國債,總理溫家寶更親自披甲,在《金融時報》高調宣揚北京控制通脹有心有力,於世界經濟亂象紛陳中還能騰出手來,為全球穩定出一分力。

由此可見,中美歐三者俱「大到不能倒」,任何一方垮下,都會為另外兩方帶來災難,政府救市(救人自救皆然),不是「應不應」的問題,而是民主大國如歐美、一黨專政如中國,坐的實乃同一條船的問題。

改變炒家心理預期

回說釋放戰略油儲一事,個人認為,美國意在「一箭三鵰」:①以今年首季數字為準,油價上漲對美國經濟產生的「加稅」效應(額外能源支出對消費和投資構成的負面影響),按高盛估算達1180億美元,與美國去年12月減稅協議規模相若。換句話說,通過減稅放回消費者口袋的錢,已被油價上升「榨乾榨淨」,令減稅促進增長的作用消失於無形。油價在政府干預中回落(假設效果並非曇花一現),對經濟的刺激效用不言而喻。

②IEA由耗油國組成,本身並無產油之力,其龐大儲備來自日積月累的採購。然而,日子有功,歐美亞戰略油儲數以億桶計,IEA此番出手,開宗明義為了壓價,那等於說,在貨真價實的「油市央行」沙地阿拉伯無力阻止油組成員國分歧惡化下,產油的「辦事不力」,那麼耗油的就親自操刀,向炒家發出強烈訊息,以改變投機者對油價「單邊上市」的預期。

③此點在某程度上也許能回應讀者tigeri的問題。老畢在6月24日〈神州夢英雄塚 通脹升QE停〉一文中提到,美國經過兩輪量寬後,通縮壓力已消、通脹壓力重燃。這非但見於包括食品和能源在內的消費物價指數(CPI,5月按年升幅達3.6%),撇除食品能源的核心CPI,上月按年反彈幅度亦為1983年以來最大。在當前環境中,聯儲局不會冒通脹失控之險,硬推QE3。然而,這不等於說,量寬政策歷史任務已完,此後不會捲土重來。倘若好嘅唔靈醜嘅靈,美國經濟進一步放緩甚至面臨雙底衰退,又或股市一沉不起,聯儲局無選擇下,也許得再祭出QE這道「救命符」。情況若朝這個方向發展,你認為油價每桶100美元推QE3阻力大,還是80美元阻力大?

動用戰略儲備壓油價,既有變相刺激經濟之效,又有助扭轉炒家對油市的心理預期,最重要的是此舉為經濟一旦急轉直下推QE3創造有利環境。不過,這亦等於說,不管美國、中國還是歐洲,有形之手一「縮」,經濟即「死」,一輪又一輪干預於國於民是利是弊,老畢智慧有限,不懂回答,但可以肯定的是,政府唔會畀經濟死。

研究部主管莊志雄君早前放假歐遊,老畢有好一陣子沒見過他。上周碰到充夠電的莊君,容光煥發不在話下,還曬得一身古銅膚色,驟看之下,不遜Gucci御用男模,羨煞老畢。

6月24日,莊兄傳來他為電視節目準備的一份草稿,既談中港股市內地政策,又論恒指估值板塊行業。有看莊兄節目的讀者,對其見解應比我清楚;就24日草稿所見,老畢覺得較「新」而值得特別注意的,是奧巴馬近日宣布從阿富汗撤軍三萬一事。美國自2001年10月出兵阿富汗至今,於當地戰事上耗逾4000億美元,莊兄認為,撤軍決定相信有助美元回穩甚或短暫回揚。

美元強股市好?

周末讀了一些文獻,對莊兄在草稿中所說,「奧巴馬為求連任,後着陸續有來」這句話的可信性,也許能提供一些指引。說起滯脹,許多人第一時間想到的是「花生總統」卡達執政的二十世紀七十年代末。不過,於1987年推出、為揭聯儲局神秘面紗而寫的Secrets of the Temple(作者William Greider)一書提到,卡達主政期間,美國GDP實質增長並非一般人想像般疲弱。以Greider之見,在美國戰後歷任總統中,卡達比上不足,比下有餘。

為證此說,老畢在網上找來嘉圖學社(Cato Institute)一份發表於1996年的研究報告,雖「年深日久」,且主要論述「列根經濟學」(Reaganomics)的功過,惟報告以列根為分水嶺,對美國經濟在「前列根時代」和「後列根時代」的表現作了不少對比,有益有建設性之餘,對上任後美元弱勢變本加厲、財赤債務日趨失控的奧巴馬,更具特殊意義。

從【圖1】可見,卡達年代美國內憂外患兼通脹肆虐,但實質GDP年均增長仍達2.5%,雖遜於列根時代的3.2%,惟比之口碑不弱的克林頓(2.6%),僅以些微之差落後。

然而,以股市回報看,高低卻立判。卡達執政四年,標普500指數僅升24%;克林頓在位八年,標普500指數升幅達208%!不用開計算機,也知兩者年均回報相差甚遠。

這是否跟美元【圖2】、通脹、財赤債務等因素有關,值得投資者注意。奧巴馬釋油儲撤軍雙管齊下,是否看到卡達當年在汽油價格飛升美元一厥不振下失盡民心,試圖藉壓油價振美元謀求連任?


放大圖片


放大圖片

2011年6月24日 星期五

Running in the red: Among GOP, anti-tax orthodoxy runs deep

The Republican Party once had a home for the thinking of Tom Coburn, Mike Crapo and Saxby Chambliss. But that party is long gone.

The three U.S. senators banded together a few months ago in support of higher tax revenue as a means of balancing the federal budget. Even with drastic spending cuts, they concluded, Washington could not vanquish its soaring $14.3 trillion debt without additional income.

Gallery

Graphic

Motion graphic: A guide to understanding the federal debt

Motion graphic: A guide to understanding the federal debt

More On This Story

View all Items in this Story

Running in the red

Part 1: How the U.S. detoured to massive debt

Such reasoning was common in the GOP circa 1963, when Republicans denounced tax cuts proposed by President John F. Kennedy as a road to red ink and rampant inflation. But today’s GOP adheres to a “no new taxes” orthodoxy that has proved far more powerful than the desire to balance the budget. As House Speaker John A. Boehner has said: Raising taxes is “unacceptable and a non-starter.”

This orthodoxy is now woven so deeply into the party’s identity that all but 13 of 288 GOP lawmakers in Congress have signed a formal pledge not to raise taxes. The strategist who invented the pledge, Grover G. Norquist, compares it to a brand, like Coca-Cola, built on “quality control” so that Republican voters know they will get “the same thing every time.”

Loyalty to the brand is so strong that no Republican has voted for a major federal tax increase since 1991, Norquist says. It is so widespread that more than a dozen governors and hundreds of state legislators now count themselves as adherents. And it is so well defended that its followers are constantly patrolling at both the state and federal levels for new forms of trespass.

In California, the pledge is interpreted to prohibit state lawmakers from asking voters to decide whether certain existing taxes should be extended. In Pennsylvania, the pledge is cited as a barrier to imposing an “impact” fee on the environmentally questionable business of extracting gas from underground shale.

On Capitol Hill, Norquist has admonished Coburn (Okla.), Crapo (Idaho) and Chambliss (Ga.) for suggesting a tax option for tackling the debt: reducing credits and deductions worth an estimated $1 trillion a year. Although most of the cash would be used to lower tax rates for everyone, a portion would be dedicated to restoring national solvency.

No good, says Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform. Under the pledge, raising revenue in any way requires an equal tax cut elsewhere to avoid expanding the size of government. And, yes, that sometimes means protecting tax breaks that Republicans view as bad public policy, Norquist and his supporters say.

The GOP’s three-decade-old campaign against taxes has clearly had a significant impact. Neither major party would advocate a return to the 1970s, when people earning more than $200,000 a year faced a top rate of 70 percent. But the top rate is now half that and, partly because of the recent recession, tax collections have fallen to their lowest level as a share of the economy in 60 years.

“Grover’s not realistic,” said former senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, a self-described “Reagan robot” elected to Congress in 1980. Gregg retired last year after serving with Coburn and Crapo on the bipartisan fiscal commission that recommended stabilizing borrowing by trimming tax breaks and sharply cutting spending.

With the number of people on Medicare and Social Security set to double, Gregg said, “your government is inevitably going to grow. And you’re either going to have to finance that, or you’re going to end up running the country into the ditch.”

Gallery

Graphic

prominent Republicans have urged a more flexible approach to taxes. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan joined the chorus Friday, dropping his support for the 2001 George W. Bush tax cuts. Greenspan told CNBC he’s so “scared” by the debt that he now favors a return to the higher rates of the Clinton administration.
Motion graphic: A guide to understanding the federal debt

Motion graphic: A guide to understanding the federal debt

Part 1: How the U.S. detoured to massive debt

Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist who served as chief economic adviser in the Reagan White House, supports the commission’s approach to raising money by ending tax breaks.

“When the government gives a tax credit to homeowners who buy solar energy panels, it’s just like giving them a cash subsidy to buy those panels,” Feldstein wrote last week in the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, suggesting that the value of deductions and credits be capped at 2 percent of adjusted income.

“Although government accounting rules treat the end of a tax credit or the limit of a tax deduction as a revenue increase, the economic effect is the same as a cut in spending,” Feldstein wrote. “Anyone who favors less government spending should also favor cutting tax expenditures.”

But Norquist argues that equating tax breaks with spending “is a threat to the modern Republican Party’s worldview,” which calls for a vastly smaller government and “dramatically reducing the tax drag on the economy.”

That worldview supports eliminating tax breaks, Norquist said, but only if all the proceeds are used to push tax rates “down as far as possible.” The work of reducing the national debt must be done entirely by shrinking government, he said. Any compromise that includes taxes would hinder that goal and taint the Republican brand.

Norquist compared Coburn, the most outspoken of the Senate trio, to a “malignant” cell in the body politic. “So,” Norquist said, “we use chemo and radiation to protect all the healthy cells around it, so it doesn’t grow and metastasize.”

Rewriting doctrine

The germ of the pledge came to Norquist, he said, when he was 14 and thinking about a teacher’s comment that no one knows who his or her congressman is. If Republicans were known as the party that never raised taxes, he recalls thinking, they would be spared spending “millions of dollars explaining to you who they are and what they stand for.” They could just “stand up and say, ‘I’m the Republican.’ And you go: ‘He won’t raise my taxes and he won’t steal my guns. Got it.’ ”

At the time, Richard M. Nixon had just been elected president, and Republicans had a reputation as the party of fiscal responsibility: Dwight Eisenhower maintained wartime tax rates throughout his eight-year presidency, dramatically reducing the national debt. Congressional Republicans objected to Kennedy’s tax cut, arguing that any reduction in revenue should be pared with spending cuts to avoid ballooning deficits. Nixon supported extending a surtax to pay for the Vietnam War. And his successor, Gerald R. Ford, opposed a permanent tax cut in 1974, fearing budget deficits, according to historian Bruce Bartlett, a “lapsed Republican” who has written extensively about GOP fiscal policy.

Three factors helped rewrite the party’s economic doctrine, Bartlett said: In the late 1970s, key Republicans concluded that lower tax rates would boost the flagging economy. The new theory of supply-side economics held that such a tax cut would spur so much growth that it would actually generate more revenue. And the Proposition 13 tax revolt hit California, demonstrating the power of tax cuts as a political issue.

Ronald Reagan capitalized on growing anti-tax sentiment in his campaign for president and quickly pushed a tax package that slashed rates, a move credited with energizing the long-sluggish economy. Reagan went back to Congress in 1986 with a sweeping overhaul of the tax code that pushed the top rate down to 28 percent. At Reagan’s request, Norquist founded Americans for Tax Reform and the pledge was born.

Gallery

Graphic

Motion graphic: A guide to understanding the federal debt

Motion graphic: A guide to understanding the federal debt

More On This Story

View all Items in this Story

Running in the red

Part 1: How the U.S. detoured to massive debt

In his race to succeed Reagan, George H.W. Bush famously embraced the pledge, saying “read my lips, no new taxes.” But as president, he raised tax rates as part of a balanced-budget deal with Democrats. Bush’s loss to Bill Clinton in 1992 “proved for all time, that even though tax increases may be justified economically, they are never justified politically if you’re a Republican,” Bartlett said.

“Since then it’s been Republican dogma that deficits don’t matter and the only thing that matters for the economy is cutting taxes,” he said. “And Grover Norquist has become the enforcer of this dogma.”

‘Impure thoughts’

The rise of the anti-tax tea party movement in 2008 further hardened the party’s stance against taxes. How is the pledge enforced? Typically, Republican candidates sign the pledge to avoid attack in the primary. Once in office, violators might find that Norquist has contacted Republican voters in their state or district to inform them that their senator or representative is having “impure thoughts,” as he put it.

Norquist has “these amazing mailing lists. Just tens of millions of people,” said Gregg, who has been a target.

At the state level, a vast network of foot soldiers stands ready to discipline local politicians who fail to walk the no-tax line. One of the most high-profile battles is being waged in Sacramento, where Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is trying to persuade GOP lawmakers to join Democrats in extending the largest tax increase in state history, which is set to expire this month.

Last month, Norquist spent several days in the state, urging Republicans to stand firm. His argument is likely to be pretty compelling: In 2009, after enacting deep spending cuts, six GOP lawmakers helped then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) raise sales, income and auto taxes to close a $42 billion budget gap.

All six paid a price. The Republican leaders in both the House and Senate were deposed. The other four either retired or lost bids for higher office.

Senate Republicans dumped Dave Cogdill as their leader in a midnight coup before the tax deal was even approved. “They were hearing from their constituents and Grover Norquist, saying, ‘You got to do everything you can to fight this thing,’ ” Cogdill said in an interview.

Cogdill later retired from the Senate. He now serves as county tax assessor in his hometown of Modesto. He said he wishes he had been able to keep the pledge, but he didn’t see any alternative to raising taxes, given the state’s alarming financial condition.

Although he agrees with Norquist that taxes are too high in California, he’s not sure he would sign the pledge again. Pledges, he said, make it hard to respond to changing circumstances.

Republicans “have lost the art of compromise,” Cogdill said. “If we don’t get everything we want, then we let the whole thing burn.”

This story is part of The Post’s continuing examination of the origins and consequences of the federal debt and the debate over what to do about it.

Major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 also contributed to the decline in revenue — and helped drive up budget deficits. Today, the spiraling debt ranks well ahead of too-high taxes on the list of economic concerns. And the GOP’s hard line on the issue stands, alongside Democratic resistance to cutting federal retirement benefits, as the biggest obstacle to a bipartisan agreement to tackle that problem.

Running in the red: How the U.S., on the road to surplus, detoured to massive debt

The nation’s unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis.

In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed.

Graphic

From surplus to debt

From surplus to debt

Video

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner discusses the U.S. budget deficit. Geithner, speaking with Peter Cook on Bloomberg Television's ‘’In the Loop,’’ also discusses banking regulation and the European debt crisis. (April 19)

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner discusses the U.S. budget deficit. Geithner, speaking with Peter Cook on Bloomberg Television's ‘’In the Loop,’’ also discusses banking regulation and the European debt crisis. (April 19)

More On This Story

View all Items in this Story

Running in the red

Part 2: How the GOP’s no-tax orthodoxy came to be


Voices of caution were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of the apparent bounty. Political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending and, for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds. “In the end, the floodgates opened,” said former senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who chaired the Senate Budget Committee when the first tax-cut bill hit Capitol Hill in early 2001.

Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of this year. The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.

Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation’s budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.

The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.

Big-ticket spending initiated by the Bush administration accounts for 12 percent of the shift. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have added $1.3 trillion in new borrowing. A new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients contributed another $272 billion. The Troubled Assets Relief Program bank bailout, which infuriated voters and led to the defeat of several legislators in 2010, added just $16 billion — and TARP may eventually cost nothing as financial institutions repay the Treasury.

Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added $719 billion — 6 percent of the total shift, according to the new analysis of CBO data by the nonprofit Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative. All told, Obama-era choices account for about $1.7 trillion in new debt, according to a separate Washington Post analysis of CBO data over the past decade. Bush-era policies, meanwhile, account for more than $7 trillion and are a major contributor to the trillion-dollar annual budget deficits that are dominating the political debate.

As Congress prepares this week to launch a high-stakes battle over whether to raise the legal limit on borrowing, the analyses offer a clearer view of the drivers of the debt — and of the difficulty of re-balancing the budget without new tax revenue.