By PAUL RYAN, WSJ
During the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, President Obama reportedly warned Republican leaders not to call his bluff by sending him a bill without tax increases. Republicans in Congress ignored this threat and passed a bill that cuts more than a dollar in spending for every dollar it increases the debt limit, without raising taxes.
Yesterday, Mr. Obama signed this bill into law. He was, as he said, bluffing.
Nevertheless, the president still hasn't shown us his cards. He still hasn't put forward a credible plan to tackle the threat of ever-rising spending and debt, and his evasiveness is emblematic of the party he leads.
Ever since they abused the budget process to jam their health-care takeover through Congress last year, the Democrats have simply done away with serious budgeting altogether. The simplest explanation—and the president's real bluff—is that they don't want to commit publicly to the kind of tax increases and health-care rationing that would be required to sustain their archaic vision of government.
The president's February budget deliberately dodged the tough choices necessary to confront the threat of runaway federal spending. It was rejected unanimously in a Senate controlled by his own party.
Since then he has offered a lot of rhetoric but no real plan to avoid a spending-driven debt crisis. His speeches and press conferences are no substitutes for actual budgets with specific numbers and independently verified projections of future deficits and debt. Meanwhile, it has been over two years since the Democrat-controlled Senate passed any budget at all. This is a historic failure to fulfill one of the most basic responsibilities of governing.
This leadership deficit has thrown the federal budget process into chaos at the worst possible time. Even though Congress has cut spending by a significant amount, it still hasn't dealt with the drivers of our debt—primarily federal spending on health care.
The math is scary, yet simple: In the years ahead, spending on programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Democrats' new health-care entitlements is projected to skyrocket relative to the size of the economy, even as federal spending on everything else is projected to decline (see the nearby chart).
Even well-intentioned proposals such as the one put forward by the Senate's Gang of Six lacked specific reforms to curb the health-care spending. Actually, it took steps in the wrong direction by explicitly requiring policy makers to "maintain the basic structure" of government health-care programs. That structure is unsustainable.
Medicare reimburses all providers of care according to the same formula, even if the quality of the care they provide is poor and the cost is high. This top-down delivery system exacerbates waste, as none of the primary stakeholders has a strong incentive to deliver the best-quality care for the lowest cost. Medicaid has fallen victim to the same trend: an open-ended commitment that drives up costs, coupled with a flawed federal-state matching formula that is breaking state budgets.
Supporters of the Democrats' new health-care law claim that the law will fix these problems. But we are already seeing evidence that its maze of mandates, dictates, controls and tax hikes will actually push costs even further in the wrong direction.
Even the president seems to understand that the status quo of these programs is unsustainable. As he put it during a press conference on July 11, "If you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up."
On this point, Mr. Obama and I couldn't agree more. Where we disagree is over how best to confront this problem.
The president's health-care law represents an attempt to double down on the failed policies of the past. Despite claims that new methods of reimbursing Medicare providers will tame costs, the fact is that the federal bureaucracy has tried most of the measures before, without any success.
Worse, the law would create a new 15-member board of bureaucrats empowered to bypass Congress to make deep cuts in payments to Medicare providers. Time and again, such provider cuts have had two consequences: Providers have either increased the volume of services they provide for each condition, or they have stopped accepting Medicare patients altogether.
There is a better way—structural reforms that empower patients with greater choices and increase the role of competition in the health-care marketplace. The budget passed by the House of Representatives in April, "The Path to Prosperity," outlined the beginnings of such an approach by repealing the president's health-care law and proposing reforms that would make Medicare and Medicaid stronger and solvent for current and future generations.
In other words, we've put our cards on the table: According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), our plan puts the federal budget on the path to balance without resorting to job-destroying tax hikes. It will eliminate the shadow of debt that is discouraging job creation while advancing pro-growth tax reforms to get the economy moving again.
By contrast, the president and his party's leaders have refused to submit specific, credible budget plans that tackle health-care costs while restoring economic growth. Unwilling to reconsider their failed bureaucratic approaches to health and retirement security, the Democrats can only propose tax increases, and lots of them.
The CBO's latest Long-Term Outlook in June estimated that total tax revenues would have to double by mid-century in order to finance our current spending path. Health-care costs rose about 8% in 2011 and are projected to rise by 8.5% in 2012. At this rate, taxes would have to rise again and again just to keep up with health-care spending. Is it any wonder that the president and his party are afraid to produce a budget that requires such ruinous levels of taxation?
The president tried to use the debt-ceiling negotiations to secure the first of many tax increases that his party needs to pay for its legacy of unfunded promises. He failed. Instead, Republicans won the policy debate by securing the first of many spending restraints we need to avoid a debt-driven economic calamity.
Much hard work remains. But this work will be harder still if leading Democrats remain unwilling to lay their cards on the table and give the American people the debate they deserve.
Mr. Ryan, a congressman from Wisconsin, serves as chairman of the House Budget Committee.
Mostrando postagens com marcador debt ceiling. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador debt ceiling. Mostrar todas as postagens
quarta-feira, agosto 03, 2011
segunda-feira, agosto 01, 2011
A Tea Party Triumph
Editorial do WSJ
If a good political compromise is one that has something for everyone to hate, then last night's bipartisan debt-ceiling deal is a triumph. The bargain is nonetheless better than what seemed achievable in recent days, especially given the revolt of some GOP conservatives that gave the White House and Democrats more political leverage.
***
The big picture is that the deal is a victory for the cause of smaller government, arguably the biggest since welfare reform in 1996. Most bipartisan budget deals trade tax increases that are immediate for spending cuts that turn out to be fictional. This one includes no immediate tax increases, despite President Obama's demand as recently as last Monday. The immediate spending cuts are real, if smaller than we'd prefer, and the longer-term cuts could be real if Republicans hold Congress and continue to enforce the deal's spending caps.
The framework (we haven't seen all the details) calls for an initial step of some $900 billion in domestic discretionary cuts over 10 years from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline puffed up by recent spending. If the cuts hold, this would go some way to erasing the fiscal damage from the Obama-Nancy Pelosi stimulus. This is no small achievement considering that Republicans control neither the Senate nor the White House, and it underscores how much the GOP victory in November has reshaped the U.S. fiscal debate.
No wonder liberals are howling. They have come to believe in the upward spending ratchet, under which all spending increases are permanent. Not any more.
The second phase of the deal is less clear cut, though it also could turn out to shrink Leviathan. Party leaders in both houses of Congress will each appoint three Members to a special committee that will recommend another round of deficit reduction of between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion, also over 10 years. Their mandate is broad, and we're told very little is off the table, but at least seven of the 12 Members would have to agree on a package to force an up-or-down vote in Congress.
If the committee can't agree on enough deficit reduction, then automatic spending cuts would ensue to make up the difference to reach the $1.2 trillion minimum deficit-reduction target. One key point is that the committee's failure to agree would not automatically "trigger" (in Beltway parlance) revenue increases, as the White House was insisting on as recently as this weekend. That would have guaranteed that Democrats would never agree to enough cuts, and Republicans were right to resist.
Instead the automatic cuts would be divided equally between defense and nondefense. So, for example, if the committee agrees to deficit reduction of only $600 billion, then another $300 billion would be cut automatically from defense and domestic accounts (excluding Medicare beneficiaries) to reach at least $1.2 trillion.
This trigger is intended to be an incentive for committee Members of both parties to agree on more cuts, but defense cuts of this magnitude would do far more harm to national security than they would to domestic accounts that have been fattened by stimulus. This is the worst part of the deal, and Mr. Obama's political goal will be to press Republicans to choose between tax increases and destructive defense cuts. The GOP will have to fight back and make the choice between domestic cuts and harm to our troops fighting multiple wars.
While the "trigger" includes no revenue increases, the committee itself could agree to raise taxes to meet the $1.2 trillion deficit reduction target. This means GOP leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have to be especially careful in their choice of appointees. No one from the Senate Gang of Six, who proposed tax increases, need apply. The GOP choices should start with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, adding four others who will follow their lead.
One reason to think tax increases are unlikely, however, is that the 12-Member committee will operate from CBO's baseline that assumes that the Bush tax rates expire in 2013. CBO assumes that taxes will rise by $3.5 trillion over the next decade, including huge increases for middle-class earners. Since any elimination of those tax increases would increase the deficit under CBO's math, the strong incentive for the Members will be to avoid the tax issue. This increases the political incentive for deficit reduction to come from spending cuts.
Mr. Obama's biggest gain in the deal is that he gets his highest priority of not having to repeat this debt-limit fight again before the 2012 election. The deal stipulates that the debt ceiling will rise automatically by $900 billion this year, and at least $1.2 trillion next year, unless two-thirds of Congress disapproves it. Congress will not do so.
Given how much the current debate has damaged the public perception of Mr. Obama's leadership, this will be a relief at the White House. This is part of the negotiating price that Mr. Boehner had to pay because of the back-bench revolt that showed he couldn't guarantee a debt-limit increase with only GOP votes. This gave Democrats more leverage.
***
The same supposedly conservative Republicans and their talk radio minders may denounce this deal as a sellout, but we'll be charitable and assume they've climbed so far out on the political ledge they don't know how to climb back without admitting they were wrong. They're right that this deal doesn't "solve" our fiscal crisis, but no such deal is possible as long as liberals run the Senate and White House.
The debt ceiling is a political hostage the GOP could never afford to shoot, and this deal is about the best Republicans could have hoped for given that the limit had to be raised. The Jim DeMint-Michele Bachmann-Sean Hannity alternative of refusing to raise the debt limit without a balanced-budget amendment and betting that Mr. Obama would get all the blame vanishes upon contact with any thought. Sooner or later the GOP had to give up the hostage.
The tea partiers pride themselves on adhering to the Constitution, which was intended to make political change difficult. Yet in this deal they've forced both parties to make the biggest spending cuts in 15 years, with more cuts likely next year. The U.S. is engaged in an epic debate over the size and scope of government that will play out over several years, and the most important battle comes in the election of 2012.
Tea partiers will do more for their cause by applauding this victory and working toward the next, rather than diminishing what they've accomplished because it didn't solve every fiscal problem in one impossible swoop.
If a good political compromise is one that has something for everyone to hate, then last night's bipartisan debt-ceiling deal is a triumph. The bargain is nonetheless better than what seemed achievable in recent days, especially given the revolt of some GOP conservatives that gave the White House and Democrats more political leverage.
***
The big picture is that the deal is a victory for the cause of smaller government, arguably the biggest since welfare reform in 1996. Most bipartisan budget deals trade tax increases that are immediate for spending cuts that turn out to be fictional. This one includes no immediate tax increases, despite President Obama's demand as recently as last Monday. The immediate spending cuts are real, if smaller than we'd prefer, and the longer-term cuts could be real if Republicans hold Congress and continue to enforce the deal's spending caps.
The framework (we haven't seen all the details) calls for an initial step of some $900 billion in domestic discretionary cuts over 10 years from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline puffed up by recent spending. If the cuts hold, this would go some way to erasing the fiscal damage from the Obama-Nancy Pelosi stimulus. This is no small achievement considering that Republicans control neither the Senate nor the White House, and it underscores how much the GOP victory in November has reshaped the U.S. fiscal debate.
No wonder liberals are howling. They have come to believe in the upward spending ratchet, under which all spending increases are permanent. Not any more.
The second phase of the deal is less clear cut, though it also could turn out to shrink Leviathan. Party leaders in both houses of Congress will each appoint three Members to a special committee that will recommend another round of deficit reduction of between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion, also over 10 years. Their mandate is broad, and we're told very little is off the table, but at least seven of the 12 Members would have to agree on a package to force an up-or-down vote in Congress.
If the committee can't agree on enough deficit reduction, then automatic spending cuts would ensue to make up the difference to reach the $1.2 trillion minimum deficit-reduction target. One key point is that the committee's failure to agree would not automatically "trigger" (in Beltway parlance) revenue increases, as the White House was insisting on as recently as this weekend. That would have guaranteed that Democrats would never agree to enough cuts, and Republicans were right to resist.
Instead the automatic cuts would be divided equally between defense and nondefense. So, for example, if the committee agrees to deficit reduction of only $600 billion, then another $300 billion would be cut automatically from defense and domestic accounts (excluding Medicare beneficiaries) to reach at least $1.2 trillion.
This trigger is intended to be an incentive for committee Members of both parties to agree on more cuts, but defense cuts of this magnitude would do far more harm to national security than they would to domestic accounts that have been fattened by stimulus. This is the worst part of the deal, and Mr. Obama's political goal will be to press Republicans to choose between tax increases and destructive defense cuts. The GOP will have to fight back and make the choice between domestic cuts and harm to our troops fighting multiple wars.
While the "trigger" includes no revenue increases, the committee itself could agree to raise taxes to meet the $1.2 trillion deficit reduction target. This means GOP leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have to be especially careful in their choice of appointees. No one from the Senate Gang of Six, who proposed tax increases, need apply. The GOP choices should start with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, adding four others who will follow their lead.
One reason to think tax increases are unlikely, however, is that the 12-Member committee will operate from CBO's baseline that assumes that the Bush tax rates expire in 2013. CBO assumes that taxes will rise by $3.5 trillion over the next decade, including huge increases for middle-class earners. Since any elimination of those tax increases would increase the deficit under CBO's math, the strong incentive for the Members will be to avoid the tax issue. This increases the political incentive for deficit reduction to come from spending cuts.
Mr. Obama's biggest gain in the deal is that he gets his highest priority of not having to repeat this debt-limit fight again before the 2012 election. The deal stipulates that the debt ceiling will rise automatically by $900 billion this year, and at least $1.2 trillion next year, unless two-thirds of Congress disapproves it. Congress will not do so.
Given how much the current debate has damaged the public perception of Mr. Obama's leadership, this will be a relief at the White House. This is part of the negotiating price that Mr. Boehner had to pay because of the back-bench revolt that showed he couldn't guarantee a debt-limit increase with only GOP votes. This gave Democrats more leverage.
***
The same supposedly conservative Republicans and their talk radio minders may denounce this deal as a sellout, but we'll be charitable and assume they've climbed so far out on the political ledge they don't know how to climb back without admitting they were wrong. They're right that this deal doesn't "solve" our fiscal crisis, but no such deal is possible as long as liberals run the Senate and White House.
The debt ceiling is a political hostage the GOP could never afford to shoot, and this deal is about the best Republicans could have hoped for given that the limit had to be raised. The Jim DeMint-Michele Bachmann-Sean Hannity alternative of refusing to raise the debt limit without a balanced-budget amendment and betting that Mr. Obama would get all the blame vanishes upon contact with any thought. Sooner or later the GOP had to give up the hostage.
The tea partiers pride themselves on adhering to the Constitution, which was intended to make political change difficult. Yet in this deal they've forced both parties to make the biggest spending cuts in 15 years, with more cuts likely next year. The U.S. is engaged in an epic debate over the size and scope of government that will play out over several years, and the most important battle comes in the election of 2012.
Tea partiers will do more for their cause by applauding this victory and working toward the next, rather than diminishing what they've accomplished because it didn't solve every fiscal problem in one impossible swoop.
sábado, julho 30, 2011
Thomas Sowell on debt ceiling
Some people may have been shocked when the credit-rating firm Moody's recently suggested that the debt-ceiling law be repealed, in order to avoid fiscal crises which can throw world financial markets into turmoil that can injure countries around the world. Anyone who wants to show that Moody's is wrong should be prepared to show the actual benefits of the debt-ceiling, not its goals or hopes. That will not be easy, if possible at all. . . .
The national debt-ceiling law should be judged by what it actually does, not by how good an idea it seems to be. The one thing that the national debt-ceiling has never done is to put a ceiling on the rising national debt. Time and time again, for years on end, the national debt-ceiling has been raised whenever the national debt gets near whatever the current ceiling might be.
Regardless of what it is supposed to do, what the national debt-ceiling actually does is enable any administration to get all the political benefits of runaway spending for the benefit of their favorite constituencies—and then invite the opposition party to share the blame, by either raising the national debt ceiling, or by voting for unpopular cutbacks in spending or increases in taxes.
The national debt-ceiling law should be judged by what it actually does, not by how good an idea it seems to be. The one thing that the national debt-ceiling has never done is to put a ceiling on the rising national debt. Time and time again, for years on end, the national debt-ceiling has been raised whenever the national debt gets near whatever the current ceiling might be.
Regardless of what it is supposed to do, what the national debt-ceiling actually does is enable any administration to get all the political benefits of runaway spending for the benefit of their favorite constituencies—and then invite the opposition party to share the blame, by either raising the national debt ceiling, or by voting for unpopular cutbacks in spending or increases in taxes.
sexta-feira, julho 29, 2011
Nada como um dia depois do outro...
Ganha uma mariola quem souber o autor dessas frases:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."
"The cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on."
"Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans–a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies."
"Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
"I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."
Opa! Acertou quem disse que foi Obama quem disse tais coisas. Só que, à época, ele era da oposição! Os americanos possuem o Lula deles*, apenas com tez mais morena e diploma em Harvard. Haja cara-de-pau desses populistas de esquerda!!!
* Tá bom, eu sei que forcei muito a barra aqui. Não suporto Obama, mas não dá para compará-lo com Lula. Este deveria estar PRESO!
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."
"The cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on."
"Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans–a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies."
"Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
"I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."
Opa! Acertou quem disse que foi Obama quem disse tais coisas. Só que, à época, ele era da oposição! Os americanos possuem o Lula deles*, apenas com tez mais morena e diploma em Harvard. Haja cara-de-pau desses populistas de esquerda!!!
* Tá bom, eu sei que forcei muito a barra aqui. Não suporto Obama, mas não dá para compará-lo com Lula. Este deveria estar PRESO!
A credibilidade do governo americano está em xeque
Rodrigo Constantino, Valor Econômico (Palavra do Gestor)
O impasse político nos Estados Unidos tem dominado a agenda dos investidores. A crescente possibilidade de um calote temporário nos títulos do governo mais poderoso do mundo produz forte incerteza nos mercados. Qual seria seu efeito? Será que o sistema monetário travaria como ocorreu na crise do Lehman Brothers? Para onde correr?
A questão é complexa, e agravada pelo fato de haver eleição em 2012. Há um jogo político entre democratas e republicanos, o que aumenta o receio dos investidores. Apostas políticas arriscadas, dos dois lados, podem inviabilizar um acordo sensato.
O cenário base ainda é o de que haverá algum tipo de acordo aos 45 minutos do segundo tempo. Se, por um lado, o presidente Obama não quer ser lembrado como aquele que deu calote, a oposição teme ser responsabilizada pela postura de "quanto pior, melhor".
O foco do debate tem sido a possível perda do rating AAA. Ninguém sabe ao certo quais seriam os efeitos disso. Alguns acreditam que haveria pressão vendedora de instituições obrigadas a manter em carteira apenas títulos AAA, mas outros pensam que a aversão ao risco seria tão grande nos mercados que poderia ocorrer uma fuga para liquidez. E esta ainda se encontra nos EUA.
Paradoxalmente, o "downgrade" poderia fazer o "yield" cair. É difícil tomar partido aqui, pois estamos navegando em águas desconhecidas. O caso japonês aponta nessa direção, mas tudo pode acontecer. E uma eventual normalização das taxas de juros poderia representar um aumento dos gastos públicos de até US$ 500 bilhões com o serviço da dívida.
Apesar de muitos investidores falarem dos problemas que o rebaixamento pelas agências de risco pode acarretar, acredito que o maior problema ainda é estrutural. Os EUA podem ser rebaixados mesmo aprovando o aumento do "debt ceiling", uma vez que os fundamentos estão fragilizados. Aqui faço distinção entre duas abordagens totalmente diferentes: a de curto e a de longo prazo.
O mercado financeiro quase sempre adota a primeira delas. O "curto-prazismo" chega a ser uma doença. Como Santo Agostinho, o mercado quer austeridade, mas não agora. A impressão que fica é que todos torcem por qualquer acordo que empurre o problema para frente. Pode ser a proposta da "Gangue dos Seis" ou a do republicano Boehner: o relevante é evitar o calote no momento. Os ativos de risco sem dúvida iriam celebrar o evento com um interessante rali.
Mas nada estrutural teria mudado. Os debates giram em torno de cortes de gastos e aumento de impostos, mas os democratas se recusam a colocar na mesa as necessárias reformas dos "entitlements": Medicare, Medicaid e Social Security. Esses gastos saíram de 30% do total em 1970 para mais de 65% hoje, e nas próximas décadas a trajetória é explosiva, por conta da demografia.
O que está em jogo, portanto, é qual modelo de sociedade os americanos desejam. Há populistas na ala republicana do Tea Party, mas é inegável que o essencial de sua demanda faz sentido. Eles querem resgatar o modelo que transformou os Estados Unidos no colosso que é hoje. E esse modelo passa longe do idealizado pelos democratas, que se aproxima muito, por sua vez, do falido "welfare state" europeu.
O presidente Obama quer um cheque em branco. O Congresso passou a ter maioria republicana nas últimas eleições justamente para evitar isso. A meta daqueles eleitos com a ajuda do Tea Party é clara: impedir que os EUA se transformem num Portugal ou quiçá numa Grécia. Ajustar as contas públicas demandaria um sacrifício grande no primeiro momento, mas colocaria o país novamente no rumo do crescimento sustentável.
Obama tem pedido mais responsabilidade dos deputados, mas a maior irresponsabilidade é gastar trilhões a mais do que arrecada. E não há nada de responsável na solução "mágica" do presidente, que é aumentar os impostos e manter seus insustentáveis programas sociais. No longo prazo, esse modelo limitaria o dinamismo e o crescimento econômico.
Em 1980, a dívida pública estava perto de US$ 1 trilhão (30% do PIB), e o governo quer expandir uma dívida que já passa de US$ 14 trilhões (quase 100% do PIB). Qual o limite? O "sonho americano" não pode ser realizado por meio de mais dívida e inflação. Quanto antes o governo enfrentar essa dura realidade, melhor será para todos os credores de títulos americanos. Quem possui ativos em dólar deveria torcer por uma solução duradoura, não para simplesmente ganhar algum tempo extra. O mais importante para os investidores de longo prazo é a credibilidade do plano para resolver de vez a questão fiscal.
Rodrigo Constantino é sócio da Graphus Capital
O impasse político nos Estados Unidos tem dominado a agenda dos investidores. A crescente possibilidade de um calote temporário nos títulos do governo mais poderoso do mundo produz forte incerteza nos mercados. Qual seria seu efeito? Será que o sistema monetário travaria como ocorreu na crise do Lehman Brothers? Para onde correr?
A questão é complexa, e agravada pelo fato de haver eleição em 2012. Há um jogo político entre democratas e republicanos, o que aumenta o receio dos investidores. Apostas políticas arriscadas, dos dois lados, podem inviabilizar um acordo sensato.
O cenário base ainda é o de que haverá algum tipo de acordo aos 45 minutos do segundo tempo. Se, por um lado, o presidente Obama não quer ser lembrado como aquele que deu calote, a oposição teme ser responsabilizada pela postura de "quanto pior, melhor".
O foco do debate tem sido a possível perda do rating AAA. Ninguém sabe ao certo quais seriam os efeitos disso. Alguns acreditam que haveria pressão vendedora de instituições obrigadas a manter em carteira apenas títulos AAA, mas outros pensam que a aversão ao risco seria tão grande nos mercados que poderia ocorrer uma fuga para liquidez. E esta ainda se encontra nos EUA.
Paradoxalmente, o "downgrade" poderia fazer o "yield" cair. É difícil tomar partido aqui, pois estamos navegando em águas desconhecidas. O caso japonês aponta nessa direção, mas tudo pode acontecer. E uma eventual normalização das taxas de juros poderia representar um aumento dos gastos públicos de até US$ 500 bilhões com o serviço da dívida.
Apesar de muitos investidores falarem dos problemas que o rebaixamento pelas agências de risco pode acarretar, acredito que o maior problema ainda é estrutural. Os EUA podem ser rebaixados mesmo aprovando o aumento do "debt ceiling", uma vez que os fundamentos estão fragilizados. Aqui faço distinção entre duas abordagens totalmente diferentes: a de curto e a de longo prazo.
O mercado financeiro quase sempre adota a primeira delas. O "curto-prazismo" chega a ser uma doença. Como Santo Agostinho, o mercado quer austeridade, mas não agora. A impressão que fica é que todos torcem por qualquer acordo que empurre o problema para frente. Pode ser a proposta da "Gangue dos Seis" ou a do republicano Boehner: o relevante é evitar o calote no momento. Os ativos de risco sem dúvida iriam celebrar o evento com um interessante rali.
Mas nada estrutural teria mudado. Os debates giram em torno de cortes de gastos e aumento de impostos, mas os democratas se recusam a colocar na mesa as necessárias reformas dos "entitlements": Medicare, Medicaid e Social Security. Esses gastos saíram de 30% do total em 1970 para mais de 65% hoje, e nas próximas décadas a trajetória é explosiva, por conta da demografia.
O que está em jogo, portanto, é qual modelo de sociedade os americanos desejam. Há populistas na ala republicana do Tea Party, mas é inegável que o essencial de sua demanda faz sentido. Eles querem resgatar o modelo que transformou os Estados Unidos no colosso que é hoje. E esse modelo passa longe do idealizado pelos democratas, que se aproxima muito, por sua vez, do falido "welfare state" europeu.
O presidente Obama quer um cheque em branco. O Congresso passou a ter maioria republicana nas últimas eleições justamente para evitar isso. A meta daqueles eleitos com a ajuda do Tea Party é clara: impedir que os EUA se transformem num Portugal ou quiçá numa Grécia. Ajustar as contas públicas demandaria um sacrifício grande no primeiro momento, mas colocaria o país novamente no rumo do crescimento sustentável.
Obama tem pedido mais responsabilidade dos deputados, mas a maior irresponsabilidade é gastar trilhões a mais do que arrecada. E não há nada de responsável na solução "mágica" do presidente, que é aumentar os impostos e manter seus insustentáveis programas sociais. No longo prazo, esse modelo limitaria o dinamismo e o crescimento econômico.
Em 1980, a dívida pública estava perto de US$ 1 trilhão (30% do PIB), e o governo quer expandir uma dívida que já passa de US$ 14 trilhões (quase 100% do PIB). Qual o limite? O "sonho americano" não pode ser realizado por meio de mais dívida e inflação. Quanto antes o governo enfrentar essa dura realidade, melhor será para todos os credores de títulos americanos. Quem possui ativos em dólar deveria torcer por uma solução duradoura, não para simplesmente ganhar algum tempo extra. O mais importante para os investidores de longo prazo é a credibilidade do plano para resolver de vez a questão fiscal.
Rodrigo Constantino é sócio da Graphus Capital
segunda-feira, julho 25, 2011
Open Letter to President Obama on the Debt Ceiling Debate
Dear President Obama,
As you are likely well aware, you and I have many fundamental philosophical differences. I have long believed in personal liberty and economic freedom. Despite the rhetoric that you may espouse, your actions imply that you believe government can plan our lives better than we can plan them ourselves. Nearly all of the policies you have championed throughout your political career were designed to destroy individual freedom. With all due respect President, your big government philosophy is the antithesis of everything our Founding Fathers stood for.
Over the past few years, we have seen a spontaneous uprising of citizen activists protesting big government and reckless spending. My organization FreedomWorks (formerly known as Citizens for a Sound Economy) has never seen so many passionate activists in our 27 year history. As you stated in a September 2010 Rolling Stone interview, “Dick Armey and FreedomWorks, which was one of the first organizational mechanisms to bring Tea Party folks together...” We believe that the Tea Party is a direct response to the out of control spending habits of Former President George W. Bush and you.
FreedomWorks has fought your numerous power grabs at every turn. Our over one million members stood strong against the failed $814 billion “stimulus” package, your 2,801 page healthcare takeover law and the Dodd-Frank Act (also known as the “Federal Reserve Empowerment Act”). We’re exhausted from these grueling battles but we will never give up. As you already know, the Tea Party has begun to change the debate in Washington, D.C. Liberty is always worth fighting for.
The federal government has hit the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling under your watch. It’s closer to $144 trillion with unfunded liabilities factored in. You often assert that you inherited massive debt from your predecessor. Now I’ll be the first to agree that George W. Bush was a big spending Republican. Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for our current fiscal mess. When you took office two and a half years ago, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. It’s now over $14.3 trillion. That’s a 35 percent increase, Mr. President.
You remain committed to raising the debt ceiling. It’s unfortunate that you have announced your intentions to veto the Cut, Cap and Balance Act if it landed on your desk. The bill would cut $111 billion from the federal budget, place enforceable caps on spending and require the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. It’s a step in the right direction to get spending under control. How much further are you willing to raise the debt ceiling, Mr. President? Enough is enough.
We’d like a mature discussion on how to significantly reduce the national debt. So far, you have only offered $2 billion in phony cuts. Let’s put that number into perspective. The federal government borrows $4 billion every single day and our federal budget is a whopping $3.73 trillion. Your so-called solution is to cut 5 hundredths of one percent from the budget. We must do better.
I urge you to stop your scare tactics. “Armageddon” will not occur on August 2nd. The federal government still has plenty of money to ensure that our bond holders are paid in full even if we do not raise the debt ceiling. Your threat to withhold Social Security checks if we don’t raise the ceiling is merely a dirty political trick. Social security checks will still go out as usual. The federal government is predicted to take in between $170 to $200 billion in August (we will spend closer to $300 billion) but Social Security checks only cost $50 billion. The American people deserve to hear the truth.
We need a principled leader. You were opposed to raising the debt ceiling before you were for it. On March 20, 2006, Senator Obama said “the fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure…Leadership means the ‘buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of children and grandchildren.” I agree 100 percent with your statement. Stand by your convictions, Mr. President.
Where’s your plan? A “clean” debt ceiling hike will only make our fiscal mess worse. It’s time to change Washington’s spending habits once and for all. The debt clock is ticking and we cannot afford to kick the can down the road any longer.
Sincerely,
Matt Kibbe
President and CEO
FreedomWorks
As you are likely well aware, you and I have many fundamental philosophical differences. I have long believed in personal liberty and economic freedom. Despite the rhetoric that you may espouse, your actions imply that you believe government can plan our lives better than we can plan them ourselves. Nearly all of the policies you have championed throughout your political career were designed to destroy individual freedom. With all due respect President, your big government philosophy is the antithesis of everything our Founding Fathers stood for.
Over the past few years, we have seen a spontaneous uprising of citizen activists protesting big government and reckless spending. My organization FreedomWorks (formerly known as Citizens for a Sound Economy) has never seen so many passionate activists in our 27 year history. As you stated in a September 2010 Rolling Stone interview, “Dick Armey and FreedomWorks, which was one of the first organizational mechanisms to bring Tea Party folks together...” We believe that the Tea Party is a direct response to the out of control spending habits of Former President George W. Bush and you.
FreedomWorks has fought your numerous power grabs at every turn. Our over one million members stood strong against the failed $814 billion “stimulus” package, your 2,801 page healthcare takeover law and the Dodd-Frank Act (also known as the “Federal Reserve Empowerment Act”). We’re exhausted from these grueling battles but we will never give up. As you already know, the Tea Party has begun to change the debate in Washington, D.C. Liberty is always worth fighting for.
The federal government has hit the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling under your watch. It’s closer to $144 trillion with unfunded liabilities factored in. You often assert that you inherited massive debt from your predecessor. Now I’ll be the first to agree that George W. Bush was a big spending Republican. Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for our current fiscal mess. When you took office two and a half years ago, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. It’s now over $14.3 trillion. That’s a 35 percent increase, Mr. President.
You remain committed to raising the debt ceiling. It’s unfortunate that you have announced your intentions to veto the Cut, Cap and Balance Act if it landed on your desk. The bill would cut $111 billion from the federal budget, place enforceable caps on spending and require the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. It’s a step in the right direction to get spending under control. How much further are you willing to raise the debt ceiling, Mr. President? Enough is enough.
We’d like a mature discussion on how to significantly reduce the national debt. So far, you have only offered $2 billion in phony cuts. Let’s put that number into perspective. The federal government borrows $4 billion every single day and our federal budget is a whopping $3.73 trillion. Your so-called solution is to cut 5 hundredths of one percent from the budget. We must do better.
I urge you to stop your scare tactics. “Armageddon” will not occur on August 2nd. The federal government still has plenty of money to ensure that our bond holders are paid in full even if we do not raise the debt ceiling. Your threat to withhold Social Security checks if we don’t raise the ceiling is merely a dirty political trick. Social security checks will still go out as usual. The federal government is predicted to take in between $170 to $200 billion in August (we will spend closer to $300 billion) but Social Security checks only cost $50 billion. The American people deserve to hear the truth.
We need a principled leader. You were opposed to raising the debt ceiling before you were for it. On March 20, 2006, Senator Obama said “the fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure…Leadership means the ‘buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of children and grandchildren.” I agree 100 percent with your statement. Stand by your convictions, Mr. President.
Where’s your plan? A “clean” debt ceiling hike will only make our fiscal mess worse. It’s time to change Washington’s spending habits once and for all. The debt clock is ticking and we cannot afford to kick the can down the road any longer.
Sincerely,
Matt Kibbe
President and CEO
FreedomWorks
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)