Forecasts & Trends : Deficit

Is America On The Road To Financial Ruin?

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:53:11 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Obama's Government Takeover Continues
Editorial: "Too Big to Fail, Or Succeed"
Americans More Concerned About Deficits
Economy May Have Seen the Worst of It
Conclusions

Introduction

The more I think about it, I believe that last week's E-Letter which revealed President Obama's plans to double the national debt over the next decade was one of the most important e-letters/newsletters I have ever written. If by chance you did not read last week's E-Letter, you need to click on the link above and do so now, since Obama's planned explosion in US debt will be a continuing theme in these weekly E-Letters for some time to come.

I sincerely believe that if our current $11.4 trillion national debt doubles over the next 10 years (and possibly even sooner), it will bankrupt America and send us into an even worse financial and economic crisis. President Obama's plans to run trillion dollar annual budget deficits for at least the next few years are almost certain to wreck the US dollar, which in turn will be very bad news for the stock and bond markets, not to mention the long-term inflation implications.

I have warned for over 25 years that politics are intimately intertwined with the course of the economy, the markets and thus our investments. This argument has never been clearer than today, and more and more Americans are coming to realize this. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll late last week found that 58% of respondents now believe that Obama's trillion dollar deficits are a greater concern than the recession in the economy. Maybe I'm making some progress!

President Obama has made public statements in recent weeks that he would prefer a smaller government had he not "inherited" this recession and financial crisis from George W. Bush. He has also said that he does not want to run (own) companies like AIG, GM and Chrysler. Yet his administration continues to promulgate new regulations that will make it even more likely that the government will eventually own much larger stakes in the private sector.

Obviously, Obama's plan to have the government take over national health care is a prime example of his intentions to greatly expand an already bloated, inefficient government and run unprecedented trillion dollar budget deficits. I have not chosen to weigh-in on the healthcare debate so far, partly because polls show that a majority of Americans want major healthcare reforms. All I will say at this point is, be careful what you wish for.

Last week President Obama announced sweeping regulatory changes that will dramatically affect the financial and investment markets for years to come. These so-called "reforms" could result in the government and/or the Fed owning some of our big banks and financial institutions that are deemed to be "too-big-to-fail." While the recent financial crisis suggests that some reforms are needed, having the government own or control many of our largest financial institutions is not the answer.

I will discuss these sweeping new financial regulations as we go along. I will also discuss the latest economic indicators which remain mixed, along with my thoughts on the investment markets. It's a lot to cover, so let's get started.

Obama's Government Takeover Continues

Last Wednesday, President Obama announced the most sweeping financial industry reforms since the Securities and Exchange Commission was created in 1934. Obama unveiled new proposals that would refashion the federal rules governing almost every corner of finance, and will push the government and the Federal Reserve much more deeply into banks and the private markets. The administration's 85-page "white paper" on financial reform sounded the opening salvo in a likely overreaching regulatory process that could expand for several years.

Most importantly, government supervision of all financial firms that are deemed to be big enough to threaten overall economic stability ("systemic risk") will be consolidated under, and be regulated by, the Federal Reserve. We're not just talking about banks here – the new regulations will allow the Fed to oversee any private or public companies that are deemed to pose systemic risks (ie- "too-big-to-fail").

These entities will be required to hold more capital and liquidity than other firms, and will face other regulatory requirements as deemed appropriate by the Fed and/or the Treasury Department. Firms that cannot meet the Fed's requirements can be taken over, partly or wholly, by the government – as was the case with insurance giant AIG, or simply shut down – as was the case with Lehman Brothers. This is scary!

Obama's regulatory net is also being cast over the credit markets whose growth contributed to the financial crisis. Those who package loans together for sale in securitizations (including mortgages) will have to disclose more and will be required to keep 5% of any deal to encourage sounder underwriting. Likewise, the new plan calls for payment of their fees to be spread over time and reduced if the loans go bad. Frankly, these specific regulations may actually make sense, while others are simply unnecessary government intrusions in the private sector.

The president's new reforms also include the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). In theory, this new government agency will safeguard against mortgage, credit card and other abuses that may have contributed to the current crisis. In reality, this new agency may ultimately be the arbiter of who can – and cannot – get a home mortgage, what interest rates lenders and credit card companies can charge, etc., etc. Concern is already mounting that the new agency will take an overly restrictive view of permissible financial products, limiting access to credit and curbing good as well as bad innovation.

What follows are excerpts from an Investors Business Daily editorial published last Friday that fairly, I think, points out the assessment of those who will oppose Obama's sweeping regulatory reforms:

"Many on Wall Street have been stunned by a plan that subjects America's free-market capitalism to the controlling whims of bureaucrats, newly appointed czars and congressional committees headed by anti-business liberals such as Rep. Barney Frank.

‘We intend to take our case to Congress to explain why we believe adding new layers to a broken regulatory system is not the answer,' David Hirschmann, who heads the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Center for Capital Markets, told the Los Angeles Times. Indeed, there are lots of objectionable things in the plan.

…We hope Wall Street — banks, investment houses, hedge funds, private investors — continues to speak up. The Democrats' plan slips the government's fingers around the economy's neck, choking off the risk-taking that is the very essence of America's capitalist success. Bold risk-takers will be replaced with risk-averse bureaucrats, and the dynamic growth engine that feeds our ever-expanding standard of living will be shut down.

This in turn will create a permanent bailout culture — one that will deem certain companies ‘too big to fail' and subsidize their failure with taxpayer money, while burdening small, entrepreneurial companies with unnecessary and costly regulatory oversight."

The IBD editors hit on only a few of the potential problems with President Obama's sweeping new regulatory reforms included in his 85-page report released last week. Analysts are still sorting out the details and considering the long-term implications. Certainly, some of the reforms will be welcomed by many Americans, especially those who believe that the government should control the private markets. But with any such government intervention, freedoms are sacrificed and free markets are restricted. A June 18 Wall Street Journal editorial makes the best argument I have seen regarding Obama's sweeping regulatory reform proposals.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

QUOTE: TOO BIG TO FAIL, OR SUCCEED
Everyone will want to become big enough to enjoy 'systemic risk' protection.
by Peter Wallison (senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute)

In a speech at the White House yesterday, President Barack Obama outlined what he envisions for future regulation of the financial system. He called his plan "a new foundation for sustained economic growth . . . a transformation on a scale not seen since the reforms that followed the Great Depression." Indeed it is.

His plan, if adopted, will fundamentally change the nature of our financial system and economy. The underlying concerns and assumptions are clear, and they are made clearer by considering other ways that his administration has dealt with the consequences of competition -- particularly the faux bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler and the impending change in antitrust policy. Although the president said in his speech that he supports free markets, these initiatives confirm that the administration fears the "creative destruction" that free markets produce, preferring stability over innovation, competition and change.

According to the administration white paper circulated prior to the president's speech, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to create a special regulatory regime -- including requirements for capital, leverage and liquidity -- for any firm "whose combination of size, leverage, and interconnectedness could pose a threat to financial stability if it failed." In addition, if a large financial firm is failing, the Treasury is to be given the power -- in lieu of bankruptcy -- to appoint a conservator or receiver to "stabilize" it.

Designating particular financial firms for this kind of special regulatory treatment clearly signals to the markets that these institutions are too big to fail. It will reduce the perceived risk of lending to them, enabling them to raise funds at lower cost than their smaller competitors.

In other words, the administration's plan would create what are essentially government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in every sector of the financial economy -- insurers, securities firms, finance companies, bank holding companies, and hedge funds -- where these specially regulated firms are to be designated. The result will be devastating for competition. Larger firms will squeeze out smaller ones and aggressive small companies will have less opportunity to overcome the government-backed winners.

Moreover, the administration's proposal to provide a special bailout mechanism for large firms confirms the likelihood that these firms will never be closed down or liquidated. Citing the market turmoil that followed Lehman's collapse, the administration will argue that failures like this are "disorderly." But failure comes from risk-taking -- the very source of our economy's strength -- and it is ultimately risk-taking and its consequences that the administration's plan is intended to prevent.

The turmoil following Lehman's failure occurred because market participants expected, after the rescue of Bear Stearns, that any larger firm would also be rescued. When Lehman wasn't, all market participants were required to recalibrate the risks of dealing with all others, causing a freeze-up in lending and hoarding of cash. Lehman's failure itself did not cause any substantial losses, and within two weeks of its bankruptcy filing, Lehman's trustee sold its brokerage, investment banking, and investment management businesses to four different buyers.

Contrast this with AIG, the administration's paradigm, which was saved by the government because it was allegedly too big to fail. That firm is gradually wasting away under government control, with the taxpayers footing the bill.

The administration's fear of competitive outcomes is not reflected solely in financial-sector policies. Consider General Motors and Chrysler. They were defeated in the marketplace. Simply put, they failed to build automobiles [that] enough Americans wanted to buy.

Their disappearance would not have threatened the stability of the financial system, although it would undoubtedly have been disruptive for suppliers, dealers and employees. Yet the administration wouldn't allow them to fail, either. Despite all the talk about credit priorities, the fundamental point is that the administration used taxpayer money to overturn the market's verdict. If we want a preview of what the administration will do with the resolution authority it wants for large financial companies, we need look no further.

The same pattern with regard to competitive markets can be seen in the Justice Department's new antitrust policy. Christine Varney, the new assistant attorney general in charge of antitrust policy, has said that U.S. policy should be more like Europe's. Until now, U.S. antitrust policy has tried to protect competition. Europe attempts to protect competitors. Protecting competitors means blunting the skills of superior players, allowing inferior managers and business models to remain in business and thus preventing better managements and business models from emerging. Again, stability wins out over change and progress.

The president has said on several occasions, including in yesterday's speech, that "I've always been a strong believer in the power of the free market." But his administration's prescriptions tell a different story. In AIG, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac we can see the future that the administration envisions for our economy -- a sclerotic and unchanging structure of big companies working with, protected by, and relying on big government.
END QUOTE

I could not agree more with Mr. Wallison's analysis above. Yet most Americans have no idea what President Obama's sweeping regulatory changes really mean, much less how they may negatively affect competition and the free markets. Most Americans only hear the media sound-bites which leave the impression that the Obama administration reforms will "fix" the financial markets once and for all.

Were some changes in regulation of the financial markets in order? Certainly. Subprime loans, "no-doc" loans and "liar" loans allowed millions of Americans to purchase homes they could never afford. Likewise, credit rating agencies allowed investment bankers to create AAA-rated bonds secured by these questionable mortgages, which greatly broadened the impact of the subprime debacle.

These and other abuses ultimately led to the housing crisis, the credit crisis and the most severe recession since the Depression. So, changes to the financial regulatory system were needed.

As I noted above, some of Obama's new regulations on mortgage lenders make a lot of sense and will help to curb abuses. But many others are nothing less than purposeful government intrusion in the private markets in ways that will stifle competition. In many ways, these new rules look more like nationalization than regulation.

Americans More Concerned About Deficits

While President Obama continues to enjoy high (but falling) approval ratings overall, the public is growing much more concerned about Obama's record-large budget deficits and government intrusion in our lives, as noted in this week's SPECIAL ARTICLES below. In particular, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll published last Thursday had some surprising findings.

For example, a solid majority – 58% – were more concerned about the budget deficit than they are about the economy. Specifically, they said that the president and Congress "should focus on keeping the budget down, even if it takes longer for the economy to recover."

When asked about the expanding role of government (e.g. ownership stake in GM, executive compensation, health care, etc.) a whopping 69% said they were very concerned (49% answered "a great deal" and 20% answered "quite a bit").

On the issue of Obama's health care plans, the WSJ poll results suggest that the president still has a lot of convincing to do. 33% think it's a good idea, 32% think it's a bad idea, and 35% have no opinion. Put differently, 67% either think government run health care is a bad idea, or they're not sure.

The New York Times also released its latest poll last Thursday. It also revealed that the public is growing more wary of the expanding role of government. When asked if the government is doing too much or too little, the result was: 56% too much versus 34% too little.

These surprising poll results suggest that more and more Americans are realizing just how dangerous it will be for America to double the national debt in a decade or less, as I discussed in detail last week.

Economy May Have Seen the Worst of It

Barring a major negative surprise, I think we have likely seen the worst of this recession. The Commerce Department will release its final estimate of 1Q GDP on Thursday, and most forecasters expect it to be in the -5.5% to -5.7% range (annual rate), which is at least mildly less negative than the -6.3% plunge in the 4Q of last year. Together, these two quarters should prove to be the worst of the most severe US recession since the Great Depression.

There is a broad consensus that the US economy has continued to contract during the 2Q, with most suggesting a decline of 2-3% in GDP over the last three months. From there, though, forecasts vary widely as to what will happen in the economy during the second half of the year. While I continue to believe that GDP will remain in negative territory all year, a growing number of analysts believe that GDP could actually go positive in the 4Q.

We have had more good economic news in the last couple of weeks. Most importantly, the Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) rose a better than expected 1.2% in May, following a 1.1% gain in April. These were the first back-to-back monthly increases in almost three years.

The Commerce Department reported on June 11 that retail sales rose 0.5% in May, the first increase in three months. However, the report indicated that much of the rise in sales was due to the significant increase in gasoline prices.

On the manufacturing front, the latest reports were mixed. The ISM Index rose modestly to 42.8 in May versus 42.3 in April. Remember that any reading in the ISM below 50 indicates an economy that is still contracting. Industrial production fell another 1.1% in May, while the factory operating rate slipped to 68.3% in May, down from 69% in April.

On the housing front, there was a bit of encouraging news. Housing starts rose sharply in May, thanks in large part to the federal home tax credit that expires in November. Building permits were also up modestly in May. However, the inventory of unsold homes remains at a record level with over 11 months' supply on the market. Home prices nationally plunged 19.1% in the 1Q and are down 32% from the peak in 2006. So the housing slump is far from over.

The US unemployment rate continues to spike higher, rising to 9.4% in May, up from 8.9% in April. A recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists found a consensus opinion that the unemployment rate will hit at least 9.9% by the end of this year. The continued rise in the unemployment rate is almost certain to keep consumers on the defensive.

While we are seeing signs that the worst of this recession is behind us, that does not mean the economy will move into positive territory by the end of this year. Consumer spending is still lagging and is likely to stay below trend for some time to come. The personal savings rate jumped to 5.7% in April (latest data available), the highest level in more than 14 years, and this trend is likely to continue.

The combination of declining housing and stock-market values with the heavy debt loads Americans took on during the housing boom has inflicted significant damage on household finances. The Federal Reserve's latest "flow of funds report" earlier this month showed that household net worth fell $1.1 trillion in the 1Q from the 4Q of last year to $50.4 trillion, putting it $13.9 trillion below its 2007 peak. Collectively, homeowners held 41.4% of the equity in their homes, the lowest level since records have been kept and down from 53.9% two years earlier.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Conclusions

As noted above, we have seen some encouraging signs in the economy. If you watch any of the financial channels, you will find that there is a great deal of optimism that the recession will be over before the end of this year. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. I continue to believe that the economy will still be in negative territory at the end of the year, as measured by GDP. I hope I am wrong.

As for President Obama's sweeping financial regulatory reforms he announced last week, we would hope to be implementing new regulations that should prevent anything similar to the sub-prime meltdown and the credit crisis from ever happening again. However, I believe that most of Obama's proposed regulatory changes are over-reaching and onerous. But Congress is likely to pass most or all of them, despite the long-term market implications.

On a positive note, I am very encouraged that more Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about the mammoth level of spending and deficits planned by the Obama administration over the next decade. Doubling the national debt in the next decade (or less) will have extremely negative consequences for the economy and stocks and bonds.

I feel that more of the public is coming to realize just how much exploding federal deficits will affect the future of their children and grandchildren. Perhaps we have come to realize just how large a sum one trillion dollars is, how long it could take to pay it back and who will be required to make those payments. More people want the government to do what every family must do - make tough decisions on which expenditures are most important and which can be deferred.

Finally, I believe that the public is picking up on the fact that capitalism's very structure is changing. Specifically, the government has switched from a role of economic supporter and regulator to owner and controller. This is a fundamental shift in the very nature of capitalism and could have ramifications far into the future. To me, this is the most disturbing of all of the recent events that have come to pass.

Let's hope that our representatives in Washington get the message that the recent polls are sending – that Obama's incredible spending and bigger government plans will wreck our economy over time. If not, it could be a very bleak future that we leave to our heirs. Sorry to end on a negative note, but it is what it is.

Wishing you a great summer,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Independent voters worried about Obama's spending
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124570175501838333.html

More polls show growing concern over Obama's deficits
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/goodwin/index.html

Public confidence in Obama stimulus plan is falling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202000.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Obama On Course To Double National Debt

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:27:44 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Obama's Unprecedented Spending Spree
Obama's Deficits To Double The National Debt
Will The Markets Halt The Explosion In Debt?
How Will Obama Fund His Massive Spending?
Inflation Implications of Obama's Spending
Conclusions - Why Is He Doing This?

Introduction

It took the United States of America 233 years (1776-2009) to amass a national debt of $11 trillion. Yet President Barack Obama's record large 2009 budget deficit estimated at $1.85 trillion and his own spending plans for the next 10 years (2010-2019) show that our national debt will likely double over the next 10 years.

Using the Obama administration's own projections, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that, including the record 2009 budget deficit of $1.85 trillion, and huge annual deficits over 2009-2019 will result in an additional $11.1 trillion in national debt, on top of the current $11.4 trillion. As I will discuss below, the national debt will very likely more than double in the next decade because some of the CBO's economic assumptions may be too optimistic.

As noted above, the CBO also recently revised its estimate for the budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 to at least $1.85 trillion. But unless the economy rebounds soon, that number will very likely top $2 trillion by the end of September when FY2009 comes to an end. According to the CBO, Obama plans to run a FY2010 deficit of apprx $1.4 trillion and almost $1 trillion in FY2011.

Keep in mind that these deficits do not include even half of the massive costs for Obama's health insurance plan, which some experts now project will cost between $1.5 and $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Likewise, these projections do not include any money for the trillions that will have to be spent saving Social Security and Medicare over the next decade.

Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, these numbers should alarm you! If the national debt doubles over the next 10 years, it will almost certainly be a disaster for the US dollar and the bond markets, and it will almost certainly wreck the stock markets as well. The largest foreign holders of US Treasury debt are already expressing concern about Obama's record spending, and they could abandon the dollar and US Treasury securities if the national debt rises 50% over the next five years, and doubles over the next 10 years, as is projected by the CBO.

This week, I will discuss the market implications of the national debt doubling in the next decade. Let's get started. [Note: this week's E-Letter will print longer than normal because I have included several charts and graphs.]

Obama's Unprecedented Spending Spree

In just four months of his presidency, President Obama has shown he isn't afraid to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on corporate bailouts or run up trillions of dollars in US debt in an effort to end the economic and financial crisis. But in doing so, he has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration.

During the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama has signed the $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion federal budget for the 2010 fiscal year, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program (TARP) and created other multi-billion-dollar government programs supposedly to help grease the economic wheels.

In the wake of the economic and financial crisis, numerous respected economists and financial forecasters, including The Bank Credit Analyst and billionaire Warren Buffet just to name a couple, agreed late last year that the government should intervene with a large fiscal stimulus package to help rescue the US economy. Many of these same sources wasted no time jumping onboard when Obama floated his idea of a near $1 trillion “stimulus package” earlier this year.

After some congressional tinkering, the final stimulus package came in at $787 billion. While many argued that most of the huge stimulus should be spent in 2009 and 2010, President Obama strung it out over the next 3-4 years to fund his liberal programs, with relatively little of the money being spent in 2009 to jump-start the economy out of recession.

To-date as of late May, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama has only spent $37 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package this year. Are you surprised? Coming under increased scrutiny for not spending more sooner, Obama said last week that he is trying to accelerate the rate of spending of the stimulus money. Whatever happens, this misses the point we should be focused on.

The point is, while many respected analysts agreed that a large stimulus package was needed in the short-term, they didn't expect that President Obama would string-out the stimulus over four years with very little spent in 2009, plus continue to run trillion dollar annual budget deficits for several more years.

Now that the economy is showing signs of a modest turnaround - with only $37 billion in stimulus spending - some are suggesting that Obama should rescind the remainder of the $787 billion stimulus package and save the money. To that I say, fat chance!

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Obama's Deficits To Double The National Debt

Along with the President's request for a record $3.6 trillion budget for FY2010, he also submitted to Congress and the CBO his spending plans for the next decade. These numbers shocked even many of those who initially supported the $787 billion stimulus package. What follows are Obama's projected annual deficits for FY2009 and the next 10 fiscal years according to the non-partisan CBO:

2009	$1.845	trillion	2015	$785	billion
2010	$1.379	trillion	2016	$895	billion
2011	$970	billion	2017	$945	billion
2012	$658	billion	2018	$1.023	trillion
2013	$672	billion	2019	$1.189	trillion
2014	$749	billion

TOTAL $11.11 Trillion

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/selected_tables.xls

You can confirm these huge budget deficits by the CBO at the link above.

[Editor's Note: Obama promises to cut the deficit in half in four years, and the $658 billion projected deficit in 2012 certainly accomplishes that, but it is still $200 billion more than Bush's record-large budget deficit of $458 billion in fiscal 2008.]

Where to begin?? First, these numbers should be staggering to anyone reading this, regardless of whether you are a liberal, a conservative or anywhere in between. Second, if these numbers prove to be reasonably accurate, the United States will go from a national debt of $11.4 trillion today to $22.5 trillion by the end of FY2019. As I will discuss below, it could be even higher. This is unheard of!

If you add up only the first five years, 2009-2013, you find that the national debt explodes by almost 50%. This unprecedented spike in the national debt will greatly exacerbate concerns on the part of our largest foreign buyers of Treasury debt, not to mention the downward pressure it will create on the US dollar and further upward pressure on interest rates.

If we look at the FY2009 deficit alone, estimated to be $1.85 trillion, we find that it equals 13.1% of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's over twice the post-World War II record of 6% in 1983 under Ronald Reagan.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke testified last week that: “The ratio of federal debt held by the public to nominal GDP is likely to move up from about 40% before the onset of the financial crisis to about 70% in 2011.” That puts the debt-to-GDP ratio at its highest level since the early 1950s, as a result of the huge debt buildup during World War II and just afterward. The CBO projects that the debt-to-GDP ratio will soar to 82% by 2019.

In his House testimony last week, Bernanke added: “Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.” Of course, that comes from the head of the Fed which is in the process of buying up to $2 trillion in toxic securities and printing the money to pay for them.

Finally, to be fair, I must acknowledge that the current cycle of exploding debt began with George W. Bush. In the latter years of the Bush administration, spending rose rapidly, while revenues remained reasonably flat. Bush created an expensive new entitlement, the Medicare drug benefit ($63 billion cost this year), and let spending on many domestic programs run wild. Over seven years, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq added a total of some $900 billion to the budget.

All told, Bush raised federal spending from 18.5% of GDP to 21%, setting in motion a chronic budget gap by piling on new spending without paying for it. Long-time clients and readers will recall that I roundly criticized President Bush numerous times in these pages as he proved he could spend with the best of the Democrats.

Yet Obama has elected to take spending and budget deficits to a whole new level. Take note that Bush added apprx. $4 trillion to our national debt during his two terms, whereas President Obama is planning to add more than $11 trillion over the next decade. Americans should not buy into the idea that President Obama is only spending this much because he inherited a recession and credit crisis from Bush.

As Fortune magazine's financial writer Shawn Tully wrote last week, “Under Obama the Bush trend keeps going, but this time on steroids.” Doubling the national debt in a decade should be unconscionable!

As noted earlier, it is quite conceivable that the federal budget deficits could more than double, especially if Obama wins a second term as president. Why? First, the CBO projects that real GDP will grow by 2.9% in 2010. I certainly hope they are right, but I doubt growth will be anywhere near that robust next year. Second, the CBO projects that real GDP will grow by 4% in 2011 and 3.6% annually during the years 2012-2015. You can view these assumptions at: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/econproj.xls

The latest CBO estimates also assume there will not be another recession between now and the end of fiscal 2019. Granted, it is next to impossible to predict when the next recession will occur, but it is also a stretch to believe we won't have one again for over a decade.

The bottom line is, these economic growth projections are very optimistic in my view and that of several other analysts I read. Bond market maven Bill Gross of PIMCO fame agrees:

“The obvious solution to both dollar weakness and higher yields is to move quickly towards a more balanced budget once a sustained recovery is assured, but don't count on the former or the latter. It is probable that trillion-dollar deficits are here to stay because any recovery is likely to reflect “new normal” GDP growth rates of 1%-2% not 3%+ as we used to have.” [Emphasis added, GDH.]

If real GDP does not grow by the CBO projections of 2.9%-4.0% in 2010-2015, then tax revenues will be lower than projected, and this will increase the annual deficits, unless spending is reduced accordingly or income taxes are raised significantly.

Likewise, the CBO does not factor in any federal expenditures that would be required to overhaul Social Security and Medicare in the next 10 years. Estimates on what it will take to make these agencies solvent in the years ahead vary widely, but most economists agree it will take at least $20-$40 trillion.

Thus, the national debt could easily increase by more than $11.1 trillion in the years 2009-2019, especially if President Obama wins a second term.

Will The Markets Halt The Explosion In Debt?

It is my strong opinion that the markets will NOT sit by and watch the national debt soar by 50% in five years and double in 10 years. In 2009-2011 alone, the projected deficits total $4.2 trillion. That amount alone will, in my opinion, be more than enough to send the US dollar sharply lower. And the dollar is already quite low as you can see in the chart below. From its highs in 2001, the dollar lost apprx. 40% of its value before rebounding modestly beginning in 2008.

Note that since late February, the US dollar Index has once again rolled over to the downside and is trading around 80 as this is written. If the dollar falls below the 2008 lows, I would expect another potentially powerful leg to the downside, fueled largely by the explosion in US debt and credible fears of rising inflation in our not-too-distant future.

With our major foreign lenders already complaining about buying US Treasury debt, a weaker dollar will only cause them additional concerns about rising inflation. Ditto for rising US Treasury yields. After falling significantly for the last several years, especially as the credit crisis unfolded, yields on Treasury securities have reversed sharply higher since the first of the year, much to the Fed's dismay.

[Note: Treasury futures decline when yields go higher.]

The 10-year Treasury note yield, for example, almost doubled in recent months, rising from around 2% at the beginning of the year to near 4% as this is written. Like the dollar, US Treasury yields are extremely sensitive to inflation expectations.

Adding to the problem is the fact that the largest foreign buyers of US debt are notably concerned about the trillions Obama plans to spend and the likelihood that it will lead to higher inflation in the US. China has recently called for the yuan to replace the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. That won't happen anytime soon, of course, but it certainly indicates the level of discomfort among the major foreign buyers of our debt, which include:

China	$768 billion	OPEC	$192 billion
Japan	$687 billion	Russia	$138 billion
Caribbean	$213 billion	Un. Kingdom	$128 billion

Source: U.S. Treasury Dept. as of March 2009.

Obviously, if the dollar resumes its bear market, and Treasury yields continue to rise, this will raise even more concerns among foreign lenders regarding higher US inflation down the road. In addition, this will not only hamper the modest recovery from this severe recession, but could also throw us back into a new recession over the next few years as Obama increases the national debt by $4.2 trillion in 2009-2011 alone.

How Will Obama Fund His Spending
If The Markets Force His Hand?

If the markets respond to Obama's enormous increases in spending and budget deficits as I fully expect they will, he will have to resort to other measures to fund his record large spending plans. Here are some examples of how he may attempt to do so.

During the campaign and since taking office, Obama has promised to raise taxes only on those Americans making $250,000 a year or more. For those making $249,999 or less per year, he has promised to leave in place former President Bush's tax cuts. But the math doesn't remotely add up.

Numerous recent studies have shown that if Obama wants to cover his spending plans by raising taxes only on those making $250,000 a year or more, he would have to raise their tax rate to at least 60%. That is not likely to happen (or so I would presume).

Facing the projected annual budget deficits from the CBO discussed above, Obama will have little choice but to renege on his promise not to raise income taxes on the middle class in the next year or two if the economy does not rebound robustly. I will go on the record and predict that Obama will repeal the Bush tax cuts on the middle class by 2011 if not sooner.

Yet even that will not come close to covering Obama's massive spending plans in the next few years. On this point, conservatives and even many liberals agree, including liberal maven Paul Krugman, a leading columnist for the New York Times. Krugman is urging Obama to raise income taxes on both the wealthy and the middle class.

The Obama administration clearly understands that its spending plans will lead to huge deficits in the future. Yet President Obama refuses to admit publicly that his spending plans will double the national debt in 10 years, as the CBO has projected, and he is reluctant to break his promise and raise taxes on the middle class (although I believe he will by 2011 at the latest).

Another option President Obama and Congress are now considering is a European-style “Value-Added Tax”(VAT) that will increase costs to ALL Americans for the goods and services we buy. Space does not permit me to go into all of the details of a VAT tax, but suffice it to say that additional federal taxes are levied on goods and services at various levels in the production process before these products and services are offered to the public.

In my opinion, the VAT tax is the most egregious way for politicians to raise taxes in an effort to deceive the public. Yes, the informed public will know exactly what is happening with a VAT tax, but many taxpayers will simply see it as the continual rise in the prices of goods and services due to inflation, and not as the result of an increase in taxes.

For over two decades, the VAT tax has been discussed only in the context of an alternative to our current progressive income tax system. The discussion has been, if we implement the VAT tax (or a national sales tax), we could eliminate the current income tax. Never before now has a VAT tax been discussed in addition to the current income tax. But it is on the table now!

Obama's press secretary said last week that a VAT tax is not on the table now, but others in his administration have admitted that it has been discussed. Congress is already considering a VAT tax openly. I will not be surprised if Obama and Congress try to implement a VAT in 2010 or 2011, especially if the markets react as I suggested above.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Inflation Implications of Obama's Spending

Over the years, many clients and readers have asked me how and why we have had spiraling inflation at various times over our history. The textbook answer is that inflation rises when too much money is chasing too few goods and services. Too much money chasing too few goods is far too simple an explanation in today's incredibly complex financial world. Yet the basic premise is still true.

The Federal Reserve controls the money supply, and the money supply has skyrocketed over the last 18-24 months as the credit crisis has played out. Yet because of the severe recession, because consumers are spending less and saving more, and because home prices continue to implode, the dramatic rise in the money supply has not sparked higher inflation. In fact, deflation has been the greater threat over the last 18-24 months.

For the reasons noted above and others, the Fed has had the ability to pump up the money supply by a record amount over the last 18-24 months without generating sharply higher inflation. But most economists and financial analysts agree that at some point the Fed must remove some of this liquidity and increase interest rates or else inflation will begin to rise, perhaps significantly. This is part of the reason why Treasury yields have jumped recently.

As you can see in the chart below, commodity prices are already on the rise. The CRB Index represents a basket of traditional commodities (grains, meats, metals, sugar, cotton, rubber, etc.), and this index has jumped apprx. 20% just since mid-March.

Interestingly, the CRB Index does not include crude oil, heating oil or gasoline. As we all know, crude oil prices have surged from $35 a barrel in mid-February to above $72 a barrel last week. The national average price for a gallon of gasoline was over $2.60 last week according to the Dept. of Energy, and has risen over $1 per gallon since the first of the year.

So, it is clear that the seeds of higher inflation have been planted. But because the recession is likely to continue at least another quarter or two, I don't expect inflation to spike higher anytime soon. However, the Fed faces some very difficult choices in the second half of this year as the economy shows more signs of recovering.

Conclusions - Why Is He Doing This?

Based on the Obama administration's own spending projections, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the US national debt will almost double by 2019. It will increase by 50% in the next five years alone, as Obama runs trillion dollar deficits for several years. The CBO now estimates that the fiscal 2009 deficit will be a whopping $1.845 trillion, and it could be even higher.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that the US debt-to-GDP ratio will soar from 40% to 70% between now and 2011 as Obama records trillion dollar deficits. The CBO projects that the debt-to-GDP ratio will soar to 82% by 2019. Sadly, all of these numbers could come in even higher if the CBO's economic assumptions prove to be too optimistic, as I believe they will.

It is my belief that the US dollar will plunge, and bond yields will rise sharply if Obama insists on running trillion dollar deficits for the next several years. If so, the president will have to resort to raising taxes on not just the “rich” but the middle class as well. It may come in the form of a “Value-Added Tax” which will raise taxes for everyone. We'll see.

The commodity markets are signaling that higher inflation lies ahead. Maybe not in 2009 but it will almost certainly happen if Obama runs trillion dollar deficits for the next several years. We will see if the Fed can keep inflation under control. I doubt it unless the Fed is willing to risk another recession in late 2010 and 2011.

At the end of the day, the question is, why is President Obama willing to risk so much in order to spend record amounts of taxpayer money? I will leave that question for others to ponder.

Likewise, I have not opined in this letter as to Obama's push to get his health care “reform” program passed as soon as possible. However, there is a very good article on the subject in SPECIAL ARTICLES below.

Finally, I rest assured that I will get blasted by readers who are Obama supporters as a result of this E-Letter - I always do when I write anything negative about him. But as noted earlier, doubling the national debt in 10 years (or possibly less) ought to concern ALL Americans regardless of their political persuasion. If you agree, feel free to let me know.

That's all for now.

Wishing you a great summer,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

The Beginning of the End of Private Health Insurance
http://www.reason.com/news/show/134016.html

A Red (Ink) Letter Day For Gov't: $1,000,000,000,000 In 8 Months
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=329442095812782

Bonds - What Goes Up Must Come…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/15/AR2009061502710.html

Have We Turned The Corner On The Recession?

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:31:08 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Finally a Little Good News for the Economy
Geithner's Latest Toxic Asset Bank Bailout
Does the PPIP Have Any Chance of Working?
Fed to Buy $300 Billion in Treasuries & a Lot More
CBO Assessment of Obama's Record 2010 Budget
Conclusions, Market Implications & What to Do Now

Introduction

Some weeks, it's tough to find a good topic to write about. Then other weeks, I'm overwhelmed with all there is to write about, as is the case this week. So, we'll touch several bases in this week's E-Letter. We'll begin with the latest economic news, some of which was surprisingly positive (especially housing). Unfortunately, the latest good news does not necessarily mean we've seen the bottom of the recession or the bear market.

On Monday of last week, Treasury Secretary Geithner announced the much-awaited new plan to take toxic assets off the books of troubled banks. The plan is called the Public-Private Investment Program. Under this new program, the government along with private investors would buy up toxic assets by way of auctions to get these loans off the banks' books. But will the plan work? I'm not optimistic. We'll discuss this in some detail as we go along.

As if the Obama administration is not spending enough already, the Fed recently announced that it will print and spend over $1 trillion in the months ahead to buy at least $300 billion in direct purchases of Treasury securities and at least another $750 billion for purchasing more toxic assets from banks and other sources. Where will it end? No one knows.

In my March 10 E-Letter, I predicted that President Obama's $3.55 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010 would result in a deficit of more than $2 trillion, as opposed to the administration's estimate of $1.75 trillion. Turns out I was wrong – the Congressional Budget Office predicted last week that Obama's 2010 budget deficit will hit $2.3 trillion. Wow, this will be bad! The CBO agrees with me that Obama's economic assumptions are too optimistic.

Following those discussions, I will give you my latest thoughts on where we stand in the big picture. With the latest smattering of good news on the economy and the nice rebound in the stock markets, some analysts are concluding that we've turned the corner on the recession and the financial crisis. I think it's premature to make that call, and I will not be surprised if we see another downward leg before long. In fact, it may have already begun. Let's get started.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Finally a Little Good News for the Economy

As everyone reading this is all too aware, the economic news so far this year has been horrible. Rarely has any good news been seen in recent months. But there was some good news last week, and it came in a very good spot – housing. Existing home sales in February unexpectedly rose by 5.3% above January levels to an annual rate of 4.72 million units. It was the largest monthly jump since 2003; still, sales were down almost 5% below yearago levels.

The increase in sales of existing homes was strongest in the West and in Florida, one of the worst hit markets. February sales of existing homes in Florida rose 20%. Florida Realtors also reported a 15% gain in statewide sales of existing condominiums in February, continuing a trend in recent months for higher statewide sales of both the existing home and existing condo markets compared to yearago levels.

The median sales price for existing homes nationwide rose to $165,400 in February, the first monthly increase in over a year, but it remains 15.5% below yearago levels. Unfortunately, the inventory of unsold existing homes rose again in February, despite the improved sales figures, thus putting the backlog at an estimated 9.7 months supply at the current sales pace.

New homes sales also increased by 4.7% in February to an annual rate of 337,000 units. Economists had expected new home sales to decline to a rate of 300,000 annualized units, so this was welcome news. While the unexpected rise in new home sales might be seen as a positive movement for the beleaguered housing market, the February rate for new home construction is still the second-lowest reading since the last recession in 2002. The median price of a purchased new home fell to $200,900 in February, down over 18% from a year ago.

Housing starts jumped well above expectations in February, rising 22% over January levels. Rising housing starts might not sound like a good thing, as that could mean even more homes on the market, but reportedly over 80% of the February construction starts were for apartment complexes, not new single family homes. Also, building permits climbed in February for the first time in over a year.

On another front, durable goods orders rose a surprising 3.4% in February following six consecutive monthly declines. This news was bittersweet because the Commerce Department revised January durable goods orders further downward from -5.2% to -7.3%.

Elsewhere, the economic news continued to disappoint. Last Thursday, the government reported that 4Q GDP fell at an annual rate of -6.3%, down from -6.2% as reported last month. Consumer confidence continued to plunge in February to only 25.0, a new record low, down from 37.4 in January. However, the latest Rasmussen tracking poll shows that consumer confidence has rebounded a bit in March.

The Index of Leading Economic Indicators fell 0.4% in February. The LEI has fallen very sharply since the last peak in July 2007. The unemployment rate jumped to 8.1% in February from 7.6% in January. The consensus is for a rise to 8.5% in March and at least 9% by yearend. These are just a few of the negative reports we've seen over the last month.

In summary, while we've seen a few positive reports on the economy and the housing sector in particular over the last month, we are far from out of the woods on the recession and the financial crisis. Now, let's move on to the latest bank bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Geithner's Latest Toxic Asset Bank Bailout

After Treasury Secretary Geithner announced his new Public-Private Investment Program (“PPIP”) on Monday of last week, the Dow Jones promptly rallied over 500 points. That followed a rally of almost 1,000 points since the low in early March. The Dow and the S&P 500 bounced just over 20% from their recent lows – that is until the latest near 5% downward reversal over the last two trading sessions (Friday and Monday). While the equity markets clearly liked the government's latest bank bailout plan, serious questions remain – such as, will it work, and will private investor groups want to get in bed with the government, which threatened to impose a 90% tax on AIG executive bonuses?

We'll get to those questions and others as we go along, but first let's examine how the Public-Private Investment Program is supposedly designed to work. In an online article in FORTUNE, CNNMoney.com's Jon Birger provided the following summary on how the PPIP is expected to work as follows:

“The [PPIP] plan tries to fix the banking crisis by encouraging the very behavior that got us into this mess in the first place -- using buckets full of leverage to buy mortgages, asset-backed securities and other so-called toxic assets. Moreover, it requires the participation of the very folks -- Wall Street bankers and investors -- whom officials in Washington have spent the last two months threatening and vilifying.

At its core, the Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) harkens back to what the original bank bailout bill was supposed to do when it was first passed by Congress last fall: remove toxic assets from bank balance sheets, thereby freeing up more money for lending. The mechanics of the program would operate somewhat differently for stand-alone loans than for debt securities (basically bundles of loans packaged as asset-backed or mortgage-backed securities), but the general approach is the same. The government will match, dollar for dollar, any private-sector funds put towards buying these toxic assets.

And if that weren't incentive enough, the government will also facilitate cheap loans -- think of them as FDIC-guaranteed margin loans -- to private investors who will be able to leverage their distressed-debt purchases six to one.

Here's how it might work: Say a bank has a pool of residential mortgages with a $100,000 face value that are deemed good risks by the FDIC. The pool is then auctioned off, and in this example, the winning bid is $84,000. Of that, the government puts up $6,000, the private investor another $6,000, and the remaining $72,000 is financed via a FDIC-guaranteed margin loan.

The goal is to jump start the market for toxic debt and put the prices of these loans more in line with the underlying interest payments (which in some cases have declined far less than the market valuation of the loans or debt securities). Theoretically, once the PPIPs start buying and selling this stuff, the valuations will become clearer, opening the door to other private investors who may see opportunity but have shied away up until now due to the lack of price transparency.

That's the upside. The potential downside is what happens if prices continue to fall. And if you think taxpayers are mad now, just wait till they find out that, on account of government-sponsored leverage, a further 15% decline in the debt markets caused them to lose 100% of their investment in PPIPs. Says Tom Atteberry, co-manager of the FPA New Income bond fund: ‘I do see some irony in the fact that the proposed government solution to the problem looks a lot like a hedge fund and a primary broker -- with the primary broker being the federal government.'

There's also a question of whether Wall Street money managers will play ball with a government that has been bad-mouthing them and threatening them with confiscatory taxes. ‘If they go ahead with the 90% tax, nobody is going to want to work with the government,' says a top mortgage-fund manager, referring to the bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that would slap a 90% tax on bonuses paid to employees of bailed-out financial companies. ‘It's a deal killer,' says Rick Hughes, co-president of Portfolio Management Consultants, which directs $70 billion in institutional and retail accounts.

Even if the bonus tax isn't implemented, the mortgage-fund manager worries what might happen if PPIP works too well. He envisions a scenario in which money managers are hauled before Congress and accused of making millions on the backs of taxpayers. ‘I'd rather be attacked by a pack of wild dogs,' he says. There are other, more conventional ways that government involvement could discourage money managers from participating.

FPA's Atteberry notes that under the Treasury Department proposal, the FDIC would provide oversight to the PPIP funds. Atteberry says that if he were putting his firm's capital at risk, he'd want to know more about what ‘oversight' entails. For instance, will political considerations prevent investors from foreclosing on certain homeowners or force them to offer generous loan modifications? Says Atteberry, ‘Those are details you need to flesh out if you want to get private investors to come on board.'

Of course, it could be that some on Wall Street -- hedge fund managers in particular -- are so desperate for any source of income, they'll gladly accept these risks.

Prime brokers are extending less credit to hedge funds and investors are pulling out their money. So if the government now wants to become hedge funds' new BFF -- their new prime broker as well as their biggest investor -- why quibble about the details? ‘The reality is that a lot of hedge funds really don't have a business model any more,' says veteran Wall Street strategist Ed Yardeni. ‘The government is basically putting Wall Street back in business with a whole new business model, which is to take all the toxic assets, repackage them and re-sell them at a discount.'

‘Wall Street is getting paid to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic -- but hopefully with a better outcome.'”

Many thanks to Jon Birger of CNNMoney.com for that summary. Obviously, there are still many unanswered questions about the Public-Private Investment Program. Geithner's roll out of the program last week was very short on details, and many private investors are going to be very wary of getting in bed with the government to buy up these toxic assets, even if the discounts are very attractive.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Does the PPIP Have Any Chance of Working?

If President Obama wants this plan to have any chance of working, he needs to make sure the Senate does not go along with the House in passing the 90% retroactive income tax on the AIG executives that received big bonuses. Hedge funds, private equity funds and the like will not want to pony up money to buy toxic assets if they fear that the government will change the rules on profit sharing in these PPIP transactions.

I have read several articles recently that indicated the Treasury was already planning to recoup the AIG bonuses by subtracting that amount from the next round of bailout money AIG will need. That would have been an easy way to get the money back and put the onus on top AIG management to claw back the bonuses. But the Democrats in the House couldn't resist the opportunity to grandstand in front of the American people with an illegal, retroactive 90% income tax on the AIG bonus money.

Political commentator Dick Morris has an interesting take on the PPIP. Morris believes strongly that President Obama wants the PPIP to fail. Morris is convinced that, while Obama says publicly that he does not want to nationalize the big banks, privately Obama and Rahm Emanuel would very much like to see the government take over these large money center banks that have taken bailout money.

Morris argues that this is precisely why the president has been lambasting Wall Street and the big banks for weeks now, in the hope that private investors will not jump into the PPIP with both feet. Morris also believes that this is why Obama packaged the PPIP as Geithner's plan, not his own, so that if it fails he won't get the blame. If it does fail, Morris predicts that Obama will then nationalize the troubled banks. I sincerely hope this assessment is wrong!

As noted earlier, the stock markets reacted extremely strongly following Geithner's announcement of the Public-Private Investment Program. If it is to have any chance of working, he needs to get the details out fast, including assurances that the government won't change the rules in the middle of the game. We'll see.

Fed To Buy $300 Billion in Treasuries & a Lot More

The Fed Open Market Committee met on March 17-18, and the policymakers approved some bold new (yet troublesome) actions. Citing that the economy continues to worsen and the credit markets are still dysfunctional, the FOMC voted unanimously to authorize the Fed to make direct Treasury security purchases of $300 billion over the next six months, with a suggestion that much more could be authorized later on if needed.

This move is controversial because the Fed will have to print the $300 billion to pay for the purchases of Treasury securities. Many fear that this action (and likely more to come) will further sew the seeds of significantly higher inflation when we emerge from this recession. But as I have written often in recent letters, the Fed is scared to death of deflation and will do whatever they feel is required to avert a debt deflation in the economy.

At the same FOMC meeting, Bernanke & Company also voted to double the Fed's purchases of mortgage-backed securities and take on more agency debt. That means the Fed will purchase another $750 billion in toxic mortgage-related securities this year. Between the Treasury purchases and the additional mortgage-related securities – all of which they will have to print money for - the Fed's balance sheet liabilities will skyrocket to well above $3 trillion this year.

Here are excerpts from the March 17-18 FOMC official statement:

“In these [bad economic] circumstances, the Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote economic recovery and to preserve price stability. The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and anticipates that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period. To provide greater support to mortgage lending and housing markets, the Committee decided today to increase the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet further by purchasing up to an additional $750 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities… and to increase its purchases of agency debt this year by up to $100 billion to a total of up to $200 billion. Moreover, to help improve conditions in private credit markets, the Committee decided to purchase up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months. The Federal Reserve has launched the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to facilitate the extension of credit to households and small businesses and anticipates that the range of eligible collateral for this facility is likely to be expanded to include other financial assets.”

Following this announcement, yields on 10-year Treasury notes plummeted in the largest one-day decline on record to near 2.5%, down from above 3% just two days before. Stocks also rallied on March 18 and since then (at least until the last two days), a clear indication that many investors approve of the Fed's unprecedented actions in buying Treasury debt directly and doubling its purchases of toxic assets.

But it should also be noted that the US dollar plunged on the news that the Fed would be buying $300 billion in Treasuries and another $750 billion in toxic assets, and the implication that those numbers may well go even higher later this year. Keep in mind that these numbers are in addition to the $2+ trillion budget deficit we will have in fiscal 2010 (more on that below) and well over $1 trillion in each of the next several years.

Given the staggering size of these numbers, I don't see the US dollar going anywhere but down over the next several years. Maybe that's why China is threatening to stop buying US Treasuries and calling for a serious discussion of a new world currency at the upcoming G-20 Summit on April 2. I will discuss this issue more in coming weeks.

CBO Assessment of Obama's Record 2010 Budget

In my March 10 E-Letter, I discussed President Obama's record $3.55 trillion budget for fiscal 2010, with its projected budget deficit of a record $1.75 trillion. I also discussed why I believe the deficit next year will be well north of $2 trillion. Last week, the supposedly non-partisan (but Democrat controlled) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its own analysis of President Obama's proposed budget for 2010 and the next 10 years.

The CBO estimates the 2010 budget deficit at $2.3 trillion; the budget deficits for 2009-2011 at almost $5 trillion; with deficits of $1 trillion or more each year thereafter to 2019, and concludes that Obama's budgets would add $9 trillion to the national debt over that 10-year period, if enacted.

If you recall, I noted in my March 10 letter that I believe the Obama administration used economic assumptions that were too optimistic. I pointed out that Obama's projections for GDP growth were too rosy. Likewise, I noted that his assumptions for unemployment were considerably too low. I concluded that discussion by saying: But it will not surprise me if the deficit is $2 trillion or more in 2010. Now the Democrat controlled CBO agrees with me!

Interestingly, Obama has routinely criticized George W. Bush for out-of-control spending, which is a well-deserved criticism. In Bush's eight years, he – with the help of Congress – added almost $5 trillion to the national debt. Obama's budgets would add almost twice that amount - $9 trillion - according to the CBO.

I think most people reading this would agree that a 2010 budget deficit of $2.3 trillion is simply way too much, even in this economic and financial crisis. While Obama says his budget is necessary to get the economy out of the ditch, it could make things worse by ruining America's credit standing in the world. Unfortunately, it looks like he has the votes to get most of his budget passed.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Conclusions, Market Implications & What To Do Now

The 20% bounce in the stock markets and the latest smattering of good news on the economy have led some analysts to conclude that the worst of the recession and the credit crisis are behind us. That could be, but the forecasters I respect believe we will see at least another 1-2 quarters when GDP will fall 6-7% or possibly more. So, I am not convinced we've seen the worst of the recession or the credit crisis. I hope I am wrong.

The good news (if we can call it that) is that the US was the first major economy to go into recession; it has suffered a more severe contraction than most other sizable economies, with the notable exception of Japan; and it would therefore be reasonable to assume the US will be one of the first major economies to turn the corner.

Yet in many ways, calling the bottom in the recession misses the point. Unlike past recessions that were followed by a strong recovery, I believe (and my best sources agree) that we face at least a couple of years of very slow growth when this recession ends. Yes, the government and the Fed are spending trillions like drunken sailors, but this economic and financial crisis is likely to put a damper on growth for at least several more years.

With that backdrop, investors have to consider the likelihood (or unlikelihood) that the US equity markets bottomed in early March. With the major market indexes having plunged over 50% from their peak in late 2007 to early March, it is easy to assume that we've seen the bottom. I, on the other hand, am not so convinced.

But that, too, misses the point in my opinion. Whether the bottom is in or not, I fully expect the equity markets to at least retest the lows seen early this month when the Dow fell to 6,500 and the S&P 500 fell to 675. And there is no guarantee that those lows will hold. Therefore, if you are looking to exit failed buy-and-hold positions in stocks, and move to more defensive strategies, I would suggest doing so now.

My greatest concern at this point is that the new Public-Private Investment Program may not work. As I have written in several recent letters, it is clear that relatively little of Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan will be spent this year when it is needed most. Thus, that means that it is even more critical that the PPIP get started quickly and that it succeeds. As noted earlier, there is no assurance that it will get up and running quickly, or that it will succeed (or if President Obama is fully behind it).

If the PPIP does not succeed, I would expect the US equity markets to plunge once again, and if so, buy-and-hold strategies will get hammered again.

If you have been considering alternatives to the buy-and-hold strategy for a portion of your equity portfolio, such as the active management programs I recommend – which can move to cash and/or hedge long positions - now may the time to get such strategies in place.

Remember, it does not matter where you live; we have hundreds of clients all across America.

Finally, we hosted our second Webinar with Scotia Partners on March 25. I'm very pleased to report that almost 300 of you registered for this opportunity to learn more about Scotia's very successful investment program. If you missed it, you can watch and listen to the full Webinar discussion (including all charts) at www.halbertwealth.com.

Hoping we can help you in these tough times,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

Obama Budget - $9.3 Trillion in Deficits says CBO
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

Obama Sticker Shock (more CBO budget analysis)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776518094909023.html

Uncle Sam's Hedge Fund (the Geithner bank bailout plan)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/uncle_sams_hedge_fund.html

Why The Stock Markets Are Collapsing

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:46:56 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

The Economy Continues To Slump Badly

US Stock Markets Continue To Plunge

Obama's Multi-Trillion Dollar Spending Spree

Obama's Budget – The First $2 TRILLION Deficit?

Obama's Plan To Nationalize Health Care This Year

Obama's “Cap-and-Trade” Environmental Proposal

Conclusions – Why The Stock Markets Are Collapsing

Introduction

Economic news continues to worsen week after week. As I will discuss below, Gross Domestic Product contracted at almost twice the previously reported pace in the 4Q of last year, and most analysts now expect a similar or worse slowdown in the 1Q. Many forecasters now believe the recession will last all year, with a modest rebound beginning in 2010. We will look at the latest economic data as we go along.

The stock markets continue to plunge, even as trillions of dollars in bailouts and government spending have been announced. The Dow and the S&P 500 fell 33.8% and 38.5% respectively in 2008. So far this year, the Dow and the S&P 500 are down another 25+%. Both indexes are down more than 50% from their peaks in October 2007. While the equity markets are grossly oversold, there is still no evidence of a bottom, although I fully expect that we are close.

Investors around the world are stunned, not only as a result of the collapse in the US and global equity markets, but also due to the continuing severe credit crisis. More and more analysts and politicos are calling for the US to nationalize the major money center banks that are teetering on the brink of insolvency. Clearly, people around the world are preoccupied with the economic and financial crises.

In the following pages, we will recap the unprecedented spending that President Obama has proposed over the last six weeks, including his first federal budget proposal totaling a record $3.55 trillion for fiscal 2010. Obama's 2010 budget projects a record deficit of $1.75 trillion, and I believe it will be even higher as I will discuss below. No wonder the markets are not happy!

It is also clear now that President Obama has decided to use these crises as an opportunity to cram down all of his big liberal plans for the country this year. In addition to spending trillions of dollars, he is also moving forward with other major plans including “Cap & Trade” (carbon emissions), “Card Check” (expanding unions) and nationalized health care – just to name a few, all of which will eventually mean higher costs for American consumers.

When Mr. Obama was elected, most political analysts believed that he would attempt to enact these major liberal plans over the course of his four-year presidency. Yet it is obvious now that he wants them all this year, while Americans are preoccupied with the economic and financial crises. If he gets his way, it will dramatically change the face of America. More on this as we go along

The Economy Continues To Slump Badly

It will come as no surprise to readers of this E-Letter that the US economic numbers continue to falter. But by far the most shocking number released over the last several weeks was the latest 4Q GDP report released in late February. In late January, the Commerce Department's advance estimate for 4Q GDP was -3.8% (annual rate), which was the worst in well over a decade.

Then on February 27, the government revised this number to -6.2%, the deepest quarterly decline since early 1982. I have been watching US economic data for over 30 years, and I have never seen the Commerce Department miss the GDP number this badly over just a one-month period of time. Clearly, this economy is contracting severely.

The US unemployment rate continues to ratchet up rapidly. On Friday, the Labor Department reported that unemployment rose to 8.1% in February, up from 7.6% in January. Many forecasters predict this number to rise to near 9% by year-end, and some even project the jobless rate to reach 10% by the end of this year.

The Consumer Confidence Index plunged again to a new record low in February of 25.0, down from the previous record low of 37.4 in January. Consumers' appraisal of overall current economic conditions, which was already bleak, worsened much further in February. Those claiming business conditions are “bad” rose to 51.1% in February from 47.9% the prior month.

On the manufacturing front, reports are equally grim according to the reports for January (latest data available). Durable goods orders plunged 5.2% in January following a drop of 4.6% in December. Factory orders fell 1.9% in January following a plunge of 4.9% in December. Industrial production fell 1.8% in January following a drop of 2.4% in December.

The nation's factory operating rate fell to 72.0% in January, down from 73.3% in December. Elsewhere, the construction spending rate fell another 3.3% in January, down from 2.4% in December. This is the worst manufacturing downturn in decades.

On the housing front, the numbers continue to worsen. Existing home sales fell to 4.49 million in January from 4.74 million in December (again, latest data available). New home sales fell to 309,000 in January, down from 344,000 in December. Housing starts in January fell to 466,000, down from 560,000 in December. Meanwhile the median home sale price continues to fall, sliding to $170,300 in January, down 15% from a year earlier.

In summary, we find ourselves in the worst economic slump since 1981-82, and many would argue something worse. A growing number of forecasters are coming to the conclusion that we may be headed into a depression. But as I will discuss as we go along, Obama has authorized over $3 trillion in new spending, the Fed will spend up to $2 trillion and Congress has just passed more new spending projects. So, that much money should start to show up in the economy before long.

US Stock Markets Continue To Plunge

As noted in the Introduction, The Dow and the S&P 500 fell 33.8% and 38.5% respectively in 2008. So far this year, the Dow and the S&P 500 are both down over 25%. Both indexes are down more than 50% from their peaks in October 2007. The Nasdaq Composite Index fell 40.5% in 2008 and is down another 17.6% so far in 2009, down over 55% since the peak in late 2007.

Stocks have been battered with a steady stream of bad news so far this year, as noted in the latest economic reports above. In addition, there has been report after report of faltering banks. The government now owns 36-40% of Citigroup, which saw its share price fall below $1.00 last week. The 30 companies that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average are commonly referred to as “Blue Chips” or the strongest of the strong. Over the last year, however, the number of Dow stocks trading under $10 per share has increased dramatically.

In addition to Citigroup, other beleaguered Dow stocks include General Motors at $1.50 per share, Bank of America at $3.00, General Electric at $6.00 (down 60% this year alone), and Alcoa at $5.00.

The government has also increased its equity stake in AIG, now reportedly owning over 80% of the insurance giant. Speaking of insurance, I am hearing from sources inside the industry that we could be hearing announcements soon that some major insurers are in serious financial trouble.

Investors around the world want to know what is driving the equity markets down so dramatically. Certainly, the credit crisis and the economic recession are weighing heavily on stock prices. But I believe there is much more to it than that. As I will discuss later on, I believe that the markets are voting NO on the massive spending Obama has authorized in his first 40 days in office.

Obama's Multi-Trillion Dollar Spending Spree

In sheer size, the economic measures announced by President Barack Obama to address “a crisis unlike we've ever known” are remarkable, rivaling and in many cases dwarfing the New Deal programs that Franklin D. Roosevelt famously created to battle the Great Depression. Here is a list of the massive spending that Obama has gotten passed or is proposing:

1. In February, Congress passed and Obama signed into law a record $787 billion stimulus bill, which is mostly new federal spending along with aid to struggling states and tax incentives.

2. Treasury Secretary Geithner announced last month that the government would make available up to $2 trillion on top of what has already been spent or promised in a rescue effort for banks and other financial institutions, including credit card companies and those who make student loans. We have yet to see the details on this massive rescue plan. Clearly, the lack of a detailed financial rescue plan for the banks is spooking the stock markets.

3. The president pledged up to $275 billion in federal aid to help stem the tidal wave of home foreclosures. Here, too, the details are unclear as to how it will work.

Add it all up and the total for these three spending proposals alone is over $3 trillion in new government debt over the next 2-3 years. In all, the plans noted above would raise the federal portion of the US economy to some 31%, more than twice the level after eight years of FDR's historic New Deal spending.

This does not include the remaining $350 billion in TARP money that Obama will get to spend this year. Plus, there is also talk of a second stimulus package later this year, one supposedly aimed at consumers directly.

And let's not forget that the Federal Reserve has purchased over $1 trillion in troubled assets and related securities over the last year alone. Fed chairman Bernanke told Congress recently that the Fed is prepared to double that amount this year.

President Obama and Bernanke tell us that all this massive spending is necessary to avoid a “catastrophe.” Yet no one knows if these huge spending programs will work. No wonder the stock markets are tanking.

Obama's Budget – The First $2 TRILLION Deficit?

President Obama unveiled the largest federal budget in history in late February – a whopping $3.55 trillion. With the economy in recession, the Obama administration projected that the budget deficit for fiscal 2010 would be a record $1.75 trillion. However, there are reasons to believe it will be even higher.

For example, Obama's budget plan assumes that Gross Domestic Product, the sum of all goods and services produced by the nation, will shrink by only -1.2% this year and rebound to about 3.2% by next year. Given that GDP plunged by 6.2% (annual rate) in the 4Q, and the likelihood that the 1Q will be just as bad or worse, we would have to see a huge rebound in the second half of this year for GDP to average only -1.2% for the year overall.

Furthermore, none of my trusted sources expect GDP to rebound to 3.2% in 2010. The point is, federal tax revenues in 2010 will almost certainly be lower than the assumptions in Obama's $3.55 trillion budget, so the deficit is almost certain to be larger than projected.

Obama's budget plan also assumes that the US unemployment rate will average 8.1% this year and get slightly better in 2010. The US unemployment rate stood at 7.2% for December 2008. It has since risen to 7.6% in January and to 8.1% in February. Most economists now expect the unemployment rate to reach 9% by year-end. That does not average out to 8.1% for the year.

Here again, the unemployment realities will mean that federal tax revenues in 2010 will almost certainly be lower than the assumptions in Obama's $3.55 trillion budget. As noted above, the Obama administration projects a budget deficit of $1.75 trillion for fiscal 2010. But it will not surprise me if the deficit is $2 trillion or more in 2010. No wonder the markets are tanking!

$410 Billion Omnibus Spending/Pork Bill

The Senate is expected to pass the huge $410 billion omnibus spending bill that will finance the government through the end of September any day now. This is possibly the most pork-laden spending bill in history. It is widely reported that the bill contains over 8,500 “earmarks” (pet spending projects for lawmakers' states and districts).

The omnibus spending package ran into trouble last week when several Democratic senators opposed not only the pork-barrel spending in the bill, but also the shear size of the bill - $410 billion. That is an 8% increase over the prior omnibus bill. Among the Democrats in opposition was Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana who told the Wall Street Journal:

“The omnibus increases discretionary spending by 8 percent of last fiscal year's levels, dwarfing the rate of inflation. Such increases might be appropriate for a nation flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is neither.”

During the presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised that he would wholly change the budget process in Washington by going line by line through spending bills, picking out the wasteful earmarks, vetoing the bills, and telling Congress to send them back stripped of the pork. President Obama has echoed that promise since he took office - but just not for this bill. Since this omnibus bill was largely negotiated last year when Bush was still in office, Obama labeled it “unfinished business,” which he says he will sign and “start fresh next year.”

So, it is politics as usual in Washington, only the numbers are much bigger! These historically huge spending programs and bailouts that Obama and the Democrats in Congress have authorized have really spooked the stock markets. And the Democratic spending machine isn't finished yet. Using the “never let a crisis go to waste” doctrine, Obama has made it clear that he plans to pursue massive spending for other pet liberal programs over the next couple of years.

Obama's Plan To Nationalize Health Care This Year

President Obama recently convened a health care summit at the White House, which was attended by “experts” across the health care and insurance industries. The Washington summit is to be followed by regional meetings across the country in the weeks and months ahead.

The summit concluded without specific details as to what an Obama health care system would look like. We do know that Obama's 2010 federal budget calls for the creation of a $634 billion health care reserve fund to cover reforms over the next 10 years. The President's remarks at the summit included the following:

“To the liberal bleeding hearts hoping for universal health coverage, I don't think we can solve this problem without talking about costs. And to those obsessed with costs…[we will] not slash the social safety net. I just want to figure out what works. We don't have a monopoly on good ideas. We've got to balance heart and head.”

For those fearing a total socialization of health care, this is at least some good news. By all accounts, President Obama is resisting the liberal calls for a “single-payer” socialized health system of the type that exists in Canada and Europe. So what can we expect? No one knows for certain just yet, but two of the ideas being floated are: 1) an expansion and retool of Medicare; and 2) some variation of the health plan that members of the federal government enjoy.

It is abundantly clear that Obama intends to enact his massive health care reforms this year, and unlike the Clinton administration, Obama appears to have the votes in Congress to get it done. So, now the question is, how to pay for it? As noted above, his 2010 budget includes $634 billion over 10 years to help fund his health care “reforms.” But where does this money come from?

The Obama administration says that $318 billion of it will come from tax increases on the “wealthy.” Another large portion will supposedly come from “internal reforms” to the Medicare system. Specifically, Medicare Advantage would be placed into a new competitive biding system that will supposedly do away with federal subsidies paid to these private medical plans, which is projected to save $175 billion over 10 years.

They say another $37 billion could be saved as home health care payments to Medicare are reduced, and a further $20 billion could come from higher rebates from drug companies for drugs sold to the Medicaid program. All of this only adds up to $550 billion. Where will the other $84 billion come from? I have no idea, and at the moment, neither does the Obama administration.

The Obama plan does not seem to be in danger of going the way of the ill-fated Hillary-Care proposal in 1993. House Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) was on hand for Obama's health care summit last week. Barton was pivotal in derailing Hillary-Care, but he told those assembled at Obama's summit that he largely supports the health care reforms that President Obama has outlined thus far.

Barring some big surprises, President Obama is going to get his massive reform of the health care system, whether we like it or not, possibly before the end of this year. While it may stop short of socialized medicine, the government will be in charge of our health care system, and we all know how well the government controls spending, costs and quality. Again, no wonder the stock markets are tanking!

Obama's “Cap-and-Trade” Environmental Proposal

The “cap-and-trade” concept is not a new idea. The type of cap-and-trade program that President Obama wants is very similar to that of the European Union. Yet, the EU's cap-and-trade program is in near-collapse, which demonstrates the weakness of this strategy.

Under a cap-and-trade system, polluters (think power generation plants, steel mills, etc.) are given a cap on greenhouse gasses they can emit into the atmosphere. If they exceed their limits, they can either make their process more environmentally friendly by upgrading technology and equipment, or they can buy credits from other entities that produce fewer emissions than their caps. The goal is that, as the overall emissions caps are reduced over time, industries will find that reducing emissions is more cost efficient than buying credits.

The cap-and-trade idea is often confused with a “carbon tax,” but the two are different. In a carbon tax, the government charges a fee for the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels, rather than creating a system of emission credits that can be traded among companies. Whatever the structure, virtually all agree that any program to curb greenhouse gasses will increase prices as higher costs are passed on to consumers. Even President Obama admits this.

President Obama's recent $3.55 trillion budget proposal calls for a cap-and-trade system to be implemented by the year 2012. The government would auction credits to power plants, industrial plants, etc., with some of the proceeds over the cost of administering the program to go back to taxpayers (I wouldn't count on it).

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that a cap-and-trade system will cost middle-income families as much as $880 to $1,500 per year in added costs. Thus, Obama's plan to offset these increased costs through a payroll tax rebate ($400 for individuals, $800 for families) won't cover all of these costs. Plus, the liberals in Congress have not yet had their say. The final bill may concentrate the rebates on lower income families, possibly leaving many middle income and high income families out entirely. Of course, the rationale is that higher-income families will reduce their costs by lowering their energy bills through conservation. …Right.

Also, it is important to recognize that certain areas of the country will be hit much harder by cap-and-trade, especially those that rely heavily on coal for electricity. I have included a link to a very good article on which areas will be hurt the most in Special Articles below.

Here again, Obama's cap-and-trade plan serves as yet another tax on higher income folks who create most of the new jobs in this country. Critics also say that a cap-and-trade program could lead to the loss of as many as four million jobs and reduce the US GDP, but still may not effectively reduce emissions. Again, no wonder the stock markets are tanking!

Obama's “Card Check” Proposal To Strengthen Unions

It is no secret that Obama has long been an advocate for the organized labor unions. As a senator, he co-sponsored the “Employee Free Choice Act of 2007,” which was very favorable to unions but was fortunately never enacted. As a presidential candidate, he had a very pro-union agenda, including repeated promises of making “Card Check” the law of the land.

Card Check, considered one of the most sweeping revisions of labor law since the 1930s, would allow unions to do away with secret ballot voting by workers who are deciding whether or not to unionize. Instead, workers would be required to vote in public by signing a card signifying their desire for, or against, union representation.

Secret ballot elections have been the law of the land for a very long time, and even many union members do not want this to change. Critics of the Card Check system say that a secret ballot election is the only way to insure that employees are not faced with undue coercion when making their decision. Card Check changes all that, since union organizers can place a card in front of a worker and know exactly which box they check. Liberal union leaders have wanted Card Check for a long time, since it makes unionization much easier.

Union membership has been steadily declining since the 1950s when an estimated 35% of the American workforce belonged to a union. Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 12.4% of wage and salary workers belong to a union. By far, government employees are the most likely to be unionized, with a membership rate five times that of private employees.

Unions hope that the new Card Check rules, which are almost assured to pass and be signed into law, will help to put them back on a growth path. The economic consequences will be higher labor costs for producers, lower productivity and higher prices for goods and services to consumers over time. Just look at the big three carmakers and see how beneficial increased unionization is likely to be for the US economy.

Conclusions – Why The Stock Markets Are Collapsing

I now firmly believe that President Obama and his top advisers have made a calculated decision to try to ram through the largest parts of his liberal agenda this year, while the American people are preoccupied with the economic and financial crisis.

I recently wrote that Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new Chief of Staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate executives late last year (comments he almost certainly probably wishes he could take back):

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

So Obama's liberal policy agenda that would have been considered aggressive over the full four years of his presidency is apparently going to be crammed down the American peoples' throats this year if possible.

Obama's massive emergency spending/bailout plans announced in just the first 40 days of his presidency total over $3 trillion, something never before remotely seen. Obama's 2010 federal budget of $3.55 trillion will likely result in a budget deficit of $2 trillion next year, and over $1 trillion in each of the next 2-3 years.

Meanwhile, the Fed is in the process of printing and spending another $2 trillion in debt to fund banks and buy toxic assets. Where this Fed printing and spending will stop is anyone's guess, unfortunately. The implications for inflation down the road are ominous.

And let's not forget the Congress which is about to pass a $410 billion omnibus spending package to keep the government running through September that was 8% higher than last year at this time, and included over 8,500 pork-barrel earmarks. Obama obnoxiously broke his campaign promise to veto earmarks by saying this enormous omnibus spending bill was “unfinished business” left over from the Bush administration, and promises to sign it into law.

On top of all this, Obama's liberal policy initiatives such as nationalized health care, cap-and- trade and Card Check (just to name a few) will add hundreds of billions in cost to American consumers over the years ahead. And despite what Mr. Obama says, taxes at all levels will have to eventually be increased to pay for this massive spending. It will change the face of America as we know it, but that is a story for another time.

The long-term implications of these unprecedented multi-trillion dollar spending plans are unknown. No one knows for sure if all of these huge spending efforts will work to revive the economy and unfreeze the credit markets. If they do, then there is the prospect for spiraling inflation in the years to come.

Investors around the world are watching their stock portfolios being decimated – down over 50% in just over one year – and are asking WHY is this happening? Sure, the subprime mortgage debacle was the catalyst. But in my view, the radical changes that President Obama is pursuing – sooner rather than later – are in large part why the stock markets are in a freefall collapse instead of a normal bear market.

Fortunately, the professional money managers I have recommended to you in this E-Letter over the last several years have done their jobs admirably. Their active management strategies that have the ability to move to cash or hedge long positions have limited losses to less than half what the stock markets have lost. Some have even made money in this historic bear market. As always, I must add that past performance is no guarantee of future results.

As always, I invite you to call us at 800-348-3601 so we can help you make sense of this frustrating investment environment. That is all for this week, depressing as it may be once again.

Wishing you the best in tough times,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

Deception at Core of Obama Plans
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/a_dishonest_gimmicky_budget.html

The Anti-Stimulus Plans
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/249nhfrg.asp

Winners & Losers in Huge Congress Spending Bill (who got what in pork)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/09/winners-losers-proposed-massive-spending/

Who Pays for Cap and Trade?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html

Throwing Trillions Around Like Crazy

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:06:38 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

President Obama Gets His “Spendulus” Bill
Geithner’s Bank Rescue Plan Short On Details
Should The Government Nationalize The Banks?
Conclusions - Trillions of Dollars Being Thrown Around

Introduction

Today, President Obama will sign into law the enormous American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - $787 billion – which was passed entirely by Democrats in the House and with the help of only three moderate Republicans in the Senate. Unfortunately, the final bill directs only about one-third of the money to tax incentives and apprx. two-thirds to spending projects. We will look at the highlights as we go along.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner gave his much-anticipated speech on how the government intends to rescue the banking system and unfreeze the credit markets on Tuesday of last week. President Obama had led people to believe that Geithner’s speech would be long on details and substance. It wasn’t. In fact, Geithner has since been roundly criticized by the media.

There are those who now believe that it would have been better for the Obama administration not to have put out any information at all until they had the details. Certainly, the stock markets didn’t like Geithner’s speech; the Dow plunged over 400 points at one point just after the speech. In the pages that follow, I will summarize what little Mr. Geithner outlined last week.

While the latest Treasury rescue plan includes spending $2 trillion or more to rescue banks and get credit moving, there are some knowledgeable analysts that do not believe that will be enough to save the banks and financial institutions. As a result, we are hearing more and more about nationalizing the banks.

While I am NOT in favor of nationalizing the banks, I think we all should understand how and why it might happen. In the pages that follow, I will reprint a very informative analysis written by Dr. Nouriel Roubini. In it, he discusses why he believes that the latest bank rescue plan won’t work, and why he thinks the government will ultimately have no choice but to nationalize many of our largest banks. I think you should read it carefully, if for no other reason than to be informed.

President Obama Gets His “Spendulus” Bill

As you are no doubt aware, Congress passed the $787 billion mostly spending bill last Friday, and the president is expected to sign it into law later today. Unfortunately, the compromise bill includes only $281 billion (36%) for tax incentives and $506 billion (64%) in new government spending programs. Of the $506 billion, $198 billion is spending for programs such as unemployment assistance, Social Security benefits and added money for states to help with Medicaid for low-income and disabled Americans. The bill is loaded with pork.

In addition to the size of the spending in the bill was the concern that most of the money would not be spent until 2011-2012. We are told, however, that the compromise bill envisions spending at least half the money by the end of next year. But that remains to be seen.

The tax incentives in the final bill were further watered down to the point that most workers will see only an extra $8-$13 more in their weekly paychecks. Most of the other tax incentives were in the form of tax credits which won’t be received until they file their tax returns. All in all, I think it was a terrible piece of legislation, and there is no guarantee it will work.

Geithner’s Bank Rescue Plan Short On Details

Last Tuesday, new Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner unveiled the Obama administration’s latest “Financial Stability Plan.” For a week leading up to last Tuesday, President Obama had heralded the plan Geithner was to announce. Unfortunately, the plan outlined by Geithner last Tuesday was very short on substance and there were virtually no details. As the world watched and listened, the US stock markets plunged during and after the speech, with the S&P 500 Index down almost 5% for the week.

Here are some excerpts from Secretary Geithner’s speech. He began as follows:

Today, as Congress moves to pass an economic recovery plan that will help create jobs and lay a foundation for a stronger economic future, we are outlining a new Financial Stability Plan. Our plan will help restart the flow of credit, clean up and strengthen our banks, and provide critical aid for homeowners and for small businesses.

After these opening remarks, Geithner went on to describe the current financial crisis and how we have gotten to where we are. Thereafter, he began to describe the plan the Treasury has come up with. For starters, he said that US banking institutions would undergo a “comprehensive stress test,” essentially to determine which banks should go forward and which banks should be closed or merged with other stronger banks. Those banks that continue to operate would have access to funding from the Treasury.

Those institutions that need additional capital will be able to access a new funding mechanism that uses funds from the Treasury as a bridge to private capital. The capital will come with conditions to help ensure that every dollar of assistance is used to generate a level of lending greater than what would have been possible in the absence of government support. And this assistance will come with terms that should encourage the institutions to replace public assistance with private capital as soon as that is possible.

Geithner did not say how much money the Treasury is willing to make available to banks under this Financial Stability Plan, nor what terms and conditions would be placed on banks that take government money. There was nothing on whether the government would require equity from the banks. Some analysts expect Geithner will need at least $500 billion for this program.

Next, Geithner talked of a new “Public-Private Investment Fund” for purposes of making a market in toxic assets and removing troubled assets from the banks’ books. He said:

Second, alongside this new Financial Stability Trust, together with the Fed, the FDIC, and the private sector, we will establish a Public-Private Investment Fund. This program will provide government capital and government financing to help leverage private capital to help get private markets working again. This fund will be targeted to the legacy loans and assets that are now burdening many financial institutions.

By providing the financing the private markets cannot now provide, this will help start a market for the real estate related assets that are at the center of this crisis. Our objective is to use private capital and private asset managers to help provide a market mechanism for valuing the assets.

We are exploring a range of different structures for this program, and will seek input from market participants and the public as we design it. We believe this program should ultimately provide up to one trillion in financing capacity, but we plan to start it on a scale of $500 billion, and expand it based on what works. [Emphasis added, GDH.]

So there’s another potential trillion of new government spending. Geithner then went on to talk about the next part of the rescue program:

Third, working jointly with the Federal Reserve, we are prepared to commit up to a trillion dollars to support a Consumer and Business Lending Initiative. This initiative will kickstart the secondary lending markets, to bring down borrowing costs, and to help get credit flowing again. [Emphasis added, GDH.]

In our financial system, 40 percent of consumer lending has historically been available because people buy loans, put them together and sell them. Because this vital source of lending has frozen up, no financial recovery plan will be successful unless it helps restart securitization markets for sound loans made to consumers and businesses - large and small.

This lending program will be built on the Federal Reserve's Term Asset Backed Securities Loan Facility, announced last November, with capital from the Treasury and financing from the Federal Reserve. We have agreed to expand this program to target the markets for small business lending, student loans, consumer and auto finance, and commercial mortgages.

Assuming the Financial Stability Trust costs only $500 billion (doubtful), we’re up to $2.5 trillion for this giant rescue package. But that’s not all. Geithner continues:

Finally, we will launch a comprehensive housing program. Millions of Americans have lost their homes, and millions more live with the risk that they will be unable to meet their payments or refinance their mortgages. Many of these families borrowed beyond their means. But many others fell victim to terrible lending practices that left them exposed, overextended, and with no way to refinance.

…The President has asked his economic team to come together with a comprehensive plan to address the housing crisis. We will announce the details of this plan in the next few weeks. Our focus will be on using the full resources of the government to help bring down mortgage payments and to reduce mortgage interest rates. We will do this with a substantial commitment of resources already authorized by the Congress under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. [Emphasis added, GDH.]

Note that Mr. Geithner did not put a number on the amount of money the government may be willing to provide to help Americans stay in their homes, preferring to use the term “full resources,” and there were no details as to how this money will be made available. Apparently, President Obama will speak tomorrow (Wednesday) with more information on the housing part of this giant rescue plan.

There was considerable disappointment over Secretary Geithner’s speech last Tuesday. As noted above, the stock markets started to plunge before the speech was over and the Dow fell over 400 points at one point and closed down 381 on the day. The markets were not happy!

It remains to be seen what the markets will do this week as we (hopefully) get more details. We are dangerously close to hitting new lows in the major equity markets, and that could bring yet another large wave of selling. Let’s hope not.

Should The Government Nationalize The Banks?

With the economy worsening by the month, and the credit markets still frozen for the most part, we are hearing more and more calls to nationalize the banks. Personally, I am NOT for nationalizing the banks. But if the latest credit market rescue plan outlined in very broad terms above does not work, it would not surprise me to see President Obama opt for nationalization.

With more and more talk of nationalizing the banks, I have chosen to reprint a recent article written by Nouriel Roubini, PhD. Dr. Roubini is a professor of economics at the Stern School of Business at New YorkUniversity and is chairman of RGE Monitor, a well-known economic consultancy firm. Roubini is best known for having warned about the subprime crisis and an impending economic and financial crisis way back in late 2005.

Roubini does not believe that the government’s rescue plans announced by Secretary Geithner last week will save the banking system, and he believes the system will have to be nationalized at some point, at least those banks that are insolvent. Whether you agree or not, I suggest you read the following closely, if for no other reason than to be informed.

QUOTE:
“Nationalize Insolvent Banks
by Nouriel Roubini

A year ago I predicted that losses by U.S. financial institutions would be at least $1 trillion and possibly as high as $2 trillion. At that time, the consensus was that such estimates were gross exaggerations--the naïve optimists had in mind about $200 billion of expected subprime mortgage losses. But, as I pointed out, losses would rapidly mount well beyond subprime mortgages as the U.S. and global economy spun into a severe financial crisis and ugly recession.

I argued that we would see rising losses on subprime, near-prime and prime mortgages; commercial real estate; credit cards, auto loans and student loans; industrial and commercial loans; corporate bonds, sovereign bonds and state and local government bonds; and massive losses on all of the assets--collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), collateralized loan obligations, asset-backed securities and the entire alphabet of credit derivatives--that had securitized such loans.

By now, write-downs by U.S. banks have already passed the $1 trillion mark (my floor estimate of losses), and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and Goldman Sachs predict losses over $2 trillion (close to my original expected ceiling for such losses).

But if you think $2 trillion is already huge, our latest estimates at RGE Monitor suggest that total losses on loans made by U.S. financial firms and the fall in the market value of the assets they are holding will be, at their peak, about $3.6 trillion. The U.S. banks and broker-dealers are exposed to half of this much, or $1.8 trillion; the rest is borne by other financial institutions in the U.S. and abroad.

The capital backing the banks' assets was just $1.4 trillion (last fall), leaving the U.S. banking system some $400 billion in the hole, or close to zero even after the government and private-sector recapitalization of such banks. Thus, another $1.4 trillion will be needed to bring back the capital of banks to the level it had before the crisis, and such massive additional recapitalization is needed to resolve the credit crunch and restore lending to the private sector.

These figures suggests the U.S. banking system is effectively insolvent in the aggregate; most of the U.K. banking system looks insolvent, too, and many other banks in continental Europe are also insolvent.

There are four basic approaches to a clean-up of a banking system that is facing a systemic crisis:

No. 1: Recapitalization together with the purchase by a government "bad bank" of the toxic assets;

No. 2: Recapitalization together with government guarantees--after a first loss by the banks--of the toxic assets;

No. 3: Private purchase of toxic assets with a government guarantee and/or--semi-equivalently (a provision of public capital to set up a public-private bad bank where private investors participate in the purchase of such assets--something similar to the U.S. government plan presented by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for a public-private investment fund);

No. 4: Outright government takeover (call it nationalization--or “receivership” if you don't like the N-word) of insolvent banks, to be cleaned after takeover and then resold to the private sector.

Of the four options, the first three have serious flaws. In the bad-bank model (the first, above) the government may overpay for the bad assets, at a high cost for the taxpayer, as their true value is uncertain; if it does not overpay for the assets, many banks are bust, as the mark-to-market haircut they need to recognize is too large for them to bear.

Even in the guarantee-after-first-loss model (No. 2 above), there are massive valuation problems, and there can be very expensive risk for the taxpayer, as the true value of the assets is as uncertain (as in the purchase of bad assets model).

The shady guarantee deals recently done with Citigroup and Bank of America were even less transparent than an outright government purchase of bad assets, as the bad-asset-purchase model at least has the advantage of transparency of the price paid for toxic assets.

In the bad-bank model, the government has the additional problem of having to manage all the bad assets it purchased, something that it does not have much expertise in. At least in the guarantee model, the assets stay with the banks. The banks know better how to manage--and also have a greater incentive than the government to eventually work out such bad assets.

The very cumbersome U.S. Treasury proposal to dispose of toxic assets, presented by Geithner, taking the toxic asset off the banks' balance sheets as well as providing government guarantees to the private investors that will purchase them (and/or public capital provision to fund a public-private bad bank that would purchase such assets). But this plan is so non-transparent and complicated it got a thumbs-down from the markets as soon as it was announced. All major U.S. equity indexes dropped sharply.

The main problem with the Treasury plan--that in some ways may resemble the deal between Merrill Lynch and Lone Star--is the following: Merrill sold its CDOs to Lone Star for 22 cents on the dollar. Even in that case, Merrill remained on the hook in case the value of the assets were to fall below 22 cents, as Lone Star paid initially only 11 cents (i.e., Merrill guaranteed the Lone Star downside risk). But today, a bank like Citi has similar CDOs that, until recently, were still sitting on its books at a deluded value of 60 cents.

Since the government knows no one in the private sector would buy those most toxic assets at 60 cents, it may have to make a guarantee (formally or informally) to limit the downside risk to private investors from purchasing such assets. But that guarantee would be hugely expensive if you needed to convince private folks to buy at 60 cents assets that are worth only 20--or even 11--cents.

So the new Treasury plan would end up being again a royal rip-off of the taxpayer if the guarantee is excessive in relation to the true value of the underlying assets. And if, instead, the guarantee is not excessive, the banks need to sell the toxic assets at their true underlying value, implying that the emperor has no clothes [i.e. – large bank failures].

A true valuation of the bad assets--without a huge taxpayer bailout of the shareholders and unsecured creditors of banks--implies that banks are bankrupt and should be taken over by the government.

Thus, all the schemes that have so far been proposed to deal with the toxic assets of the banks may be a big fudge--one that either does not work or works only if the government bails out shareholders and unsecured creditors of the banks.

So, paradoxically, nationalization may be a more market-friendly solution to a banking crisis. It creates the biggest hit for common and preferred shareholders of clearly insolvent institutions and, most certainly, even the unsecured creditors, in case the bank insolvency hole is too large; it also provides a fair upside to the taxpayer.

Nationalization can also resolve the problem of the government managing the bad assets: If you're selling back all the banks' assets and deposits to new private shareholders after a clean-up, together with a partial government guarantee of the bad assets (as was done in the resolution of the Indy Mac bank failure), you avoid having the government manage the bad assets.

Alternatively, if the bad assets are kept by the government after a takeover of the banks and only the good ones are sold back, through a reprivatization scheme, the government could outsource the job of managing these assets to private asset managers. In this way, the government can avoid creating its own Resolution Trust Corp. bank to work out such bad assets.

Nationalization also resolves the too-big-to-fail problem of banks that are systemically important, and that thus need to be rescued by the government at a high cost to the taxpayer. This too-big-to-fail problem has now become an even-bigger-than-too-big-to-fail problem, as the current approach has led weak banks to take over even weaker banks.

Merging two zombie banks is like having two drunks trying to help each other stand up. The JPMorgan Chase takeover of insolvent Bear Stearns and WaMu; the Bank of America takeover of insolvent Countrywide and Merrill Lynch; and the Wells Fargo takeover of insolvent Wachovia, all show that the too-big-to-fail monster has become even bigger.

In the Wachovia case, you had two wounded institutions (Citi and Wells Fargo) bidding for a zombie, insolvent one. Why? They both knew that becoming even bigger than too big to fail was the right strategy to extract an even greater bailout from the government. Instead, with the nationalization approach, the government can break up these financial supermarket monstrosities into smaller pieces to be sold to private investors as smaller (better) banks.

This "nationalization" approach was successfully undertaken by Sweden, while the current U.S. and U.K. approach may end up looking like the zombie banks of Japan that were never properly restructured and ended up perpetuating the credit crunch and credit freeze.

Japan wound up with a decade-long near-depression because of its failure to clean up the banks and the bad debts. The U.S., U.K. and other economies risk a similar near-depression and stag-deflation (multi-year recession and price deflation) if they fail to appropriately tackle this most severe banking crisis.

So why is the U.S. government temporizing and avoiding doing the right thing, i.e., taking over the insolvent banks? There are two reasons.

First, there is still some small hope (and a small probability) that the economy will recover sooner than expected, that expected credit losses will be smaller than expected, and that the current approach of recapping [recapitalizing] the banks and somehow working out the bad assets will work in due time.

Second, taking over the banks--whether you call it nationalization or, in a more politically correct way, "receivership"--is a radical action that requires most banks be clearly beyond the pale. Today, Citi and Bank of America look blatantly near-insolvent and ready to be taken over, but JPMorgan and Wells Fargo as yet do not.

But with the sharp rise in delinquencies and charge-off rates that we are experiencing now on mortgages, commercial real estate and consumer credit, even JPMorgan and Wells will likely look near-insolvent in six to 12 months (as suggested by Chris Whalen, one of the leading independent analysts of the banking system).

Thus, if the government were to take over only Citi and Bank of America today, wiping out common and preferred shareholders and forcing unsecured creditors to take a haircut, a panic may ensue for other banks, and the Lehman fallout that resulted from having unsecured creditors taking losses on their bonds will be repeated.

On the other hand, if, as is likely, the current "fudging" strategy does not work, and most banks--the major four and a good number of the remaining regional banks--all look clearly insolvent in six to 12 months, you can then take them all over, wipe out common and preferred shareholders and even force unsecured creditors to accept losses.

So, the current strategy--Plan A-- may not work, and Plan B (or better, "Plan N," for nationalization) may end up the way to go later this year. Wasting another six to 12 months may risk turning a U-shaped recession into an L-shaped near-depression.

The political constraints the new administration faces--and the remaining small probability that the current strategy may, by some miracle or luck, work--suggest Plan A should be first exhausted before there is a move to Plan N.

But with the government forcing Citi to shed some of its units and assets, and starting stress tests to figure out which institutions are so massively undercapitalized that they need to be taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the administration is laying the groundwork for the eventual, necessary takeover of the insolvent banks.

So while Plan A is now underway, the very negative market response to this Treasury plan suggests it will not fly. Markets were expecting a more clear plan, but also one that would bail out shareholders and creditors of insolvent banks. Unfortunately, that is politically and fiscally unfeasible. It is time to start to think and plan ahead for Plan N.” END QUOTE

Conclusions - Trillions of Dollars Being Thrown Around

As I have emphasized repeatedly over the last several weeks, the politicians in Washington, as well as our monetary officials such as Ben Bernanke, are scared to death about a “debt deflation” that could throw the country into a new depression – which would likely mean that they all lose their jobs! So they will stop at no lengths to avoid it. This is why we are seeing multiple trillions of dollars being thrown around.

The Geithner rescue plan announced last week, with almost no details to go along with it, would commit the government to at least another $2 trillion in spending, and maybe more. Add to that however much more spending President Obama is likely to announce tomorrow to rescue the housing market, which I expect to be up to another trillion.

Bloomberg estimates (based on government data they had to sue to get) that the government is already on the hook for $9.7 trillion in bailouts and various guarantee liabilities associated with the credit crisis – before the announcements over just the last week: 1) the $787 billion stimulus; and 2) at least $2 trillion in the Geithner plan. Not to mention what Obama announces tomorrow for housing.

We’ve never seen anything like this in the history of America, or even the planet for that matter. Making matters worse, no one knows if these efforts will work. And people wonder why the stock markets are going down.

Interestingly, I have been criticized over the last two weeks as I have written extensively about President Obama’s trillion-dollar “stimulus” package (if you add interest). I expect I’ll get more negative comments this week with the focus on the Geithner rescue package and Dr. Roubini’s piece on nationalizing the banks.

Some readers have complained that these are really just political matters that don’t belong in an economic/investment e-letter. I beg to differ – have you looked at the value of your investment portfolio recently? No one can argue any longer that politics don’t affect our investments.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

Obama’s Tainted Win
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obamas_tainted_win.html

Obama Chose Urgency Over Transparency (this from a liberal)
http://www.slate.com/id/2210698/

Geithner Can’t Find Gun, Let Alone the Silver Bullet
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_reilly&sid=aN_dadtIVMZo

Is Geithner Ready for Prime Time?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/is_geithner_ready_for_prime_ti.html

The Recession & More Government Bailouts

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:21:18 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Latest Grim Numbers On The US Economy
The Latest On The Government Bailouts
Fed Announces The Mother Of All Bailouts
Troubling Aspects Of The Fed's Latest Bailout
Fighting A "Debt-Deflation" At Any Cost

Introduction

The economy, the financial crisis and government bailouts were certainly hot topics for discussion among the large group of family and friends that we entertained over the Thanksgiving holiday and the weekend following. These sorts of issues would not normally come up at this annual gathering, but it is just more evidence that the current sinking state of the economy and the credit crisis is on the minds of virtually all adult Americans, no matter their financial strata.

Most of my Thanksgiving guests have been dizzied by all the different government bailouts that have been announced recently (haven't we all!), and most were very much against them, as is a majority of Americans according to several surveys. What most people don't understand is that the government and the Fed will do anything they possibly can to prevent the economy from falling into a full-fledged debt deflation.

Debt deflation is a cycle in which prices fall broadly, in some cases across the spectrum of assets. Most historians attribute the Great Depression to a debt deflation between 1930 and 1934. Likewise, Japan's decade of deflation and severe recession in the 1990s is the model everyone wants to avoid. For obvious reasons our monetary authorities do not want to see either happen again. I will be writing about deflation more in upcoming issues.

This week we will discuss the recent government and Fed bailouts as we go along, including some recent analysis by Stratfor.com and a nice chronicle of how the financial crisis has unfolded thus far. But first we want to take a look at the latest economic data, most all of which are bleak. While 3Q GDP was down only 0.5% according to the latest report, most analysts expect that the economy will plunge by at least 2-3% in the 4Q.

That's a lot to cover, so let's get started.

Latest Grim Numbers On The US Economy

I trust that everyone reading this is well aware that we are in a serious recession brought on almost entirely by the housing slump and the credit crisis which followed. The government and the Fed have proposed massive bailouts in an effort to get the credit markets moving, banks lending, and consumers spending once again. But is it working? The answer is, not yet.

Here are the latest economic reports. Last Tuesday, the Commerce Department revised its estimate of 3Q Gross Domestic Product from -0.3% to -0.5%, annual rate. In the 2Q, real GDP increased 2.8%. The decrease in real GDP in the 3Q primarily reflected negative contributions from personal consumption expenditures, residential fixed investment (housing), and equipment and software that were partly offset by positive contributions from federal, state and local government spending, private inventory investment and exports.

Most economists and analysts are expecting a much greater decrease in GDP for the 4Q. While we won't get the first estimate of 4Q GDP from the Commerce Department until late January, a recent survey conducted by the Philadelphia Fed suggests that real GDP will decline at a 2.9% annual rate in the 4Q. Likewise, the consensus now is that at least the first two quarters of 2009 will see similar decreases in GDP if not worse. There are plenty of analysts that now expect all of 2009 to hold negative growth for the economy. At this point, I cannot disagree. Things are indeed quite bleak.

The Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) fell sharply in October, down -0.8%, marking the fourth decline in the last five months. The LEI declined sharply in October as stock prices, building permits, consumer expectations and the index of supplier deliveries made large negative contributions to the index. Without the very large positive contributions from inflation-adjusted money supply (the largest in seven years), the leading index would have been substantially weaker. Between April and October 2008, the LEI declined 2.4% (a -4.7% annual rate), falling considerably faster than the 1.2% decrease (a -2.3% annual rate) over the previous six months.

Durable goods orders (large ticket items) plunged 6.2% in October, more than double the 3% decline economists expected. The report showed widespread declines throughout manufacturing led by decreases in autos and airplanes. Factory orders plunged 5.1% in October. The manufacturing sector is being hit by the slowdown that is occurring in the rest of the economy. The prospect that the US, the world's largest economy, has entered what could be a severe recession is dragging down growth in other areas and dampening demand for US exports, which had been the one bright spot for the economy this year.

The unemployment rate surged to 6.7% in November as more than 500,000 jobs were lost in that one month alone. Most forecasters now expect the US unemployment rate to soar to 7% or above by the middle of next year. It will not surprise me if unemployment reaches 7% in the 1Q of next year.

As we all know, consumer spending accounts for apprx. 70% of GDP. In October, retail sales dropped 2.8% following a decline of 1.3% in September. It is unusual to see large drops in consumer spending in October with the holiday season approaching, but this is no usual year. Most retailers expect 4Q sales to fall below yearago levels this year.

It is encouraging to note, however, the latest media reports which indicate that on Black Friday (the day after Thanksgiving) retail sales were up 3% over last year. That increase was largely attributed to the fact that retailers had already discounted merchandise to levels not normally seen until later in the season.

The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index, which fell to an all-time low of 39.5 in October, rebounded modestly in November to 44.9 largely due to the sharp drop in oil and gasoline prices. However, the University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment Index, which asks different questions, was basically unchanged in November at 57.9 versus 57.6 in September. Both measures of consumer confidence remain at very discouraging levels.

On the housing front, the numbers continue to worsen with no end in sight. New home sales in October fell to their lowest level in 17 years, according to data released last Wednesday. The US Census Bureau said the sale of new houses tumbled 5.3% in October to an annualized rate of 433,000. That compared to 457,000 one month earlier and was the weakest showing since 1991.

The number of existing homes in the US that were sold in October fell 3.1% compared to September and was 1.6% below the annualized rate in October 2007. Housing starts also fell sharply once again in October to a 17-year low. Building permits also continued to decline significantly in October.

Even though home sales are now down 69% from the July 2005 bubble peak of 1.39 million units, builders have not been aggressive enough in curbing production because the most critical variable of all, the unsold inventory backlog, rose to an 11.1 month supply in October from 10.9 in September. Thus, we may not have seen the worst of the housing slump yet.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) recently announced that the US economy is officially in a recession that began in December of 2007. This marks one of only a very few times that NBER has made such a determination without two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP, which is the traditional definition of a recession.

To round out the latest economic reports, the Consumer Price Index fell 1.0% in October, the largest monthly decline in the index since its creation in 1947. The Producer Price Index (wholesale prices) plunged 2.8% in October. These drops in prices reflect the fact that we are in a severe recession, consumer demand is plunging, and producers are dropping prices in reaction.

The data above paint a troubling picture for the US economy and thus those around the world. The trouble is that the US economy is the world's engine of growth, and US consumers are the fuel of that engine of growth. Now, US consumers are being forced to cut back and save more.

The Latest On The Government Bailouts

As noted above, the government's efforts to head-off the US financial crisis have already gone beyond what many of us could have imagined just a year ago. This financial crisis has resulted in so many different rescue operations, involving trillions of dollars. The initial $700 billion rescue package that was finally approved by Congress in October boggled our collective minds. This financial crisis has evolved so fast that it is hard for most Americans to keep track of what has happened, much less understand it. Here is a good, concise chronology published by the Houston Chronicle (Chron.com) on November 25th:

QUOTE: Gov't Announces Another $800B in Bailout Plans

The government's commitments to contain the financial crisis now approach $7 trillion. That figure includes funds to guarantee certain corporate assets and debts, although those funds may never actually be spent. Still, the overall figure reflects the huge liabilities the government is taking on to battle the meltdown.

Among the government efforts announced Tuesday are plans to buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-related assets and up to $200 billion in loans for holders of securities backed by various types of consumer debt.

The new plans are the latest in a long list of government moves:

-- March 11: The Federal Reserve announces a rescue package to provide up to $200 billion in loans to banks and investment houses and let them put up risky mortgage-backed securities as collateral.
-- March 16: The Fed provides a $29 billion loan to JPMorgan Chase & Co. as part of its purchase of investment bank Bear Stearns.
-- May 2: The Fed increases the size of its loans to banks and lets them put up less-secure collateral.
-- July 11: Federal regulators seize Pasadena, Calif.-based IndyMac, costing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. billions to compensate deposit-holders.
-- July 30: President Bush signs a housing bill including $300 billion in new loan authority for the government to back cheaper mortgages for troubled homeowners.
-- Sept. 7: The Treasury takes over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, putting them into a conservatorship and pledging up to $200 billion to back their assets.
-- Sept. 16: The Fed injects $85 billion into the failing American International Group, one of the world's largest insurance companies.
-- Sept. 16: The Fed pumps $70 billion more into the nation's financial system to help ease credit stresses.
-- Sept. 19: The Treasury temporarily guarantees money market funds against losses up to $50 billion.
-- Sept. 29: The Fed makes an extra $330 billion available to other central banks, boosting to $620 billion the amount available to the Fed through currency "swap" arrangements, where dollars are traded for foreign currencies. It also triples to $225 billion the amount available for short-term loans to U.S. financial institutions.
-- Oct. 3: President Bush signs the $700 billion economic bailout package. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says the money will be used to buy distressed mortgage-related securities from banks.
-- Oct. 6: The Fed increases a short-term loan program, saying it is boosting short-term lending to banks to $150 billion. It says that by year's end, $900 billion in potential overall credit will be outstanding. It also says it will begin paying interest on reserves that banks keep with the Fed in hopes of coaxing banks into keeping more money on deposit at the central bank.
-- Oct. 7: The Fed says it will start buying unsecured short-term debt, so-called "commercial paper," from companies, and says that up to $1.3 trillion of the debt may qualify for the program.
-- Oct.. 8: The Fed cuts its benchmark interest rate a half percentage point, to 1.5 percent. It follows a one-quarter point cut on April 30 and a three-quarter-point reduction on March 18.
-- Oct. 8: The Fed agrees to lend AIG $37.8 billion more, bringing total to about $123 billion.
-- Oct. 14: The Treasury says it will use $250 billion of the $700 billion bailout to inject capital into the banks, with $125 billion provided to nine of the largest: Bank of America Corp., which received $15 billion; Bank of New York Mellon Corp., $3 billion; Citigroup Inc., $25 billion; Goldman Sachs Group Inc., $10 billion; JPMorgan Chase & Co., $25 billion; Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., $10 billion; Morgan Stanley, $10 billion; State Street Corp., $2 billion; and Wells Fargo & Co., $25 billion. The $10 billion for Merrill has been deferred until its purchase by Bank of America closes.
-- Oct. 14: The FDIC says it will temporarily guarantee up to a total of $1.4 trillion in loans between banks.
-- Oct. 21: The Fed says it will provide up to $540 billion in financing to provide liquidity for money market mutual funds.
-- Oct. 29: The Fed cuts its benchmark interest rate to 1 percent, matching the low point reached in 2003. The rate hasn't been lower since 1958.
-- Nov. 10: The Treasury and Fed replace the two previous loans provided to AIG with a new $150 billion aid package that includes an infusion of $40 billion from the government's bailout fund.
-- Nov. 12: Paulson says the government will no longer buy distressed mortgage-related assets, formerly the centerpiece of the bailout, and instead will concentrate on injecting capital into banks.
-- Nov. 17: Treasury says it has provided $33.6 billion in capital to another 21 banks, with the largest stake being $6.6 billion to Minneapolis, Minn.-based U.S. Bancorp. So far, the government has invested $158.6 billion in 30 banks.
-- Nov. 23: The Treasury says it will invest another $20 billion in Citigroup Inc., on top of $25 billion provided Oct. 14. The Treasury, Fed and FDIC also pledge to backstop large losses Citigroup might absorb on $306 billion in real estate-related assets.

Citigroup will assume the first $29 billion in losses, and after that the government will absorb 90 percent of losses and the company 10 percent. In return, the government will receive $7 billion in preferred shares and warrants for more than 250 million additional shares.

-- Nov. 25: The Fed says it will purchase up to $600 billion more in mortgage-related assets and will lend up to $200 billion to the holders of securities backed by various types of consumer loans.

The Fed will buy up to $100 billion in direct obligations from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the Federal Home Loan Banks. The central bank also will buy $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities, pools of mortgages that are bundled together and sold to investors.

The program on consumer debt will be supported by $20 billion of credit protection from the $700 billion bailout package enacted last month. END QUOTE

Fed Announces The Mother Of All Bailouts

As noted above, on November 25th, the Federal Reserve announced yet another huge bailout - up to $800 billion - aimed at freeing up seized credit markets. You would expect that this new, unprecedented bailout would be still making news and have been completely and utterly analyzed. I don't find that to be the case.

Actually, it's somewhat troubling that the Fed, acting under its own initiative and without any congressional approval, can uncork a bailout $100 billion bigger than the $700 billion TARP rescue package Treasury Secretary Paulson had to peddle on Capitol Hill. Even more surprising is that this newest bill aims to do the very things that Secretary Paulson initially planned for the $700 billion - buy up troubled mortgage securities - before he changed his mind on how best to use the TARP money.

I'll provide some analysis below, but first let's see exactly what the new Fed bailout has been designed to do. Much of the buzz on the street about this new Fed program has been that this is "Main Street's Bailout," meaning that the relief from this $800 billion of pocket change is designed to get to the ultimate consumer rather than going into bank stocks. Is Bernanke playing a little political football here? Maybe.

Stratfor.com had one of the better descriptions of the Fed's new plan to restore liquidity to the housing and consumer credit markets. I have reprinted an excerpt of Stratfor's November 25 article below, and will follow up with my own analysis:

QUOTE: In the past 24 hours, there have been two more major developments, enacted not by the Treasury but by the U.S. Federal Reserve, which, unlike the Treasury, enjoys both policy independence and control of the money supply.

First, the Federal Reserve is using its resources to take over the original idea contained in the TARP I program, launching a $600 billion package to purchase mortgages and mortgage-backed securities that started the problems in the first place. All of this funding will be applied to Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and their immediate satellites. Because the Fed will be negotiating the terms of the debt purchase with the Treasury (the twins are currently under government conservatorship), price points will be determined very quickly.

And because the Fed enjoys policy independence and control of the money supply, it will not have to go back to Congress for approval or funding. If it deems necessary, it can simply print currency to "pay" for the effort. In essence, the sticky parts of the bailout program have now been handed to the institution with the most capability for unfettered action: the Federal Reserve.

Second, the Fed is using a new $200 billion credit facility to purchase AAA-rated debt -- credit card debt, car loans, student loans and the like -- that is currently foundering because of the dual impacts of the recession and bank skittishness. This program is less of a bailout and more of a reward for good behavior. The Fed will purchase only debt that is new; banks can swap their new loans for cash and then immediately turn around and lend again. Simply put, the Fed is offering the buy-up program as a sort of bait to draw skittish banks out of their holes. (The Treasury tossed in $20 billion for this as a sort of insurance policy.) [Emphasis added, GDH.]

What the government essentially has done in this admittedly confusing shell game is split the rescue program into two categories: a "good debt" management scheme and a "bad debt" management scheme.

With the exception of the $200 billion AAA facility, the Fed is in charge of the bad debt -- primarily the questionable mortgage-backed securities that touched off the problems to begin with. Because the Fed operates largely free of congressional and even presidential oversight, and because it controls the printing presses, it has the authority and ability to turn on a dime and make the serious decisions about how to reform or even (probably) liquidate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If there is a financial loss, and there certainly will be, the Fed can handle it "off the books," so to speak. After all, it can print currency if need be. There would obviously be negative (inflationary) side effects to this, but the impact on the government's bottom line and the taxpayer's pocketbook would be less direct.

In turn, the good debt will go to the Treasury. Assuming Western civilization as we know it does not collapse, the government will be able to sell back the shares the Treasury purchased in the banks. In fact, profit levels for the government are actually written into the agreements with the banks. Not only will the government get the $350 billion allocated in TARP II back, it will make a healthy profit to boot -- if all goes according to plan. END QUOTE

The key is the last sentence and the last phrase - "if all goes according to plan." So far, I would say, not much has gone according to plan, assuming there ever was one. A year ago, most analysts believed that the subprime problems would be contained in the US mortgage/banking sectors and would not affect the overall investment markets. Now we know that these endemic problems have spread to all credit markets, virtually around the world.

Troubling Aspects Of The Fed's Latest Bailout

Reading through Stratfor's excellent analysis of the Fed's recent announcement, you may have picked up on some potentially troubling words. First, Stratfor talks about how the Fed can simply "print currency" necessary to pay for this bailout. Remember the controversy surrounding a 2002 speech by Ben Bernanke that alluded to printing money and distributing it from helicopters? Well, the printing press has evidently been placed on board the chopper at Gate One.

As a general rule, printing money is de-facto inflationary. History is filled with examples of countries that experienced hyper-inflation due to cranking up the printing presses. However, not as evident in Bernanke's "helicopter" speech was a footnote that addressed the fact that some inflation is actually a good thing, since it erodes the real value of outstanding government debt.

As I will discuss below, it can be argued that the Fed had to print money to fund bailouts or risk a severe economic depression. However, we need to be aware that the side effects from this "cure" may include increased inflation in the future. Even Fed Chairman Bernanke acknowledges the risk. In a speech last week here in Austin, he said that the Fed's balance sheet "…will eventually have to be brought back to a more sustainable level. However, that is an issue for the future; for now, the goal of policy must be to support financial markets and the economy."

Next, the Stratfor analysis discusses how the "sticky" parts of the process have now been handled. It is generally believed that Paulson backpedaled on buying up subprime debt from banks because the negotiations would have taken too much time to do the banks any good. Now, however, the Treasury and Fed will be able to negotiate directly on the price of any debt purchased, making these purchase transactions potentially much faster.

However, at what cost do we gain this additional transactional efficiency? We have an admittedly "unfettered" Fed dealing directly with the Treasury Dept. regarding the purchase and sale of hard-to-value debt. Does this bother anyone else out there, or have we come to the point where we have to believe the old line, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you?"

Finally, Stratfor notes that the Fed's dealing with the bad subprime debt will produce almost certain losses, but that these can be handled "off the books," again by printing money if necessary. The resulting inflation would be a consequence, but would be a less direct way of spreading the cost around to the public. Note that Stratfor doesn't say that it won't impact taxpayers, just that inflation will be a less direct way of paying the piper than other possible methods.

Fighting "Debt-Deflation" At Any Cost

As noted in the Introduction above, discussions about the recent massive government bailouts, and especially the latest from the Fed, are going on everywhere in America. Surveys consistently show that most Americans do not agree with the huge government bailouts. Choruses such as "Just let 'em fail!" and "Where's my bailout?" are common.

What most people don't understand is that the government and the Fed will do anything they possibly can to prevent the economy from falling into a full-fledged debt deflation. Whether we agree or disagree with the bailouts, it is clear that our monetary authorities, namely Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, believe that if large financial institutions are allowed to fail on a large scale, it would send the economy into a depression.

It appears quite clear to me that Paulson, Bernanke and company now believe that it was a serious bad decision to let Lehman Brothers go bankrupt. Now, they are doing everything in their power to make sure that no other large financial institution goes under, apparently no matter how much taxpayer money they have to commit, even to the point of firing up the Fed's printing presses as a last resort.

Deflation is typically defined as a persistent decline in the general prices of goods and services, or put differently, a negative inflation rate. A debt deflation is generally regarded as a persistent decline in the prices of goods and services, along with widespread loan defaults and bank failures. The last time the US experienced a serious debt deflation was in 1930-1934, the so-called Great Depression.

In the Great Depression, America saw Gross Domestic Product plunge by 10% annually on average, and the unemployment rate skyrocketed to 25%. Clearly, no one wants to see that happen again, especially Paulson and Bernanke, not to mention President Bush and President-elect Obama.

While most Americans seem to oppose the government bailouts, most of the financial/analytical/forecasting groups that I have followed for years believe that the bailouts were/are absolutely necessary. In fact, some of my most trusted sources believe that the government was slow to react to the credit crisis and has not done enough to make bailout money available.

Certainly, there is also agreement among my sources that the government has made some mistakes and did not have a clearly orchestrated plan for how and when the bailouts would happen or where the bailout money would be directed. Such evidence is clear in simply how many times the plans for the original $700 billion TARP bailout have changed.

At the end of the day the question is: What would have happened if the government and the Fed had done nothing in reaction to the credit crisis? Let's start with the easy ones. AIG would have clearly gone bankrupt sending shock waves through the banking and insurance markets worldwide. Merrill Lynch would have almost certainly gone under, perhaps taking Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and several other large investment banks with it, along with Lehman Brothers.

It is impossible to know what would have happened if these giant financial players had been allowed to fail. Yet most Americans don't seem to care. Just let the chips fall. Would the failure of these instititions have triggered a financial collapse? I think the answer is yes.

But would these financial failures have sent the US economy into a serious depression if the government did nothing? There is no definitive answer. Clearly, Paulson and Bernanke feared that without the bailouts, we would have been looking at a global financial crisis and a worldwide depression of epic proportions.

Most Americans who oppose the bailouts have not, in my opinion, thought through the possible implications had the government done nothing to rescue the credit markets. While we can't be certain that a global depression would have unfolded had nothing been done, we also cannot know that it wouldn't. Think about that.

Finally, I would be remiss not to add the obvious: there is no guarantee that the bailouts will work. Only time will tell. But it is clear that the bailouts are not over. I expect the government to give bailouts to the automakers, one way or the other; if not this year, then President Obama will do it as soon as he gets in office. Likewise, Obama is planning another giant stimulus package - reportedly in the $700 billion range - for early next year.

The point is, the bailouts are not over. More are coming in the Obama administration, if needed. How much more we don't know. What we do know is that we will have a new president that comes from a political persuation that has no problem with the government owning parts of the private sector, which is a little scary now that the government already owns equity stakes in our nation's largest banks and AIG.

But that is another discussion for another time. Time to close and hit the "send" button. Hope this has been helpful.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

Graphic NYT: Tracking The Bailout
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/11/26/business/20081126_FED_graph1.html

Bernanke's Daring Experiment
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/bens_daring_experiment.html

Getting Out of the Credit Mess
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122878188688689783.html

Instead of Spending, Cut Taxes
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/12/08/friedman-cut-taxes-oped-cx_bw_rs_1209wesburystein.html

Storms On The Horizon - The Entitlement Time Bomb

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:18:56 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Largest Budget Deficit In History Coming In 2009
A Sobering Reminder From The Fed's Richard Fisher
Deficits To Explode In Coming Decades
Conclusions - Why No One Is Talking About This

Introduction

At the end of July, the White House announced its forecast for the federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2009, which begins next month. The deficit is shocking - an estimated $482 billion, and that does not include apprx. $80 billion that will be spent on the war in Iraq, or a possible second economic stimulus package that is being debated in Congress. So the 2009 deficit will go well beyond a half a trillion dollars! It will be the largest budget deficit in US history.

The national debt is now at $9.6 trillion and will rise well above $10 trillion next year. And that amount does not include the trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The US faces a debt crisis of incredible proportion over the next several decades. Everyone knows it, but no one seems willing to do anything to stop it.

What follows is one of the most troubling things I have read in a long time. It is a recent speech by Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard W. Fisher. Last week I noted that Mr. Fisher has been the lone voice on the FOMC that has voted against Chairman Bernanke & Company, and argues that interest rates should be rising. In checking into Mr. Fisher's positions, I ran across the following speech he gave recently to the Commonwealth Club of California.

Let me warn you, Mr. Fisher's remarks are going to trouble you. They may even scare you. But you need to read what follows:

Remarks by Dallas Fed President Richard W. Fisher
May 28, 2008

[QUOTE] Thank you, Bruce [Ericson]. I am honored to be here this evening and am grateful for the invitation to speak to the Commonwealth Club of California.

Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, two of Ben Bernanke's linear ancestors as chairmen of the Federal Reserve, have been in the news quite a bit lately. Yet, we rarely hear about William McChesney Martin, a magnificent public servant who was Fed chairman during five presidencies and to this day holds the record for the longest tenure: 19 years...

Bill Martin was nominated to run and lose on the Alfalfa Party ticket in 1966, while serving as Fed chairman during Lyndon Johnson's term. In his acceptance speech, he announced that, given his proclivities as a central banker, he would take his cues from the German philosopher Goethe, "who said that people could endure anything except continual prosperity." Therefore, Martin declared, he would adopt a platform proclaiming that as a president he planned to "make life endurable again by stamping out prosperity."

"I shall conduct the administration of the country," he said, "exactly as I have so successfully conducted the affairs of the Federal Reserve. To that end, I shall assemble the best brains that can be found...ask their advice on all matters...and completely confound them by following all their conflicting counsel."

It is true, Bruce, that as you said in your introduction, I am one of the 17 people who participate in Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) deliberations and provide Ben Bernanke with "conflicting counsel" as the committee cobbles together a monetary policy that seeks to promote America's economic prosperity, Goethe to the contrary. But tonight I speak for neither the committee, nor the chairman, nor any of the other good people that serve the Federal Reserve System. I speak solely in my own capacity. I want to speak to you tonight about an economic problem that we must soon confront or else risk losing our primacy as the world's most powerful and dynamic economy.

Forty-three years ago this Sunday, Bill Martin delivered a commencement address to Columbia University that was far more sober than his Alfalfa Club speech. The opening lines of that Columbia address were as follows: "When economic prospects are at their brightest, the dangers of complacency and recklessness are greatest. As our prosperity proceeds on its record-breaking path, it behooves every one of us to scan the horizon of our national and international economy for danger signals so as to be ready for any storm."

Today, our fellow citizens and financial markets are paying the price for falling victim to the complacency and recklessness Martin warned against. Few scanned the horizon for trouble brewing as we proceeded along a path of unparalleled prosperity fueled by an unsustainable housing bubble and unbridled credit markets. Armchair or Monday morning quarterbacks will long debate whether the Fed could have/should have/would have taken away the punchbowl that lubricated that blowout party. I have given my opinion on that matter elsewhere and won't go near that subject tonight. What counts now is what we have done more recently and where we go from here. Whatever the sins of omission or commission committed by our predecessors, the Bernanke FOMC's objective is to use a new set of tools to calm the tempest in the credit markets to get them back to functioning in a more orderly fashion. We trust that the various term credit facilities we have recently introduced are helping restore confidence while the credit markets undertake self-corrective initiatives and lawmakers consider new regulatory schemes.

I am also not going to engage in a discussion of present monetary policy tonight, except to say that if inflationary developments and, more important, inflation expectations, continue to worsen, I would expect a change of course in monetary policy to occur sooner rather than later, even in the face of an anemic economic scenario. Inflation is the most insidious enemy of capitalism. No central banker can countenance it, not least the men and women of the Federal Reserve.

Tonight, I want to talk about a different matter. In keeping with Bill Martin's advice, I have been scanning the horizon for danger signals even as we continue working to recover from the recent turmoil. In the distance, I see a frightful storm brewing in the form of untethered government debt. I choose the words—"frightful storm"—deliberately to avoid hyperbole. Unless we take steps to deal with it, the long-term fiscal situation of the federal government will be unimaginably more devastating to our economic prosperity than the subprime debacle and the recent debauching of credit markets that we are now working so hard to correct.

You might wonder why a central banker would be concerned with fiscal matters. Fiscal policy is, after all, the responsibility of the Congress, not the Federal Reserve. Congress, and Congress alone, has the power to tax and spend. From this monetary policymaker's point of view, though, deficits matter for what we do at the Fed. There are many reasons why. Economists have found that structural deficits raise long-run interest rates, complicating the Fed's dual mandate to develop a monetary policy that promotes sustainable, noninflationary growth. The even more disturbing dark and dirty secret about deficits—especially when they careen out of control—is that they create political pressure on central bankers to adopt looser monetary policy down the road. I will return to that shortly. First, let me give you the unvarnished facts of our nation's fiscal predicament.

Eight years ago, our federal budget, crafted by a Democratic president and enacted by a Republican Congress, produced a fiscal surplus of $236 billion, the first surplus in almost 40 years and the highest nominal-dollar surplus in American history. While the Fed is scrupulously nonpartisan and nonpolitical, I mention this to emphasize that the deficit/debt issue knows no party and can be solved only by both parties working together. For a brief time, with surpluses projected into the future as far as the eye could see, economists and policymakers alike began to contemplate a bucolic future in which interest payments would form an ever-declining share of federal outlays, a future where Treasury bonds and debt-ceiling legislation would become dusty relics of a long-forgotten past. The Fed even had concerns about how open market operations would be conducted in a marketplace short of Treasury debt.

That utopian scenario did not last for long. Over the next seven years, federal spending grew at a 6.2 percent nominal annual rate while receipts grew at only 3.5 percent. Of course, certain areas of government, like national defense, had to spend more in the wake of 9/11. But nondefense discretionary spending actually rose 6.4 percent annually during this timeframe, outpacing the growth in total expenditures. Deficits soon returned, reaching an expected $410 billion for 2008—a $600 billion swing from where we were just eight years ago. This $410 billion estimate, by the way, was made before the recently passed farm bill and supplemental defense appropriation and without considering a proposed patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax—all measures that will lead to a further ballooning of government deficits.

In keeping with the tradition of rosy scenarios, official budget projections suggest this deficit will be relatively short-lived. They almost always do. According to the official calculus, following a second $400-billion-plus deficit in 2009, the red ink should fall to $160 billion in 2010 and $95 billion in 2011, and then the budget swings to a $48 billion surplus in 2012.

If you do the math, however, you might be forgiven for sensing that these felicitous projections look a tad dodgy. To reach the projected 2012 surplus, outlays are assumed to rise at a 2.4 percent nominal annual rate over the next four years—less than half as fast as they rose the previous seven years. Revenue is assumed to rise at a 6.7 percent nominal annual rate over the next four years—almost double the rate of the past seven years. Using spending and revenue growth rates that have actually prevailed in recent years, the 2012 surplus quickly evaporates and becomes a deficit, potentially of several hundred billion dollars.

Doing deficit math is always a sobering exercise. It becomes an outright painful one when you apply your calculator to the long-run fiscal challenge posed by entitlement programs. Were I not a taciturn central banker, I would say the mathematics of the long-term outlook for entitlements, left unchanged, is nothing short of catastrophic.

Typically, critics ranging from the Concord Coalition to Ross Perot begin by wringing their collective hands over the unfunded liabilities of Social Security. A little history gives you a view as to why. Franklin Roosevelt originally conceived a social security system in which individuals would fund their own retirements through payroll-tax contributions. But Congress quickly realized that such a system could not put much money into the pockets of indigent elderly citizens ravaged by the Great Depression. Instead, a pay-as-you-go funding system was embraced, making each generation's retirement the responsibility of its children.

Now, fast forward 70 or so years and ask this question: What is the mathematical predicament of Social Security today? Answer: The amount of money the Social Security system would need today to cover all unfunded liabilities from now on—what fiscal economists call the "infinite horizon discounted value" of what has already been promised recipients but has no funding mechanism currently in place—is $13.6 trillion, an amount slightly less than the annual gross domestic product of the United States.

Demographics explain why this is so. Birthrates have fallen dramatically, reducing the worker-retiree ratio and leaving today's workers pulling a bigger load than the system designers ever envisioned. Life spans have lengthened without a corresponding increase in the retirement age, leaving retirees in a position to receive benefits far longer than the system designers envisioned. Formulae for benefits and cost-of-living adjustments have also contributed to the growth in unfunded liabilities.

The good news is this Social Security shortfall might be manageable. While the issues regarding Social Security reform are complex, it is at least possible to imagine how Congress might find, within a $14 trillion economy, ways to wrestle with a $13 trillion unfunded liability. The bad news is that Social Security is the lesser of our entitlement worries. It is but the tip of the unfunded liability iceberg. The much bigger concern is Medicare, a program established in 1965, the same prosperous year that Bill Martin cautioned his Columbia University audience to be wary of complacency and storms on the horizon.

Medicare was a pay-as-you-go program from the very beginning, despite warnings from some congressional leaders...who foresaw some of the long-term fiscal issues such a financing system could pose. Unfortunately, they were right.

Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.

Why is the Medicare figure so large? There is a mix of reasons, really. In part, it is due to the same birthrate and life-expectancy issues that affect Social Security. In part, it is due to ever-costlier advances in medical technology and the willingness of Medicare to pay for them. And in part, it is due to expanded benefits—the new drug benefit program's unfunded liability is by itself one-third greater than all of Social Security's.

Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.

I want to remind you that I am only talking about the unfunded portions of Social Security and Medicare. It is what the current payment scheme of Social Security payroll taxes, Medicare payroll taxes, membership fees for Medicare B, copays, deductibles and all other revenue currently channeled to our entitlement system will not cover under current rules. These existing revenue streams must remain in place in perpetuity to handle the "funded" entitlement liabilities. Reduce or eliminate this income and the unfunded liability grows. Increase benefits and the liability grows as well.

Let's say you and I and Bruce Ericson and every U.S. citizen who is alive today decided to fully address this unfunded liability through lump-sum payments from our own pocketbooks, so that all of us and all future generations could be secure in the knowledge that we and they would receive promised benefits in perpetuity. How much would we have to pay if we split the tab? Again, the math is painful. With a total population of 304 million, from infants to the elderly, the per-person payment to the federal treasury would come to $330,000. This comes to $1.3 million per family of four—over 25 times the average household's income.

Clearly, once-and-for-all contributions would be an unbearable burden. Alternatively, we could address the entitlement shortfall through policy changes that would affect ourselves and future generations. For example, a permanent 68 percent increase in federal income tax revenue—from individual and corporate taxpayers—would suffice to fully fund our entitlement programs. Or we could instead divert 68 percent of current income-tax revenues from their intended uses to the entitlement system, which would accomplish the same thing.

Suppose we decided to tackle the issue solely on the spending side. It turns out that total discretionary spending in the federal budget, if maintained at its current share of GDP in perpetuity, is 3 percent larger than the entitlement shortfall. So all we would have to do to fully fund our nation's entitlement programs would be to cut discretionary spending by 97 percent. But hold on. That discretionary spending includes defense and national security, education, the environment and many other areas, not just those controversial earmarks that make the evening news. All of them would have to be cut—almost eliminated, really—to tackle this problem through discretionary spending.

I hope that gives you some idea of just how large the problem is. And just to drive an important point home, these spending cuts or tax increases would need to be made immediately and maintained in perpetuity to solve the entitlement deficit problem. Discretionary spending would have to be reduced by 97 percent not only for our generation, but for our children and their children and every generation of children to come. And similarly on the taxation side, income tax revenue would have to rise 68 percent and remain that high forever. Remember, though, I said tax revenue, not tax rates. Who knows how much individual and corporate tax rates would have to change to increase revenue by 68 percent?

If these possible solutions to the unfunded-liability problem seem draconian, it's because they are draconian. But they do serve to give you a sense of the severity of the problem. To be sure, there are ways to lessen the reliance on any single policy and the burden borne by any particular set of citizens. Most proposals to address long-term entitlement debt, for example, rely on a combination of tax increases, benefit reductions and eligibility changes to find the trillions necessary to safeguard the system over the long term.

No combination of tax hikes and spending cuts, though, will change the total burden borne by current and future generations. For the existing unfunded liabilities to be covered in the end, someone must pay $99.2 trillion more or receive $99.2 trillion less than they have been currently promised. This is a cold, hard fact. The decision we must make is whether to shoulder a substantial portion of that burden today or compel future generations to bear its full weight.

Now that you are all thoroughly depressed, let me come back to monetary policy and the Fed.

It is only natural to cast about for a solution—any solution—to avoid the fiscal pain we know is necessary because we succumbed to complacency and put off dealing with this looming fiscal disaster. Throughout history, many nations, when confronted by sizable debts they were unable or unwilling to repay, have seized upon an apparently painless solution to this dilemma: monetization. Just have the monetary authority run cash off the printing presses until the debt is repaid, the story goes, then promise to be responsible from that point on and hope your sins will be forgiven by God and Milton Friedman and everyone else.

We know from centuries of evidence in countless economies, from ancient Rome to today's Zimbabwe, that running the printing press to pay off today's bills leads to much worse problems later on. The inflation that results from the flood of money into the economy turns out to be far worse than the fiscal pain those countries hoped to avoid.

Earlier I mentioned the Fed's dual mandate to manage growth and inflation. In the long run, growth cannot be sustained if markets are undermined by inflation. Stable prices go hand in hand with achieving sustainable economic growth. I have said many, many times that inflation is a sinister beast that, if uncaged, devours savings, erodes consumers' purchasing power, decimates returns on capital, undermines the reliability of financial accounting, distracts the attention of corporate management, undercuts employment growth and real wages, and debases the currency.

Purging rampant inflation and a debased currency requires administering a harsh medicine. We have been there, and we know the cure that was wrought by the FOMC under Paul Volcker. Even the perception that the Fed is pursuing a cheap-money strategy to accommodate fiscal burdens, should it take root, is a paramount risk to the long-term welfare of the U.S. economy. The Federal Reserve will never let this happen. It is not an option. Ever. Period.

The way we resolve these liabilities—and resolve them we must—will affect our own well-being as well as the prospects of future generations and the global economy. Failing to face up to our responsibility will produce the mother of all financial storms. The warning signals have been flashing for years, but we find it easier to ignore them than to take action. Will we take the painful fiscal steps necessary to prevent the storm by reducing and eventually eliminating our fiscal imbalances? That depends on you.

I mean "you" literally. This situation is of your own creation. When you berate your representatives or senators or presidents for the mess we are in, you are really berating yourself. You elect them. You are the ones who let them get away with burdening your children and grandchildren rather than yourselves with the bill for your entitlement programs.

This issue transcends political affiliation. When George Shultz, one of San Francisco's greatest Republican public servants, was director of President Nixon's Office of Management and Budget, he became worried about the amount of money Congress was proposing to spend. After some nights of tossing and turning, he called legendary staffer Sam Cohen into his office. Cohen had a long memory of budget matters and knew every zig and zag of budget history. "Sam," Shultz asked, "tell me something just between you and me. Is there any difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to spending money?" Cohen looked at him, furrowed his brow and, after thinking about it, replied, "Mr. Shultz, there is only one difference: Democrats enjoy it more."

Yet no one, Democrat or Republican, enjoys placing our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren in harm's way. No one wants to see the frightful storm of unfunded long-term liabilities destroy our economy or threaten the independence and authority of our central bank or tear our currency asunder.

Of late, we have heard many complaints about the weakness of the dollar against the euro and other currencies. It was recently argued in the op-ed pages of the Financial Times that one reason for the demise of the British pound was the need to liquidate England's international reserves to pay off the costs of the Great Wars. In the end, the pound, it was essentially argued, was sunk by the kaiser's army and Hitler's bombs. Right now, we—you and I—are launching fiscal bombs against ourselves. You have it in your power as the electors of our fiscal authorities to prevent this destruction. Please do so.

Note: The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Federal Reserve System. [END QUOTE]

Deficits To Explode In Coming Decades

The following chart provided by the Heritage Foundation, based on Congressional Budget Office projections, illustrates how federal deficits will explode over the next 70 or so years due to the skyrocketing costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Sadly, this is the future we are leaving for our children and grandchildren.

Conclusions

I think any intelligent person who reads Mr. Fisher's speech above will realize that there is no way the United States can afford to pay the nearly one hundred trillion dollars (or more) in unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over the coming decades. Some might argue that the government should simply "print" the money to pay for it. That would be disastrous! It would result in an explosion in inflation, followed by a depression, in my opinion, not to mention the implosion of the major investment markets.

I wish I had the solution or at least some creative suggestions for the future, so that we could end this E-Letter on a positive note. But I do not. Our politicians have knowingly created an entitlement state that we can never pay for - all with the unstated purpose of buying our votes.

Mr. Fisher's admonishment to all of us is to elect responsible representatives who will take necessary action. And what action would that be? Cut government spending dramatically and balance the budget. Yetwe've seen both parties spend outrageously when in power, and neither party has made any serious attempt to address the looming Social Security and Medicare crises.

President Bush made a half-hearted attempt to put Social Security on the table following his re-election in 2004. He was roundly criticized by the Democrats and ignored by the Republicans. Thus, Mr. Fisher's advice is easy to give, but hard to follow.

Even if we had disciplined leaders in the White House and in Congress who were willing to risk their political careers to tackle the massive unfunded entitlement liability, now approaching $100 trillion dollars, the question is, have we waited too long? Obviously. Are these expenditures on autopilot without any way to avoid the massive deficits that are sure to come? They certainly are today.

So why is virtually no one talking about it? Why is it that we are only hearing this warning from the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas? Why not Fed chairman Bernanke? And why is it that this isn't an issue for either of the current presidential candidates?

I wish I knew the answers. In closing, the following civilization cycle comes to mind. Each of the great civilizations in the world passed through a series of stages from their birth to their decline to their death. Historians have listed these in ten stages:

Bondage to spiritual faith, to great courage to liberty, to abundance to selfishness, to complacency to apathy, to moral decay to dependence, and back to bondage.

Sorry to end on a negative note, but it is what it is.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

How Obama is like his communist father (bet you haven't seen this).
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303952499910291

McCain Shines at Saddleback Forum (he really did!)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/small_hopes_and_large_upsets.html

Is the tide turning for McCain? (libs are getting nervous)
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/18/is-the-tide-turning/

Ukraine & Georgia should be admitted to NATO now.
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303952651252204

Stratfor: The US Economy & The Next "Big One"

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:35:00 GMT

The conventional wisdom on Wall Street seems to be that we have now entered into a recession. While I'm not yet ready to get on that bandwagon, I do see it as a definite possibility in light of ongoing weak economic reports. If we do experience a recession, the next question is whether this is going to be the "big one," somewhat akin to the 1930s Depression....(read more)

Forecasts & Trends : Deficit

Is America On The Road To Financial Ruin?

Obama On Course To Double National Debt

Have We Turned The Corner On The Recession?

Why The Stock Markets Are Collapsing

Throwing Trillions Around Like Crazy

The Recession & More Government Bailouts

Introduction

Latest Grim Numbers On The US Economy

The Latest On The Government Bailouts

Fed Announces The Mother Of All Bailouts

Troubling Aspects Of The Fed's Latest Bailout

Fighting "Debt-Deflation" At Any Cost

Storms On The Horizon - The Entitlement Time Bomb

Introduction

Remarks by Dallas Fed President Richard W. FisherMay 28, 2008

Deficits To Explode In Coming Decades

Conclusions

Stratfor: The US Economy & The Next "Big One"

Remarks by Dallas Fed President Richard W. Fisher
May 28, 2008