$1.4 Trillion Deficit Complicates Stimulus Plans
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that the federal budget deficit for the fiscal year that just ended was $1.4 trillion, nearly a trillion dollars greater than the year before and the largest shortfall relative to the size of the economy since 1945.
The number, while lower than forecast a few months ago, underscored the challenges ahead in shrinking the deficit even as the White House and Congress are considering more steps to stimulate an economy that is making a slow recovery. The political hurdles to finding a solution were evident on Friday as each political party immediately blamed the other for the growth of the deficit.
The shortfall for the fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, translates to 10 percent of the economy, according to a joint statement from the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter R. Orszag. For the 2008 fiscal year, the deficit of $459 billion was 3.2 percent of the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product.
Economists generally agree that annual deficits should not exceed 3 percent of the G.D.P., and that is the level President Obama had vowed to reach by the end of his first term in 2013.
But subsequent spending and tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and lower-than-expected revenues as the recession deepened before bottoming out, combined to push the administration’s deficit forecast to 4.6 percent of G.D.P. for the fiscal year 2013.
At 10 percent of the gross domestic product, the 2009 deficit is the highest since the end of World War II, when it was 21.5 percent. At that level, it already has become a bigger economic and a political issue than any time since the late 1980s.
Investors who are essential to financing the debt, including China and other foreign interests, are eager for signs that the government will eventually regain control over its budgets.
And polls show that Americans are increasingly worried as well, raising concerns about Mr. Obama’s ambitious domestic agenda, including his signature health care overhaul, that Republicans are stoking. At the same time, many Americans are demanding further help, confronting forecasts that job losses will not peak until mid-2010.
Mr. Orszag alluded to the administration’s fiscal quandary in a statement on Friday. “As we move from rescue to recovery, the president recognizes that we need to put the nation back on a fiscally sustainable path,” he said. He said proposals to help do that would be part of Mr. Obama’s next budget early next year, for fiscal 2011.
The 2009 fiscal year began last October, just as President George W. Bush and Congress were contending with the near-collapse of the financial system and working to enact what became a $700 billion rescue plan. After Mr. Obama took office, administration officials calculated that the deficit would surpass $1.2 trillion. Mr. Geithner and Mr. Orszag recalled that forecast in their statement on Friday.
The 2009 deficit, they said, “was largely the product of the spending and tax policies inherited from the previous administration, exacerbated by a severe recession and financial crisis that were under way as the current administration took office.”
The economic recovery efforts, through the Troubled Asset Relief Program for financial institutions, known as Tarp, and the $787 billion, two-year stimulus package, accounted for just under a quarter of the deficit, they said.
The administration’s calculation of a $1.4 trillion deficit tracks an estimate last week from the Congressional Budget Office that anticipated the data from the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget. The actual deficit was slightly lower than each had expected in August, when the White House budget office projected a $1.8 trillion deficit and the Congressional office forecast $1.6 trillion.
The decrease from the earlier projections largely reflected updated accounting, including, Mr. Geithner said, the fact that “we are managing to repair the financial system at a lower cost to taxpayers.”
The Obama administration ultimately did not need additional billions it had budgeted for the effort. Also, several major institutions repaid their bailout money with interest, and other financial companies that have not are paying interest on their borrowings.
While many financial institutions have recovered — and prospered, as this week’s eye-popping earnings reports for JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs showed — the persistent high unemployment, home foreclosure rates and credit needs of small businesses are keeping the White House and Congress focused on stimulating the economy. This adds to the deficit, rather than reduces it.
“It would be harmful to try to balance the budget at a time when the economy has not fully recovered and so many Americans are still struggling,” said Representative John M. Spratt Jr., Democrat of South Carolina and chairman of the House Budget Committee.
But on Friday, the deficit was front and center. The overall national debt, which is the accumulation of annual deficits, is nearly $12 trillion, and projected deficits for the next decade will add an estimated $9 trillion more. Administration officials say two-thirds of that is due to Bush administration policies — chiefly tax cuts, wars and the Medicare prescription drug benefit — not paid for with other savings.
“Today’s deficit announcement again highlights the fiscal mess handed to the Obama administration,” Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said in a statement.
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican minority leader in the House, rejected that position. “It is irresponsible for Democrats to continue spending taxpayers’ money we don’t have to fund an agenda that would destroy the jobs we need to get our economy moving again,” Mr. Boehner said.
Bailout Helps Fuel a New Era of Wall Street Wealth
Even as the economy continues to struggle, much of Wall Street is minting money — and looking forward again to hefty bonuses.
Multimedia
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Many Americans wonder how this can possibly be. How can some banks be prospering so soon after a financial collapse, even as legions of people worry about losing their jobs and their homes?
It may come as a surprise that one of the most powerful forces driving the resurgence on Wall Street is not the banks but Washington. Many of the steps that policy makers took last year to stabilize the financial system — reducing interest rates to near zero, bolstering big banks with taxpayer money, guaranteeing billions of dollars of financial institutions’ debts — helped set the stage for this new era of Wall Street wealth.
Titans like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are making fortunes in hot areas like trading stocks and bonds, rather than in the ho-hum business of lending people money. They also are profiting by taking risks that weaker rivals are unable or unwilling to shoulder — a benefit of less competition after the failure of some investment firms last year.
So even as big banks fight efforts in Congress to subject their industry to greater regulation — and to impose some restrictions on executive pay — Wall Street has Washington to thank in part for its latest bonanza.
“All of this is facilitated by the Federal Reserve and the government, who really want financial institutions to get back to lending,” said Gary Richardson, a research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. “But we have just shown them that they can have the most frightening things happen to them, and we will throw trillions of dollars to protect them. I have big concerns about that.”
Not all banks are doing so well. Giants like Citigroup and Bank of America, whose fortunes are tied to the ups-and-downs of ordinary consumers, are struggling to turn themselves around, as are many regional banks.
But the decline of certain institutions, along with the outright collapse of once-vigorous competitors like Lehman Brothers, has consolidated the nation’s financial power in fewer hands. The strong are now able to wring more profits from the financial markets and charge higher fees for a wide range of banking services.
“They are able to charge more for all kinds of services because companies need banks and investment banks more now, and there are fewer strong ones to help them,” said Douglas J. Elliott of the Brookings Institution.
A year after the crisis struck, many of the industry’s behemoths — those institutions deemed too big to fail — are, in fact, getting bigger, not smaller. For many of them, it is business as usual. Over the last decade the financial sector was the fastest-growing part of the economy, with two-thirds of growth in gross domestic product attributable to incomes of workers in finance.
Now, the industry has new tools at its disposal, courtesy of the government.
With interest rates so low, banks can borrow money cheaply and put those funds to work in lucrative ways, whether using the money to make loans to companies at higher rates, or to speculate in the markets. Fixed-income trading — an area that includes bonds and currencies — has been particularly profitable.
“Robust trading results led the way,” said Howard Chen, a banking analyst at Credit Suisse, describing the latest profits.
To prevent a catastrophic financial collapse that would have sent shock waves through the economy, the government injected billions of dollars into banks. Some large institutions, like Goldman and Morgan, have since repaid their bailout money. But most of the industry still enjoys other forms of government support, which is helping to stoke profits.
Goldman Sachs and its perennial rival Morgan Stanley were allowed to transform themselves into old-fashioned bank holding companies. That switch gave them access to cheap funding from the Federal Reserve, which had been unavailable to them.
Those two banks and others like JPMorgan were also allowed to issue tens of billions of dollars of bonds that are guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures bank deposits. With the F.D.I.C. standing behind them, the banks could borrow the money on highly advantageous terms. While some have since issued bonds on their own, they nonetheless enjoy the benefits of their cheap financing.
Granted, banks are also benefiting from a stabilizing economy. The fear that gripped the markets earlier this year, when doomsayers predicted a second Great Depression, has largely dissipated. Stocks, corporate bonds, even risky corporate i.o.u.’s — have all rallied from their bear market lows, some spectacularly so. The Dow Jones industrial average has soared 50 percent this year, and touched 10,000 this week for the first time since the crisis.
Banks that had marked down the value of the assets on their books during the dark days of the crisis are now enjoying a rebound in the value of many of those assets.
“Confidence has returned,” said Shubh Saumya, a financial services specialist at the Boston Consulting Group. “Some of the assets that bankers wrote down last year in the midst of the crisis, now they have got some of that back.”
As the number of banks has dwindled, the survivors are moving into the void left by rivals that are either dead or limping and unwilling to take risks.
A big reason for Goldman Sachs’s blowout profits this year has been the willingness of its traders to take big risks — they have put more money on the line while other banks that suffered last year have reined in such moves. Executives say there are big strategic gaps opening up between banks on Wall Street that are taking on more risks, and those that are treading a safer path.
Banks that have waded back into the markets have been able to exploit large gaps in the prices of various investments, a feature of the postcrisis financial markets. The so-called bid-ask spreads — the difference between the price at which banks are willing to buy things like bonds, and the price at which they are willing to sell — are roughly twice what they were two years ago.
Still, the newfound success is largely limited to the big securities houses on Wall Street. This week, Citigroup and Bank of America reported losses from credit card delinquencies and mortgage defaults — a sign of the lingering pain on Main Street.
Celente: Government is bribing seniors
No comments:
Post a Comment