President Barack Obama

With the U.S. economy sinking and unemployment rising, the already record projected budget deficit for the current fiscal was set to increase beyond the latest revised upward figure of over $1.8 trillion. With growing problems on Capital Hill with proposed healthcare reform owing to concerns about the growing Federal government deficit, something had to be done. And something was done. Here is the American government at work.

The Obama administration will remove $250 billion for additional emergency funding for the financial system, and $78 billion for additional funds for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from the budget. That takes the projected deficit down to just below $1.6 trillion. Add those figures back in and the deficit would have been forecast at over $1.9 trillion, higher than the previous updated projection.

Of course, this is simply a bookkeeping exercise. With the FDIC shutting down insolvent banks at warp speed, and the global credit markets still largely frozen with toxic assets, who does the Obama administration think it is kidding?

At  its peak level of GDP, the U.S. economy depended on the American consumer for more than 70% of its output of goods and services. It has been the deleveraging of the American consumer, and to a growing extent his/her unemployment, that has been the catalyst of the U.S. recession. And not only America; the centrality of the U.S. consumer to the overall global economy has meant his pulling back on a debt induced shopping spree has sparked a worldwide synchronized recession.

The vast amount of money that Uncle Sam has borrowed to fund a nearly $800 billion economic stimulus program is supposed to substitute for the falloff in consumer demand, stop the avalanche of job losses and in the process regenerate consumer spending. The perception that this policy response was beginning to bear fruit has been the foundation of a recent flurry of statements emanating from the Federal Reserve, intimating that the recession was winding down, with recovery just around the corner. Both the Fed, Obama administration and Wall Street fully expected that the July retail sales figures would reflect a return to growth in consumer spending, juiced up by a taxpayer funding “cash for clunkers” gimmick aimed at kick-starting auto sales.

When the official sales figures were released by the Commerce Department, jaws dropped right through the floor. Instead of the .7% rise that was expected, July’s retail sales figures revealed a decline of .1%. However, the reality was much worse than even the posted decline, for the July figures were artificially inflated by a large increase in automobile related products due to “cash for clunkers.” Without the engineered car driven increase in consumer purchases, the actual retail sales contraction was .6%.

The ugly truth is that no matter how manipulated official economic statistics are, including the U3 unemployment number, the reality is that total consumer purchasing power, reflecting the number of hours worked multiplied by average wage, has declined to a level that makes it virtually impossible to recreate vigorous economic growth. Despite the happy talk from Washington,  I think it would be surprising if the Obama administration does not ask Congress for a second massive stimulus package before the end of the year.

Should a second stimulus package be proposed by President Obama, he may encounter stiff resistance from Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats over concerns about the exploding national debt. However, it is likely that the Obama administration will place a higher priority on going into the 2010 mid-term elections with the ability to claim they have reduced unemployment rather than positioning themselves as fiscally responsible.

Higher deficits, however ,create the danger of inflation and much higher interest rates. Escalating interest rates will serve as a brake on economic expansion, defeating the purpose of deficit  funded stimulus programs. Now, in that situation, one can always resort to monetary policy, with the Federal Reserve reducing interest rates. However, in this unique economic disaster our planet is currently navigating its way through, the Fed, as with many central banks throughout the world, has already reduced its funds rate to close to zero.

Could the Obama administration be running out of options? If fall retail sales continue to plummet and unemployment rises, things could get even more ugly for the problematic American economy.

When President Obama trumpeted the first “decline” in the national unemployment rate in nearly a year, I thought for a moment that the 44th U.S. president was residing in an alternative universe. How can you lose a quarter of a million jobs in a month, and simultaneously witness the unemployment rate actually post a  decline from 9.5% to “only” 9.4%? However, on reflection, it is I who reside in an  alternative universe. For if you decide to remove a whole chunk of discouraged workers, those whose long-term unemployment is deemed more or less permanent, from the official workforce count, then you can  absolutely post a reduction in the national unemployment rate while still shredding jobs, courtesy of the statistical wizards at the Department of Labor. Easy as toast.

So it is I who must apologize to President  Barack Obama for having committed the heresy of screwing up with logic my understanding of official statistics on employment in America . Of course, it makes perfect sense. Now, let’s just go ahead and save a whole lot of stimulus money by deducting everybody who is unemployed for more than a month from the official national workforce number.

If this pearl of economic policymaking is indeed valid, why not go the next step, and completely solve the problem of our national debt. Even with rising yearly deficits, we can actually reduce the total national debt by just removing a whole category of IOUs that no one seems to be worrying about at the moment. That way, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner can withdraw his request before Congress to increase the national debt ceiling to above $12 trillion, or nearly triple the total it was back in 2000. A brilliant solution to the nation’s fiscal imbalance, so it would appear.

But wait a moment. It seems we already are doing that. According to David M. Walker, who served as the Comptroller-General of the United States from 1998 to 2008, if the U.S. were following general accounting rules that are applicable to businesses in the private sector, it would be posting a far higher figure for the national debt. How much higher? According to Walker, there are more than $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities the U.S. government has incurred regarding future Medicare and Social Security obligations.

Fortunately, a high official with the Federal Reserve disagrees with David Walker. Unfortunately, that official, Richard W. Fisher, President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, revealed in a speech delivered in May that the actual national debt of the United States, accurately tabulating all the nation’s obligations, is a cool $100 trillion.

Now maybe all this statistical manipulation being conducted by our government officials is meant to serve some useful purpose, such as to artificially boost investor confidence and create a new stock market bubble. Perhaps Obama and his Wall Street coterie of advisors really do know what they are doing, and sceptics such as myself are just panicky doomsayers. However, I really do hope America’s foreign creditors are blissfully ignorant as to the true state of the U.S. economy and its fiscal reality. Heaven help us if they stop believing Washington’s math.

In confronting a  crisis of epic proportions, one can do the heavy work of crafting a well conceived, comprehensive strategy. But why bother, when short-term gimmicky is politically more feasible. Thus we have this absurd counter-cyclical gimmick, the so-called “cash for clunkers” boondoggle, being offered by President Barack Obama and the Washington establishment as their “answer” to the  massive problems confronting the automobile industry, not only in America but globally as well.

Throughout the world, a vast car manufacturing infrastructure has been constructed at great expense and high leverage, designed for global demand of almost one hundred million cars per year. However, the Global Economic Crisis has unleashed massive demand destruction in many key categories of consumer durables. In the case of autos, worldwide demand is currently just above fifty million units per annum, rendering it almost impossible for most automobile manufacturers to generate a profit, whether they are located in Detroit, Tokyo or Stuttgart. The challenge is massive, global and complex. Yet, the geniuses in Washington, with the support of President Obama, have come up with a solution that is small, local and simplistic beyond all measure.
The concept of the “cash for clunkers” program is very simple and superficially enticing, as are most gimmicks. Trade in the old jalopy that was on the verge of being junked anyways, since it had no trade-in value on the open market. The federal government will fund  a $4,500 credit that will go towards the purchase of a shiny new automobile, thus stimulating the economy. As to be expected, the response from those with dilapidated vehicles on the verge of being dropped off at the local scrap yard has been  substantial, in the process depleting the original one billion dollar appropriation for the program. Also not a surprise, the politicians rushed to provide another  $2 billion for the program, to the delight of car dealerships across the land.

While on the surface  the program may be seen as an economic stimulus initiative at work, no one should be fooled into believing that this is a carefully designed, long-term strategic answer to the worst economic contraction to occur in the United States since the Great Depression. And most notably, the supposedly strong response to the program actually betrays its supercilious essence. For one thing, four of the the five most popular cars being purchased under “cash for clunkers” are foreign brands, meaning the impact on the domestic auto industry is minor at best.

Beyond the fact that  domestic car manufacturers are only partially benefiting from the program, it must  also be remembered that every dollar of credit being distributed under the program’s auspices is from U.S. taxpayers, at a time of massive, multi-trillion dollar deficits. Using borrowed money to subsidize the purchase of foreign made automobiles, along with domestic models, does not make much economic sense. However, there is another aspect to this program that has thus far escaped scrutiny.

A major driver of the Global Economic Crisis was the stampede of consumers who were enticed into buying new homes they could not afford, due to the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates beyond prudent levels. This created a real estate bubble, and we all know the consequences of that. Now, with “cash for clunkers,” it just may be possible that many of the consumers taking advantage of the credit largesse from Washington are those with incomes that were inadequate for  a new car purchase, but have been persuaded by their own government to take the plunge on a new automobile loan, courtesy of this deficit-financed program. What happens if many of these new car owners end up defaulting on their auto loans, as the recession deepens?  This is by no means a small possibility, given the current dynamics of the nation’s most severe economic contraction since the 1930s. In effect, the American taxpayer may be financing a new wave of consumer loan defaults down the line, further exacerbating what some are now calling the Great Recession.

“Cash for Clunkers” is really a showroom lemon, masquerading as brilliant economic policy. The politicians may think it is ingenious; my own view is that it is symptomatic of the intellectual bankruptcy that has come to dominate Washington’s response to the nation’s descent into financial and economic doom. Is this the change that Barack Obama promised?

Karl Denninger, a frequent guest on CNBC and commentator for a website with a sceptical take on the economy, Market Ticker, has offered a convincing rebuttal to those who stand by the official claim that Q2 witnessed a decline of a mere one percent in the U.S. economy’s GDP. Here are the salient points of Denninger’s critique of the numbers that came out of the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

In Q2, Denninger points out, the government’s spending grew by 10.9%, contributing to a positive movement of 3.3% in the second quarter’s reported GDP. Remove that 3.3% from the equation, and the actual Q2 data for the consumer economy witnessed an overall contraction of -5.2%, a figure substantially worse that the official government Q2 report.

The statistical argument raised by Karl Denninger warrants careful consideration by all those who are seeking an accurate gauge of what is actually transpiring in the real economy. Furthermore, the track record of both the Commerce Department and Labor Department under both Bush and Obama has not been exactly stellar with regard to its statistical accuracy in measuring the impact of the Global Economic Crisis on the American economy. Simultaneously with the release of reassuring Q2 numbers, the Commerce Department also admitted it had gotten its evaluation of the recession’s affect on the U.S. economy’s GDP from its onset in Q4 of 2007 through the latter part of 2008 stupendously wrong, now conceding that the actual contraction was -1.9 percent instead of -0.8%, as previously reported.

There is only one flaw with Karl Denninger`s analysis; it is based on logic, a principal that seems irrelevant to any measurement of the economy derived from official government sources.