Archive - Jan 1, 2013

Moments ago, Boehner voted to enact "Obama's tax cuts", which is the new de facto Bush tax cuts (which expired yesterday), and which will raise the budget deficit over the next decade by $4 trillion, yet which at the same time paradoxically also hiked taxes on nearly three quarters of Americans with an emphasis on the wealthiest 1%. Now, Boehner also issues a statement to advise his constituency just what issue he will cave on next: spending.

They came; they spoke; they voted...

• *HOUSE BEGINS VOTE ON AVERTING TAX INCREASES FOR MOST WORKERS
• *HOUSE HAS ENOUGH VOTES TO PASS BUDGET BILL; VOTE CONTINUING
• *CANTOR VOTES NO ON BUDGET BILL
• *PAUL RYAN VOTES YES ON BUDGET BILL
• *BOEHNER VOTES YES ON SENATE BILL
• Republicans: Yea 85 - 151 Nay
• Democrats: Yea 172 - 16 Nay

'Cliff'-Off (for now)...'Debt-Ceiling'-on. Time to start buying March vol steepeners? But the bottom line is simple: the Bush tax cuts are dead. Long live the Obama tax cuts.

 On May 10, 2000 a GATA delegation consisting of Reg Howe, Frank Veneroso, Chris Powell and Bill Murphy met with Denny Hastert, The Speaker of the House in the United States Congress; Spencer Bachus, the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy; and Dr. John Silvia, the Chief Economist of the Senate Banking Committee. We presented each of them our 100 page "Gold Derivative Banking Crisis" document and personally delivered it to the staff of every House and Senate Banking Committee member.

Presented with little comment (via Bloomberg):

• *HOUSE REPUBLICANS ABANDON EFFORT TO ADD SPENDING CUTS TO BILL

It appears everyone grows tired of the pantomime, even the main actors. Well that was fun while it lasted...

UPDATE: Sure enough - *COLE SAYS MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS TO VOTE FOR SENATE BILL ... and the market is rallying

Following Monday's fiscal-cliff-gasm in markets in the US, the Australian stock market is the first indication of the post-cliff on-again-off-again reaction to the reality that is a stymied House and stubborn Senate. Some are noting the fact that it is 'up' as a signal of confidence - however, given its 'catch-up' nature, it is actually signalling considerably less confidence than US stocks showed at their close. Why is this important? Because all that matters is the market...

"Everyone knows once the markets open tomorrow our courage drops in direct proportion to the market fall," said one Republican lawmaker

Of course, this could all change based on the next flashing red headline.

"Are the key governments and their leaders able to maintain confidence in this fragile system?" "Are 'they' going to do the 'right' things?"

Ironically, the very success of stock market manipulation only thins the market of legitimate participants and thus increases the probability that risk that has been suppressed for years will erupt uncontrollably. That the stock market is manipulated is no longer in question. One explicit goal in the Fed's zero-interest rate policy (ZIRP) is to drive capital into risk assets such as stocks. That is a first-order, transparent policy of manipulation, i.e. a centrally managed policy aimed at managing markets to meet a key central-planning goal: creating an illusion of prosperity via an elevated stock market and the resultant "wealth effect" for the 10% who own enough stocks to matter. Indirect manipulation is hidden from public view lest the rigging of the market taint the perception that a rising market is "proof" that Federal Reserve and Administration policies are "succeeding." Indirect manipulation is achieved via Federal Reserve quantitative easing operations, unlimited liquidity and lines of credit to fund bank speculations and masked buying of market futures. This multilevel manipulation creates a Boolean either/or for any Bear market: either it is a planned "panic" that profits the banks or a systemic failure of the orchestrated campaign of market manipulation.

From 9/11 on, Gold and the world's central bank balance sheets were as correlated as over-consumption and a hangover (and linked just as causally we suggest). Then a funny thing happened in 2008 - gold slid as the central banks went extreme. Of course, as this divergence occurred, the world's stock markets imploded almost as if the central banks knew their status quo was about to go entirely pear-shaped. From 2008 until November of 2011 (when the world's central banks began their coordinated ease-fest) the correlation went limit up once again. Since then, Gold and CB largesse once again decoupled as liquidity is flushed around the world's markets to suspend reality just a little longer. While this divergence is not as extreme as in 2008, something is afoot.

We can’t predict the future – if it was actually possible fortune tellers would all win the lottery.  They don’t, we can’t and we aren’t going to try to.  However, we can analyze what has happened in the past, weed through the noise of the present and try to discern the possible outcomes of the future. For every almost every positive tailwind there is an opposing headwind, and in the coming year, the political and economic decisions domestically, and globally, will define the coming landscape.

UPDATE: *LATOURETTE SAYS CANTOR WON'T SUPPORT BILL 'IN CURRENT FORM'

It seems all is not going according to plan in D.C.. Perhaps it was the $4 Trillion deficit rampage the CBO just scored, or that the Republicans awoke from their slumber but as House meetings end, it appears Citi's worst case scenario is about to take place - the bill is going back to the Senate with spending cut amendments. As Politico notes, amending the bill would throw into serious flux the carefully negotiated agreement between Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden. While headlines noted the possibility, Rep Spencer Baucus (via Robert Costa) just confirmed the deal will "go back to the Senate."

• *BACHUS SAYS HOUSE REPUBLICANS 'THERE' ON TAX PROVISIONS
• *BACHUS SAYS HOUSE MAY SEND BILL BACK WITH SPENDING CUTS ADDED

One thing is clear, Politico adds: there is serious disdain among House Republicans for what the Senate did in the middle of the night. Retiring Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio asked House Republicans why the House would “heed the votes of sleep deprived octogenarians,” according to a source in the meeting.

US Vice President Biden and Senate Minority leader McConnell brokered an agreement that was approved by the Senate that seems to avoid the full fiscal cliff.  It now is before the House of Representatives.  

While the Jan 1 deadline is passed, the more significant one, we had argued was Jan 3, when a new Congress is sworn in.  A failure by the 112th Congress to finalize the legislation would mean that process would have to begin anew with the 113th Congress. 

After what is likely to be intense though short debate, the House of Representatives can either approve the same exact bill the Senate approved, which be the quickest resolution.  It can seek to amend the bill, in which case it must return to the Senate for their approval.  The process could be cumbersome and require reconciliation and would risk the Jan 3 deadline.  Alternatively, a majority of the House could fail to ratify the Senate bill, in which case, it will be up the next Congress to claw back from the other side of the cliff.

Two things:

First - it is no longer the "Bush (temporary) tax cut" - it is now the "Obama (permanent) tax cut", with a loophole for the 1%ers (whose big picture "impact" we showed previously)

Second - according to the just released scoring by the CBO, the total impact to the US budget deficit of said permanent tax cuts, will be a $4 trillion increase in the deficit over the next decade. In reality, due to the CBO's perpetual optimistic bias, this number will likely be orders of magnitude lower than what it ends up being.

Maybe the US can just increase the taxes on the uber wealthy some more, and pray that unlike Obelix, they have never heard of Belgium.

...That would be the far more important cliff to America's middle class, the "Welfare Cliff" as a result of which the country's workers, especially those that fall in Obama's middle class sweet spot -  those tens of millions earning between $30,000 and $70,000, are perfectly agnostic if they make $29,000 or $69,000 as their net income and benefits amount to one and the same. Because being "aspirational and upwardly mobile" is so 1999, especially in a nation where it is more important to drag down the rich, than to become them. But hey - just toss this one too in the bin of perverted statist disincentives, along with all those other unintended consequences of central planning and a governmental power grab, not the least of which is the misallocation of trillions to satisfy immediate shareholder demands such as dividends and buybacks in a ZIRP world, instead of actually reinvesting in capital, growth, and hiring of workers: those things that capitalism, at least on paper, used to be all about.

Presented with little comment except to rhetorically ask (Tom Lee) - where's the value?

Banzai7 Institute presents the essential charts for hallucinating precisely WTF happened in 2012...and more