The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year

The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year

By Heather Long

February 3, 2018 at 7:00 AM

The National Debt Clock in New York City is shown last November. The total is about $100 billion higher now. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters).

It was another crazy news week, so it's understandable if you missed a small but important announcement from the Treasury Department: The federal government is on track to borrow nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year — Trump's first full year in charge of the budget.

That's almost double what the government borrowed in fiscal year 2017.

Here are the exact figures: The U.S. Treasury expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, according to a documents released Wednesday. It's the highest amount of borrowing in six years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the federal government borrowed last year.

Treasury mainly attributed the increase to the “fiscal outlook.” The Congressional Budget Office was more blunt. In a report this week, the CBO said tax receipts are going to be lower because of the new tax law.

President Trump said during a Jan. 18 speech in Coraopolis, Pa., that Republicans’ tax overhaul is already benefiting the U.S. economy. Here are his full remarks. (The Washington Post)

The uptick in borrowing is yet another complication in the heated debates in Congress over whether to spend more money on infrastructure, the military, disaster relief and other domestic programs. The deficit is already up significantly, even before Congress allots more money to any of these areas.

“We're addicted to debt,” says Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. He blames both parties for the situation.

What's particularly jarring is this is the first time borrowing has jumped this much (as a share of GDP) in a non-recession time since Ronald Reagan was president, says Ernie Tedeschi, a former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury who is now head of fiscal analysis at Evercore ISI. Under Reagan, borrowing spiked because of a buildup in the military, something Trump is advocating again.

Trump didn't mention the debt — or the ongoing budget deficits — in his State of the Union address. The absence of any mention of the national debt was frustrating for Goldwein and others who warn that America has a major economic problem looming.

“It is terrible. Those deficits and the debt that keeps rising is a serious problem, not only in the long run, but right now,” Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, a former Reagan adviser, told Bloomberg.

A strong jobs report and disappointing earnings slammed Wall Street on Feb. 2. The Dow suffered its worst percentage drop since June 2016. (Reuters)

The White House got a taste of just how problematic this debt situation could get this week. Investors are concerned about all the additional borrowing and the likelihood of higher inflation, which is why the interest rates on U.S. government bonds hit the highest level since 2014. That, in turn, partly drove the worst weekly sell-off in the stock market in two years.

The belief in Washington and on Wall Street has long been that the U.S. government could just keep issuing debt because people around the world are eager to buy up this safe-haven asset. But there may be a limit to how much the market wants, especially if inflation starts rising and investors prefer to ditch bonds for higher-returning stocks.

“Some of my Wall Street clients are starting to talk recession in 2019 because of these issues. Fiscal policy is just out of control,” says Peter Davis, a former tax economist in Congress who now runs Davis Capital Investment Ideas.

The Federal Reserve was also buying a lot of U.S. Treasury debt since the crisis, helping to beef up demand. But the Fed recently decided to stop doing that now that the economy has improved. It's another wrinkle as Treasury has to look for new buyers.

Tedeschi, the former Treasury adviser to the Obama administration, calls it “concerning, but not a crisis.” Still, he says it's a “big risk” to plan on borrowing so much in the coming years.

Trump's Treasury forecasts borrowing over $1 trillion in 2019 and over $1.1 trillion in 2020. Before taking office, Trump described himself as the “king of debt,” although he campaigned on reducing the national debt.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts the U.S. deficit will hit $1 trillion by 2019 and stay there for a while. The latest borrowing figure — $955 billion — released this week was determined from a survey of bond market participants, who tend to be even faster to react to the changing policy landscape and change their forecasts.

Both parties claim they want to be “fiscally responsible,” but Goldwein says they both pass legislation that adds to the debt. Politicians argue this is the last time they'll pass a bill that makes the deficit worse, but so far, they just keep going.

The latest example of largesse is the GOP tax bill. It's expected to add $1 trillion or more to the debt, according to nonpartisan analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation (and yes, that's after accounting for some increased economic growth).

But even before that, Goldwein points to the 2015 extension of many tax cuts and the 2014 delays in Medicare reimbursement cuts.

“Every time you feed your addiction, you grow your addiction,” says Goldwein.

There doesn't seem to be any appetite for budgetary restraint in Washington, but the market may force Congress' hand.

Above is from:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/03/the-u-s-government-is-set-to-borrow-nearly-1-trillion-this-year/

My Great-Grandparents Weren’t ‘Illegal’ When They Came To The U.S. They Would Be Now.

My Great-Grandparents Weren’t ‘Illegal’ When They Came To The U.S. They Would Be Now.

Kari Hong,HuffPost Fri, Feb 2 4:59 AM CST

• 
  

Around 1905, when Norway would have been considered a “shithole,” my great-grandmother sailed to the United States. She was 16 years old, without family and money, and found work as a house cleaner. My great-grandfather was a Norwegian sailor who jumped ship and just started living in Chicago.

Fortunately for me, the immigration laws we had then let them get green cards and earn citizenship. My mother recounts her grandparents as kind and decent, suffering humiliation and enduring hardship to provide opportunities for their children. They were frugal and bought a house. Both of their sons served in WWII; one was shot down and was a POW. Their granddaughter, my mother, was the first in their family to attend college.

Their story, an immigrant story, exemplifies the American dream.

Our immigration laws have been a bit more complicated. We have a restrictionist past, having excluded people based on race and nationality, including people from China, Japan and Italy. The country moved to rectify these exclusionary policies with the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act.

We have also had important chapters in our immigration story when we calculated “merit” properly: not by measuring a person’s worth based on what they lacked upon their arrival, but by valuing the future contributions that arise from their hopes, grit and gratitude.

Over two decades ago, Congress passed a law that changed that calculus. In the same month that he cravenly appealed to the right by “reforming” welfare and signing DOMA, former President Bill Clinton also signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

IIRIRA was neither a solution to an existing problem nor a pragmatic compromise. Rather, the Republicans wanted to look tough on immigration, and the Democrats were afraid to look soft, despite knowing the law was bad policy. The law closed many doors that used to let people stay. Previously, someone who crossed the border earned a green card if they had spent seven years paying taxes, demonstrated good character and proved a citizen needed them here. For those who married citizens, they got status if they paid a $1,000 fine. IIRIRA instead elevated a border crossing into an unforgivable sin, deporting the same people who used to get green cards.

If that law had been in place in 1905, both my great-grandparents would be “illegal” — one overstayed her visa, the other crossed a border without one. My great-grandparents would be placed in detention and scheduled for immediate deportation, likely without a hearing. The old immigrants did not have superior character; our laws just were not captured by right-wing talking points.  

The old immigrants did not have superior character; our laws just were not captured by right-wing talking points.

With his “shithole” comments earlier this month, President Donald Trump exposed the moral deficiency and logical fallacy of IIRIRA’s restrictionism. But Republicans defend it with politer language ― think “merit,” “chain-migration,” and “self-deportation” ― and Democrats continue to acquiesce with spineless silence.

What the immigration hard-liners get wrong is that it is this heightened, senseless immigration enforcement, not legal or “illegal” immigrants, that is hurting our country.

Immigration violations often involve minor and unintentional conduct, and are intended to be forgiven. When someone breaks a criminal law, they are convicted, punished and could face a lifetime of collateral consequences arising from being a felon. But when someone violates immigration law, they appear before an immigration judge, and will sometimes be given (or restored with) a green card or asylum status.

Half of the people who get immigration hearings are granted legal status. For those with attorneys, that number is much higher: in 2017, in one courthouse that found a lawyer for every detained case, the grant rate went from 4 percent to 24 percent, and is predicted to be 77 percent when all pending cases are counted. A national study of 1.2 million cases showed that, for those outside of detention, grant rates went from 13 percent to 63 percent if the non-citizen had an attorney. The more accurate term would be “pre-legal” not “illegal,” immigrants.

The term “illegal immigrant,” however, serves to justify billions of dollars spent on arresting, detaining and deporting people who sound dangerous. Under former President Barack Obama, the federal government spent $18 billion each year on immigration enforcement.  By contrast, the agencies targeting actual criminals — the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, and ATF — got only $14 billion. 

Trump wants to spend billions more — each year — on more arrests ($1.3 billion more on new officers), more detention centers ($1.5 billion increase over the $2 billion currently spent), and more wall (starts at $21.5 billion and estimates are as high as $67 billion). There simply is no justification for this amount of wasted money. 

While Trump’s crackdown that has resulted in a 40 percent increase in immigration arrests, fewer than 6 percent have any criminal conviction. And among those with convictions is the Polish doctor with a green card whose misdemeanor offenses were decades old.

Across all sectors, our economy will not thrive or grow without immigrants: rural hospitals face a shortage without foreign-born doctors. Up to 50 to 70 percent of farmworkers are undocumented. Society Security will be insolvent unless more immigrants live in our country. And Trump’s current immigration crackdown is proving that immigrant deportations do not create a single American job.

The term 'illegal immigrant' serves to justify billions of dollars spent on arresting, detaining and deporting people who sound dangerous.

To the contrary, it is costing tens of thousands of Americans their livelihood: a labor shortage is “choking” Idaho’s dairy industry, lost tourism has resulted in 40,000 layoffs, and a decline in foreign students is forcing numerous colleges to cut programs and faculty. Immigration hard-liners wish to spend $400 billion to $600 billion to deport a population that is expected to contribute over $5 trillion to our economy in the next 10 years. That’s the party of fiscal responsibility?

What Trump’s rhetoric, and IIRIRA’s deeds, miss most with their attack on immigrants is that being American is both a noun and a verb. I first became patriotic when, as an immigration lawyer, I saw my own country through the eyes of my clients: A Yemeni Muslim shared with me how much fun he and his wife had attending their first gay pride parade. A Salvadoran teenager who was granted asylum after fleeing gangs asked how he could enlist in the U.S. military. A Mexican man and his wife raised a child as their own after the biological parents had left the child for an intended temporary period that became 15 years.

People who want to curb legal immigration based on “merit” fail to understand that immigrants — skilled and unskilled — contribute character, values, and economic growth that our country needs as much today as it did in 1905.

If a state stopped issuing driver licenses, there would be a sudden glut in “illegal drivers.” A state then could either try to arrest and jail all of them, blow up the highway for all drivers, or just start re-issuing licenses as they had in the past. These are the same choices we have in immigration. Waves of “illegal immigrants” did not and are not scrambling over the border.  The undocumented population more than doubled when IIRIRA irrationally cut off all means for people who were already in this country a chance to get status. 

We now can continue to spend billions each year to deport those who are contributing to our communities, families and taxes. Or, we can work to repeal IIRIRA and let those who are contributing continue to do so. The latter choice is not radical. To the contrary, it has been proven to work and is the common sense that our country needs.

Kari Hong, an assistant professor at Boston College Law School, teaches immigration and criminal law. She founded a clinic representing non-citizens with criminal convictions in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

This piece has been updated with additional information on the history of U.S. immigration laws.

• This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
• Above is from:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/early-immigrants-weren-apos-t-105905842.html

What did Boone County promise in the 1999 Tax Referendum

Here is what was published by Boone County Government in 1999 regarding the referendum.

See “What will it cost me”. It leads the reader believe funds will only be used for bond payments and ( if possible) the tax will sunset before the 20 years?

Here is the advertising handout regarding the 1999 Referendum

It clearly states the tax will sunset.  See the third page below regarding will the tax end.  The answer is: “ YES YES YES  The tax will end after 20 years or an earlier date by a vote of the county board”

1

How many dollars has been received and how were they used?

This ad by Greg Kelm in the February 1, 2018 SHOPPER gives some of the numbers. Just under half of all the taxes went towards items other than the mortgage and interest payment.