Connect with us

Government

Government Shutdown Averted. But Is That A Good Thing?

Once again, due to the ongoing lack of fiscal responsibility in Washington, the markets and the economy faced a Government shutdown. After a day of theatrics,…

Published

on

Once again, due to the ongoing lack of fiscal responsibility in Washington, the markets and the economy faced a Government shutdown. After a day of theatrics, Congress passed a “stopgap” measure that will keep the Government operating for 45 days. But is that a good thing?

First of all, while much media hyperbole surrounds Government shutdowns, much like the debt ceiling, there is a long history of shutdowns going back to the 70s. As Katherine Buchholz of Statista recently penned:

“The 2018/19 Government shutdown was the longest in recent U.S. history at 34 days. A timeline shows that government shutdowns have been getting longer in the last three decades, with the second and the fourth-longest Government shutdowns taking place in 1995 and 2013, respectively. Throughout the 1980s, shutdowns were numerous but shorter, while in the 1970s, they also ran somewhat longer but only surpassed two weeks once, in 1978. Government shutdowns aren’t all that rare: Since 1976, there have been 20 shutdowns that lasted an average of 8 days.

While the latest measure provides funding, we will likely deal with this again in mid-November. What is notable, however, is that the Government has stopped functioning normally since 2008. Before the Obama administration, the Government operated on an annual fiscal budget. The House of Representatives would put together a budget for spending, the Senate would make its modifications, and then it would go back to the House for reconciliation. Once complete, it would move to the President for signature. Funding would then be allocated accordingly.

Compound Spending

However, since 2008, the Government has continued to operate without a budget. Rather than passing a budget each year, a “Continuing Resolution” is passed to fund spending. The problem with using “Continuing Resolutions” is that it uses the previous spending levels and increases that spending by 8%. Such is why, since 2008, the debt has exploded as spending is compounding annually.

Total Federal Public Debt growth

Of course, given the massive surge in spending, revenues cannot keep up the pace, leading to a rapid increase in debt issuance and a trending deficit.

Federal Revenues vs the deficit

It is worth noting that before 2008, revenues were greater than the running growth trend of public debt. However, post-2008, such has not been the case. Subsequently, the growth in the deficit continues to accelerate.

However, does this mean a calamity is at hand with the Government now shut down?

A Temporary Delay Doesn’t Solve The Problem

While the media and Government officials will declare victory over avoiding a Government shutdown, is it a victory? Washington, D.C., has a long history of “kicking the can” to avoid doing its “job” of governing. That job sometimes includes making unpopular decisions that cause short-term pain for a healthier economy in the years ahead.

Rather than taking the easy path, it is essential to understand what occurs during a Government shutdown. Yes, roughly 900,000 “non-essential” workers will be furloughed. While their salaries will accrue during the furlough, the lack of income will impact economic growth. That impact would be relatively minor, and based on past shutdowns, Goldman Sachs estimated a reduction of annualized growth by around 0.2% for each week it lasted after accounting for modest private-sector effects.

Given that the longest shutdown lasted 35 days, as shown above, you can estimate the impact on economic growth could be roughly as much as 1%. Yes, that is certainly concerning, but with economic growth running near 5% according to the latest Atlanta Fed GDPNow, such is not a recessionary concern.

Atlanta Fed GDPNow estimate

Shutdowns Are About Discretionary Spending

What is critical to understand about Government shutdowns is that mandatory spending (social security, welfare, interest on the debt) continues as needed. Shutdowns are primarily about discretionary spending. Such is why it mainly involves Government employment and the shuttering of national parks and monuments. According to Goldman Sachs, the shutdown would have only impacted about 2% of Federal spending overall. Notice that the vast majority of Government spending is directly a function of the social welfare system and interest on the debt.

Chart of discretionary spending as percent of GDP

The above chart shows spending as a percent of GDP. However, using the 2023 data from the Center On Budget Policy, we can better understand why we have a problem with our welfare system.

Federal Budget Breakdown

As of the latest annual data, through the end of Q2-2023, the Government spent $6.3 Trillion, of which $5.3 Trillion went to mandatory expenses. In other words, it currently requires 113% of every $1 of revenue to pay for social welfare and interest on the debt. Everything else must come from debt issuance.

Mandatory Spending as a Percent of Revenue

While a Government shutdown would undoubtedly create a minor negative impact on economic growth, maybe such would be an acceptable price to return the Government to some form of fiscal responsibility.

Ad for SimpleVisor, the do-it-yourself investing tool by RIA Advisors. Don't invest alone. Tap into the power of SimpleVisor. Click to sign up now.

What A Shutdown Would Mean For The Markets?

But what impact would a shutdown have on the financial markets?

This past weekend’s newsletter discussed why the recent summer weakness laid the groundwork for a potential year-end rally. To wit:

As a contrarian investor, excesses get built when everyone is on the same side of the trade. With that said, everyone is so bearish the markets could respond in a manner no one expects. The chart below shows the relatively sharp decline from the more exuberant bullish sentiment we saw in June and July. Historically, when the combined readings of retail and professional sentiment reached current levels, such formed the basis for a reflexive rally.

Net Bullish Sentiment

A Government shutdown would undoubtedly impact the financial markets as investors remain skittish about committing capital into an uncertain environment. However, as noted by Zerohedge recently:

“What’s more, market reactions to government shutdowns have become increasingly muted given that despite the high odds of a shutdown, funding typically arrives at the 11th hour via a ‘continuing resolution’ to provide temporary funding at the start of the Oct. 1 fiscal year, which eventually translates to longer-term spending bills. A failure to do either leads to a shutdown – which looks likely at this point.”

Shutdowns have a limited impact on markets

As shown in the table below, since 1995, markets tend to wobble heading into and during the Government shutdown but tend to post positive returns overall.

Market Returns before and after a shutdown

While the mainstream media’s hyperbole about Government shutdowns is undoubtedly concerning, the reality is that they have little impact on both the economy and the financial markets.

The fiscal irresponsibility in Washington, D.C., which continues to erode economic growth, prosperity, and a stronger middle class, should be of more concern.

As we concluded in “Debts, Deficits, and Why $32 Trillion Matters,”

“{The debt] is one of the primary reasons why economic growth will continue to run at lower levels. Changes in structural employment, demographics, and deflationary pressures derived from changes in productivity will magnify these problems.

Debt and average economic growth by cycle.

Like a forest fire cleanses and fertilizes the soil, making the forest healthier, maybe a Government shutdown that returns some fiscal responsibility to Washington might be a good thing.

The post Government Shutdown Averted. But Is That A Good Thing? appeared first on RIA.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate…

Published

on

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate iron levels in their blood due to a COVID-19 infection could be at greater risk of long COVID.

(Shutterstock)

A new study indicates that problems with iron levels in the bloodstream likely trigger chronic inflammation and other conditions associated with the post-COVID phenomenon. The findings, published on March 1 in Nature Immunology, could offer new ways to treat or prevent the condition.

Long COVID Patients Have Low Iron Levels

Researchers at the University of Cambridge pinpointed low iron as a potential link to long-COVID symptoms thanks to a study they initiated shortly after the start of the pandemic. They recruited people who tested positive for the virus to provide blood samples for analysis over a year, which allowed the researchers to look for post-infection changes in the blood. The researchers looked at 214 samples and found that 45 percent of patients reported symptoms of long COVID that lasted between three and 10 months.

In analyzing the blood samples, the research team noticed that people experiencing long COVID had low iron levels, contributing to anemia and low red blood cell production, just two weeks after they were diagnosed with COVID-19. This was true for patients regardless of age, sex, or the initial severity of their infection.

According to one of the study co-authors, the removal of iron from the bloodstream is a natural process and defense mechanism of the body.

But it can jeopardize a person’s recovery.

When the body has an infection, it responds by removing iron from the bloodstream. This protects us from potentially lethal bacteria that capture the iron in the bloodstream and grow rapidly. It’s an evolutionary response that redistributes iron in the body, and the blood plasma becomes an iron desert,” University of Oxford professor Hal Drakesmith said in a press release. “However, if this goes on for a long time, there is less iron for red blood cells, so oxygen is transported less efficiently affecting metabolism and energy production, and for white blood cells, which need iron to work properly. The protective mechanism ends up becoming a problem.”

The research team believes that consistently low iron levels could explain why individuals with long COVID continue to experience fatigue and difficulty exercising. As such, the researchers suggested iron supplementation to help regulate and prevent the often debilitating symptoms associated with long COVID.

It isn’t necessarily the case that individuals don’t have enough iron in their body, it’s just that it’s trapped in the wrong place,” Aimee Hanson, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge who worked on the study, said in the press release. “What we need is a way to remobilize the iron and pull it back into the bloodstream, where it becomes more useful to the red blood cells.”

The research team pointed out that iron supplementation isn’t always straightforward. Achieving the right level of iron varies from person to person. Too much iron can cause stomach issues, ranging from constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain to gastritis and gastric lesions.

1 in 5 Still Affected by Long COVID

COVID-19 has affected nearly 40 percent of Americans, with one in five of those still suffering from symptoms of long COVID, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Long COVID is marked by health issues that continue at least four weeks after an individual was initially diagnosed with COVID-19. Symptoms can last for days, weeks, months, or years and may include fatigue, cough or chest pain, headache, brain fog, depression or anxiety, digestive issues, and joint or muscle pain.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 12:50

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending