When government or a government agency spends an amount equal to the amount they take in, they are said to have a balanced budget. When the government or a government agency spends more than they take in, they are said to have a deficit. To resolve a deficit budget,a government or a government agency can 1)increase taxes, 2)borrow by issuing bonds, 3)cut spending or 4) print more money.
If one were to assume that the budget is an honest statement of the amount needed to run the government or a government agency, the pragmatic way to balance the budget would be to raise taxes.
If the majority rejects raising the taxes, a cut in spending may be the answer. The question "What to cut" then becomes the problem.
Step 1 would be to review the new expenditures proposed and eliminate those that are not absolutely necessary for the operation of the government or government agency.
If the budget is still not balanced,
Step 2 would be to review the old expenditures approved in last year's budget. (Old expenditures would be salaries and costs at last year's levels. Raises and increase in costs would be considered along with other new expenditures)
If the budget is still not balanced,
Step 3 would be to to either print new money or borrow more money. To print new money would cause inflation and the people would have to spend more money for their purchases in the coming year. To borrow money would postpone the cost (plus iterest) to the future.
Borrowing would quite likely postpone the costs which would be greater in the future and perhaps unfair to the people in the future.
Inflation would result in the people sharing the extra cost according to the amount of their purchases in the coming year.
Increased taxes would result in the people sharing the extra cost according to the amount of their income in the coming year.
What do you think would be the best way to balance the budget?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
MIND OVER MATTER
IN THE CASE OF MIND OVER MATTER; IF YOU DON'T MIND IT DOESN'T MATTER!
Back in the 1980's, Bankers and Accountants were the most boring but most honest and respected people in the free world. They were the guardians of our money in business and the check on the government. "Full Disclosure" was a sacred trust; cover up was a deceitful crime. Somehow since then, the two, working with global investors, were responsible for the most outrageous plunder since Aegis Khan.
To understand this deceitful fraud, one would have to understand the accounting equation. It is a simple formula - Assets minus liabilities equals net worth. In layman terms this means "What you own minus what you owe equals what you are worth." This is important in finance because nobody can borrow more than they are worth. Accountants prepare statements called Balance Sheets that clearly, and honestly report the Net Worth of a business or government. (Government reports are a little different and basically report how much is received {Income} and how much i paid out.)
For example, if a government had a budget that listed 5B of income and 5B of Appropriations (money to be paid out) it would have a balanced budget. If only 3B were collected in taxes, fees, etc, the accounting report would show a 2B deficit. However, if the government made a "Dervee" with a
bank to receive 2B for the income on Port Shipping Fees for some period of time in the future, and this Dervee was recorded as income; the report would show a balanced budget of 5B income and 5B spent. The responsibility (liability) to pay the Bank on the Dervee could be burried in other official documents. Nothing illegal or unethical here as long as full disclosure and transparancy are not part of your ethics.
Accountants and politicians in government roles sold out to "big business" well before "Dervees" came on to the scene. Accountants deferred some expenses and capitalized others to manipulate the profit figure to allow excessives bonuses to Corporate Officers who hired them. To look at another simplified example, If Company A had 5B in Assets and 1B in Liabilities, one could compute their
net worth at 4B. In 19XX, Company A only made 1M in profits and decided to hire a new CEO who hired a new accountant and signed an agreement to increase profits and that he would receive a bonus of 20% of any profits over 1M. During the year the Company hired an adverising company to run a campaign for 1B greatly increasing sales. Total sales for the year were 2B with operating expenses of 1 1/2 B, and Advertising Cost of 1B, decreasing the total Assets by 1/2 B and an operating loss for the year of 1/2B.
The CEO and Accountant decided to capitalize Advertising Expense as Goodwill (An intangilbe Asset) at 1B which increased Assets by 1B, decreased the operating expenses by 1B and changed the 1/2 B loss to a 1/2 B profit, giving the CEO a bonus of 80M (500M minus 100M X 20%
Financial Statements before "innovative" accounting.
Assets 4B 500M Liabilities 1B O00M Income 2B 000M
Oper Exp 2B 500M
Net Worth 3B 500M LOSS 500M
Financial Statements after "innovative" accounting. Income 2B 000M
Oper Exp 1B 500M
Assets 6B 420M Liabilities 1B 000M Profit 500M
CEO Bonus 80M
Net Worth 5B 420M Net Profit 420M
Back in the 1980's, Bankers and Accountants were the most boring but most honest and respected people in the free world. They were the guardians of our money in business and the check on the government. "Full Disclosure" was a sacred trust; cover up was a deceitful crime. Somehow since then, the two, working with global investors, were responsible for the most outrageous plunder since Aegis Khan.
To understand this deceitful fraud, one would have to understand the accounting equation. It is a simple formula - Assets minus liabilities equals net worth. In layman terms this means "What you own minus what you owe equals what you are worth." This is important in finance because nobody can borrow more than they are worth. Accountants prepare statements called Balance Sheets that clearly, and honestly report the Net Worth of a business or government. (Government reports are a little different and basically report how much is received {Income} and how much i paid out.)
For example, if a government had a budget that listed 5B of income and 5B of Appropriations (money to be paid out) it would have a balanced budget. If only 3B were collected in taxes, fees, etc, the accounting report would show a 2B deficit. However, if the government made a "Dervee" with a
bank to receive 2B for the income on Port Shipping Fees for some period of time in the future, and this Dervee was recorded as income; the report would show a balanced budget of 5B income and 5B spent. The responsibility (liability) to pay the Bank on the Dervee could be burried in other official documents. Nothing illegal or unethical here as long as full disclosure and transparancy are not part of your ethics.
Accountants and politicians in government roles sold out to "big business" well before "Dervees" came on to the scene. Accountants deferred some expenses and capitalized others to manipulate the profit figure to allow excessives bonuses to Corporate Officers who hired them. To look at another simplified example, If Company A had 5B in Assets and 1B in Liabilities, one could compute their
net worth at 4B. In 19XX, Company A only made 1M in profits and decided to hire a new CEO who hired a new accountant and signed an agreement to increase profits and that he would receive a bonus of 20% of any profits over 1M. During the year the Company hired an adverising company to run a campaign for 1B greatly increasing sales. Total sales for the year were 2B with operating expenses of 1 1/2 B, and Advertising Cost of 1B, decreasing the total Assets by 1/2 B and an operating loss for the year of 1/2B.
The CEO and Accountant decided to capitalize Advertising Expense as Goodwill (An intangilbe Asset) at 1B which increased Assets by 1B, decreased the operating expenses by 1B and changed the 1/2 B loss to a 1/2 B profit, giving the CEO a bonus of 80M (500M minus 100M X 20%
Financial Statements before "innovative" accounting.
Assets 4B 500M Liabilities 1B O00M Income 2B 000M
Oper Exp 2B 500M
Net Worth 3B 500M LOSS 500M
Financial Statements after "innovative" accounting. Income 2B 000M
Oper Exp 1B 500M
Assets 6B 420M Liabilities 1B 000M Profit 500M
CEO Bonus 80M
Net Worth 5B 420M Net Profit 420M
Friday, February 12, 2010
OBAMA PROMISES
President Obama promised many things in his electoral campaign, among which was the statement that it wouldn't be easy. This certainly has proven to be true. He also said that he would use a bipartisan approach to make the necessary changes in Washington. Keeping his word on this pledge caused him to break his promise on the second part of this pledge. The attempt to compromise with Republicans as well as some self seeking Democrats has made the first year less successful than it may possibly have been. A key may have been the retainment and appointment of prior administration officials in major positions. The Secretary of Defense seems to be following a sensible path to end the wars, but the Secretary of the Treasury appears to pursue the old path of support for Wall Street rather than the support for Main Street. The later has taken this to the extreme in the bailout of AIG and other "Wall Street" interests. The Sec of Treas and the retained head of the Federal Reserve are steeped in "old ways" and probably would be unable to make the changes that were promised if they actually wanted to. The President can't do it alone, and even some of his fellow Democrats aren't helping him either. But give him credit. He's still trying and there are 3 more years to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)