Between Sequester Cuts And Payroll Tax Hike, Expect 41% Hit To Nominal GDP

Between the sequester spending cuts and the payroll tax rate going back up by 2 percentage points, I'm expecting a decline in nominal GDP of as much as 41%.

The sequester cuts come to $85 billion.

The payroll tax hike will remove conservatively $96 billion from American paychecks. Based on payrolls in 2011 of $6,239 billion, about $1,459 billion was exempt from Social Security taxation. Taking 2% of the remaining $4,780 billion yields a payroll tax hike of $95.6 billion using 2011 payrolls, the last available from SocialSecurity.gov.

Nominal GDP increased between October 2008 and October 2012 by $1,769.5 billion. That's been an average of $442 billion a year, nominal, over the last four years.

Subtracting the sequester cuts and the payroll tax increase (conservatively $181 billion) from that means cutting nominal GDP by about 41%.

Second Estimate Of Q4 2012 GDP Revised Up To 0.1%

The BEA reports here, with the big takeaway that the average upward revision of 0.5 utterly failed to materialize this time, meaning the economy is really in the toilet already in the fourth quarter, pre-Social Security tax rate resumption, pre-tax increase on the rich, pre-ObamaCare taxes starting to kick in, etc., etc., the economy having hit a huge brick wall after Q3 GDP of a more respectable 3.1%:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent.

The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the "advance" estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, real GDP declined 0.1 percent. The upward revision to the percent change in real GDP is smaller than the average revision from the advance to second estimate of 0.5 percentage point. While today’s release has revised the direction of change in real GDP, the general picture of the economy for the fourth quarter remains largely the same as what was presented last month . . ..

They Don't Actually READ The Stories At Real Clear Politics

Investors.com Agrees With Us: GDP Under Obama The Worst Since WWII

So Jeffrey Anderson for Investors.com, here:

"According to the BEA, average annual real GDP growth during Obama's first term was a woeful 0.8%. To put Obama's mind-bogglingly low number in perspective, consider this: It was less than half the tally achieved during Bush's second term. It was barely a quarter of the tally achieved under President Carter. It was the worst tally achieved during any presidential term in the past 60 years."

We told you so already last October, here, in "Obama Racks Up Worst GDP Record In Post-War Period":

"But Obama comes in with a pathetic, ridiculous average report of GDP over 16 quarters of just 0.86%, over twice as bad as Bush."

This Is A Depression, Says Dem. Billionaire Mort Zuckerman

"We believe we live in more normal times—and we do not. Millions of people today are experiencing exactly the same struggle as the millions did in the Great Depression. They can't find work. They depend on government and philanthropy. They live on hope denied. ...

"The reality is, we are experiencing a modern-day Depression. It is harder to find work than it has been in any previous economic recovery period. ...

"The Pew Research Center reports that for the first time in the post-World War II era, middle-class families finished the decade significantly poorer in terms of household net worth—which is down almost 40 percent since 2007—and with lower incomes than a decade earlier. This has hit the middle class harder than any other group. According to Pew, one third of Americans now identify themselves as lower class or lower middle class, a deterioration since 2008 when one quarter identified themselves that way. ...

"We are living through a breakdown of the great American jobs machine. This is not a recovery. Annual GDP growth in 2010 and 2011 averaged a mere 2.4 percent; in 2012, GDP growth slowed to 1.8 percent. In other words, cumulative growth for the last 11 quarters was just 6.8 percent, less than half the 15.2 percent average growth in GDP after previous recessions over a similar period of time. This is the slowest growth rate following all 11 post-World War II recessions. ...

"No recession since the end of World War II has been as deep or as long as this one, severely testing the optimism, confidence, and animal spirits that typify the temper of America. The question of the hour is how can we find a way to avoid becoming a low-wage, part-time country."

Read the full story, "How We Can End Our Modern-Day Depression," from Mort Zuckerman, here. 

Wily Democrats Ramped Up Spending Baseline Almost 18% In 2009

The Tax Policy Center here provides a useful history in pdf format of federal outlays and revenues going back to 1940.

After taking complete control of the federal purse strings in January 2009 with the election of President Obama, the Democrat-controlled House and Senate proceeded to ramp up federal spending almost 18% in 2009 compared to 2008, from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. You can see from the chart that expenditures have continued at that new, higher level ever since, despite the fact that revenues have not recovered. Is this the height of irresponsibility, or what? It certainly is one of the more baneful consequences of one party Democrat rule. Now you understand why Democrats won't pass budgets. Continuing this excess using continuing spending resolutions keeps their names out of the papers.

You'll notice on the revenue side for 2008 and 2009 that the government's income from taxes of all sorts declined almost 17% while these expenditures were being dramatically increased at nearly the same rate, opening up a gigantic fissure in the government fiscal landscape. Revenues declined by $419 billion between 2008 and 2009 while expenditures increased $535 billion. The revenues declined due to the bursting of the housing bubble, the ensuing financial panic and the massive unemployment which followed. Nearly 11.31 million Americans lost their full time jobs between November 1, 2007 and December 1, 2009. People who don't work don't pay taxes. With federal outlays already running over $450 billion in excess of revenues, you can understand why the deficit in 2009 swelled to over $1.4 trillion, and continues elevated at that level every year since. Deficits for fiscal years 2009-2012 will top well over $5 trillion in the end. At the Bush-level of deficit spending, the number would have been closer to $3.5 trillion.

In exchange for that astounding liability we have fat bankers not prosecuted for their crimes; bigger banks more dangerous than ever; fat government salaries at every level compared to the private sector; crony capitalism in banking, autos and healthcare; 5 million homes repossessed in seven years; over 12 million officially unemployed; over 2 million per year leaving the labor force for Social Security disability, reduced lifestyles, poverty, or retirement; nearly 48 million on food stamps; GDP struggling to average 1% per year under Obama, the worst performance in 65 years; interest rates near zero destroying returns on retirement capital; an exploding wave of reduced work in the form of impermanent contract and part-time labor; and on and on.

And what's hot on the web right now?

"Where's my refund?" 

Why Obama's Done Nothing To Restore Jobs And Growth

It's not his thang, baby, dontcha remember? He told you so almost four years ago:

"Nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it. I have more than enough to do without having to worry [about] the financial system."

-- President Obama, March 2009

Jobs and GDP are an annoyance to Obama, as are stocks, banking and Bibi Netanyahu, and boy is he ever proving it.

What's The Difference Between GDP Growth Of +3.1% And -0.1%?

What's the difference between GDP growth of +3.1% and -0.1%?

If you said 3.2%, you are a dumb ass.

3.2 is the spread in percentage points, not the percentage difference.

Think of the measurement, in this case of the GDP  expressed as a rate, as steps on a ladder, the rungs of which each represent 0.1. You are standing way up there on rung 3.1 in Q3 2012, from which you descend during Q4 all the way down to rung 0.1, then to rung 0.0, and finally to rung -0.1, if you can imagine a ladder with zero and negative rungs.

How many steps did you take? The answer is 32. That is a long way down from where you were. Since each step has a value of 0.1, 32 x 0.1 = 3.2, the value of the spread.

Now that you know the value of the spread, you can calculate the percentage difference between the two measurements the spread spans, otherwise called the percentage drop in this instance. This is where people, even in the financial media, get confused, because they have to figure out the percentage difference between rates, which by definition are already expressed as percentages. But really it is not difficult, no more difficult than calculating the percentage difference between two quantities of apples, oranges or any other things you can enumerate. Forget that they are percentages you are calculating the percentage difference between in this instance, and imagine instead that they are the number of times Red Forman kicked your ass last week vs. this week, or whatever else you like.

Once you know the spread between the two things, you say to yourself: "What percent of the higher number is the spread?" You ask it that way because you want to know how much you declined in percentage terms. (You'd ask the question of the lower number if it had been an increase). Since percent is the amount per hundred, you turn that word problem into an equation: x divided by 100 (what percent means the amount divided by 100), multiplied by (of) 3.1 (the higher number of 3.1 or -0.1, the place from which you climbed down to -0.1) = (is) 3.2 (the spread).

You write it this way:

x                 3.1  
---       x     -----     =    3.2
100              1

Another way to say the same thing is:

3.1x
------  = 3.2
100

Next you begin to isolate x by multiplying each side of the equation by 100, which gives you 3.1x = 320.

Then all you have to do is divide each side by 3.1 to find the value of x. 320 divided by 3.1 = 103.2258. And what was that again? The amount per 100, otherwise called the percentage. So the answer is 103.2%. That's how much the GDP growth rate declined from Q3 to Q4. That's a lot bigger difference between the GDP numbers than 3.2%, isn't it? 3.2% is puny and insignificant on top of being just plain wrong. 103.2% is the stunning truth, and an arrestingly important warning.

In other words, from Q3 to Q4, we wiped out all the growth rate, 100% of it, and a little bit more. We were up the ladder at 3.1, and walked it all the way back 31 steps to the bottom, and then some, one more step, below ground level so to speak.

Now if we could just get people like Rush Limbaugh to understand this, maybe more people in the country would begin to understand the enormity of our problems. Unfortunately for us, the enormity of our problems begins with the fact that most of the voters can't do even this simple math. If they could, they wouldn't have reelected the guy whose slogan was Forward because they would have understood that he doesn't know which direction that is, let alone how to get there.

Obama Has Had 3 Recessions In His First Term, And May Get A 4th To Start His Second

If a recession is two quarters back to back with GDP declines, the second decline worse than the first, then Obama has had three recessions in his first term, and is likely to begin his second term with a fourth recession. "A fall in GDP in two successive quarters" remains the dictionary definition of a recession despite what trimmers everywhere say.

After Q4 2009, GDP declined from 4.0 to 2.3 and 2.2 in the first two quarters of 2010.

After Q3 2010, GDP declined from 2.6 to 2.4 and 0.1 in the last quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011.

After Q4 2011, GDP declined from 4.1 to 2.0 and 1.3 in the first two quarters of 2012.

That makes three recessions at the ends of each of the first three years of Obama's first term, and the pattern appears to be repeating again at the end of the fourth year, going from 3.1 to -0.1 from the third quarter of 2012 to the fourth. With taxes rising dramatically in 2013 from the payroll tax reset, the increase in taxes on the rich, and the new ObamaCare taxes, and with spending cuts through sequestration looming, I'd say the odds favor a 4peat on the recession front because these factors are very negative for GDP, as are the employment rules for ObamaCare which will subdue incomes and thus spending.

Given the pattern of repeated recessions beginning already in 2010, what we have been going through since 2008 when GDP declined 0.3 and 2009 when GDP declined 3.1, a depression in fact all by itself, is actually better called an extended depression even though annually speaking 2012 represents a climb out of the pattern. Unless, that is, Q1 2013 isn't worse than -0.1 and future revisions to 2012 GDP aren't downward.

I wouldn't bet on it.

ObaMao Breaks A Few GDP Eggs To Transform The Country

After four years of the worst GDP in post-war history, are you starting to get the feeling that it's intentional?

"At present, our objective is to struggle against and crush those persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic 'authorities' and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and to transform education, literature and art, and all other parts of the superstructure that do not correspond to the socialist economic base, so as to facilitate the consolidation and development of the socialist system."

-- The Decision, 1966

US GDP Growth Is So Bad Greece Is Doing Better Than We Are

h/t TradingEconomics.com

George Bush's GDP Sucked But Was 2.5 Times Better Than Obama's

2.04% on average for 8 years then vs. 0.825% for four years now.

Markets Shrug At Terrible GDP Report, Hang On Words Of Federal Reserve

Faced with the worst GDP report since Q2 2009, the markets shrug. What really counts for markets is whether the Federal Reserve this afternoon will announce some new intervention to boost the economy. Markets ignore reality, and hang on the words of the bankers. This is not free market capitalism. These are not free markets. These are rigged markets. This is corporatism. This is fascism. It favors an elite few in exchange for their support, while the majority of Americans gets by on crumbs.

Under Obama GDP Has Never Been Worse Since 1948. The 2012 Winner Is A Loser.

Measured from Q4 2008 through Q4 2012, President Obama's average quarterly report of GDP is a stunningly low +0.865% over the 17 quarter period. Measured for the 16 quarters of 2009 through 2012, the average quarterly report is +1.475%.

Measured annually 2009-2012 President Obama's average annual GDP increase is a paltry +0.825%. Bush's average annual report of +2.04% over the eight years from 2001-2008 had been the worst record in post-war history. Remarkably, that was almost 2.5 times better than what we've got now, the worst recorded GDP growth since World War II.

The latest GDP data is available from the BEA in pdf here. 

Stunning GDP Drop Stunning To Everyone But David Rosenberg

(This post has been corrected).

Before the election, here, David "Rosie" Rosenberg actually predicted a negative GDP print in Q4 due to Hurricane Sandy. That GDP actually came in at a only slightly negative 0.1% is beside the point. In Q3 2012 the annualized rate of growth was reported as +3.1%. That means that during Q4 the annualized rate of growth hit a brick wall to decline by over 100%. If all it takes is a category 1 hurricane to send the greatest economy in the world negative, we are in sorry shape indeed.

Busted GDP. Busted Inaugural JumboTron. Busted Presidency. Busted Country.

Money Available For Spending Is Up Over 70% Since 2008, But Total Debt Is Up 7%

M1 money supply has gone up about $1 trillion between mid-2008 and now, almost 5 years. This is basically spending money which is not being spent.

Total credit market debt fell an equivalent amount, but all of it in 2009, so one cannot say the one "offset" the other. (The extra M1 was saved over the nearly five year period. The debt was discharged somehow, through pay-downs or defaults, and relatively quickly during the year of the biggest GDP decline in post-war memory). And since early 2010, total debt is back up over $2.5 trillion. And since 2008 TCMDO is up over $3.6 trillion overall.

Somebody is ramping up debt just like before the crisis, but it's not the consumer.

Bush And Obama Piss Down The Backs Of Older Workers And Tell Them It's Raining

In the post-war period, the unemployment level for workers 55 and over first reached the 400,000 mark in 1948, and rattled up and down around that for five decades, briefly doubling during the recessions after 1980 and 1990. The weakness was already apparent however by July 1974, when the level last got effectively to 400,000, at 402,000. The superlative growth of GDP under Truman, Eisenhower and JFK/Johnson had propelled the country strongly forward but ran out of gas, quite literally, the summer after I graduated from high school. It was the immediate aftermath of the Arab oil embargo, and also the summer when Richard Nixon's presidency went tits up. The Vietnam denouement occurred the following year, Jimmy Carter got elected a year after that, and within four years interest rates and inflation rose to crippling levels. America had lost her way. The reforms during the Reagan/Bush years would take until the presidency of Bill Clinton in the 1990s to make GDP look once again like it did during the immediate post-war years. Things got so good by the late 1990s that people routinely quit their jobs, looking for greener pastures elsewhere. Finding and keeping qualified workers became very difficult for employers. But it was not to last.

It was in May 2001 that the unemployment level for America's oldest workers last saw that old normal territory, at 493,000, and it hasn't looked back since.

Since that date there has been a sustained problem of unemployment for older workers, for whom the new normal level quickly became 800,000 during the Bush administration. Now it has ramped up much higher than that under Obama, the new normal since 2008 rising five times the old normal to 2 million. The unemployment level for workers 55 and over has gone from 493,000 in 2001 to a peak of 2.233 million in 2010, an increase of nearly five fold. Today the level remains stuck just under 2 million.

Under George Bush the unemployment level for older workers never really came down, and under Obama it has hardly moved after ramping up so high. It is hard to believe that it isn't by design, since older workers tend to be the highest earners. You can save a lot of money as an employer by firing them. 2 million workers no longer making $50,000 a year comes to a savings of $100 billion annually.

Older workers no longer working aren't depreciating assets. They're expenses, written-off.

Who will be next?

GDP Under Bush Was More Than Twice As Good As It Is Under Obama

Americans Have Been Hoarding Spending Money Since October 27th, 2008

That's the last time M1 was at the $1.4 trillion level.

Americans haven't looked back since.

Since that date in 2008, hoarding of spending money has increased at a rate north of 66% overall. Compare that to the previous four year period from October 2004 to October 2008 when money in consumers' spending accounts increased only 8.4%.

Theoretically, in excess of $1 trillion has been removed from consumer spending over the four year period since 2008, but it has been kept in such a way that it is ready to spend, suggesting Americans have been waiting to spend the money, preparing to spend the money, or just plain saving the money in the only accounts they own where they can keep it.

I'll go with the latter.

This is an enormous sum when compared with the actual dollar increase in GDP for the three years from 2009 through Q3 2012 annualized, which is a measly $1.84 trillion. Assuming non-crisis conditions, however, these monies might have been spent instead of saved and GDP would have increased to at least $2.84 trillion instead of $1.84 trillion, or as much as 35% higher than the reality.

Parenthetically, notice the fear represented by the near verticality of allocation to this category during the debt ceiling crisis of Summer 2011, and then the resumption of the trend upward.

Another such episode will be upon us shortly.

Liberal Henry Blodget Agrees: Pres. Bush/Republicans Won Battle Of Fiscal Cliff

Liberal Henry Blodget of BusinessInsider fame writes for YahooFinance, reproduced here:

"Ever since the Bush Tax Cuts were first enacted in 2001, one goal of the Republican party has been to 'make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.' ...

"The Republicans may not have gotten everything they wanted out of the Fiscal Cliff deal, but they got almost everything.

"And when it comes to the broader fiscal battle, the Republicans are winning: The federal government's tax revenues are at the lowest level as a percent of GDP in the past several decades.

"The Republicans, in other words, are well on their way to starving the beast."