When poor, we polarize.

Fareed's Take: We've downgraded ourselves

By Fareed Zakaria, CNN

We have demonstrated to ourselves, the world and global markets that our political system is broken and that we are incapable of conceiving and implementing sensible public policy.
The actual cut to the 2012 budget, the only budget over which this Congress has control, is $21 billion out of total expenditures of $3.7 trillion – a pittance.
Everything else can and will be changed by future Congresses.
What the deal does is - once again - kick tough choices down the road, this time to a congressional super-commission that will have to come up with a larger plan to reduce debt.
And it does nothing to spur growth, without which the debt will expand well above projections.
The manner in which the deal was produced added poison to an already toxic atmosphere in Washington, making compromise even more difficult.
Democrats now feel they need to mirror the Tea Party's tactics and are becoming unyielding on any cuts to entitlement programs like Medicare. Republicans, emboldened by the success of their bullying, have closed ranks more solidly around a no-tax agenda.
But the only solution to America's debt dilemma will need to involve both cuts to entitlement programs and higher tax revenues.
Congress is more polarized than ever before...and that polarization has resulted in paralysis. More than two years into the Obama Administration, hundreds of key positions in government remain vacant for lack of Senate confirmation. The Treasury Department had to handle the global financial crisis, recession, bank stress tests and automaker bailouts, as well as its usual duties, with about a dozen of its senior positions - almost its entire top management - vacant. Senate rules have been used, abused and twisted to allow constant delay and blockage.
The filibuster, historically employed about once a decade, is now a routine procedure that allows the minority to thwart the will of the majority. In 2009, Senate Republicans filibustered a stunning 80% of major legislation. Given how the chamber is composed - two Senators per state, no matter how thinly populated - people representing just 10% of the country can block all legislation.

-------

This Op-Ed drew 318 responses from readers, America is looking a LOT like Taiwan now, politically.

自行車道的謬誤

台北市敦化北路自行車道，自設置以來，各方雜音不斷，販夫走卒怨聲載道，民意代表爭相究責，政府官員左支右絀；媒體批判有之、嘲諷有之、讚揚有之，而此文，僅以一單車代步之小市民身分，略表心聲。

自行車騎乘，隨環保意識，及本土旅遊之興起，近年在台灣形成風潮。電影、電視推波助瀾、政府、官員樂而隨之，休閒車道於是在各縣市鄉鎮，如雨後春筍般快速竄出。對原本即基於習慣、或興趣、或經濟因素而習於單車代步的民眾來說，自行車從原本的小眾、躍升為主流時尚，無疑是好事一樁。

然而，在台北市，即便日益完善的河濱休閒車道，已為市民創造無數親子同樂、情人踏青的美好時光，但如今，市府企圖更進一步，在市區劃設自行車道的決策，卻在事前評估、執行過程、以及事後配套等諸多層面，犯下好幾個嚴重的邏輯謬誤。

首先、規劃的謬誤。

敦北自行車道通車後，使用率低落，除了技術問題之外，官方解釋，是路網未成形，待更多路段開通，將可逐漸發揮效益。然而，政府官員若是因為看到單車產品熱賣、河濱車道假日絡繹，因而天真推斷，此時增設市區單車道，必定大受歡迎，則顯然是錯估了形勢....

完整原文

銀行生與死的一體兩面: 槓桿與資本比率

Tangible Common Equity (TCE) ratio 分類：投資2009/03/01 16:51

隨著金融風暴的發展, 現時銀行單靠保住Tier 1 capital ratio, 不足以給予投資者以及監管當局的信心. 美國19間大型銀行需要進行的壓力測試, 監管當局將更為注重有型普通股權益資本比率 (Tangible Common Equity ratio, 簡稱TCE ratio)作為衡量銀行的財政狀況和資本實力的指標, 而非目前慣常採用的一級資本充足比率(Tier 1 Capital ratio). 因此, 以後大家見到財經新聞或文章提及TCE呢個名詞的次數會越來越多.

現時筆者見過的TCE比率有兩種計算方法:

1) 有型普通股權益資本比率 (TCE/TA)= 有型普通股權益資本 / 有型資產 (Tangible Asset)

2)　有型普通股權益資本比率 (TCE/RWA) = 有型普通股權益資本 / 加權風險資產 (Risk Weighted Assets)

有型普通股權益資本(TCE) = 股本 (Equity) – 優先股 – 商譽 – 無型資產

(註: 有些銀行計算TCE時會納入理論上屬於無型資產的按揭債務管理資產 Mortgage Servicing rights)

筆者認為第二種計算方法比較合理, 因為它有考慮到風險的因素, 例如持有國庫債券與持有企業債券承受的風險程度不同, 如果兩間銀行擁有同樣數值的TCE和有型資產, 則持有較低風險資產的銀行理論上應該享有較高的TCE比率, 但用第一種方法算出來的TCE比率, 兩間銀行都是一樣的.

資本實力標示銀行在惡劣經濟環境下承受損失的能力. 為何一眾美國銀行的一級資本充足比率接近或甚至超過10%, 但投資者以及股東卻仍然憂心忡忡, 信心低沉呢? 到底一級資本充足比率有何不足之處, 而為何TCE這麼重要呢?

筆者試用外匯槓桿買賣的例子去說明, 如果有人以10萬作按金持有100萬的倉位(position), 槓桿比率為10倍, 承受資產損失的能力是10%, 如果倉位的市值下跌10%, 10萬的本金就完蛋了. 如果10萬按金的其中5萬其實是問朋友借來的, 那麼真正的槓桿比率應該是20倍, 真正承受資產損失的能力只有5%. 套用這個例子作比喻, 一級資本充足比率把朋友的借款(優先股)計入本金, 所以有10%, 而TCE 比率則撇除朋友的借款, 因此只有5%.

TCE 比率被普遍認為是最保守和嚴謹的資本狀況指標之一. 如果單看一級資本充足比率, 美國很多銀行的資本狀況都很健康. 以花旗集團為例, 該行於08年底的一級資本充足比率有11.9%, 以一級資本計算的槓桿比率為8.47倍, 非常健康, 然而該行的TCE 比率只有1.53%, 以TCE計算的槓桿比率高達65.34倍, 如果撇除按揭債務管理資產(Mortgage Servicing rights), TCE 比率更跌至1.23%. 原因是花旗的一級資本包括大量的優先股.

TCE和一級資本的主要分別是前者不計入優先股. 嚴格來講, 優先股的資本並不屬於銀行的,優先股本對銀行來講是債務(Debt)而非權益(Equity), 優先股的持有人是銀行的債權人而非股東, 銀行可以運用優先股本來做生意, 但當經營有損失時, 不能用優先股本去抵銷損失. TCE才是銀行面對資產損失的第一道防線, 或稱為緩衝資本(Cushion to absorb losses). 換句話說, 當銀行有損失時, 首先由TCE承擔, 要TCE減值到零的時候, 才輪到優先股本, 不過如果TCE減值到零, 相信銀行已經破產了.

有型資產(TA) = 負債 (Liabilities) + 有型普通股權益資本 (TCE)

從以上的公式可以看到, 在負債不變的情況下, 如果有型資產有損失減值, 則TCE也會以相同的幅度減值, TCE就是銀行清算(Liquidation)時, 普通股股東可以取回的金額. 因此, 投資者以及股東應該關心TCE多過一級資本.

理論上, 兩間盈利能力差不多的銀行, 如果在經濟好景的時候, TCE比率較低(即較高槓桿)的銀行賺的錢會比較多, 但另一方面, 在經濟不景的時候,TCE比率較低的銀行抵禦損失的能力會比較差, 因此可以解釋到目前投資者對一級資本充足比率很健康的銀行仍然有戒心, 而TCE越來越得到重視的現象.

根據匯豐08年中期財務報告的數據, TCE比率為3.38%, TCE / RWA比率則為6.86%. 現時並無一個官方的規定, TCE比率應該是多少才算足夠或良好, 不過有意見認為應該訂在5%或以上. 如果匯豐要提高TCE比率至到5%, 則需要增加大約425億美元的TCE, 方法可以靠減少派息保留盈利, 以及增發普通股.

後記: 此文的意思並非指匯豐的集資金額是425億美元. 而是想講, 需不需要集資不再是單單看Tier 1 Capital ratio, 而是要兼顧TCE ratio. 由於匯豐未公佈最新的資料, 所以筆者不知道匯豐最新的TCE比率是多少, 而且, 由於目前未有官方的TCE比率標準, 筆者不知道匯豐需要提升TCE比率到什麼水平才算足夠.



BLOGSPOT: http://mrmarketofhk.blogspot.com/

新浪SINA: http://graham_choi2003.mysinablog.com/

香港YAHOO: http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/mr-market/

財政赤字可能造成的影響

預算赤字對於總體經濟變數的影響效果既是未定的，甚至也可能在某些狀況下如李嘉圖等值理論所強調的無影響；因此重點可能不在於預算的融通方式，而是預算的規模與支出結構。政府預算規模大小影響到國家總資源的配置效率，以及政府支出型態（如資本支出比例）影響到國家資本的形成，直接對於總體經濟表現造成衝擊。至於政府預算資金融通方式係採租稅、公債或貨幣，其效果如何？顯然仍存有許多的爭議。

因此，政府是否可以不重視預算赤字？而將預算赤字皆以債務融通方式進行，盡量避免採行容易產生政治成本的增稅方式。然而，為何OECD國家在1980年代以來，即致力於預算赤字與支出規模的控制呢？

依OECD出版的Managing Structural Deficit Reduction(1996)一書，指出基本總體經濟目標是促成各國致力於對抗財政失衡的原動力，這目標在於避免鉅額的預算赤字影響私部門的儲蓄與投資，即所謂的排擠效果與高利率。部份國家如紐西蘭、義大利、與土耳其則更強調金融市場的紀律。Grossman(1999)認為赤字問題會受各國重視的原因為：傳統財政理論仍具影響力、擔心政府公債排斥民間投資、以及政府因龐大債務而信用破產。

茲以為可以歸納有下列因素：

對赤字的根深蒂固觀念：即政府應在和平與經濟繁榮時限制支出，維持預算賸餘，而只有在戰爭與經濟景氣衰退時，可以容許預算赤字與舉債。
公債的排擠效果問題：政府公債會在資金市場與民間競奪資金，排斥私人投資，而一般相信私人投資的效益大於政府的效益。
政治上的支持度問題：預算赤字將失去人民的政治支持度，反之，預算賸餘較容易討好選民。
對政府公共支出的信心問題：預算赤字代表政府支出的無限制膨脹，以及不經濟支出。
理性選擇問題：長期的預算赤字，意謂著政府最終仍將會增稅以籌措償債財源，因此赤字代表未來的負擔加重。
金融信心問題：政府債務無限制的膨脹，即使未導致政府信用的破產。亦終會失去人民以及外國投資者的信心，減少投資。

from 預算赤字控制問題研究 徐仁輝（世新大學行政管理系副教授，行政院財政改革委員會委員）

各國預算赤字成為常態 why?

為何支出成長幅度如此快速而收入成長緩慢，茲歸納有下列原因：

政府介入穩定經濟
自1930年代經濟大恐慌起，凱因斯理論所主張的「功能財政」(functional finance)盛行，50與60年代更是所謂「凱因斯的黃金時代」，各國政府每遇經濟衰退，即採行赤字預算，以擴大有效需求，長期以來縮短衰退期，犧牲的成本是通貨膨脹，以及政府支出不斷成長。1973到1974年的石油危機造成停滯性膨脹，各國政府仍依凱因斯學派主張不斷增加支出，赤字幅度因而更形加大。

社會安全與福利制度
1960年代以來各國不斷的擴大各項社會計畫，包括社會安全制度（年金計畫）、殘障福利、社會救助、失業保險、與醫療保險等，這些利益支付成為一種所謂的「應享權益支出」(entitlement)，不受到政府財政情況好壞的影響，而是法定必須支出，與一般政務或資本支出的預算程序皆不同。這些支出隨著人口結構的老化、以及失業人口增加，而逐年呈現快速成長趨勢。

經濟成長率的趨緩
自1970年代以來OECD國家經濟成長率皆普遍趨緩，失業率上升，造成的影響是政府支出增加，而稅收成長有限。

公共選擇
公共選擇學派觀察到選民對政策的理性無知，經常低估政府支出的機會成本，同時反對加稅，如最有名的加州13號提案。政客們為了選票，偏好採取阻力較少的公債融通方式，因此預算赤字不斷。

共同財悲劇問題
政府預算資源有限，行政官僚、利益團體、政策、或其他關係人莫不以爭取預算為目標，不爭取則為其他人或團體所爭取，因此政府預算先天具共同財悲劇問題特徵，支出自然趨於不斷膨脹，難以刪減

from 預算赤字控制問題研究 徐仁輝（世新大學行政管理系副教授，行政院財政改革委員會委員）

美國國會制度 續

Bills and resolutions

The House Financial Services committee meets. Committee members sit in the tiers of raised chairs, while those testifying and audience members sit below.A proposal may be introduced in Congress as a bill, a joint resolution, a concurrent resolution, or a simple resolution. Most legislative proposals are introduced as bills, but some are introduced as joint resolutions. There is little practical difference between the two, except that joint resolutions may include preambles but bills may not. Joint resolutions are the normal method used to propose a constitutional amendment or to declare war. On the other hand, concurrent resolutions (passed by both houses) and simple resolutions (passed by only one house) do not have the force of law. Instead, they serve to express the opinion of Congress, or to regulate procedure.

Members of Congress often introduce legislation at the behest of lobbyists. Lobbyists advocate the passage (or rejection) of bills affecting the interest of a particular group (such as a corporation or a labor union). In many cases, the lobbyists write legislation and submit it to a member for introduction. Congressional lobbyists are legally required to be registered in a central database, and are employed by political organizations, corporations, state governments, foreign governments, and numerous other groups. In 2005, there are almost 35,000 registered Congressional lobbyists, representing a doubling since 2000.[12] Some of the most prominent lobbyists are ex-members of Congress, others are family members of sitting members. As an example, Harry Reid, Dennis Hastert, former Representative Tom DeLay, and Roy Blunt all have immediate family members who are (or were) lobbyists.[13]

Bills (and other proposals) may be introduced by any member of either house. However, the Constitution provides that: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. Nevertheless, while the Senate cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, it does retain the power to amend or reject them.

Each bill goes through several stages in each house. The first stage involves consideration by a committee. Most legislation is considered by standing committees, each of which has jurisdiction over a particular subject matter, such as Agriculture or Appropriations. The House has twenty standing committees; the Senate has sixteen. In some cases, bills may be sent to select committees, which tend to have more narrow jurisdictions than standing committees. Each standing and select committee is led by a chair (who belongs to the majority party) and a ranking member (who belongs to the minority party). Committees are permitted to hold hearings and collect evidence when considering bills. They may also amend the bill, but the full house holds the power to accept or reject committee amendments. After considering and debating a measure, the committee votes on whether it wishes to report the measure to the full house.

A decision not to report a bill amounts to a rejection of the proposal. Both houses provide for procedures under which the committee can be bypassed or overruled, but they are rarely used. If reported by the committee, the bill reaches the floor of the full house. The house may debate and amend the bill; the precise procedures used by the House of Representatives and the Senate differ. A final vote on the bill follows.

Once a bill is approved by one house, it is sent to the other, which may pass, reject, or amend it. In order for the bill to become law, both houses must agree to identical versions of the bill. If the second house amends the bill, then the differences between the two versions must be reconciled in a conference committee, an ad hoc committee that includes both senators and representatives. In many cases, conference committees have introduced substantial changes to bills and added unrequested spending, significantly departing from both the House and Senate versions. President Ronald Reagan once quipped, "If an orange and an apple went into conference consultations, it might come out a pear."[14] If both houses agree to the version reported by the conference committee, the bill passes; otherwise, it fails.

After passage by both houses, a bill is submitted to the President. The President may choose to sign the bill, thereby making it law. The President may also choose to veto the bill, returning it to Congress with his objections. In such a case, the bill only becomes law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. Finally, the President may choose to take no action, neither signing nor vetoing the bill. In such a case, the Constitution states that the bill automatically becomes law after ten days (excluding Sundays). However, if Congress adjourns (ends a legislative session) during the ten day period, then the bill does not become law. Thus, the President may veto legislation passed at the end of a congressional session simply by ignoring it; the maneuver is known as a pocket veto, and cannot be overridden by the adjourned Congress.

Every Act of Congress or joint resolution begins with an enacting formula or resolving formula stipulated by law. These are:

Act of Congress: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."
Joint resolution: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."

美國國會制度

Checks and balances

View of the United States Capitol from the United States Supreme Court buildingThe Constitution provides checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and it has been theorized that that is one reason they are described in Article One.[9]

The influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from one period to another; the degree of power depending largely on the leadership of the Congress, political influence by the president, or other members of congress and the boldness of the president's initiatives. Under the first half-dozen presidents, power seems to have been evenly divided between the president and Congress, in part because early presidents largely restricted their vetoes to bills that were unconstitutional.

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson made the presidency much less powerful than Congress. During the late nineteenth century, President Grover Cleveland aggressively attempted to restore the executive branch's power, vetoing over 400 bills during his first term. The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have seen the rise of the power of the Presidency under Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09), Woodrow Wilson (1913–21), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–45), Richard Nixon (1969–74), Ronald Reagan (1981–89), and George W. Bush (2001–) (see Imperial Presidency).[10] In recent years, Congress has restricted the powers of the President with laws such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the War Powers Resolution; nevertheless, the Presidency remains considerably more powerful than during the nineteenth century.[10]

The Constitution concentrates removal powers in the Congress by empowering and obligating the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials (both executive and judicial) for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The Senate is constitutionally empowered and obligated to try all impeachments. A simple majority in the House is required to impeach an official; however, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required for conviction. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office in the future.

Impeachment proceedings may not inflict more than this; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law. In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. (Another resigned before the Senate could complete the trial). Only two Presidents of the United States have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Both trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned from office after impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee indicated he would eventually be removed from office.

The Constitution entrusts certain powers to the Senate alone. The President may only nominate for appointment Cabinet officials, judges, and other high officers with the "by and with the advice and consent" of the Senate. The Senate confirms most presidential nominees, but rejections are not uncommon. Furthermore, treaties negotiated by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to take effect. The House of Representatives has no formal role in either the ratification of treaties or the appointment of federal officials, other than filling vacancies in the office of Vice-President.

In 1803, the Supreme Court established judicial review of federal legislation in Marbury v. Madison, holding, however, that Congress could not grant unconstitutional power to the Court itself. The Constitution does not explicitly state that the courts may exercise judicial review; however, the notion that courts could declare laws unconstitutional was envisioned by the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, mentioned and expounded upon the doctrine in Federalist No. 78. Originalists on the Supreme Court have argued that if the constitution doesn't say something explicitly it is unconstitutional to infer what it should, might or could have said.[11]

Investigations are conducted to gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, and to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches. Committees may hold hearings, and, if necessary, compel individuals to testify by issuing subpoenas. Witnesses who refuse to testify may be cited for contempt of Congress, and those who testify falsely may be charged with perjury. Most committee hearings are open to the public (the House and Senate intelligence committees are the exception); important hearings are widely reported in the mass media.