Connect with us

Published

on

It’s not quite accurate to say that no one in Congress wants to talk about the national debt and the federal government’s deteriorating fiscal condition.

Indeed, during Wednesday morning’s meeting of the House Budget Committee, there was a lot of talk about exactly that.

“Runaway deficit-spending and our unsustainable national debt…threatens not only our economy, but our national security, our way of life, our leadership in the world, and everything good about America’s influence,” said Rep. Jodey Arrington (RTexas), the committee’s chairman. He pointed to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections showing that America’s debt, as a share of the size of the nation’s economy, is now as large as it was at the end of the Second World Warand that interest payments on the debt will soon cost more than the entire military budget.

What’s missing, however, is any sense that Congress is willing to turn those words into action. Just look at the premise of Wednesday’s hearing: “Examining the need for a fiscal commission.”

Yes, it was a meeting about the possibility of forming a committee to have more meetings about the possibility of doing something to address the problem. In fact, it was the second such committee hearing in front of the House Budget Committee within the past few weeks.

It seems like there ought to be a more direct way to address this. Like, say, if there was a committee that already existed within Congress charged with handling budgetary issues. A House Budget Committee, perhaps.

But instead of using Wednesday’s meeting to seek consensus on how to solve the federal government’s budgetary problems, lawmakers spent two hours debating a series of bills that aim to let Congress offload that responsibility to a special commission. What that commission would look like and how its recommendations would be handled will depend on which proposal (if any of them) eventually becomes lawand even that seems somewhat unlikely, with Democrats voicing their opposition to the idea throughout Wednesday’s hearing.

To be fair, there are plenty of good arguments for why a fiscal commission might be the best way for Congress to fix the mess that it has made. It is an idea that’s certainly worthy of being considered, even if the whole exercise seems a little bit over-engineered.

Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute, argues persuasively in her Substack that a fiscal commission is the best way to overcome the political hurdles that prevent Congress from taking meaningful action on borrowing and entitlement costs (which are driving a sizable portion of future deficits).

Boccia’s preferred solution would allow the commission’s proposals to be “self-executing unless Congress objects,” meaning that legislators would have the “political cover to vocally object to reforms that will create inevitable winners and losers, without re-election concerns undermining an outcome that’s in the best interest of the nation.”

It’s probably true that Congress itself is the biggest hurdle to managing the federal government’s fiscal situation. Unfortunately, that’s also the biggest reason to be skeptical: any decisions made by a fiscal commission will only be as good as Congress’ willingness to abide by them.

Beyond that, it still isn’t clear to me how a fiscal commission is going to be able to accomplish anything that the existing Budget Committees couldn’t already do. There’s no secret knowledge out there about how to reduce deficits that will only be unlocked by bringing together a collection of legislators and private sector experts, which is what most of the bills to create a commission propose doing. Congress should hold hearings, invite experts to share their views, draft proposals, vet those ideas through the committee process, and then put the resulting bills on the House floor for a full vote.

Shielding Congress from the electoral consequences of making poor fiscal decisions doesn’t seem like it will improve the quality of budget-making. If anything, we need Congress to be held moreaccountable for this mess.

A $33 trillion national debt didn’t come crashing out of the sky like an asteroid that couldn’t be avoided. Congress chose this outcome, with each and every budget bill and emergency spending package passed over the last two decades. Nothing will change until Congress chooses differently. Shrugging off the obligation to budget responsibly is what caused this mess, but now lawmakers are eager to find yet another way to shirk responsibility for managing the country’s finances.

“No responsible leader can look at rapid deterioration of our balance sheet, the CBO projection of these unsustainable deficits, and the long-term unfunded liabilities of our nation, and not feel compelled to intervene and change course,” Arrington said Wednesday.

He’s right, but that only draws a line under the contradiction. A responsible Congress would be working on a serious plan to get the deficit under control. Instead, the Budget Committee is working on proposals to avoid having to do that.

Continue Reading

World

China dominates renewables – and this project shows why

Published

on

By

Continue Reading

Technology

CEO of Southeast Asia’s largest bank warns investors: ‘Buckle up, we’re in for a volatile ride’

Published

on

By

CEO of Southeast Asia's largest bank warns investors: 'Buckle up, we're in for a volatile ride'

Tan Su Shan is the CEO and director of DBS Group.

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

With valuations in the U.S. stock market becoming increasingly stretched, the chief executive of Southeast Asia’s largest bank is warning investors to expect turbulence ahead.

“We’ve seen a lot of volatility in the markets. It could be equities, it could be rates, it could be foreign exchange,” DBS CEO Tan Su Shan told CNBC, adding that she expects that volatility to continue.

Tan, who took over the helm of DBS from longtime CEO Piyush Gupta in March, said that investors were particularly worried about the lofty valuations of artificial intelligence stocks, especially the so-called “Magnificent Seven.”

The Magnificent Seven — Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla — are some of the major U.S. tech and growth stocks that have driven much of Wall Street’s gains in recent years.

“You’ve got trillions of dollars tied up in seven stocks, for example. So it’s inevitable, with that kind of concentration, that there will be a worry about. ‘You know, when will this bubble burst?'”

Earlier this week, at the Global Financial Leaders’ Investment Summit in Hong Kong,  it was likely there would be a 10%-20% drawdown over the next 12 to 24 months.

Morgan Stanley CEO Ted Pick said at the same summit that investors should welcome periodic pullbacks, calling them healthy developments rather than signs of crisis.

Tan agreed. “Frankly, a correction will be healthy,” she said.

Recent examples include Advanced Micro Devices and Palantir, both of which posted stronger-than-expected quarterly results on Tuesday, yet their shares — and the wider Nasdaq — fell.

Her remarks follow similar warnings by the International Monetary Fund and central bank chiefs Jerome Powell and Andrew Bailey, who have all cautioned about inflated stock prices.

Singapore as diversification play

Tan advised investors to diversify rather than concentrate holdings in one market. “Whether it’s in your portfolio, in your supply chain, or in your demand distribution, just diversify.”

Tan, who has over 35 years of experience in banking and wealth management, noted that Asia could attract more investment from the U.S.—and that it’s not a bad thing.

Singling out Singapore and the country’s central bank’s efforts to boost interest in the local markets, Tan described the city-state as a “diversifier market.”

“We’ve got rule of law. We’re a transparent, open financial system and stable politically. We’re a good place to invest…. So I don’t think we’re a bad place to think about diversifying your investments.”

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

Continue Reading

Entertainment

New film ‘proves beyond shadow of a doubt’ that Elgin Marbles were stolen, director claims

Published

on

By

New film 'proves beyond shadow of a doubt' that Elgin Marbles were stolen, director claims

A new documentary proves “beyond any shadow of a doubt” that the Elgin Marbles were stolen, according to its director.

David Wilkinson claims The Marbles settles one of the most divisive debates in cultural heritage: whether 19th-century diplomat Lord Elgin legally acquired the Parthenon Sculptures, better known as the Elgin Marbles.

The film revisits how the sculptures were removed from the Parthenon in Athens while Greece was under Ottoman rule – and ended up in London.

It argues that Lord Elgin did not legally acquire the artefacts – and instead, it amounts to “the greatest heist in art history”.

Reuters file pic
Image:
Reuters file pic

Actor Brian Cox, historian Dominic Selwood and solicitor Mark Stephens are among those who appear in the documentary.

The British government bought the sculptures from Lord Elgin and installed them into the trusteeship of the British Museum, where they have remained for 200 years.

“He needed the money from the British government to pay for all the bribes he’d given to members of the Ottoman Empire,” Wilkinson says of the transaction.

More on Elgin Marbles

“Lord Elgin did sell them … but the question becomes, did Lord Elgin actually have the right to purchase them?”

PA file pic
Image:
PA file pic

Classical archaeologist Mario Trabucco della Torretta dismisses Wilkinson’s claims.

“The allegation of bribery to obtain the Marbles is just wrong in historical terms,” he told Sky News.

Torretta was the key architect behind a joint letter that included former prime minister Liz Truss, historian Dr David Starkey and Sir John Redwood – alleging the British Museum is part of a “covert” and “accelerating campaign” to return the Elgin Marbles to Greece.

Responding to Wilkinson’s claims of bribery, he added: “The only reference to ‘presents’ comes years after the start of the removals … do people presume that they run a ‘bribe now, pay later’ scheme back then in Constantinople?”

One of the most contentious points in the debate is the legitimacy of an Ottoman permission document known as a “firman”, which is claimed to have authorised Lord Elgin removing the items from Greece.

There is only an Italian text referred to as a translation of this document.

David Wilkinson
Image:
David Wilkinson

Wilkinson said: “It was normal practice at the time that a copy would be kept in what was then Constantinople, and another copy would have been sent off to Athens.

“There would be a record in Istanbul and the Turks have gone through it in great detail over many decades and they can find nothing.”

Speaking to Sky News in 2024, Dr Zeynep Boz – head of combatting illicit trafficking for Turkey’s culture ministry – said there is no proof of the firman in the Ottoman archive.

“Despite extensive archival research, no such firman has been found. It is even difficult to call this document a translation when the original is not available,” she said at the time.

Torretta offers an explanation: “Burning the Ottoman governor’s archive was one of the first acts of the Greek revolution.”

Reuters file pic
Image:
Reuters file pic

While the arguments are not new, The Marbles also examines how other institutions have handled similar restitution cases.

In the film, Cox says if the marbles would have gone back to Athens already if they had found their way to Edinburgh and not London.

Back in 2023, the National Museum of Scotland returned The House Of Ni’isjoohl memorial pole to Canada.

Meanwhile, Glasgow’s Kevingrove Art Gallery Museum returned a shirt to the South Dakota Cultural Heritage Center in the US.

And when it comes to the Parthenon Sculptures – Germany’s Heidelberg University and The Vatican have both returned fragments to Greece.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Dec 2024: Elgin Marbles ‘belong in the UK’

The British Museum Act 1963 prevents treasures being legally given away by the British Museum.

The government has repeatedly it has no plans to change existing policy on restitution, and that it is up to the trustees of the museum to decide.

A spokesperson for the British Museum repeated a statement given to Sky News in July: “Discussions with Greece about a Parthenon Partnership are ongoing and constructive.”

The documentary scrutinises the ethics of foreign national treasures that were taken and are now housed in Western museums, but as it stands the institutional and governmental answers don’t appear to be changing.

The Marbles is in UK and Irish cinemas from today.

Continue Reading

Trending