Quotebox: Obama to vow to tame deficits in address

Related Topics

NEW YORK | Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:28pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Barack Obama is expected to emphasize a commitment to taming the record U.S. budget deficit when he delivers his State of the Union address on Wednesday night at 9 p.m. (0200 GMT Thursday).

Here are some comments from analysts and investors on the U.S. budget deficit.

DAVID WYSS, STANDARD & POOR'S CHIEF ECONOMIST

"As you put it off, you've got a looming, bigger problem from all the entitlement programs as baby boomers start to retire."

"If we haven't done anything to reduce the deficit and the entitlement problems, the problem explodes."

ON A BIPARTISAN PANEL:

"Appointment of a panel is minor. Investors are feeling skeptical. This is just a side show intended to deflect from the fact that nothing will get done," he said.

"The problem is getting a bipartisan panel to agree on anything in this atmosphere. I think it's going to be darn difficult. The key is getting the right people who have the clout and who are willing to compromise with other side. Does that combination exist in Washington today?"

"It's a good idea, both politically and economically. I'm just not sure it can be done."

"Let's face it. The U.S. may be a sick pony, but it's still the fastest horse in the race," Wyss said, noting weakness in Greece and Europe. "How much money can you put in sterling or Canadian dollars?"

MARGARET PATEL, SENIOR PORTFOLIO MANAGER AT EVERGREEN INVESTMENTS

"Obama certainly will address the budget and finance issues because it's paramount in investors' minds," Patel said. "I would expect to hear some kind of plan that over time reduces the deficit."

The U.S. sovereign rating is "pretty solid over the next year," she said. "When you look around the world at other countries, "we aren't in any danger of losing our triple A."

ON TREASURIES:

"We've never had so much issuance for Treasury bonds so it really will be a market that is attractive. You will attract demand from a wide variety of buyers."

"It will still be attractive in the first half of the year," Patel said. "Over the short term, it will be hard to do much about the deficit. As the economy picks up, the economy will surprise on the upside and we will have more growth. With faster growth next year, that can help with raising tax revenue."

ANDREW HARDING, WHO OVERSEES ABOUT $20 BILLION AS CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER FOR FIXED-INCOME AT ALLEGIANT ASSET MANAGEMENT IN CLEVELAND

Harding worries about the massive amount of public debt that the United States has built up, which may begin to reach a critical level.

"I don't think we're at the breaking point, but there is a breaking point at some point," he said.

(Compiled by Walden Siew; Editing by Theodore d'Afflisio)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
weco wrote:
instead of cutting back on social security and medicare, which benefit US citizens and which is being discussed as something to cut back on, lets cut back on foreign aid. Do the taxpayers ever get to decide how much and to whom foreign aid goes??

Jan 26, 2010 12:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
vinlander wrote:
When you’re talking about a $1 trillion deficit, the US foreign aid budget is a rounding error. The real culprit here is military spending and the way the US procures weapons. Cost plus contracts on weapon systems to fight the defunct Soviet Union is a poor use of our money. The Pentagon could get by with a $500 billion cut and we’d still be just as safe as we are now

Jan 26, 2010 1:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Pete_Murphy wrote:
Want to eliminate the budget deficit? Simple. Stop giving away 15% of the economy duty free to foreign countries. Impose tariffs on the $2+ trillion that we import every year. Back in the first half of the 20th century, when we conducted foreign trade as though we had some common sense, an average 35% tariff would have been imposed on these imports, which would raise an additional $750 billion per year of revenue. It would also restore a balance of trade, virtually wiping out our unemployment problem. Unfortunately we don’t have leaders with the guts required to take on the World Trade Organization, the global referee for the parasitic economies that feed on our market and jobs.

Without such action, any meaningful reduction in the budget deficit or national debt is virtually impossible.

Jan 26, 2010 2:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.