Dear John:
Since our president is such a fan of “fair share,” do you think he filed his 2012 tax return using the (higher) 2013 rates to set himself up as a good example to the country?
Perhaps he is also recommending this to his political contributors.
Warren Buffett, how about you? It would be the patriotic thing to do.
When the president uses Air Force One, his personal corporate jet, for vacation or campaign purposes, does he get a 1099?
Wouldn’t it save money to send him on a small plane and let everyone else in the entourage fly coach?
Does the White House staff use coupons when they purchase things for the president and his family?
Couldn’t state dinners be catered by McDonald’s and save money by [being] Dollar Meals?
Just my way of helping with the deficit. M.G.
Dear M.G.: Wow, you raise some wonderful issues.
In the movie “Hyde Park on Hudson,” President Roosevelt served hot dogs to the king and queen at a barbeque. Why not just make wieners a regular item on the White House menu?
And I of course wouldn’t begrudge the first children a Happy Meal every now and then, just as long as the president and first lady don’t go for the more expensive Supersizing option.
I’d even venture to say that McDonald’s might comp them some meals for the sheer publicity value, thus saving us taxpayers the cost of a lunch or two.
In fact, let’s take that idea a step further.
If any company out there would like to contribute to the care and feeding of our president with donations, I guarantee that I will publicize your generosity in this column, as long as you don’t try to take a tax write-off for the gesture.
Dear John: Here are the economic problems I see.
Cranking down interest rates in the land of $1 trillion deficits can only mean one thing: currency debasement.
And if we depend on a commodity that comes from overseas — like crude oil for gasoline — then the only possible result is inflation. In addition, US dollar-denominated assets and opportunities are [becoming] uninteresting places to put risk capital.
And dirt-cheap credit helps a handful of stable, no-risk, mature industries that can borrow with ease. Leveraging in these industries may help out the assets’ owners, but ultimately this leverage process lowers employment because debt repayment takes priority over growth investments that create jobs.
Chevron, Cisco, Clorox, etc. are not adding workers. They have sterling credit — can borrow with ease — but they are more interested in squeezing out more profits than in risking growth capital. Even Apple is paying a dividend now.
Employment growth comes from new companies and initiatives from existing companies requiring growth capital.
Bottom line, growth and employment come from optimism and risk-taking. Currency debasement works against both of those.
As Milton Friedman would say, “There’s no free lunch.” K.F.
Dear K.F.: I’m not using your name, but I want readers to know that you are an executive on Wall Street.
And if people don’t believe you, all they have to do is look at the last four years.
Interest rates have been extremely low, but this has not created good economic growth and reasonable employment gains.
And while the United States’ currency has been holding its own in the world market, that’s mainly due to the fact that other countries are having more visible problems.
If the problems continue in the US, there’s no reason — as you say — for foreign investors to keep their assets here rather than elsewhere.
Thanks for the lesson.
Send your questions to Dear John, The N.Y. Post, 1211 Ave. of the Americas, NY, NY 10036, or john.crudele@nypost.com.