On a day when the United States committed up to $2 trillion more in government financing and programs to unlock credit markets -- probably the federal government's largest, one-day implied commitment in history -- the dollar rose against the euro and British pound.

The dollar strengthened 1.2 cents to $1.3821 and a gargantuan 4 cents to $1.4488 versus the British pound. The dollar also rose about one-half cent to $1.1584 versus the Swiss franc.

Now, in theory, increasing dollar commitments by the U.S. government means more dollars in circulation, which means every dollar is worth less -- a sequence that should cause the dollar to fall against the world's other major currencies. Not Tuesday, and really, when you review it, not since the financial crisis took hold in October 2008, so says economist David H. Wang. And the reason is basic: the dollar's status as a reserve currency, and as a safe haven.

The dollar, despite the prospect of back-to-back trillion dollar U.S. budget deficits, continues to hold its own against the world's other major currencies. What's more, provided the fiscal stimulus package is passed, the national debt ceiling will increase to $12.1 trillion from the current $11.3 trillion.

The dollar strengthened about 1.5 cents to $1.2867 versus the euro Wednesday, and rose about 1.4 cents to $1.1586 versus the Swiss franc, while remaining essentially unchanged at 89.62 yen and $1.4490 versus Japan's yen and the British pound.

One of the biggest misnomers in the current fiscal stimulus debate concerns the United States' ability to service its budget deficit and national debt (pdf).

Provided the fiscal stimulus package is passed, the national debt ceiling will increase to $12.1 trillion from the current $11.3 trillion.

Deficit approaching intolerable levels?

Economic conservatives, market absolutists, and the like argue that the annual budget deficit and national debt are approaching intolerable levels. In truth, what they're arguing against is a needed government intervention and New Deal-type spending required to jump-start the U.S. economy -- even if it means the economy will plunge into a deeper recession without the stimulus. It seems some economic conservatives would rather see the nation's economy suffer, than to violate one their flawed economic theories.

How'd you like to borrow money for 30 years at 2.95%?

The U.S. government can, and it's making it easier for the federal government to fund its increasing budget deficit, as well as help build the case for a large fiscal stimulus package.

Treasury prices continued to rise Tuesday, pushing the yield on the 30-year government bond down to 2.95% -- close to its lowest level since regular sales began in 1977. The 10-year note yielded 2.48%; the 5-year note, 1.47%.

Further, while it may seem like a contradiction to have long-term interest rates fall at a time the U.S. government is on-track to record at least a record $600 billion (and probably much higher) budget deficit this fiscal year, there's a method to institutional investors' madness, so says economist Richard Felson.

"The landscape for private investment is poor. We have a recession on all continents, and there's a lack of places to deploy capital productively. That dearth of opportunities for return on investment plus fear of losses from toxic assets is driving investors to the safer investments, and one of the safest is the U.S. Treasury," Felson said. "It's the preferred place to be until the major economies start to recover."

Imagine paying the United States government to hold your money for three months.

The condition appears to turn investment theory on its head, but that's what investors are doing in today's uncertain, risk-averse markets.

Foreign investors are accumulating Treasuries at the fastest pace since 1988, up 12% since September, Bloomberg News reported Monday, citing U.S. Federal Reserve data. They are becoming institutional investors' mattress. The tactic is driving Treasury rates to record lows: the 2-year note has fallen to 0.76% from 3.11% on June 13, while the 3-month Treasury turned negative on December 9 for the first time.

Meanwhile, the 10-year and 30-year Treasuries have fallen to 2.55% and 3.04%, respectively -- not much return on your investment, but that's beside the point: investors currently are more concerned about the return of their investment than the return on their investment.

Still, economist David H. Wang said there's an upside and a downside to the lower interest rates for Treasuries.

With apologies to actor William Shatner, How big could the bailout of AIG get? Really big.

The U.S. government -- which is all of us, citizens and taxpayers -- may have to increase its investment in American International Group (NYSE: AIG) by still another $70-80 billion to keep the insurer solvent through the end of 2009.

Just call it USG-AIG

AIG, which reported $43 billion in losses tied to home mortgages in the past quarter, "will probably not function properly if it doesn't receive another cash infusion by September 2009," economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks Tuesday. Wang based his forecast on his projection for cashed-in credit default swaps stemming from home mortgage defaults.

AIG is a major issuer of credit default swaps, actually a type of credit default insurance, which many holders of mortgage backed securities and bonds purchased to hedge against bond issuer defaults.

"If we project a rise in home mortgage defaults through Q2 2009, that will likely take credit default claims to levels that will require more money for AIG in late 2009," Wang said, although he qualified his projection by stating that it is contingent on negative U.S. GDP for Q1/Q2 2009. A U.S. economic recovery in Q2 2009 is possible, but not likely, Wang said.

AIG's shares fell 15 cents to $2.14 on Tuesday at mid-day, amid a broader market sell-off.

Talk about a large amount of funding in a quarter.

The U.S. Treasury Department, weighed down by unprecedented obligations for the bank rescue and a slowing economy, is expected to borrow a record $550 billion this quarter, compared to the pre-financial crisis estimate of $142 billion, the department announced.

Further, the $550 billion bond issuance follows a record $530 billion in borrowing in Q4 of fiscal 2008, which ended September 30.

In addition to the bank rescue and related programs, the slowing U.S. economy has also increased Treasury borrowing by reducing federal receipts and increasing outlays.

The U.S. Government closed fiscal 2008 with a $407 billion deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office (pdf). The CBO projects a $438 billion deficit for fiscal year 2009, but economist Richard Felson said the total is likely to approach $1 trillion if the bank recapitalization and toxic asset repurchases proceed along outlined timetables.

"These are staggering sums of debt and it's hard to envision the dollar holding up long-term, given such borrowing," Felson said.

Want to sum up the United States' fiscal situation in a word?

Warren Buffett did, or did so in 16 words to be exact, in a chat with The New York Times: "I'm paying the lowest tax rate that I've ever paid in my life," Buffet said. "Now, that's crazy."

Further, Buffett, the world's richest person as ranked by Forbes Magazine with wealth totaling $62 billion, also said the U.S. Government should increase taxes on the wealthy to help pay for the recently-passed bank rescue, which is designed to end the financial crisis.

Buffett's stance demonstrates that there is at least one person of high income and/or wealth (and probably many more) who believe upper-income groups should be paying more in federal taxes each year.

2001 tax cut generated large U.S. budget deficits

Buffett's view is also in stark contrast to the Bush Administration's philosophy and policy, which has prevailed for the decade and which argues that lower tax rates on upper-income groups will not only generate higher GDP growth, but also result in revenues high enough to close the federal budget deficit. It hasn't happened, said economist David H. Wang.

Just call the impact of the bank rescue package's cost a 'bad news, goods news' saga.

The bad news is this year's budget deficit, for Fiscal 2009, will reach unprecedented heights, in terms of total money borrowed.

The good news is the dollar's reserve currency status will lower the financing cost of the rescue package and related deficit spending to an interest rate of 4% - - or less - - on the additional debt, The New York Times reported Monday.

Further, the Congress could have chosen to offset at least a portion of the additional outlays by increasing taxes or trimming spending in other areas. However, given the contraction effects of the above two, Congress has chosen to let the U.S. budget deficit rise, at least for now, The Times reported.

U.S.: record, back-to-back budget deficits

The United States just posted a record $438 billion budget deficit (preliminary) for F2008, which ended September 30, according to Congressional Budget Office data. This year's deficit is likely to exceed $700 billion, so says economist David H. Wang. Is it wise to straight-line the new spending directly to the national debt via borrowing, in Wang's view? Indeed it is, he says.

A digital clock in New York City counts up the U.S. National Debt. But the current administration broke the clock which only had enough digits to count up to $9,999,999,999,999. As Dick Cheney said, Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. I wonder whether this broken clock is proving Cheney wrong?

The clock has an interesting history. The now-deceased Manhattan real estate developer, Seymour Durst, built this sign in 1989 because he thought that the then $2.7 trillion debt was too high. The debt kept growing after he put up the sign but by the end of Bill Clinton's second term, it was down to around $5 trillion. Since January 2001, the national debt has grown to $11.3 trillion thanks to the $850 billion bailout bill.

The good news is that the clock, which currently counts the deficit by substituting a 1 for the $ sign that was there before, will be fixed next year -- adding two digits. Too bad fixing the clock won't make the U.S. economy any less perilous. At 81% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), our national debt is way above the 60% that the IMF considers to be a risky borrower.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

The dollar was mixed early Wednesday as talk that a revised bailout bill is heading toward the U.S. Senate for a vote met with concerns that the U.S. economy will enter a recession regardless.

The dollar rose about one-half cent to $1.4036 versus the euro and three-quarters of a cent to $1.7730 versus the British pound, but fell about three-tenths yen to 106.10 versus Japan's yen.

Raising dollars vs. economic fundamentals

Currency Trader Andrew Resnick said the currency market is in a tug-of-war between raising dollars and U.S. economic fundamentals. "If the U.S. economic fundamentals were the gauge, the dollar would be falling because the U.S. is in poor shape," Resnick said. "But banks are hoarding cash and there's a global trend toward raising dollars, which is bullish for the dollar."

"It may seem strange to want more dollars from the country with the biggest financial and economic problems, but the dollar is still the world's reserve currency and in times of fear there is a flight to safety, which in the currency market is the dollar," Resnick said. He added that he was presently flat or had no open currency trading positions.

With the U.S. Treasury's $700 billion intervention bill -- commonly called the bailout bill -- nearing President Bush's desk for review and signature into law, a compelling question has risen in economic and taxpayer circles.

Given that the U.S taxpayer is funding the recovery, if not the bailout, of financial institutions and banks, are banks and financial institutions doing enough to show their gratitude to the people of the United States, the banking sector's lender -- and investor -- of last resort?

One standpoint argues they aren't, so says economist Richard Felson, and here's what Felson would like to see: In addition to equity stakes in each company that receives taxpayer assistance, the U.S Congress should require the company/bank to pay an annual fee to fund the administrative costs of a bank for low-income citizens and senior citizens.

There is a well-known joke in political science that shows an elected public official sitting in his office, suddenly running to his balcony when he hears a large group of citizens heading off to a rally in the distance. He looks at them and says: "There go my people. I better go out there and lead them."

If the initial analysis of the U.S. Treasury's $700 billion bailout plan is any indicator of public sentiment, it looks like the people may be way ahead of their public officials -- or public officials are way behind -- depending on your perspective.

There's a sense that the people who will pay for the potential bailout/intervention -- typical citizens -- aren't getting enough in return. These critics say the U.S. taxpayer should get an equity stake as collateral for the loans they may make to various banks/companies, and that the taxpayer should also share in the profits, should they occur.

Further, some question why the taxpayer is being used to bailout the very institutions that were factors in the start and growth of the financial crisis in the first place.

Still others argue why the U.S. Treasury is clamoring to secure hundreds of billions of taxpayer money to prop-up financial institutions and isn't doing more to help homeowners refinance their mortgages to lower rates, and in the process prevent foreclosures that were a major factor in the development (and continuation) of the financial crisis.

And others are wondering why CEO/executive salary caps can not be put in place. If a CEO or an executive doesn't want to participate in the bailout program for fear of not getting a large payout or golden parachute, even though it's in the public interest to do so, why should it be in the public interest to grant his/her company a loan?

It was, of course, the late U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen, R-Illinois, who said, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

Well, given globalization and the passage of time, maybe we should amend that to 'a $100 billion here, a $100 billion there'.

The U.S. Treasury's $700 billion bail-out intended to stabilize the financial markets could take an already high U.S. Government budget deficit to truly astronomical -- and some say unsupportable -- levels.

The deficit, which the Congressional Budget Office in its most recent forecast (pdf) said will total $407 billion in Fiscal 2008 and $438 billion in Fiscal 2009, could exceed $1 trillion next year, if U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan is passed as outlined, says economist Richard Felson.

In additional, the national debt -- the deficit accumulated over the decades -- would rise above $11 trillion.

"The calculation is based on a majority of distressed assets being recorded in the next year, and Congress probably will authorize the U.S. Treasury to do that," Felson said. "If the asset purchases are spread out, next year's deficit would be about $750 billion or $800 billion, but these are still enormous sums, effectively doubling the budget deficit."

What's the first price Americans are likely to pay for the U.S. Treasury's proposed $700 billion bailout to stabilize the financial markets? Higher prices for imported goods and higher domestic inflation, currency traders say.

The dollar Monday fell against the world's other major currencies as institutional investors and other currency traders started to come to terms with sheer size of the U.S. Government's proposed intervention.

The dollar fell about 1.1 cents to $1.4608 and $1.8442 versus the euro and British pound, respectively, and about one-half yen to 106.38 versus Japan's yen in midday Monday trading.

Cites laws of economics

Currency trader Andrew Resnick told BloggingStocks Monday that unless the laws of economics have been suspended, the dollar's direction, short-term, is likely to be lower.

"This is going to be a large expenditure of public funds. We can't tax our way out of it. And if [Republican Party presidential candidate U.S. Sen. John] McCain is elected, we won't tax our way out of any of it, so that leaves two options, borrowing or printing money," Resnick said. "The currency market right now believes it will be mostly borrowing, which means more dollars in supply, forcing the dollar lower."

Resnick added that he presently has dollar-short positions in the euro / dollar, dollar / yen and British pound / dollar currency pairings.