4 reasons why a US sovereign wealth fund is a bad idea
A sovereign wealth fund (SWF) — also called a 'savings fund' — is a government-owned and managed vehicle 'designed to be a nest egg, allowing current money to be deployed in a way that benefits future generations,' according to U.S. News and World Reports. Internationally, there are more than 100 SWFs, often funded by the sale of a country's natural resources, such as oil and natural gas, or when the government has excess funds.
Norway has the largest SWF, with $1.7 trillion, and Hong Kong is 10th with $514 billion. In addition, several U.S. states have a version of an SWF, again, often funded by royalties from fossil fuel production.
But there are several reasons why establishing a U.S. fund is a bad idea. Here are four of them.
The U.S. government has no excess 'wealth. ' A sovereign wealth fund is a repository for savings. However, the federal government has no savings. Indeed, it has annual budget deficits ($1.8 trillion in 2024) and a whole lot of debt ($36.5 trillion).
Under current budget and spending patterns, the federal government would have to borrow money at elevated interest rates to make deposits to a sovereign wealth fund. That makes zero sense.
What about the Social Security Trust Fund? That's money workers have paid into Social Security through payroll taxes that hasn't been paid out to recipients. With $2.7 trillion on the books, could that account be turned into an SWF?
The problem is the government has borrowed all of that money and spent it, issuing itself IOUs. If the government wants to redeem those IOUs, it has to borrow the money to do so.
What about using oil and gas royalties like other SWFs? In the 10 years between 2012-2022, the government received $74 billion in royalties from oil and gas produced by companies on federal leases, according to the Government Accountability Office. Most of that money was distributed to the states. But, again, it makes little sense to put that money in an SWF while the government is borrowing nearly $2 trillion to fund its spending. Better to use those funds to reduce the annual deficit.
Of course, it's at least possible the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Republicans will cut federal spending enough that the government shows a budget surplus in the future. But that will be a hard goal to reach. In the last 55 years the government has had a budget surplus in only four of them: 1998-2001. And even if there were a surplus, it would be better to apply that money to paying down the nation's enormous debt.
Investments would be politically driven. If elected officials were managing SWF investments, they would be driven partly, if not totally, by political considerations rather than the maximization of returns.
For example, if progressive Democrats were managing the funds, they might avoid investing in fossil fuels, gun manufacturers, Israeli companies or companies that didn't demonstrate sufficient diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts — regardless of how profitable those companies were.
But couldn't the SWF be run by an independent board of financial experts? Yes, but Trump is currently trying to bring all independent agencies under his direct control, and that would certainly include the sovereign wealth fund.
Investments could skew the market. If a sizable SWF were created, large moves could skew the market up or down. For example, if an SWF were to put billions of dollars into a stock — as Trump has suggested with TikTok — it could dramatically increase the value of that stock, but only because demand for the stock might be greater than supply. In fact, it's not hard to imagine wealthy investors lobbying SWF officials to invest in companies the investors own.
On the other hand, pulling billions of dollars out of a stock might arbitrarily push the market, or a company, down if more shares were available than investors were willing to buy.
Excess money should be returned to taxpayers. If Trump's policies were to create a budget surplus, why put that surplus money in a sovereign wealth fund? The money came from taxpayers in the first place. It should be returned to taxpayers, preferably by lowering taxes.
A sovereign wealth fund is just one more way for the government to soak up money that belongs to taxpayers. If Trump's goal is to increase investment, then Americans should be investing that money in ways they, not the government, think best.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Trump Demands a Fed Governor Resign, Escalating Campaign to Remake Central Bank
President Trump demanded on Wednesday that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook 'resign, now!!!,' citing unconfirmed allegations that she may have engaged in mortgage fraud, as the administration ramped up its campaign to try to remake the central bank. Mr. Trump unleashed his latest attack shortly after Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said on social media that his office had investigated Ms. Cook and found that she appeared to have falsified bank documents to obtain favorable loan terms. Mr. Pulte said the FHFA had referred the matter to the Justice Department for a criminal inquiry. In attacking Ms. Cook, the first Black woman to ever serve as a Fed governor, both Mr. Trump and Mr. Pulte signaled anew their willingness to weaponize the instruments of government to influence monetary policy, even though economists long have warned that interfering with the Fed and its independence could carry catastrophic results. Mr. Trump has been pressuring the central bank and its chair, Jerome H. Powell, to slash interest rates. Mr. Trump has consistently attacked Mr. Powell, suggesting at times that he could take the unprecedented and legally dubious step of trying to fire him before his term as chair expires next year. The Fed has instead kept interest rates steady this year in part because officials are concerned that Mr. Trump's tariffs will spark a new round of price increases. Ms. Cook has consistently voted with Mr. Powell and is generally seen as aligned with him on policy decisions. Ousting Ms. Cook, whose term as governor runs through 2038, would give Mr. Trump another seat on the seven-member board that he could fill with someone more likely to support cutting rates. Mr. Trump already has one unexpected seat to fill. Adriana Kugler, another Fed governor, resigned unexpectedly this month, several months before her term was set to expire in January. Mr. Trump has nominated Stephen Miran, currently the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, to fill out Ms. Kugler's term. He must still be confirmed by the Senate. The White House has also started weighing potential replacements for Mr. Powell, whose term as chair ends in May. A spokeswoman for the Fed did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Ms. Cook also did not immediately respond.
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
Musk Backs Off ‘America Party' Plans, Report Says
Elon Musk is reversing course on his plans to form a third political party and is telling associates to instead focus on his companies, according to a new report citing sources who said Musk is considering financially backing Vice President JD Vance if he decides to run for president in 2028. Vice President JD Vance exits the Oval Office in the opposite direction as US President Donald Trump and Elon Musk (R) walk away before departing the White House on his way to his South Florida home in Mar-a-Lago in Florida on March 14, 2025. (Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images) AFP via Getty Images Musk has expressed concerns about angering Republicans if he followed through with his plans for a new 'America Party,' the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, citing unnamed sources with knowledge of his plans who said Musk hasn't ruled out the possibility of forming a third party. Musk announced last month—at the height of his feud with President Donald Trump—he informally launched the party, which he has said he would use to target Senate and House races, though he hasn't registered the America Party with the Federal Election Commission. Despite cutting ties with Trump, the Tesla CEO has reportedly stayed close to Vance and has floated the possibility of contributing to his 2028 presidential campaign, if he decides to run. Musk forged a close relationship with Trump after contributing to his 2024 presidential campaign then went on to work in the White House, heading up the Department of Government Efficiency. Musk left his government role in May and a feud with Trump quickly ensued when Musk blasted Trump's signature policy bill for being too expensive and adding to government debt. Trump subsequently threatened to revoke Musk's government contracts, though their public spat appears to have cooled after Trump said in late July on Truth Social he wants Musk's companies to 'THRIVE LIKE NEVER BEFORE' and denied he was considering revoking Musk's government subsidies. Forbes Valuation We estimate Musk is worth $413 billion. Elon Musk Suggests His New 'America Party' Will Target Senate And House Seats (Forbes) Elon Musk Announces New 'America Party' In Split With Democrats And Republicans (Forbes) Trump-Musk Feud: Musk Says Trump's Comments About Him Are 'Just Plain Wrong' (Forbes)
UPI
a few seconds ago
- UPI
Texas state House ready to pass redistricting bill despite Dems
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott will sign the redistricting bill that the state legislature is ready to pass. File Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo Aug. 20 (UPI) -- Texas state House Republicans are about to pass their redistricting bill Wednesday as the session reconvenes at 11 a.m. EDT Wednesday. Texas Republicans will pass the bill, encouraged by President Donald Trump, which will likely give the state an extra five Republican seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, after weeks of protests from Democrats in the state House. Because of their minority in the House, Democrats have no way to block passage of the redistricting bills. They have vowed to fight in the courts to prevent the new maps from being used. In the first special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott, Democrats fled the state for two weeks so that the House wouldn't have a quorum. Once the session timed out and Abbott called a new special session, Democrats returned to the state and a new battle ensued. Once Democrats came back to the capitol in Austin, they were not allowed to leave the chamber without a "permission slip," a police escort and 24-hour surveillance to ensure they don't leave the state again. One lawmaker, Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, spent Monday night in the capitol building, refusing to sign the paper. She said she plans to stay until Wednesday's session. Since then, several other Democrats tore up their waivers and joined her. "This is a civil discussion and disagreement, and in order to win, the other side is willing to use force -- to use the arms of a state to get what they want. Good guys don't do that," Texas House Democratic Caucus leader Rep. Gene Wu, told CNN. Wu and Rep. Vince Perez, D-El Paso, who signed the waivers, stayed with Collier through Monday night. Wednesday's session is expected to last all day and possibly into the evening, as there must be time to consider the map, consider amendments and have several votes. "It's going to be a long day," Rep Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, told the New York Times. The new state map introduced last month has been revised. It would still add the five seats but also strengthen already-Republican districts by adding Republican voters to those districts. The state's current districts, passed four years ago, are already being challenged in court, and a ruling is expected this fall. "Please pass this map ASAP," Trump posted on social media Monday. "Thank you, Texas!" Republicans have 25 of the state's 38 seats. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has already begun the process of redistricting the state to counteract Texas' efforts. Other Republican- and Democrat-led states have vowed to get in on the process.
