Category Archives: Congress

Should the Federal Government Bail Out Detroit?

Posted on by
4

 

The former Obama administration auto czar, Steven Rattner, wrote in yesterday’s New York Times that “We Have to Step in And Save Detroit” from bankruptcy.  Detroit has $18 billion in liabilities, half of which are for municipal employee pension plans and retiree health benefits.  Mr. Rattner says that “It isn’t fair to cut pensions.  The workers didn’t cause this mess.”
Many state and local governments are indeed in terrible financial condition because of the cost of public employee pensions.  There have already been several municipal bankruptcies around the country and there will be many more.  The state of Illinois is in particularly bad financial shape, for the same reasons as Detroit, and will almost certainly have to declare bankruptcy in the near future.
The basic problem is that state and municipal governments often have so-called “defined benefit” pension plans for their employees rather than the “defined contribution”, or 401(k), retirement plans used by private business.  Defined benefit plans guarantee a certain level of pension payment, based on the employee’s salary, regardless of the investment returns of the contributions to the fund.  Defined contribution plans, on the contrary, only pay out in benefits what has actually been accumulated in investment earnings.  For a defined benefit plan the employer (i.e. the government and therefore the taxpayers) is at risk for any shortfall in funding.  For a defined contribution plan, the individual employee is at risk for underperforming investment of the fund.  The only viable solution to this massive problem is for state and local government to shift as rapidly as possible from defined benefit to defined contribution retirement plans.
For the federal government to jump in and bail out one particular struggling municipality would create a moral hazard.  Every other state and local government with the same problem, numbering in the hundreds or thousands, would want equal treatment.  The federal government can’t afford such an expense because of its own perilous financial condition.  Furthermore, federal aid would just delay the fundamental changes in fiscal policy which must be made at the state and local level.
It is a very bad idea for the federal government to bail out Detroit!

Is Our Economy Truly Recovering From the Recession?

Posted on by
Reply

 

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Mortimer Zuckerman, the Chairman of U.S. News and World Report, writes that “A Jobless Recovery is a Phony Recovery”.  He points out that counting the people who want full time work and can’t get it, as well as those who have stopped looking, the real unemployment rate is really 14.3% rather than the officially reported 7.6%.  Enormous fiscal (deficit spending) and monetary (quantitative easing) stimulus has been able to stimulate an average growth rate of only 2% for the past four years since the recession ended in June 2009.  During these last four years the civilian workforce-participation rate has actually declined from 65.7% to 63.5% which has never happened before in an even slowly expanding “recovery” like we have at the present time.
Keynesians and Obama Administration apologists say that we need even more fiscal stimulus (we can worry about deficits and debt later); tax reform won’t help because tax rates are already low; massive new regulations (ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank financial regulations, EPA environmental regulations) are so important that they override negative economic effects; etc.  At some point, the sooner the better, we need to recognize that current policies are not working and are, in fact, retarding the recovery from the recession.
Tax reform is the biggest single change which would help.  Removing deductions and tax preferences, and replacing them with lower tax rates, would give a big boost to investment and entrepreneurship, and thereby be a huge stimulus to the economy.  This includes eliminating the tax exemption for employer provided health insurance.  Combining this reform with repeal of ObamaCare’s Employer Mandate would also lead to getting the cost of healthcare under much better control.  The overall cost of healthcare, 18% of the American economy and growing, is a huge long term burden and must be turned around.
The massive complexity of Dodd-Frank is a huge burden on the financial industry.  Preventing banks from becoming “too big to fail” can be accomplished by having more adequate reserve requirements along with sufficient default and liquidity insurance pools, along with otherwise minimal regulation.
Only more private investment and risk taking can make the economy grow faster and bring down the unemployment rate.  The sooner our national policy makers (and the voters who elect them!) figure this out and act accordingly, the sooner that our economy will truly begin to recover from the Great Recession.

Going On a Short Vacation!

Posted on by
Reply

I began this blog last November, right after the national elections, to promote my strong view that the United States is on a dangerous fiscal course, with an already enormous, and still rapidly growing, national debt.  After four years in a row of deficit spending exceeding $1 trillion per year, the current year’s deficit is projected to be “only” $640 billion.  Far too many people, including many of our national leaders, interpret this to mean that the problem is getting solved and so we can relax.  But the already accumulated $12 trillion in public debt will cost our economy $600 billion a year, a significant fraction of total revenue, in interest alone when interest rates return to their historical average of 5%.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.  Federal spending is out of control all across the board.  Entitlement spending on Medicare and Medicaid is growing at twice the rate of inflation and is an especially acute problem.  But progress here depends on figuring out how to get healthcare costs in general under control, a huge challenge.  The much reviled sequester is working but it’s not nearly enough by itself to get discretionary spending under control.
Four years after the end of the Great Recession the economy is still limping along at 2% GDP growth and 7.6% unemployment.  And this is after enormous fiscal stimulus (deficit spending) as well as quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve.  Current policies are not working.  What we need is broad based tax reform with lower marginal rates (offset by ending tax preferences) to stimulate business investment and the private risk taking which propels the economy and creates jobs.  And, of course, faster economic growth will also increase tax revenue and therefore lower the deficit, as well as boosting employment.
This is a brief summary of what I’ve been saying for the past eight months.  To me it just seems like simple common sense, but not everyone agrees!  At any rate I’ll be out of town for the next two weeks.  I hope to be able to make a few new posts while I’m gone.  Stay tuned!

Does the Economy Need More Spending Now?

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s Wall Street Journal the economist Alan Blinder writes, “The Economy Needs More Spending Now”, that the tax hikes and spending cuts agreed to in January and before are reducing GDP growth by 1.5% – 2% annually.  Mr. Blinder claims that it would be easy to design a new fiscal stimulus package that adds 2% to GDP per year as long as it lasts.  He also claims that a fundamental change like tax reform might only add a much smaller .2% to GDP per year although this much smaller annual effect would repeat indefinitely and therefore eventually amount to a large cumulative effect.  This is a sensible argument as far as it goes but is incomplete.
In the last five years there has been almost $6 trillion in (deficit) stimulus spending, coupled with a $3 trillion quantitative easing program by the Federal Reserve.  This represents an unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus to the economy by the federal government.  And the result has been a tepid although steady 2% annual growth in GDP, much slower than usually follows a recession.
After all of this enormous stimulus, which is having only a meager effect, what makes more sense:  to try even more stimulus or to try something different?  What else is there to try?  Immigration reform will boost the economy by drawing our 11,000,000 illegal immigrants into the main stream economy.  Note that citizenship (amnesty) is not required to accomplish this, only legal status.  Also, requiring many people receiving welfare (food stamps, disability benefits, etc.) to work would boost the economy by increasing the size of the labor force.
Broad based tax reform, greatly curtailing most, if not all, tax preferences, would be so attractive that it should not be put on a back burner, as Mr. Blinder suggests.  In fact, completely repealing the ACA’s Employer Mandate, now that it’s been postponed for a year, would give a big boost to many medium sized companies for which required health insurance is a big impediment to growth.
The point is that there are many ways to boost the economy besides even more artificial deficit stimulus, whose effect would be at most temporary anyway, as Mr. Blinder suggests.  It really is important to shrink our still very large annual deficits down to zero fairly quickly so that we stop adding to the huge burden which we have already placed on future generations.  In other words, we can likely have stronger economic growth and fiscal restraint at the same time, the best of all possible worlds!

The Four Fiscal Fantasies

Posted on by
2

Jon Cowan and Jim Kessler from the Third Way think tank have just written a new article, “The Four Fiscal Fantasies”, in which they address our country’s current fiscal situation from a point of view which is sympathetic to, but critical of, the left.

  • Fantasy #1:  Taxing the rich solves our problems.
  • Fantasy #2:  We can have it all.
  • Fantasy #3:  Waiting is benign.
  • Fantasy #4:  The politics get better.

These four fantasies are fairly self-explanatory.  The solution they propose for the long term insolvency of Social Security is an at least partial lifting of the FICA cap as well as chain-weighting of the CPI.  These are both good ideas.
Their solution to looming Medicare insolvency is to trim costs in the current program with, for example: bundled payments, medical homes for end-of-life, a permanent fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate (doc fix), reducing duplicative care, increasing provider coordination, etc.  This however is a band aid approach to getting Medicare costs under control.  We need far greater and more fundamental changes in our entire healthcare system, public and private.  Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy have a plan to do this which I have discussed in my June 5, 2013 blog post, “Free Market Healthcare in America”.
With respect to discretionary spending in the federal budget, Mr. Cowan and Mr. Kessler propose several specific budget cuts in order to boost spending for other programs for kids, science, research, curing disease, infrastructure, etc.  Savings in one area would be spent on investments in other areas rather than being used for reducing the deficit.
To me this whole program represents a step in the right direction even though it does not come close to all of the changes that will be needed to shrink the deficit down to zero.  If national Democratic leaders would propose this sort of a program, it would force Republican leaders to take it seriously and would therefore break the current logjam in Congress.

Immigration Reform is Pro-Growth

Posted on by
2

 

The lead editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal, “A Pro-Growth Reform”, is right on the money.  It challenges the GOP House to improve the Senate immigration bill, not kill it.  The emphasis in the Senate bill is to provide an eventual path to citizenship for the approximately 11,000,000 illegal immigrants currently in the US.  To offset the charge that this is amnesty, the Senate bill greatly increases enforcement by doubling the size of the border patrol, at a cost of $4 billion per year, and increasing the criminal penalties for employers who mistakenly hire an illegal.  The Senate bill also increases the quota for skilled workers from the current 65,000 per year limit to 120,000 per year but it only barely increases the annual quotas for construction and agricultural guest workers, which doesn’t nearly meet current needs.
What is needed is less emphasis on eventual citizenship (coupled with stronger enforcement) but rather more emphasis on simply having an adequate supply of both skilled and unskilled legal guest workers.  This presents an opportunity for the House of Representatives to produce a better bill.
First of all, raising the quotas for both skilled and unskilled guest workers should be the first priority for the House.  An adequate supply of legal guest workers means there will be much less demand for illegals, which, in turn, means less need for the increased enforcement measures of the Senate bill.
Secondly, what immigrant workers need most is legal status rather than a guaranteed path to citizenship.  It is the constant risk of deportation and separation from their families which adversely affects their quality of life, rather than the lack of US citizenship.
More immigrants, both skilled and unskilled, will help our economy grow faster and recover more quickly from the Great Recession.  We should provide immigrants with the legal status they need to come to our country and succeed and prosper!

Who is Conducting War on the Unemployed?

Posted on by
Reply

In his ever provocative fashion, columnist Paul Krugman claims in today’s New York Times that fiscal conservatives, i.e. Republicans, are conducting “War On the Unemployed” because extended unemployment benefits are being allowed to expire both nationally and in various states around the country.  According to Mr. Krugman it is “meanspiritedness converging with bad economic analysis” because more government spending will boost the economy and, moreover, the federal deficit is nothing to be concerned about.
The problem is that we have now had enormous fiscal stimulus, i.e. huge federal deficits, for five years, as well as a highly expansive monetary policy, and the economy is still barely limping along at a 2% growth rate.  It is unfortunate that so many liberals are ideologically opposed to broad-based tax reform whereby tax rates would be lowered in a revenue neutral way by either eliminating entirely, or else cutting back substantially, the many tax preferences, deductions and loopholes which pervade the tax code.  By emphasizing profit potential over tax avoidance strategies, this would give a big boost to business risk takers and thereby lead to economic growth and lower unemployment.
At the same time that our economy is suffering from low growth and high unemployment, our national debt is exploding to a large extent because the federal government is spending too much money.  Efforts to rein in government spending across the board are highly desirable and should be supported as simple common sense.
By advocating tax reform to boost the private economy and, at the same time, restraining federal spending wherever possible, fiscal conservatives are helping the long-term unemployed far more than their supposed champions who are doing just the opposite!

Should Welfare Recipients Be Required to Work?

Posted on by
Reply

 

On June 18, 2013, Lawrence Mead, Department of Politics and Public Policy, New York University, testified before Congress, “Making Welfare Work”, that even as the number of Americans receiving welfare has dramatically increased in recent years, welfare programs are failing to provide sufficiently strong incentives for the recipients to find work.  This has contributed to the fact that “the share of our population that is employed has recently fallen sharply compared to several European countries” such as Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Mead shows that there are three main reasons for this: “(1) work tests in the major income programs are still limited, (2) we have neglected the problem of poor men, and (3) the disability programs are diverting too many Americans from the work force entirely”.  He points out that the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 required that the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program put 50% of their cases in rigorous “work activities” by 2002.  This led to a dramatic reduction of the AFDC/TANF rolls by more than two-thirds. But since then exemptions and waivers have sharply limited the specific work activity demands which mobilized welfare recipients to hold jobs.
Even with the currently high unemployment rate, there are plenty of low-paid, low-skilled jobs available, which are suitable for welfare recipients.  After all, even a low-paid job may well provide the opportunity to learn skills as well as to develop better work habits. Congress clearly needs to strengthen work requirements for welfare.  And the incentives need to be right so that these workers keep more pay than they give up in benefits.
Putting more welfare recipients back to work will not only help control the federal budget but also give our economy a boost by increasing the size of the workforce!

Is America in Decline?

Posted on by
2

A new book by the two economists Glenn Hubbard and Tim Kane “Balance: The Economics of Great Powers from Ancient Rome to Modern America” analyzes the decline of many of the great empires and civilizations in human history.  According to the authors, they all declined (or are now declining!) primarily for internal economic reasons rather than from external military threat.  The authors conclude that America’s own existential threat is fiscal.  Our lowest debt level in recent years was 23.9% of GDP in 1974 ($344 billion) which has climbed to 75% of GDP today ($12 trillion) and is predicted to keep growing worse in the years to come.
Our political system is too polarized to solve our huge debt problem.  Republicans want lower taxes; Democrats want higher spending.  If Republicans succeed in cutting spending, it upsets the voters and gives the Democrats an advantage.  If Democrats succeed in raising taxes, it upsets the voters and gives the Republicans an advantage.  So we end up with low taxes, high spending, fiscal imbalance and political stalemate.  This is the dilemma we are in.
But the authors propose a solution: a flexible balanced budget constitutional amendment where total outlays for a year do not exceed the median annual revenue collected in the seven prior years.  A three-fifths supermajority of each house of Congress can declare a one-year emergency exemption.  Additional one-year exemptions may be approved only by escalating votes in each house of Congress.  The amendment would take effect in the seventh year following ratification by the states.  During the seven year transition period the deficit would be reduced gradually each year until it reached zero.
Messrs Hubbard and Kane provide an excellent, nonpartisan analysis of the deep predicament in which our country now finds itself as well as an attractive means of extricating ourselves from this precarious situation.

The Urgency of the U.S. Debt Problem

Posted on by
2

 

In Friday’s Wall Street Journal Kimberley Strassel has a column “Rebooting the Budget Talks” which discusses a new approach to budget planning being taken by Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican.  Mr. Johnson wants to go beyond the usual 10 year budget planning by using 20 and 30 year projections from the Congressional Budget Office for both tax revenue and spending.  Even assuming that current federal government spending grows only by population growth plus inflation (which would require unusual restraint), by 2043 the national debt will have increased by $72 trillion, with public debt (on which interest is paid) amounting to 139% of GDP.  See “Thirty-year deficits and debt” for more detail.
Of course, it is easy to say that 30 year projections are way too long to have real credibility, and so let’s just stick to the usual 10 year projection which shows the public debt shrinking from today’s 75.1% to 73.6% in 10 years and so therefore becoming “stabilized”.  Most of us old folks will be gone but today’s young and middle aged people will still be around 30 years from now and so should be very much concerned about our likely fiscal condition in 2043.  And the CBO 30 year projection assumes such unlikely restraint that the debt will probably be even greater by then.
The reason why a 30 year projection is so much worse than a 10 year projection is because  the entitlement explosion is much greater in the out years compared with just the next 10 years alone.  Conclusion: the mild restraint on entitlement growth (such as a chained CPI) being reluctantly offered by Democrats today is an entirely inadequate way to curtail entitlement growth for the long haul.  Let’s get real and propose real solutions to our nation’s urgent fiscal problems.  We’ve been kicking the can down the road for way too long already.  We can no longer afford to postpone significant action until some future date when conditions are more amenable for reform.  We must act now!