Category Archives: federal spending

Nowhere to Cut? II. Are You Really Trying?

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Times has a story today, “A Dirty Secret Lurks in the Struggle Over a Fiscal ‘Grand Bargain’”, suggesting that there are really two reasons why the House-Senate Budget Conference Committee, chaired by Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray, is unlikely to accomplish very much.  The simple reason is that the Republicans will not support tax increases, on which the Democrats insist, and the Democrats will not support major changes to entitlement programs, on which the Republicans insist.
But the “dirty secret” (according to the NYT) is that Republicans don’t really want to trim either Social Security or Medicare, which many Tea Partiers receive, and Democrats don’t really want to raise taxes on the upper income individuals who support them.  Furthermore, the deficit for 2013 was “only” $680 billion, and is expected to drop further in the next few years, while interest rates are so low that borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars each year is not expensive.  In other words, just kick the can down the road.  Let somebody else worry about the problem in the future.
My previous post “Nowhere to Cut”, based on the report from the Congressional Budget Office, “Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2014 – 2023”, picks 14 possible budget cuts or revenue enhancements out of a total of 103 such items listed.  Just these 14 items alone amount to a savings of $566 billion over ten years, more than enough to offset half of the entire sequester amount.
For example, raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 would save $23 billion (over 10 years), using the ‘chained’ CPI to measure inflation for all mandatory programs would save $162 billion, tightening eligibility for food stamps would save $50 billion, taxing carried interest as ordinary income would save $17 billion, limiting highway funding to expected highway revenues would save $65 billion, reducing the size of the federal workforce through attrition would save $43 billion, limiting medical malpractice torts would save $57 billion, and modifying Tricare fees for working-age military retirees would save $71 billion.  Just these eight savings total $456 billion and would offset almost half of the entire sequester.
What is so difficult about making a tradeoff deal like this?  Isn’t this what we send people to Washington to do?

Nowhere to Cut?

Posted on by
1

After five years of enormous deficits, our national debt now stands at over $17 trillion.  The only spending restraint that Congress has been able to achieve so far is an approximately one trillion dollar “sequester” over ten years, therefore amounting to about $100 billion per year in spending cuts.  Federal expenditures have actually dropped for two years in a row now so the sequester really does work.  Of course, almost everyone complains about cutting spending in such a “dumb” way.  Why not make intelligent budget cuts by eliminating the least effective programs instead of having to make small percentage cuts in all discretionary spending, good and bad alike?  Well, this really should not be all that difficult to do if Congress would try a little harder.
The Congressional Budget Office has just released a helpful report, “Options for Reducing the Deficit:  2014 to 2023”, which lists 103 ways for either decreasing spending or increasing revenues over the next decade.  Amazingly, enacting all of these proposals would amount to a budget savings of $13 trillion over 10 years, ten times what is required by the sequester!  Here are some examples of what could be done (along with the 10 year savings):

  • Eliminate direct payments to agricultural producers                             $25 billion
  • Increase federal insurance premiums for private pensions                    $5 billion
  • Reduce the amounts of federal pensions                                               $6 billion
  • Tighten eligibility for food stamps                                                          $50 billion
  • Use more accurate measure of inflation for all mandatory programs  $162 billion
  • Replace some military personnel with civilian employees                     $19 billion
  • Limit highway funding to expected highway revenues                           $65 billion
  • Eliminate grants to large and medium sized airports                               $8 billion
  • Eliminate subsidies for Amtrak                                                               $15 billion
  • Reduce the size of the federal workforce through attrition                     $43 billion
  • Tax carried interest as ordinary income                                                 $17 billion
  • Limit medical malpractice torts                                                               $57 billion
  • Raise the age of eligibility for Medicare to 67                                         $23 billion
  • Modify Tricare fees for working-age military retirees                              $71 billion
  • Total                                                                                                      $566 billion

Right here is more than enough to offset half of the sequester.  You don’t like these cuts?  Then replace them with others from the CBO report.  There are lots of options to choose from!

Beyond ObamaCare: Where Do We Go From Here?

Posted on by
Reply

Last Sunday’s Washington Post has an Op Ed column by Jon Kingsdale, “Beyond Healthcare.gov, Obamacare’s Other Challenges” which describes the many challenges confronting ObamaCare besides just the website problems and the millions of individual policies which will be cancelled for not meeting the minimum requirements of the Affordable Care Act.  Based on his experience setting up the Massachusetts Health Insurance Exchange from 2006-2010, there will  be huge problems in getting enrollment, billing and premium collections working smoothly for such a large government program.  For example, an estimated 27% of those who will be eligible for tax credits under the ACA do not have checking accounts.  How will their monthly premiums be paid and tracked for these people if they’re late?
Considering all of the problems involved in the implementation of ObamaCare, and the fact that it does not really reform our current very costly healthcare system but rather just extends it to cover more people, it makes much sense to move toward real healthcare reform, which will control costs.
A column in today’s Wall Street Journal by Ramesh Ponnuru and Yuval Levin, “A Conservative Alternative to ObamaCare”, lays out several basic features which should be included in a sensible, market oriented approach to healthcare reform.   The principles are:

  • A flat and universal tax credit for coverage which applies to everyone and not just for employer provided healthcare.  The (refundable) credit would be roughly the amount necessary for catastrophic coverage.
  • Medicaid could be converted into a means-based addition to this tax credit.
  • Everyone with continuous coverage (which would be provided by the tax credit) would be protected from price spikes or cancellations if they get sick.  This provides a strong incentive to buy and retain coverage without the need for a mandate.

A market oriented healthcare system like this is not only preferable to all of the mandates and restrictions of Obamacare, it also improves our current system by both expanding coverage to more people as well as controlling costs by giving health consumers (all of us) a much bigger stake in purchasing healthcare.
The United States spends 18% of GDP on healthcare, twice as much as any other country in the world.  Our fiscal stability and future prosperity depend on getting this huge and growing cost under control.  The ObamaCare fiasco provides an excellent opportunity to get started on doing this.

Is It Mean Spirited to Cut Food Stamps?

Posted on by
2

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, columnist William Galston writes “In Defense of Food Stamps” that “food stamps reach their intended targets, poor and near-poor Americans. The large increase in the program’s cost over the past decade mostly reflects worsening economic conditions rather than looser eligibility standards.  Since 2000 the number of individuals in poverty has risen to 46.5 million from 31.6 million.”
Mr. Galston also states that “the number of able-bodied adults without dependents receiving benefits under the food stamp program has risen to nearly 5.5 million from under 2 million since 2008 even as work requirements for those individuals have been relaxed.  Here the critics have a case: the federal government should reconsider the waivers of current requirements it has extended to 44 states and the District of Columbia and it should consider toughening those standards.”
Congressional Republicans have proposed cutting $40 billion from the food stamp program over 10 years, or $4 billion per year.  Since the total food stamp budget is $80 billion per year, this amounts to a 5% cut.  And this 5% cut is directed precisely at those 5.5 million able-bodied adults without dependents.  Expecting these people to find a job, even if minimum wage, in return for receiving food stamps, is not asking too much.  It is really just “tough love” more than anything else.
Putting a substantial portion of these 5.5 million able bodied adults back to work would also be a big boost to the economy.  One of the biggest drags on the economy at the present time is the low labor participation rate which has dropped from about 66% to 63% since the recession began in 2008-2009.
Trying to make the food stamp program more cost effective is really just an example of what should be done across all programs of the federal government, routinely, as a matter of sound operating procedures.  It is unfortunate that ideology and political partisanship get in the way of such common sense!

Are Deficit Fears Overblown?

Posted on by
Reply

 

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel responds too mildly in “Why It’s Wrong to Dismiss the Deficit” to Larry Summers’ view that we should not worry about the deficit.  Mr. Summers says, “Let me be clear.  I am not saying that fiscal discipline and economic growth are twin priorities.  I am saying that our priority must be on increasing demand.”  According to Mr. Wessel, here is the essence of Mr. Summers’ argument:

  • The deficit isn’t an immediate problem; growth is.
  • We’ve done enough (about the deficit) already.
  • The future is so uncertain that acting now is unwise.

Granted that the deficit for fiscal year 2013 is “only” $680 billion after four years in a row of deficits over a trillion dollars each and that interest rates are at an historically low level at the present time.  The problem is that the public debt is now at the very high level of 73% of GDP and is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to continue climbing indefinitely.  Interest on the debt was $415 billion for fiscal year 2013 which represents 2.5% of GDP of $16.8 trillion.  With GDP growth increasing at about 2% per year since the end of the recession in June 2009, this means that interest on the debt is already slowing down the economy and it’s just going to keep getting worse as interest rates inevitably return to higher historical levels.
Growth is very definitely an immediate problem.  But increased government spending is the wrong way to address it.  The right way to address it is with broad based tax reform (lowering tax rates in return for closing loopholes) to stimulate investment and risk taking by businesses and entrepreneurs.  Significant relaxing of the regulatory burden would also help, especially for the small businesses which are responsible for much of the growth of new jobs.  So would immigration reform to boost the number of legal workers.
As uncertain as the future is, we can be quite sure that entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) will be going up fast in the very near future as more and more baby boomers retire and the ratio of workers to retirees continues to decline.  It would be very risky indeed to assume that economic growth will increase fast enough to pay for increased entitlement spending.
Conclusion:  large deficits are a very urgent and immediate problem which we ignore at our peril!   Furthermore the best ways of boosting the economy don’t require increased government spending.

The Intergenerational Financial Obligations Reform (INFORM) Act

Posted on by
2

On page nine of today’s New York Times is published a full page letter to Congress and President Obama, “Enact The Inform Act”, signed by over one thousand economists as well as former government officials.  It would require “the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Management and Budget to do fiscal gap and generational accounting on an annual basis to assess the sustainability of fiscal policy and measure, on a comprehensive basis, the fiscal obligations facing our children and future generations.
“Unlike the measurement of the official federal debt, fiscal gap and generational accounting are comprehensive.  They leave nothing off the books, be it defense spending, Medicare expenditures, or the profits of the Federal Reserve, in assessing the sustainability of fiscal policy and the size of the fiscal bills being left to our own children.”
The INFORM Act is sponsored by a nonpartisan and millennial driven organization which goes by the name, The Can Kicks Back . This is very significant because it is precisely the younger generation of Americans who should be most concerned about the fiscal irresponsibility of so many of our national leaders.  They are the ones who will be stuck with the huge national debt which is being generated by the profligacy of federal spending and also the ones who may have their own retirement benefits greatly curtailed because of it.
Young people should be especially incensed by such irresponsible behavior which will affect them so greatly.  We should support their efforts to turn around this ugly situation!

When Will Young Obama Supporters Wake Up and See the Light?

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday’s weekend interview in the Wall Street Journal with money manager Stanley Druckenmiller, “How Washington Really Redistributes Income”, vividly illustrates how disastrous Obama economic policy has been for the young people who form the core of his coalition.  “High unemployment is paired with exploding debt that they will have to finance whenever they eventually find jobs.”
“I thought that tying Obama Care to the debt ceiling was nutty”, says Mr. Druckenmiller. “I did not think it would be nutty to tie entitlements to the debt ceiling because there’s a massive long term problem.  And this president, despite what he says, has shown time and time again that he needs a gun at his head to negotiate in good faith.”
How about the “rat through the python” theory which holds that the fiscal disaster will only be temporary while the baby-boom generation moves through the benefit pipeline and then entitlement costs will become bearable.  Unfortunately for taxpayers, “the debt accumulates while the rat’s going through the python,” so that by the 2030’s the debt and its enormous interest payments become bigger problems than entitlements.  “That’s where Greece was when it hit the skids”, he says.
What is Mr. Druckenmiller’s solution?  Raise taxes on dividends and capital gains up to ordinary income rates and eliminate corporate taxes all together.  This is justified because it ends double taxation of corporate profits.  But, in addition, the people who run the corporations would be more incentivized to invest the profits in growth and expansion.  Ending corporate taxation also ends crony capitalism and corporate welfare.  All of this would be “very, very good for growth which is a good part of the solution to the debt problem long-term.  You can’t do it without growth.”
Bottom line:  we urgently need to rein in entitlement spending but we also need smarter policies to grow the economy faster.  Young people ought to be totally on board with all of this.  When will they wake up and see the light?

Who Won and Who Lost in the Fiscal Stalemate?

Posted on by
Reply

The mainstream media are uniformly agreed that the Democrats and President Obama “won” the latest debt ceiling and shutdown standoff and that the Republicans “lost”.  For example, New York Times, reporter Jeremy Peters gives the GOP a rebuke in “Losing a Lot to Get Little”. “For the Republicans who despise President Obama’s health care law, the last few weeks should have been a singular moment to turn its botched rollout into an argument against it.  Instead, in a futile campaign to strip the law of federal money, the party focused harsh scrutiny on its own divisions, hurt its national standing, and undermined its ability to win concessions from Democrats.”
This is all true and, in addition, the twenty or twenty-five Tea Party stalwarts made fools of themselves by being so intransigent.  And 145 House Republicans ran away by voting against the final deal.
But look at the broader picture.  The federal government has been reopened for just three months, until January 15, 2014, and at current funding levels which include the 2013 sequester spending cuts.  On January 1, the more stringent 2014 sequester cuts take effect.  In other words the pressure is growing on the big spenders in Congress to deal seriously with our ongoing debt and deficit crises.
The big spenders have two options.  They can continue to kick the can down the road (i.e. refuse to bargain and force additional continuing resolutions to keep the government open) as discretionary spending continues to shrink more each year.  Or they can agree to make significant adjustments to entitlements to slow down their rate of growth, in return for easing the sequester cuts.
In a more rational world, the big spenders would understand that cutbacks must be made and the two sides would bargain in good faith and reach agreement.  But fiscal conservatives continue to have the necessary leverage to force compromise, and are unlikely to give it up.
Conclusion: the Tea Party “lost” and fiscal conservatives broke even.  The big spenders didn’t “win” but they got a temporary pass because the Tea Party overreacted and was shot down.

A Pessimistic View of America’s Future V. When Wealth Disappears

Posted on by
2

 

Several of my recent posts have been pretty gloomy.  “Average is Over,” “What, Me Worry?” and “The Age of Oversupply,” for example.  Here’s another gloomy one.  The British economist, Stephen King, has an Op Ed column in last Monday’s New York Times, “When Wealth Disappears.”, based on his new book, “When the Money Runs Out.”
Our GDP grew at 3.4% per year in the 1980s and 1990s, then dropped to a growth rate of 2.4% from 2000 – 2007.  Since the Great Recession ended it has averaged barely 2% per year.  The Democrats say we just need more fiscal stimulus and monetary easing to boost the growth rate.  The Republicans say deficit reduction including entitlement reform, slashing regulations and tax reform is what is needed to revive the economy.
“Both sides are wrong,” says Mr. King.  “The underlying reason for the stagnation is that a half-century of one-off developments in the industrialized world will not be repeated.”  These one-off developments are: the unleashing of global trade after World War II, financial innovation such as consumer credit, expansion of social safety nets which reduces the need for household savings, reduced discrimination which has flooded the labor market with women and, finally, the great increase in the number of educated citizens.
What Mr. King recommends is “economic honesty, to recognize that promises made during good times can no longer be easily kept.  What this means is a higher retirement age, more immigration to increase the working age population, less borrowing from abroad (by holding down deficit spending), less reliance on monetary policy that creates unsustainable financial bubbles, a new social compact which doesn’t cannibalize the young to feed the boomers, and a further opening of world trade.”
“Policy makers simply pray for a strong recovery.  They opt for the illusion because the reality is too bleak to bear.  But as the current fiscal crisis demonstrates, facing the pain will not be easy.  And the waking up from our collective illusions has just begun.”
It is obviously time to bite the bullet, lower our expectations, and start doing the hard work needed for even incremental economic progress.

Can We Solve Our Fiscal Problems by Taxing the Rich? II. Robert Reich’s View

Posted on by
4

 

One of America’s foremost liberal writers, Robert Reich, a Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, argues in his latest book, “Beyond Outrage”, that “America’s economy and democracy are working for the benefit of ever-fewer privileged and powerful people.”  He presents “a plan for action for everyone who cares about the future of America.”  Mr. Reich’s tax policy:

  • Raise the tax rate on the rich to what it was before 1981

“Sixty years ago Americans earning over $1 million in today’s dollars paid 55.2 percent of it in income taxes, after taking all deductions and credits.  If they were taxed at that rate now, they’d be paying at least $80 billion more annually.”

  • Put a two percent surtax on the wealth of the richest one-half of one percent

“The richest on-half of one percent of Americans, each with over $7.2 million of assets, own 28 percent of the nation’s total wealth.  Given this almost unprecedented concentration, and considering what the nation needs to do to rebuild our schools and infrastructure, as well as tame the budget deficit, a surtax is warranted.  It would generate another $70 billion a year.”

  • Put a one-half of one percent tax on all financial transactions

“This would bring in more than $25 billion per year.”

These new tax provisions would together raise tax revenue by $175 billion per year.  But our deficit this fiscal year, ending September 30, 2013, is about $700 billion.  In a few years, without significant changes in either discretionary or entitlement spending, annual deficits will be back up over a trillion dollars per year and climbing.  Mr. Reich’s steep taxes on wealth and wealth creation are not enough to seriously tame deficit spending, let alone end it.
Let’s be honest and admit that some new tax revenue is probably going to be necessary in the future if we are ever going to be able to eliminate the deficit.  But it makes no sense to start out with a tax increase which will be strongly opposed anyway.  It is far more sensible to first wring out the hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful federal spending which now exists.  After this is done there likely will still be a big deficit.  Then, and only then, would it be appropriate to generate significant new revenue by raising taxes.