Keep Squeezing the Budget!

Posted on by
Reply

 

Monday’s Wall Street Journal has an Op Ed column by Stephen Moore, “The Budget Sequester Is a Success”, which points out that federal spending has actually shrunk from a high of $3.598 trillion in 2011 to $3.537 trillion in 2012 to a projected $3.45 trillion for 2013.  These spending declines are due to the Budget Control Act of 2011 which accompanied the 2011 increase in the debt limit.  The $100 billion per year budget sequester is a part of that agreement.  The current budget standoff between the Senate and the House is simply an attempt by the Democratic majority in the Senate to renegotiate the spending limits agreed to in 2011.
The sequester will continue to constrain discretionary spending but the two thirds of the federal budget devoted to entitlements is growing at a much faster rate than the overall growth of the economy.  The way out of this dilemma should be obvious to any rational, impartial observer.  We need to slow down the growth of entitlements and speed up the growth of the economy.  But this is much easier said than done!
Democrats will apparently not agree to do either of these two things.  Reining in entitlements takes political courage and the Democrats would rather be able to accuse Republicans of cruelty to the poor and the elderly than to actually address this problem in a serious manner.  Growing the economy faster will require appealing to investors and risk takers, with lower tax rates, for example, as well as loosening anti-business regulations.  Measures like these go against liberal ideology.
While we’re waiting for common sense to prevail in Washington, what more can be done to shrink still very large deficit spending?  There are all sorts of wasteful, duplicative and ineffective federal programs out there.  Fiscal conservatives should just keep going after them, one-by-one, and whittling them down.  Millions of voters and taxpayers will be thankful for this.

One Way to Solve the National Debt Problem

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s New York Times, the economists Glenn Hubbard and Tim Kane write that “Republicans and Democrats Both Miscalculated”.  They say that “when the Congressional Budget Office recently lowered its forecast of future deficits, many voices on the left claimed that the problem had been overblown by ‘austerity scaremongers’” and that “some voices on the right have renewed calls to ‘starve the beast’ now that deficits are under control.”  But they point out that just because the deficit is likely to shrink for the next couple of years, CBO also projects that it will soon be back up to a trillion dollars per year indefinitely into the future.  And this is all optimistically assuming full employment, robust growth and moderate interest rates.
The Hubbard/Kane solution is to amend the Constitution with a flexible Balanced Budget Amendment.  Its features would include: 1) a provision that spending in a given year would not exceed income averaged over the previous seven years, 2) no restriction on tax rates which would have to be hashed out by Congress and 3) an exception to spending restraint for national emergencies.
There are, of course, valid objections to a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.  It reduces the flexibility of Congress and the President to act as needed.  It would be much better for Congress to act in a fiscally responsible manner on its own initiative.  But we all know that this doesn’t happen.  The pressure is always to adopt new spending programs and never to cut existing programs, no matter how ineffective they are.
Debt is the “single biggest threat to our national security” declared Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Many other prominent citizens express similar thoughts on a regular basis.  It is really just basic common sense that no governmental unit can flagrantly ignore this fundamental economic principle year after year without very serious repercussions.  It is (well past) time to force our national leaders to bite the bullet and do what almost every sane person knows what must be done.

Is a ‘Do Nothing’ Congress Really a Serious Problem?

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s Omaha World Herald reprints the article “Get-nothing-done Congress is disrespectful to democracy” by the Baltimore Sun writer, Andrew Yarrow.  Mr. Yarrow says that “the 112th Congress, which ended in 2012, passed fewer bills than any Congress in recent memory, and the current 113th Congress is on track to do just as badly.  …  What Congress does do often seems patently ridiculous.  …  We need to … ramp up public pressure to get something done, rather than just fight.”
But is the problem just to do something, anything, or is it rather to do something worthwhile?  And what if there is a fundamental disagreement, as there is today, about what is worthwhile?  One party thinks that the way to boost the economy and speed up the recovery is to increase artificial stimulus (government spending) and to pay for it by raising taxes on the rich.  The other party is appalled by the $6 trillion in deficit spending racked up so far by the current administration and wants to slam on the brakes.  Each side is working as hard as it can to prevail, especially by discrediting and embarrassing the other side.  How do you resolve a dispute like this?
There is really only one person who has the clout and visibility to get this done and that is the President.  But when the President is the divider-in-chief, spending much of his time and effort proposing unsound economic and fiscal policies, intended primarily for short term political gain, what is the other party supposed to do?  Acquiesce by passing new laws that will just make things worse?  Or by standing firm on principle and hoping that the general public will be able to understand and appreciate its opposition to bad policies?
This is the situation which we are currently in.  It makes for a difficult and unpleasant time.  The economy is slowly recovering from the Great Recession on its own.  Let’s hope that this trend continues and that we can muddle through our present political predicament.

The National Significance of the Municipal Pension Crisis

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Times reported yesterday that “Chicago Sees Pension Crisis Drawing Near”.  “A crushing problem lurks behind the signs of economic recovery in Chicago: one of the most poorly funded pension systems among the nation’s major cities. … The pension fund for retired Chicago teachers stands at risk of collapse.”
William Daley, former chief of staff for President Obama and now a Democratic candidate for governor of Illinois says that “Anyone who thinks that this is just a problem on paper, those are the same people who looked at Detroit 20 years ago and said, ‘Don’t worry about it, we can handle it.’”  Chicago Mayor, Rahm Emanuel, another former chief of staff for President Obama, says that “What the system needs is a hard, cold, dose of honesty.  I understand the anger.  I totally respect it.  You have every right to be angry because there were contracts voted on.  People agreed to something.  But things get updated all the time.”
Just as Chicago and Illinois need a cold dose of honesty about the public pension crisis in that city and state, so does our entire country need a cold dose of honesty about our national fiscal crisis.  Shall we wait 20 years or until this problem explodes in our faces (or our children’s faces), or shall we start to deal with it now, while we can still proceed in a rational manner?
Our current public debt (on which we pay interest) is now $12 trillion.  With artificially low interest rates, we are paying “only” $250 billion annually in interest on this debt. When interest rates resume their historical average of 5%, our annual interest rate will jump to $600 billion.  Where will we find an additional $350 billion per year for interest payments alone?  Will we take it from entitlements, from social services for the poor, from our defense budget?  Or will we just increase our deficit even more to pay for it?  It will have to come from somewhere!
Wake up, America!  Learn from the municipal pension crisis.  Now is the time to get things straightened out.  Further procrastination will have dire consequences.

The New York Times is in Denial

Posted on by
Reply

 

An editorial in yesterday’s New York Times, “Republican No-Shows in the Budget Wars”, ridicules House Republican leadership for having the temerity to propose $4 billion in cuts from this year’s budgets for transportation and housing, and expecting Republican representatives to support such “draconian” cuts.  “But the House’s skittishness at the decidedly unpopular costs of some of the party’s budget strictures presented a revealing tableau of both hypocrisy and weakness: Republicans could not pass their own cramped vision of the future.”
The underlying problem is that the House Budget for discretionary spending for 2014, at $967 billion, is almost $100 billion less than the Senate’s $1058 billion budget.  The House insists on continuing the sequester cuts for the full ten years agreed upon when the sequester mechanism was set up two years ago.  The Senate is ignoring the sequester agreement because it wants to replace it by a combination of milder cuts and tax increases.  The Republicans would prefer to replace the across-the-board sequester cuts by a more rational budget cutting plan but the Democrats are unwilling to negotiate such a plan.
The Democratic Party, and its media supporters such as the New York Times, simply refuses to acknowledge that the United States has a fiscal problem.  $6 trillion in deficit spending in the last five years apparently does not make a serious impression.  The mantra is that we’ll worry about our enormous deficits, and exploding national debt, later, after the economy more fully recovers from the Great Recession.  But after four years of recovery such an argument makes no sense.  There are lots of effective ways to boost the economy but continued artificial stimulus (deficit spending) is not one of them.
Wake up, Keynesians!  We need to turn things around and the sooner the better.  Stop ridiculing the mostly Republican fiscal conservatives who are valiantly striving to accomplish this herculean task under the most trying circumstances.

The A+ Method to Reform Federal Education Policy

Posted on by
Reply

 

The Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke has recently described, in “A-Plus: A Conservative Alternative to NCLB”, a new bill, The Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success Act, recently introduced into both houses of Congress.  A+ would allow states to completely opt out of all programs which fall under No Child Left Behind and send NCLB funding back to the states in the form of block grants to be used for the most pressing educational needs.
Under such an arrangement, states would have to describe how they plan to improve education for disadvantaged students.  Performance data for various student demographic groups would be disaggregated and states would have to demonstrate how they have narrowed achievement gaps.  Many other safeguards would also be in place.
The problems with NCLB are well known.  The Adequate Yearly Progress requirement, that all students be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014, is unrealistic and has led to the watering-down of proficiency standards.  The Highly Qualified Teacher mandate is too rigid and should be under the purview of local education leaders.  Standards and assessments, such as the Common Core and national tests, would no longer be dictated by the U.S. Secretary of Education.
There are huge budgetary ramifications of A+.  At the present time there are over 80 individual grant programs under NCLB, which have a total annual budget of more than $25 billion.  Consolidating all of these numerous individual programs into a single K-12 block grant to each state would easily allow a 20%, or $5 billion, annual savings to the federal government as well as saving states and local school systems much expense in administering the newly streamlined federal education policy.
Here is an example of a good way of improving one particularly large and expensive federal program.  This sort of retrenchment needs to happen throughout the federal government.  Let’s get started in doing what needs to be done!

What Is the Best Way to Reform the Tax Code?

Posted on by
2

 

In today’s New York Times it is reported that President Obama, “Obama Proposes Deal Over Taxes and Jobs”, proposes “a cut in corporate tax rates in return for a pledge from Republicans to invest in more programs to generate middle class jobs.”  Reducing the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%, for example, balanced by tightening tax deductions and loopholes, would raise additional revenue on a one time basis as companies switch from one tax system to another.  It is this new one time revenue which would be spent on the president’s priorities.
The President’s proposal has given a boost to Senator Max Baucus and Representative David Camp, the chairs of Congress’s tax writing panels, “Lonely Bipartisan Push to Overhaul Tax Code Finally Gets Noticed”, who are working together to construct a broad based, pro-growth, plan to reform the entire tax code, for both individuals and corporations.
Which is the better way to proceed?  What is the best way to boost the economy? Revamping only the corporate tax structure to raise new tax revenue for public spending projects?  Or by eliminating as many deductions and loopholes as possible over all in order to enact the lowest possible tax rates for both individuals and corporations?
To me the answer is obvious.  It is investment, risk taking and entrepreneurship which create the most jobs for the long term.  The best way to stimulate the private economy is with the lowest possible tax rates for all.  It is unfortunate that the President will not accept this basic economic truth and work with Congress in a bipartisan manner to move the economy forward and create more jobs.

What Is the Best Way to Help the Middle Class?

Posted on by
Reply

 

An article in yesterday’s New York Times, “Obama Says Income Gap Is Fraying U.S. Social Fabric”, quotes the President that “If we don’t do anything, then growth will be slower than it should be.  Unemployment will not go down as fast as it should.  Income inequality will continue to rise.  That’s not a future that we should accept.”  He says that “I will seize any opportunity I can to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security.”
A recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal, “The Inequality President”, shows with a chart that median household incomes have fallen from $54,218 in June 2009 as the recession ended to $51,500 in May 2013.  As the WSJ says, “For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies  on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth.  The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. … The rich have done well in the last few years, thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not.”
There are many things that Congress and the President could do to boost the economy if they were willing to work together and compromise.  Obamacare doesn’t need to be repealed, just modified by dropping the employer mandate which is a job killer.  Broad based tax reform, with lower tax rates, paid for by eliminating tax preferences, would be a big boost to investment, risk taking and entrepreneurship.  A reasonable compromise would be to use a part of the revenue raised from eliminating loopholes for deficit reduction.
But little progress will be made unless the President is willing to show leadership by rising above partisanship.  There are all sorts of ways he could do this.  One simple way would be to show that he understands the seriousness of the rapidly growing national debt by supporting some of the many thoughtful proposals for more government efficiency.
A large majority of people want our first African-American President to be successful.  But right now he is not on track to achieve this.

Get Out While the Getting Is Good!

Posted on by
Reply

 

David Malpass, president of Encima Global LLC, has an op-ed in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, “The Economy Is Showing Signs of Life”, pointing out that business loans, auto sales and hourly earnings are up.  Mr. Malpass says that “The sequester is a bad way to set spending priorities, but it reduces the risk of future tax increases, contributing to the upturn in consumer and business confidence. … The good news is that an end to the latest version of the Fed’s quantitative easing would create space for more growth in private credit and a shift back toward market, not government allocation of credit. …Because America’s private economy is the world’s biggest net creditor and capital allocator, the United States will be the biggest beneficiary of a return to market based interest rates, with vast potential in efficiency, intellectual property and the capacity to innovate.”
Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, is given much credit for the fact that the Great Recession did not turn into another depression.  But now, four years after the end of the recession, we have the twin problems of a slow growth economy, which keeps the unemployment rate much too high, and the potential for huge inflation caused by the vast increase in the money supply.  Mr. Malpass makes an excellent argument that the economy has recovered enough so that further quantitative easing will now retard future growth.  It clearly also increases the chance of runaway inflation.
Current artificially low interest rates also disguise the future damage now being created by huge federal deficit spending.  When interest rates go back up, as they inevitably will, interest payments on our rapidly increasing national debt will also increase dramatically, and force far greater cuts in federal spending than are currently being caused by the sequester.
In other words, to speed up economic growth, curtail the risk of future inflation and to put more pressure on Congress to control federal spending, the Federal Reserve should begin to exit from quantitative easing in the very near future!

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!