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.

Why Growth Is Getting Harder

Posted on by
Reply

The Cato economist, Brink Lindsey, has just issued a new report, “Why Growth Is Getting Harder”.  See also Robert Samuelson’s Op Ed in yesterday’s Omaha World Herald, “Economic growth potion slowing to anemic trickle”.  Annual GDP growth has averaged over 3% since 1950.  But for the past four years, since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009, it has averaged barely 2% annually and, as Mr. Lindsey notes, this low growth rate is widely predicted to continue.
Historically the rate of GDP growth is attributed to four factors:

  • greater labor force participation, mainly by women
  • better educated workers, as reflected in high school and college graduation rates
  • more invested capital per worker
  • technological and organizational innovation

For example, women’s labor force participation went from 30.9% in 1950 to 59.9% in 2000.  Since then it has started to lag.  The national high school graduation rate is stuck at about 70% and realistically can’t go much higher.  Mr. Lindsey shows that both the national savings rate and domestic investment rate have been falling steadily since 1950.  Productivity growth was high from 1950 – 1979, high again from 1996 – 2004 and has fallen off again since.
Mr. Lindsey concludes “In the quest for new sources of growth to support the American economy’s flagging dynamism, policy reform now looms as the most promising “low-hanging fruit” available.”
What policy changes and improvements will counteract these negative trends?  Here are several more or less obvious suggestions:  Immigration reform can bring our 11,000,000 illegals into the main stream economy.  Education reform, especially including an early childhood emphasis, will improve the quality of education for low-income kids, and maybe even boost graduation rates.  Tax reform, with lower tax rates (offset by closing loopholes) has much potential for boosting investment and risk taking, as well as for boosting innovation and entrepreneurship.
Faster economic growth is so beneficial for so many reasons, that we should insist that our national leaders make it a top priority.  Ideological objections, such as providing “tax breaks for the rich” are not acceptable and must be constantly batted down!

What Is the Best Budget Outcome in the Current Standoff?

Posted on by
Reply

 

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, columnist Holman Jenkins describes “The Best Budget Outcome: Tax Reform”.  His point is that the only way we can possibly continue to pay for our rapidly growing entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is by speeding up the growth of our economy.
All of the various fiscal reforms of these programs which have been suggested such as means testing for Medicare, raising the Social Security wage base ($113,700 in 2013), changing the way the COLA is computed, raising eligibility age limits for both Social Security and Medicare, and block granting Medicaid to the states, can at best slow down the growth of their costs.  This is because the number of retirees is growing so rapidly as well as the number of eligible recipients for Medicaid.
Most sensible people know that we have to do a much better job of controlling the cost of entitlement programs, even though it is tough in practical terms to agree on specifically which costs to rein in.
In addition to holding down the growth of government spending, the other way to shrink the deficit and slow down our soaring national debt, is by speeding up economic growth.  The best way to do this is by lowering tax rates (offset by closing tax loopholes) in order to encourage more entrepreneurial investment and risk taking.
But too many people are ideologically opposed to lowering tax rates because they think that it increases economic inequality.  As Mr. Jenkins says, such people would rather “see the lives of the young and unskilled be blighted by a slow-growth economy than approve a reform of rates and loopholes that …(could be mislabeled)… as a tax cut for the rich.”
In other words, the two sides in the budget debate can probably hammer out some reasonable ways to rein in entitlement spending.  But they probably will not be able to agree on sensible tax reforms which would grow the economy faster and put more people back to work.  What a shame!

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.

Can We Solve Our Fiscal Problems by Taxing the Rich? I. The Third Way

Posted on by
Reply

“I enjoy your blogs and always look forward to the next one.”
“I am amazed when listening to my liberal friends, who could care less about any of the arguments you are making. Their basic belief is that any deficit can be solved in short order by simply raising taxes on the rich. One of these friends just bought a home in Palm Springs and came back declaring, ” Jerry Brown solved the financial problem in California. He raised taxes on the rich and the deficit is gone. California no longer has a financial problem.” He then went on to say that with 40 million people, California will set a good example for the country. After listening to this, I think you should address the issue of why simply increasing taxes will never work. I would start with Simpson Bowles and then go on to more recent findings. I think this argument has to be made over and over again. There are precious few Democrats who think we have a serious or fundamental financial problem that cannot be solved by simply raising taxes on the rich. I believe Obama is leading the charge.”

One response to this argument is provided by the President, Jon Cowan, and the Senior Vice President for Policy, Jim Kessler, of the Third Way, a center-left think tank, in a June 2013 memo, “The Four Fiscal Fantasies” .

  • Fantasy #1: Taxing the rich solves our problems.

Mr. Cowan and Mr. Kessler look at a plan that “completely soaks the rich.”  They stipulate that the top tax rate increases ten points to 49.6%.  They impose the Buffett Rule requiring all millionaires to pay at least 30% in taxes (after deductions).  They raise the estate tax to allow a $3.5 million exemption with a 45% rate.  “If we leave entitlements on auto-pilot in this scenario, our deficit in 2030 will be close to a stunning $1.3 trillion in 2013 inflation-adjusted dollars.”
The authors then show that to keep our finances even roughly in check, a middle income family with a $65,000 income, for example, would have to pay several thousand dollars a year in new taxes.
Conclusion:  We cannot keep entitlements on auto-pilot.  Something has to give!

What Should the Republicans Do Now?

Posted on by
Reply

 

An editorial in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, “A GOP Shutdown Strategy”, offers good advice to the House Republicans for how to proceed in the shutdown stalemate.  “ …the best chance to move Democrats is Louisiana Senator David Vitter’s amendment that would annul the exemption from Obama-Care that the White House carved out for Congressmen and their staff.  These professionals will receive special subsidies unavailable to everybody else on the insurance exchanges, and preserving this deeply unpopular privilege would be a brutal vote for Democrats.”
The House Republican Caucus should attempt to line up 218 votes to attach this provision to a continuing resolution to fund the government for all or part of the new fiscal year at the current level.  If 218 votes to support this approach cannot be found, then the House should pass a clean funding resolution.  Nothing else has a chance of succeeding (the idea of trying to defund Obama-Care for even one year is absurd) and the American people will grow increasingly impatient. 
The bigger issue by far is the need to raise the debt limit by October 17th at the latest.  Here the Republicans have major leverage, namely the sequester, which takes a bigger bite out of discretionary spending each year for nine more years.  The Republican House can give the Democratic Senate a choice:  either agree to a sensible long range plan for spending restraint (including entitlements), or else we’ll agree to raise the debt limit for six months or so, into early 2014, and then revisit the debt limit issue after the 2014 tighter sequester limits take effect. 
This is what I suggest.  Now we’ll wait and see what happens!

A Pessimistic View of America’s Future IV. The Age of Oversupply

Posted on by
Reply

 

Today’s New York Times has an interesting Op Ed column by Daniel Alpert, a partner at the investment bank, Westwood Capital, LLC, “The Rut We Can’t Get Out Of” .  It is based on Mr. Alpert’s new book, “The Age of Oversupply: Overcoming the Greatest Challenge to the Global Economy”.
“Hundreds of millions of people who once lived in sleepy or sclerotic statist and socialist economies now compete directly or indirectly with workers in the United States, Europe and Japan, in a world bound by lightning-fast communications and transportation,” says Mr. Alpert.
During the “Great Moderation,” beginning in the early 1980’s, with the tech bubble of the 1990’s and the housing bubble of the 2000’s, we could ignore this threat from the developing world.  But now, after the financial crisis and the Great Recession which followed, this huge new source of global competition for jobs and cheap goods is a drag on our recovery.
Mr. Alpert’s main prescription for recovery is to put the unemployed back to work “by any means, including big public sector investments to improve infrastructure and competitiveness.”  He would do this with massive new deficit spending, arguing that U.S. debt is not a serious problem in the short term.
I agree with his argument that the global oversupply of workers, money and goods is a huge threat to future prosperity.  Where I disagree is when he says that faster economic growth is more important than controlling deficit spending.
In my opinion, “America’s existential threat is fiscal” (Glenn Hubbard and Tim Kane).  In other words, as important as it is to boost the economy and create more jobs, and this is very important indeed, it is more urgent to get deficit spending under control and to do this quickly.  We can actually accomplish both of these critical tasks simultaneously, as I discussed in my post of September 20, 2013.