Tag Archives: cutting spending

Our Dire Fiscal Situation I. The Facts

Posted on by
Reply

Capture

Take a look at the front page of a new report from the Congressional Budget Office, “The 2013 Long-Term Budget Outlook”.  It shows very clearly the huge fiscal mess confronting our country in the near future.
First of all, our national debt has almost doubled as a percentage of GDP in the last five years, from about 38% of GDP at the end of 2008 to 73% today.  Although the debt is actually projected to dip to 68% of GDP in 2018, it then begins a steady climb because of increasing interest costs as well as increasing spending on Social Security and government healthcare programs (Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act).  The debt will be back to 71% of GDP by 2023 and then climb rapidly to about 100% of GDP by 2038.
Notice from the graph that federal tax revenues have just about recovered from the recession and will soon level off at their historical level of about 19.5% of GDP.  But federal spending will resume a steady climb, reaching 26% of GDP by 2038.  As the gap between revenue and spending gets wider and wider, the national debt grows faster and faster.  This is the enormous fiscal problem we are faced with in the next 25 years.   The worse it gets the harder it becomes to turn around.  It is imperative to address this problem without delay.
In order to reduce the debt from its current level of 73% of GDP down to the historical average of 38% by 2023, Congress would have to pass an additional $4 trillion in spending cuts or tax increases over the next decade.  The only way such enormous savings can be achieved is by reining in entitlement spending: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and ACA.  I will outline one way to do this in my next post!

The College Education Bubble

Posted on by
Reply

 

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by the expert on the economics of higher education, Richard Vedder, “The Real Reason College Costs So Much”, points out the similarities between the government’s higher education and housing policies.  “In housing we had artificially low interest rates.  The government encouraged people with low qualifications to buy a house.  Today we have low interest rates on student loans.  The government is encouraging kids to go to college who are unqualified just as it encouraged people to buy a house who are unqualified.”
The federal government is now spending $105 billion on student loans each year.  The average student loan debt is $26,000 but goes much higher for millions of students.  The maximum annual Pell Grant (intended for low income students) is now $5350 and 20% of the recipients come from families making over $60,000 per year.
President Obama suggests capping monthly loan repayments at 10% of discretionary income and forgiving outstanding balances after 20 years.  This creates a moral hazard.  It signals to current and future loan borrowers that they don’t have to take loan repayment very seriously.  It encourages students to major in “soft” academic areas which have poorer job prospects rather than “hard” areas like engineering and technology which have good job prospects.
Innovation in higher education is not coming from government programs but from private initiatives such as massively open online courses (MOOCs).  These have the potential to greatly reduce college costs.  Community colleges have rapidly growing enrollments and prepare students for skilled jobs in high demand areas such as truck driving, machine technology and health careers.
The cost of higher education is going up much faster than the rate of inflation and the infusion of federal money is making the situation worse by encouraging students to take on excessive amounts of debt.  A cap should be placed on the amount of government money which can be borrowed by an individual student.  There are plenty of low cost options available for obtaining postsecondary education and government policy should support, rather than subvert, such common sense options.

How To Do Intelligent Budget Cutting in Washington

Posted on by
Reply

 

The July/August 2013 issue of the Atlantic Magazine has an article “Can Government Play Moneyball?”, by two former budget officials, Peter Orszag (under President Obama) and John Bridgeland (under President Bush), which describes the very careless spending atmosphere in the federal government in recent years.  “Based on our rough calculations”, they write, “less than $1 out of every $100 of government spending is backed by even the most basic evidence that the money is being spent wisely.”  They describe in great detail their efforts to introduce mechanisms to evaluate the performance of social service programs of various types and how difficult this has been to accomplish.
“Since 1990, the federal government has put 11 large social programs, collectively costing taxpayers more than $10 billion a year, through randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of evaluation.  Ten out of the eleven – including Upward Bound and Job Corps – showed “weak or no positive effects on their participants.”  Here’s another example.  “The federal government’s long running after school program, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, has shown no effect on academic outcomes on elementary-school students – and significant increases in school suspensions and incidents requiring other forms of discipline.  The Bush administration tried to reduce funding for the program” but was overruled by Congress.  “Today the program still gets more than $1 billion a year in federal funds.”
Lots of people complain that the sequester is a “dumb” way to cut federal spending.  Of course, it would make far more sense to cut back spending in a rational way by evaluating all programs, keeping the effective ones and eliminating the ineffective ones.  As the sequester takes bigger and bigger across-the-board spending cuts each year for nine more years (it’s a program to cut $1 trillion over ten years), the big spenders in Congress are going to start crying “Uncle”! because their own favorite programs will be effected more and more deeply each year.  Maybe then, hopefully sooner than later, Congress will gain some collective common sense and accept the fact that there is a better way to make the significant budget cuts that are necessary.
Let’s hope so!

Private Health Care Reform is Getting Started!

Posted on by
Reply

 

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal has a very interesting article, “More Employers Overhaul Health Benefits”, which describes a movement just getting started whereby employers give their employees a fixed sum of money and let them choose their own plan from an online market place.  The idea is that employers will be better able to predict and control their healthcare expenses for employees.  Furthermore, employees will be able to get better value for dollars spent by selecting their own coverage options, deductible amounts, copays, etc.
In fact, in an exchange run by Liazon Corp., which has 60,000 people enrolled, 75% of workers have chosen less expensive plans than they had before, by accepting bigger deductibles and copays, as well as smaller choices of healthcare providers and restrictions such as primary-care gatekeepers.
This is such an appealing approach to private healthcare cost control that the Accenture Management Consulting Company estimates just five years from now there will be 40,000,000 business employees receiving their healthcare benefits in this manner.  This would be a phenomenal development!
The United States spends 18% of GDP on healthcare altogether, both public and private, which is double the amount spent by any other country.  This enormous expense is a major reason why wage growth is stagnant in our country as well as why the costs of public programs like Medicare and Medicaid are so high and contributing to so much government debt.  It is critical for our country to get the rapid increase of healthcare costs under much better control.  That’s why this new movement of employers and employees working together on this critical problem is such a big step in the right direction.
If the estimate by Accenture is anywhere nearly accurate about how fast this new private healthcare selection method will grow, then there will soon be an excellent opportunity for Congress to expand its benefits to the control of Medicare and Medicaid costs as well.  This is very exciting indeed!

Can We Solve Our Fiscal Problems Without Raising Taxes?

Posted on by
Reply

 

Scott Lilly, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, has an Op Ed column in yesterday’s Fiscal Times, “The Choice Congress Won’t Face Up To”.  Mr. Lilly admits that we have at least a long-term deficit problem, namely exploding entitlement spending driven by the aging of the U.S. population.  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that federal outlays, including entitlements, will be 22.8% of GDP in 2023 while revenues will equal only about 19.3% of GDP, a huge gap.  And outlays will continue to rise,  because of entitlement spending, reaching 25% of GDP by 2040.  This means that the public debt, on which we pay interest, would rise from 73% of GDP today, to 99% of GDP by 2040.  As interest rates inevitably return to their historical average of 5%, interest payments on this massive debt will become an increasing burden on the economy.
Mr. Lilly asks the question:  How are we going to cut back on entitlement spending when the average Social Security monthly check is $1268 out of which about $350 goes to out-of-pocket medical expenses not covered by Medicare?  Congressman Ryan has proposed limiting the growth of Medicare to the increase of inflation + 1%.  But the cost of healthcare is increasing much faster than this.  And many seniors are living close to the edge.
Thus we reach “the choice which Congress won’t face up to.”  According to Mr. Lilly, either we have to make big cuts in entitlement spending or else raise taxes dramatically so that federal revenue increases to about 24% of GDP by 2040.  Mr. Lilly makes the far-fetched claim, based on flimsy evidence, that such a large tax increase will not retard economic growth.  But let’s set this issue aside for now.
Is there any alternative to increasing taxes so dramatically in order to avoid making big cuts in entitlements?  The answer is yes.  The above discussion assumes that the cost of healthcare in general will keep on increasing at the current rapid rate, much faster than the increase in inflation.  This is the main driver of entitlement costs.  The U.S. currently spends 18% of GDP on healthcare which is double the amount spent by any other country.  This is what must change.  We should abolish, not just postpone, the employer mandate in Obama Care.  But even more fundamentally, the tax exemption for employer provided healthcare should be removed (and offset with a rate reduction).  This would make consumers far more aware of the cost of healthcare and therefore drive down these costs.
Only after serious attempts are made, such as above, to control costs should any consideration be given to raising taxes.

Federal Cutbacks Suggest State and Local Expansion

Posted on by
2

 

A front page article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, “An Ohio Prescription for the GOP:  Lower Taxes, More Aid for Poor”, describes how Ohio’s Republican Governor, John Kasich, a former congressional spending hawk, has expanded Medicaid coverage in Ohio and steered millions more dollars into local food banks.  Mr. Kasich says, “When you die and go to heaven, St Peter is probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small.  But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor.”
There are good reasons why we should shift programs and responsibilities from the federal government back to states and localities.  At the federal level there is little fiscal restraint and therefore little incentive for making sure that governmental programs operate efficiently and effectively.  Study after study by the Government Accounting Office, as well as by private think tanks, demonstrate enormous waste and duplication in virtually all areas of federal government.  This long lasting fiscal irresponsibility at the federal level has now led to a massive national debt which will have a perverse effect on our nation’s prosperity for many years to come.
At the same time, all state and local governments are required to balance their budgets.  This means that they have to pay attention to the costs of all programs and set spending priorities.  They have to make sure that all functions of government are effective and be prepared to cut back or eliminate any program which is performing poorly.  States such as Illinois and California, and cities such as Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia, which have huge operating deficits year after year, will eventually be forced to declare bankruptcy (such as Detroit has just done) in order to reorganize their finances and make a fresh start.
It has long been a practical axiom that government should be as close as possible to the people.  But now it is a fiscal necessity as well to shift as much as possible from federal control back to state and local control.

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.