Tag Archives: cutting spending

We Need a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution!

Posted on by
Reply

 

“The Congress, … , on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof  …”
Article V, The U.S. Constitution

As I pointed out in my last post, under the current 2016 federal budget, just adopted by Congress and signed by the President, our public debt (on which we pay interest) is now projected by the Congressional Budget Office to increase from 74% of GDP today to 175% of GDP in 2040, just 25 years from now.
Of course, a new, and more severe, financial crisis is likely to occur long before we hit such a high level of debt but this serves to emphasize the extreme seriousness of our present situation and the need to address it without delay.
The best and simplest way to do this is for Congress to act on its own accord to pass balanced budgets.  In fact, the current Congress passed a multi-year budget plan last Spring which leads to a balanced budget in ten years, by 2025.  But the budget just passed last week for 2016 totally ignores this plan and actually increases the deficit for 2016 by $158 billion.
In other words, Congress on its own accord appears incapable of acting in a fiscally responsible manner.
Capture0As shown above, our founding fathers foresaw the possibility of congressional stalemate and provided for an alternative route to force Congress to act on critical issues.  As reported by the Balanced Budget Amendment Taskforce, 27 states have already called for a Constitutional Convention out of the 34 needed to force congressional action.
In my next post I will discuss in detail the ramifications of holding a constitutional convention, pro and con.
Merry Christmas!

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

I Am One of Paul Krugman’s “Very Serious People”

Posted on by
Reply

 

There is a stark contrast between the fiscal and economic policies being proposed by the presidential candidates from the two different parties. The Democrats want to tax the rich to reduce income inequality while the Republicans want major tax reform in order to speed up economic growth.
CaptureI favor the latter approach as long as it does not increase deficit spending.  The Keynesian economist Paul Krugman mocks deficit hawks like me as “Very Serious People.”  But in my “serious” view we have a choice between two very different paths for our economic future:

  • Slow Growth. Continue on our present path of slow 2% annual growth. The official unemployment rate has dropped to 5% but slack in the economy caused by the low labor participation rate keeps raises low and millions still unemployed or under-employed. The slow economy also keeps inflation and interest rates low. This permits Congress and the President to shrug off deficit spending and debt accumulation because it’s virtually “free money,” being borrowed at very low interest rates.   Our present course not only prolongs income inequality but also allows the debt to keep ramping up indefinitely. The longer this continues, the greater will be the disruption when inflation and interest rates do eventually return to normal historical levels.
  • Faster Economic Growth.   There are many things we can do to speed up economic growth. Tax reform is first and foremost but deregulation (relax Obamacare and Dodd-Frank), trade expansion (pass TPP) and immigration reform (with an adequate guest worker program) would also help. But, contrary to what the Republican presidential candidates say, tax reform must be revenue neutral to be sustainable. That way the economic growth it produces will lower deficit spending rather than increasing it.  This is critical because economic growth will create new jobs and raise pay for existing jobs, thereby creating inflationary pressure. Inflation will lead to higher interest rates which in turn will make our debt much more expensive than it is now.

Conclusion. We can make our economy grow faster if we simply put our mind to it. But then inflation and interest rates will go up and interest payments on the debt will become an increasing burden on society.  This is why it is so important to put our debt on a downward path as a percentage of GDP.  We can make it happen if we want to.

The Republicans Need to Get Real about Tax Reform

Posted on by
2

 

The Republican presidential candidates have been releasing tax plans and they have been analyzed by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. It turns out that most of these plans lose revenue over a ten-year period even on a so-called dynamic scoring basis where the stimulatory effects of the plan are taken into effect.  Such callous disregard for the huge annual deficits we are now running, and our huge accumulated national debt, is totally unacceptable especially from the political party which bills itself as being fiscally responsible.
CaptureThe left-leaning New York Times points this out yesterday in its lead editorial, “Why the Republican Tax Plans Won’t Work.”  According to the NYT:

  • Tax Revenues will need to increase by 40% over the next 10 years just to keep federal spending even with inflation and population growth.
  • Further additional revenues will be needed to pay for health care for the elderly, transportation systems, climate change and likely increased interest payments on the national debt.
  • Thus taxes will have to go up and can only be imposed realistically on the wealthy who have had the biggest income gains in recent years.
  • Democratic presidential candidates do propose tax cuts but only for low- and middle-income Americans.
  • Democrats are calling for new taxes on financial transactions.
  • Democrats also propose to raise wages, support higher minimum wages, support unions and expand profit-sharing and employee ownership.

This is the program the Democrats will be pushing if they win the presidency next year. It has some attractive features but the likely overall outcome will be increased deficit spending, a rapidly increasing debt and a continued stagnant economy.
Meaningful tax and regulatory reform will both be needed to get the economy growing faster than the 2% average of the past six years.  Any credible tax reform program simply must be at least revenue neutral so that, combined with spending restraint, it will put our national debt on a downward path.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
                   Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

It’s Easy to be Pessimistic about America’s Future

Posted on by
Reply

 

As I remind readers from time to time, this blog is concerned with America’s fundamental fiscal and economic problems: a slow economy, massive debt, and increasing income inequality. Largely because of these apparently intractable problems, more and more people are becoming pessimistic about the future of our country.
CaptureAlthough I am by nature an optimist, these matters weigh on me as well:

  • The just introduced “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015” is a sell-out to the status quo. It breaks the agreed upon sequester spending limits by $112 billion over two years with essentially no attempt to create long term spending restraint.
  • As pointed out recently by the Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson, the presidential candidates are talking mainly about new entitlements (the Democrats) or tax cuts (the Republicans). In both cases this represents a flight from reality.
  • Entitlements: The number of people aged 65 or older will increase from 15% of the population today to 22% of the population in 2040. The cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will jump from 6.5 % of GDP today to 14% of GDP in 2040. We simply must control these costs by raising eligibility ages for SS and Medicare and increasing premiums for wealthier recipients.
  • Economic Growth: Annual growth has averaged only 2% of GDP since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009. Slow growth means weaker gains in wages, more unemployment and larger spending deficits. This can be fixed long term with honest tax reform, but not with unrealistic tax cuts.

Conclusion: Isn’t it obvious that we need political candidates who will speak forthrightly with the people about the need for addressing these humongous problems? Americans aren’t dumb.  They will respond to straight talk from their supposed leaders.   

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
                    Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

The Budget Deal: A Win for the Big Spenders

Posted on by
Reply

 

A tentative budget deal has just been reached by Congress and the President to 1) suspend the debt limit until March 2017, and 2) loosen the budget sequester caps by $112 billion over the next two years.  $80 billion of the increased spending will be balanced by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget with details to be worked out later by various appropriations committees.  Specifically:

  • The current debt ceiling of $18.1 trillion will be lifted until March 2017, after a new president takes office. This will allow an expected increase in the debt of about $900 billion to take place over the next 1½ years.
  • Both military and discretionary non-military spending will increase by $40 billion each over the next 2 years with the military receiving an additional $32 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations.

The problem is that such a deal essentially just maintains the budget status-quo. It does nothing to begin shrinking annual deficits in order to put our accumulated national debt on a downward path as a percentage of GDP.  Our current debt of 74% of GDP is very high by historical standards and simply must be brought down significantly in the near term.
Capture1As I explained in my last post, Congressional Republicans, with majorities in both the House and the Senate, should be able to apply much more leverage than was used in the deal just reached, as follows:

  • Yes, extend the debt ceiling for two years. We need to pay our debts. But insist on spending discipline from now on.
  • Allow only brief temporary budget extensions at current levels until a plan is adopted to put deficits and debt on a downward path. The Republican ten year plan for a balanced budget would be a good place to start.

It’s time for fiscal conservatives to stand up and be counted!

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
                        Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

Why the Federal Government Fails So Often

Posted on by
Reply

 

This blog is about the major fiscal and economic problems of our country and specifically our stagnant economy (2% real growth for the past six years) and massive federal debt (the public debt, on which we pay interest, is 74% of GDP, the highest since WWII). My major sources of information are the New York Times and Wall Street Journal but I also make use of reports from various think tanks. Today’s source is the recent report, “Why the Federal Government Fails,” by the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards.
CaptureAccording to Mr. Edwards, there are five main reasons for this:

  • Top-Down Coercion. Federal agencies impose more than 3,000 regulations each year. Total regulations now span 168,000 pages. Benefits are distributed through more than 2,300 programs. Federal policies are often based on guesswork. Failed policies are seldom weeded out because they are funded by taxes and are not contingent on performance.
  • Lack of Knowledge. Private markets operate efficiently on the basis of price information. Government subsidies and regulations throw a monkey wrench into the price mechanism.
  • Political Incentives. Congress focuses on the benefits of programs but does not consider the full costs because benefits are delivered to narrow groups while the costs are spread widely. There are too many fiscal illusions to hide costs such as: paying with debt rather than higher taxes, taxing businesses which then just raise prices, conferring benefits by regulation (e.g. requiring employers to provide healthcare) rather than direct subsidy.
  • Bureaucratic Incentives. There are too many rewards for inertia and not enough for the creation of value such as the absence of profits and losses, rigid compensation, lack of firing, red tape, agency capture, etc.
  • Hugh Size and Scope. The $4 trillion annual budget is 100 times the average state budget of $40 billion. It is simply too vast for members of Congress, and other top officials, to understand what is going on. The more programs the government has, the more likely they will work at cross-purposes.

Mr. Edwards concludes that “the most important way to improve federal performance would be to greatly cut the government’s size” and to do this by shifting federal activities back to the states. With this recommendation I heartily agree!

Cutting the Federal Budget, an Example: The Highway Trust Fund

Posted on by
Reply

 

As an advocate of cutting federal spending, people sometimes ask me exactly what I would cut to save money and lower the deficit. I have two standard answers to this question:

  • Often I will respond, it is up to Congress to figure this out. The important thing is to shrink the deficit one way or another. It doesn’t matter from a fiscal point of view exactly what is cut.
  • Another answer I like to give is that with the sequester already slowing down discretionary spending, we should concentrate on finding savings in entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

While both of these answers have validity in a general sense, nevertheless I do look for ways to cut back on discretionary spending as well. Here is a good idea from Reason magazine’s Veronique de Rugy, “Let States Build Their Own Highways.” The rationale is very simple. The federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents/gallon brings in about $40 billion per year which goes into the Highway Trust Fund. But the HTF is spending $53 billion per year, meaning that federal gas tax revenue is being supplemented by $13 billion from general revenues. This additional $13 billion per year can be viewed as an unjustified federal expense merely adding to the deficit.
Capture2The way to address this issue is to:

  • Abolish the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents/gallon as of some specific date in the future, say in a year from the time such a law is enacted.
  • Turn over all responsibility for highway construction to the states.
  • States can then decide individually how much of the federal gasoline tax they wish to continue as a state gasoline tax in order to finance their own highway funding.
  • Minimal federal guidelines could be maintained if desired to insure uniform quality control by the states.

Of course, a $13 billion annual budget savings could be looked at as a drop in the bucket, not nearly large enough to make a sizable dent in the federal deficit (latest projection for fiscal year 2015: $426 billion). That would be too cynical. There are undoubtedly many other smart ways to cut back federal spending. I am constantly looking for them!

The Six Issues That Could Cause a Government Shutdown

Posted on by
Reply

 

It is now just ten days until the new government fiscal year begins on October 1 and Congress has not yet passed a budget for the new fiscal year. Although a temporary funding bill could be brought up and passed at any time, the Washington Post thinks that there are six big impediments to adopting a new budget.
CaptureThey are:

  • Planned Parenthood. 31 House Republicans insist that they will support no spending bill which has funding for Planned Parenthood. Short term funding should not be in danger because the Democrats will step in if necessary to keep the government open.
  • The Sequester. This is a much tougher issue because the Democrats want to break the 10 year Sequester spending limits. It’s the Republicans strongest leverage and they should insist on dollar for dollar spending cuts elsewhere in order to relax the Sequester cuts.
  • A Challenge to Boehner. The anti-Planned Parenthood caucus is threatening to try to oust John Boehner as Speaker if they don’t get their way. Hopefully the Democrats would help to keep Boehner because any replacement would be more conservative and less accommodating to them. I personally think that John Boehner is a miracle worker given the hyper-partisanship in Washington at the present time.
  • The Iran Nuclear Deal. Republican desire to express opposition to the Nuclear Deal could surface as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations. As bad as the Nuclear Deal is, this is a bad budget strategy.
  • The Export-Import Bank. The Ex-Im Bank expired in June. Its supporters might try to refund it as part of a budget deal for next year. It should be allowed to die unless it undergoes reform to remove subsidies for big businesses such as Boeing and GE.
  • The Highway Trust Fund. The problem is that the 18 cent/gallon federal gasoline tax is insufficient to fund our infrastructure needs. The most sensible approach is to raise the gas tax by a few cents per gallon. Attempts to provide funding from other sources should be resisted.

 

Bottom Line: Republicans should be flexible except on overall spending limits. It is absolutely essential to the future wellbeing of our country to strongly focus on eliminating budget deficits.

The Second Republican Presidential Debate

Posted on by
Reply

 

Although I am a registered Independent, I lean strongly conservative on fiscal and economic issues. I hope the Republican Party ends up with a nominee who can make a compelling case for fundamental reform.
CaptureHere is my take on last night’s debate and the current state of the race.

  • Rand Paul. He stands up strongly for the Tenth Amendment (State’s Rights) but he is much too isolationist to take over after eight years of Obama.
  • Mike Huckabee. His social conservatism appeals to evangelicals but he has a weak grasp of economic and fiscal issues.
  • Marco Rubio. He is certainly a gifted political communicator. He is able to talk tough while also appearing moderate and reasonable at the same time. But some of his policy ideas are gimmicky.
  • Ted Cruz. He claims to be a true conservative because he won’t compromise on his basic principles, even if they lead to government shutdown. As such he is much too radical for my taste.
  • Ben Carson. I don’t see what his attraction is outside of a compelling personal story. His grasp of issues is quite weak.
  • Donald Trump. Leading in the polls, he is the wild card for the 2016 election cycle. As much as he disgusts me, his performance is improving. He has pledged to support the eventual party nominee, and not run as an independent. He also hurled fewer insults in the second debate than in the first.
  • Jeb Bush. Policy-wise, with his detailed tax plan and generally moderate views, he is outstanding. But it’s not clear that he can overcome the populist, anti-elite mood of the electorate.
  • Scott Walker. His outstanding record in Wisconsin gave him an early boost. But he hasn’t made the transition to national policy issues very well.
  • Carly Fiorina. She expresses herself in a crisp manner and has a good, general grasp of the issues. She’s rising in this campaign but still has a long way to go.
  • John Kasich. He has a superb background as a former Congressman and now as a very successful two term governor of Ohio. He expresses compassion for ordinary people. He deserves to climb in the polls but will he?
  • Chris Christie. He’s tough talking but his record in New Jersey isn’t that great. His obesity and reputation as a bully are turnoffs for me.

In short, I don’t want Trump to be the Republican nominee but who is going to emerge from the pack to defeat him? It isn’t clear if anyone will be able to do this.

A Vivid Example of Fiscal Irresponsibility at the Federal Level

Posted on by
Reply

 

An article in the Friday, August 14 edition of the Omaha World Herald, “Why are the BRT stations so expensive? Officials explain the $260,000 price tag,“ describes a new $30 million bus rapid transit plan for Dodge Street with 27 individual sleek, modern bus stop shelters along the route at a cost of $260,000 each.  Half of the new $30 million plan will be paid for by the city of Omaha and half by the Federal Transit Authority which has an annual budget of $8.6 billion.
Capture1 The issue is not whether Omaha should spend $15 million in local funds to achieve a $30 million bus system upgrade. We can expect city officials to make a responsible decision on this matter. The real issue is why the FTA should have annual budget of $8.6 billion to begin with when it is paying for, and therefore encouraging, extravagantly designed bus transit systems all over the country.
CaptureThe U.S. deficit for the 2015-2016 budget year, ending on September 30, is predicted to be about $450 billion dollars. This adds to the approximately $13 trillion public debt (on which we pay interest) which, at 74% of GDP, is the highest it has been since the end of WWII (see the above chart from the Congressional Budget Office).
It is the responsibility of Congress and the President to figure out how to get the budget under better control. All aspects of federal spending can and should be tightened up, including entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) and discretionary spending (everything else).
The Federal Transit Administration is wasting money on unnecessarily extravagant bus transit systems. Such fiscal irresponsibility means that its budget should be cut significantly. Many other similar examples exist in the federal government. We need people in Congress who can identify these fiscal boondoggles and effectively agitate for needed cutbacks.