Fixing the Debt: Creating a Greater Sense of Urgency

Posted on June 2, 2015 by jackheidel

As I have mentioned before, I am a volunteer for the nonpartisan Washington D.C. think tank “Fix the Debt.” As such I give presentations to civic organizations in the Omaha area about our debt problem and what we can and should do about it. I have now given four such talks and have another one coming up next week.

What is most difficult for me is to try to convey a sense of urgency about addressing this problem. Most people deplore deficit spending in a general sense but not nearly enough people think that dealing with it should take priority over current presumably pressing spending needs such as, for example, depletion of the highway trust fund, expanding military spending, or improving early childhood education, just to be specific.
So here is how I am going to try to create a greater sense of urgency. Several months ago I had a post entitled, “The Slow Growth Fiscal Trap We’re Now In” in which I said (in brief summary) that our current economic condition of

slow growth means
low inflation which leads to
low interest rates which in turn leads to
massive debt which eventually leads to a new and much more severe
fiscal crisis.

This is the predicament we’re now in. Do we consciously maintain a slow growth economy, with all the unemployment pain and stagnant wages which this entails, or do we speed things up, enabling more people to go back to work, and also deal with the higher inflation and interest rates which this will entail?
Faster growth may well eventually come on its own anyway and then we’ll be forced to fix our fiscal problems at a time when they’ll be much worse than they are now.
Isn’t it clear that it is much better to act now in a responsible manner rather than to wait and have to react hurridly later on when the problem is much worse?

Should We Raise Taxes or Cut Spending?

Posted on April 16, 2015 by jackheidel

Tax Day is a good time to remind ourselves about our perilous fiscal situation. With a public debt (on which we pay interest) of $13 trillion and with annual deficits of just under $500 billion adding to the debt each year, we have a huge problem which is not being adequately addressed by Congress. The solution is to either raise taxes or cut spending or do a combination of both.
Is it feasible to raise taxes, presumably on the rich? The problem in doing this is that our tax code is already very progressive as indicated by the above chart. The top 20% already pay 84% of all income taxes. It’s just not feasible to expect to be able to raise their taxes by a very large amount. In addition, Middle- and lower-income people are in a tight fiscal situation, because of the slow economy, and can hardly be expected to see their own taxes increase.
The alternative to raising taxes is to cut spending and there are many opportunities to do this. The organization Citizens Against Government Waste has just identified a collection of government programs whose elimination would save $639 billion in the first year alone. Taxpayers for Common Sense has a long list of potential spending cuts which would save $267 billion in the first year.
Amazingly, neither of these lists of possible cuts includes any mention of entitlement programs. Before very long, major savings in entitlement programs must certainly be achieved in order to put the federal government on a sustainable fiscal course.
In fact, spending should be trimmed all across the board, wherever possible, in order to get our annual deficits on a steadily downward course. It is critical for this process to get under way as soon as possible and to continue until fiscal balance is achieved by entirely eliminating deficit spending altogether.

Status Quo on the Budget Is Not Good Enough!

Posted on March 24, 2015 by jackheidel

As I like to remind readers, I am a non-ideological fiscal conservative. I am not hard core anything. I just want to find practical, workable solutions for difficult and complicated problems. There is basically only one exception to my generally moderate outlook. I detest huge amounts of deficit spending except for unusual circumstances. Most of the time we should be willing to either raise taxes and/or cut spending to do what needs to be done and to live within our means.
This is why the current efforts by the Budget Committees of both the House and the Senate to devise a plan to balance the budget, i.e. eliminate deficit spending, over a ten year period is so exciting to me.
An analysis in today’s New York Times suggests that Congress should be content to just extend the so-called Ryan-Murray Budget from 2014-2015. “Ryan-Murray didn’t decisively move the needle one way or the other, which is why it was able to attract bipartisan support. Rather it preserved the status quo. In a world of divided government and polarized politics, keeping the government running without a lot of brinkmanship and high drama may be the best we can hope for.”
As I pointed out in my last post, current policy will raise government spending by 5.1% annually over the next ten years. The President wants to increase spending by an additional $1 trillion over this time period. The Republican budgets, which lead to balance in ten years, still allow spending to increase by 3.3% annually. The difference between the two plans is illustrated in the above chart from last Sunday’s Omaha World Herald.
Congress is finally in a position this year to start digging us out of the deep fiscal hole we have fallen into. Let’s hope that too much “bipartisan” status quo thinking doesn’t get in the way of progress!

How the Obama and Republican Budgets Compare

Posted on March 22, 2015 by jackheidel

The Budget Committees for both the House of Representatives and the Senate have now passed plans to achieve balanced budgets within a ten year period. My last two posts have discussed the compelling need to get deficit spending under control and an overall rationale for how to approach this difficult task. Today I will take a look at the major differences between the Obama budget and the House and Senate budgets. The two congressional budgets are quite similar and will surely be reconciled into a single budget.
Here are the major differences:

Revenue. The President wants to raise taxes by $3 trillion over 10 years to pay for more spending while the Republicans wants revenue-neutral tax reform in order to increase economic growth.

Spending. Under current policy the government will spend $48.6 trillion over the next ten years which represents a 5.1% annual rate of spending increase over the present. The President wants to spend an additional $1 trillion over this time period on new initiatives. The Republicans propose spending about $5.4 trillion less, or $43.2 trillion, which still works out to a 3.3% annual rate of increase over the present.

Deficits. Under current policy the deficit would start to increase, as a percentage of GDP, in 2018. The President proposes to stabilize the deficit at 2.5% of GDP. The Republicans would balance the budget within ten years by shrinking the deficit down to zero.

Public Debt. Under current policy the public debt (on which interest is paid) will increase to 79% of GDP by 2025. The President’s budget would stabilize the debt at the current level of 73% of GDP. The Republican’s balanced budget would shrink the debt to 57% of GDP by 2025.

There are stark differences between the President’s proposed budget and the Republican alternative. Which is the better route to progress and prosperity? Is it to raise taxes, increase government spending and only stabilize the debt or is it to streamline taxes, slow down the growth of spending and shrink the debt? This is a fundamental question of government policy which will not be quickly resolved. But at least the question is being raised in a dramatic way!

It’s Paul Krugman Who Is Being Irresponsible!

Posted on February 3, 2015 by jackheidel

The New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, writes provocatively on fiscal and economic issues and is well-known as a liberal icon. Usually I ignore his diatribes. But his column yesterday, “The Long-Run Cop-Out” goes way overboard.
I will refute several of the statements from this column.

“Think about it: Faced with mass unemployment and the enormous waste it entails, for years the beltway elite devoted all most all its energy not to promoting recovery, but to Bowles-Simpsonism – to devising “grand bargains” that would address the supposedly urgent problem of how we’ll pay for Social Security and Medicare a couple of decades from now.” Worrying about our enormous and rapidly increasing national debt, does not mean ignoring our sluggish economy and the high unemployment it causes. The way to increase economic growth is to enact broad based tax reform by lowering tax rates, offset by closing loopholes and limiting deductions. This will further boost the economy in the same way that lower gasoline prices is already doing.

“Many projections suggest that our major social insurance programs will face financial difficulties in the future (although the dramatic slowing of increases in health costs makes even that proposition uncertain).” Healthcare costs dropped to 4.1% in 2014 but this is still more than double the inflation rate of 1.7%. This isn’t nearly good enough.

“Why, exactly, is it crucial that we deal with the threat of future benefit cuts by locking in plans to cut future benefits?” The point is to protect benefits, not curtail them. If we act now, to increase revenue and/or slow down the growth of entitlement spending, then we won’t have to cut future benefits.

“So why the urge to change the subject (from austerity) to structural reform? The answer, I’d suggest, is intellectual laziness and lack of moral courage.” $6 trillion added to our debt in the last six years is profligacy, not austerity. It is immoral to burden future generations with such massive new debt.

“In today’s economic and political environment, long-termism is a cop-out.” Preparing for the future is just plain common sense. Should we ignore festering problems like global warming, illegal immigration and increasing poverty until they get much worse? Of course not. We should address these problems now and get our debt under control at the same time.

Progress on Medicaid Reform

Posted on January 29, 2015 by jackheidel

It is widely understood that the rapid increase in spending for entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) is the main driver of our debt problem. Anything that can be done to get spending for these programs under control is of great value.
The problem with Medicaid is that a fixed percentage of each state’s costs is paid for by the federal government. The more a state spends, the more that is contributed by the federal government which is a disincentive for states to control their own spending. From 1989 to 2013, the share of state budgets devoted to Medicaid rose from 9% to 19%. This upward trend is a problem for both state and federal government and is clearly unsustainable.
One way to change the spending incentive is to turn Medicaid into a block-grant program whereby the federal government contributes a specific amount of money to each state each year and gives states more leeway in designing their own programs. States would then have a much bigger incentive to hold down costs and the flexibility to be able to do it.
Progress is being made in this direction with the use of waivers:

Rhode Island received a waiver in 2009 to try out various cost-saving measures such as wellness programs, co-payments, etc. It has been quite successful and very well received.
Last year Pennsylvania agreed to expand Medicaid to an additional 500,000 people along with a waiver allowing people above the poverty line to be charged premiums of up to 2% of their household income as well as being charged an $8 copayment for use of emergency rooms.
Now Indiana (http://www.wsj.com/articles/indiana-governor-to-expand-medicaid-coverage-1422371729) has agreed to an expansion with a waiver under which beneficiaries above the poverty level would be charged premiums of 2% of income and would be locked out of benefits for six months if they fall behind in their payments.
Additional states such as Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Tennessee, Alabama and Florida are also considering Medicaid expansions and likely will be influenced by the possibility of receiving similar waivers.

Waivers are not as cost effective as block-grant funding but they are an improvement over the existing one-size-fits-all federal rules. If more individual states are able to show that waivers really do work to reduce costs, this will increase the likelihood of implementing a block-grant system.

What Will It Take to ‘Fix the Debt’?

Posted on January 22, 2015 by jackheidel

I have recently become a volunteer for the national bipartisan organization, Fix the Debt. It is the outreach arm for the Washington think tank, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is an offshoot of the Simpson-Bowles Commission from several years ago.
As such, I give presentations to local civic organizations about our national debt and what needs to be done to get it under control. Typically the audience will readily appreciate the seriousness of our debt problem. What they want to talk about are practical ways to address it. They have their own ideas and want to know what I think as well. My first message is that we don’t have to pay off the debt or even balance the budget going forward. Realistically we need to shrink our annual deficits in order to put the debt on a downward course as a percent of our growing economy, as shown in the chart just below.

It will be a huge challenge to accomplish even this! Here are my ideas, in very general outline, on how to get this done:

Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) are the biggest single problem because our population is aging so fast. Furthermore, in order to control the growth of Medicare and Medicaid, we have to do a much better job of controlling the overall cost of healthcare in the U.S. For example, even though healthcare costs slowed down to an increase of only 4.1% in 2014, this is still more than twice the rate of inflation!
The second thing we need to do is to make our economy grow faster than the roughly 2.3% growth we have achieved since the end of the Great Recession. The main way to get this done is through broad-based (and revenue neutral) tax reform at both the individual and corporate levels, by reducing tax rates, paid for by closing loopholes and limiting deductions.
Finally, there is enormous waste and inefficiency in the federal budget, with huge redundancy and overlap of programs between different federal departments. Responsibility for such programs as education, community development, transportation and social welfare, for example, should be returned to the states with block-grant funding to replace rigid federal control.

I have discussed each of these major reform ideas in much detail in previous blog posts and will continue to do so. As large as our fiscal problems are, I remain optimistic that they can and will be successfully addressed.

The Legacy of Senator Tom Coburn

Posted on January 4, 2015 by jackheidel

Oklahoma’s Senator Tom Coburn has just retired from Congress after serving six years in the House of Representatives and ten years in the Senate. He will be sorely missed because his achievements were legion.
By ridiculing the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska in 2006, he eventually prevailed upon Congress to totally eliminate earmark spending by 2011.
Beginning in 2010 his staff compiled an annual “Wastebook” each year listing numerous examples of wasteful spending by the federal government. The “2014 Wastebook” gives 100 such examples totally $25 billion ranging from laughing classes for college students to a State Department program to dispel the perception abroad that Americans are fat and rude!
Beginning in 2011, Senator Coburn has prevailed upon the Government Accounting Office to issue annual reports entitled “Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits.” Now, after four years, a total of 226 specific actions have been recommended by the GAO. GAO’s Action Tracker shows that the government has addressed about 19% of the efficiency recommendations made by the GAO. Be thankful for small progress!
His latest, finest and presumably last major effort along these lines is a 320 page report, the “Tax Decoder” which is intended to “decode the tax code for every taxpayer. It reveals more than 165 tax expenditures costing over $900 billion this year.” Although more than $1.7 trillion in tax revenue was collected by the government in 2014, the IRS will be unable to collect an additional $500 billion that is owed. This would have been enough to cover the $483 billion deficit for fiscal year 2014!
As Senator Coburn points out in the introduction to this document, “ideally Congress would throw out the entire tax code and start over. But at the very least, Congress should make the tax code simpler, fairer and flatter.”
It is rare that a single member of Congress makes such an extraordinary contribution to our country’s welfare!

Status Quo on the Budget Is Not Good Enough II. Look at the Big Picture!

Posted on December 28, 2014 by jackheidel

In my last post, “Status Quo on the Budget Is Not Good Enough,” I discussed a report from the outgoing chair of the Senate Budget Committee, Patty Murray (D-WA), and explained how it epitomizes the lack of progress made on the massive debt problem which has developed since the Great Recession of 2008 -2009.
The basic problem is that Senator Murray’s analysis simply does not recognize the seriousness of our debt problem as shown in the above chart. Right now our public debt (on which we pay interest) is “sitting” at 74% of GDP for a year or two, before it continues its rapid increase. This projection assumes an historically “normal” growth rate of 3% and no new recessions, neither of which assumption is assured. It also assumes that the sequester budget cuts and new top tax rate of 39.6% stay in effect. In other words it is a best case scenario based on current policy.
Breaking it down, the debt will continue to increase because annual deficits will continue to exceed the rate of growth of the economy. The main driver of these increasing deficits is the cost of the health care entitlements of Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare costs will increase rapidly because of the aging of the American people. Medicaid costs will increase rapidly because: 1) more low-income people are being covered by the ACA and 2) since the recession there are more low-income people to be covered. I certainly support expanded healthcare coverage but we have to figure out how to pay for it!
How do we contain the increasing costs of Medicare and Medicaid? We do it by controlling the overall rapid growth (at twice the rate of inflation) of healthcare costs in general, i.e. for private healthcare. How do we do this? See a couple of my recent posts either here or here.
Senator Murray, along with many other progressives, argues that we need more deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy and create new jobs. More jobs are badly needed but more deficit spending is the wrong way to get them. Then how? With tax reform among other things.
Based on the outcome of the 2014 elections, I am optimistic that something along the lines of what I have just described will be tried by the next Congress. We’ll soon find out!

Fix the Debt

Posted on November 18, 2014 by jackheidel

Recently I have had several posts about our national debt, for example, “Why the National Debt Is Such a Threat to the U.S.,” showing graphically that our current public debt at 74% of GDP is very high by historical standards and rising rapidly under current fiscal policies.
Yesterday I attended a workshop in Washington D.C. put on by Fix the Debt. All expenses were paid and, in return, the attendees agree to make at least three presentations to local community groups during the following year. This means that I will soon be sending out a letter to such groups as Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs around the Omaha area where I live, offering my services as a speaker at one of their meetings. The purpose is to build more public awareness of the threat of a huge and growing national debt to the long-term welfare of our country. Here is a summary of talking points from the workshop:

The deficit for the 2013-2014 fiscal year is almost $500 billion.
Under current fiscal policies the debt will increase to 270% of GDP by 2080.
Reasons for our debt problem:

An aging population which means expanded Social Security spending
Healthcare costs are growing for both Medicare and Medicaid
Interest costs will grow rapidly as the economy recovers and interest rates rise

All bipartisan reform plans call for both spending cuts and revenue increases.
The benefits of taking action are:

Increased budget flexibility
Lower exposure to changes in interest rates
Reduced risk of another financial crisis

The longer we wait:

The older our population gets
The higher the debt will rise
The less time we have to phase in changes
The slower our economy will grow
The fewer tools we will have to fix it

How do we bring debt under control?

Enact policies that grow the economy
Health care cost containment
Spending cuts
Tax reform and tax expenditure cuts

Let me know if you’d like a speaker on this topic at your club!

It Does Not Add Up

Jack Heidel's blog on fiscal responsibility

Tag Archives: cutting spending