Tag Archives: debt

A Fiscal Conservative with a Social Conscience

Posted on by
Reply

 

My last two blogs were “Why racism exists in America” and “Educare and the Academic Achievement Gap.”  I often describe myself as a fiscal conservative but it would be more accurate to say that I am a fiscal conservative with a social conscience.
Capture0By this I mean:

  • First and foremost I want to shrink our annual federal budget deficits enough so that our national debt begins to decline as a percentage of GDP. Right now the public debt (on which we pay interest) is at 74% of GDP which is the highest it has been since the end of WWII. This high level of debt is unsustainable and will inevitably lead to a new and much worse financial crisis if it is not put on a downward path.
  • Closely related to the first goal is the need to get our economy growing faster than the 2% average rate of growth since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009. This will have the twin benefits of producing more tax revenue which will make it easier to shrink our annual budget deficits as well as creating more and better paying jobs for everyone.
  • A third goal is to reduce income inequality. The best way to do this is not with more income redistribution from those with higher incomes to those with lower incomes but rather by achieving faster economic growth which will raise incomes for all. Yet another critical way of making American society more equal is to focus on:
  • Reducing social inequality. There are many different forms of social inequality  in our society but let’s focus on one of the most severe aspects: black-white racism.  America will be a more peaceful and prosperous country if we can reduce the glaring inequalities between the two races.

I am sufficiently optimistic to think it is possible to make progress on all of these fronts at the same time. It won’t be easy but momentum is slowly but surely building in this direction.

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!

Donald Trump’s Tax Plan: More Bad than Good

Posted on by
Reply

 

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has just released his tax plan. Some of its basic features are:

  • Lowering and consolidating seven current tax brackets into three: 10%, 20% and 25%.
  • The corporate tax rate would be cut from the current level of 35% to just 15%.
  • The income tax on all businesses would be cut to 15% as well.
  • Taxing carried interest at ordinary income tax rates instead of at the lower capital gains rate.
  • Eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax as well as the Estate Tax.
    Capture8

The nonpartisan Tax Foundation has analyzed the Trump plan and predicts the following positive long term effects:

  • 11.5% higher GDP,
  • 29% increase in capital investment,
  • 6.5% higher wages and
  • 5.3 million more full-time equivalent jobs.

The tax Foundation also performed an analysis of Jeb Bush’s tax plan and found roughly similar economic benefits except for a lesser number, 2.7 million, of new jobs created. But the Tax Foundation also predicts that the Trump plan would cut tax revenue by $11.98 trillion over ten years on a static basis or $10.14 trillion on a dynamic basis (accounting for economic growth effects of the plan). This compares with a loss of revenue of $3.6 trillion over ten years (static) or $1.6 trillion over ten years (dynamic) for the Bush plan.
In other words, for a substantially larger growth in new jobs under the Trump plan, there is an enormous cost in additional deficit spending.
Conclusion: I have previously criticized the Bush plan for increasing deficit spending and therefore adding to the debt when we should be shrinking it. The Trump plan is much, much worse in this respect, running annual deficits of over $1 trillion per year, moving in exactly the wrong direction.
The Bush tax plan, while needing changes to make it revenue neutral, is far superior to the Trump plan, which simply blows off any concern for deficits and debt.

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 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.

Jeb Bush’s Tax Plan: Both Good and Bad

Posted on by
Reply

 

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush has just released his tax reform proposal, “My Tax Overhaul to Unleash 4% Growth.” It has many good features such as:

  • Lowering and consolidating seven current tax brackets into three: 10%, 25% and 28%.
  • Essentially doubling the standard deduction for most filers, thereby achieving huge simplification for millions of average income filers.
  • Eliminating the state and local income tax deductions and capping all others, except for charitable deductions, at 2% of Adjusted Gross Income.
  • Doubling the Earned Income Tax Credit for childless filers, thus encouraging more low income people to work.
  • Exempting taxpayers over the age of 67 from the employee-side payroll tax, encouraging them to stay in the workforce longer.
  • Cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%.
  • Allowing 100% immediate expensing for all capital investments, including inventories.
  • Creating a territorial tax system so that multinationals are not taxed on foreign earnings, and therefore incentivized to bring their foreign profits home.
  • Eliminating the deductibility of interest expenses.

The lower individual and corporate tax rates, together with the separate investment and work incentives, will create a significant economic stimulus estimated to raise GDP by at least .5% per year or higher, depending you who ask.
According to the Tax Foundation, however, the plan would reduce federal revenue on a static basis by $3.66 trillion over ten years, and even by $1.6 trillion on a dynamic basis, taking into account the new tax revenue generated by the plan.
CaptureThis is, of course, a huge problem. We badly need to speed up economic growth but we also need to lower, not increase, our annual deficit spending in order to put our debt on a downward path as a percentage of GDP.
The resolution of this quandary is to tighten up on those deductions, such as for mortgage interest, remaining in the code and also lessening the amount of the tax cuts if necessary in order to achieve overall revenue neutrality for the plan.

The Slow Growth Economy We’re Stuck In

Posted on by
Reply

 

We have very high debt and Paul Krugman says in “Debt Is Good” that we need more! The Congressional Budget Office’s latest report this week, “An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 – 2025” predicts slow economic growth for the next ten years, averaging 2.1% per year (see chart below).
CaptureUnfortunately, high debt and slow growth are a deadly, self-reinforcing, combination. Today’s Wall Street Journal has a chart (pictured below) showing clearly how budget deficits are likely to increase over the next ten years. The public debt (on which we pay interest) is predicted to grow from 74% of GDP today to 77% of GDP in 2025, increasing by a total of $7 trillion over this time period.
Capture1Here is another connection between slow growth and high debt:

  • Slow Growth means higher than necessary unemployment and under-employment as well as minimal raises for employed workers. The resulting economic slack leads to
  • Low Inflation. But low inflation means that the Federal Reserve can maintain
  • Low Interest Rates to try to encourage more borrowing to stimulate the economy. This means, in turn, that Congress can run up huge deficits without having to pay much interest on this almost “free” money. This eventually leads to:
  • Massive Debt. But what happens when inflation does take off, which has happened before and is likely to happen again? Then the Federal Reserve is forced to raise interest rates quickly and we are stuck with huge interest payments on our accumulated debt. And meanwhile entitlement spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is also growing rapidly. At this point debt increases very rapidly which leads to a severe
  • Fiscal Crisis.

Of course things don’t have to happen like this. Congress might become more responsible and either cut spending and/or raise taxes and start shrinking our huge deficits. Or perhaps slow growth really is the new normal and interest rates will remain low indefinitely. But slow growth is not pain free; there are many millions of unemployed and under-employed Americans who want to work and whose lives are stunted otherwise.
Slow growth is a very destructive path to be following. We badly need to adopt policies to speed it up!

Paul Krugman: “Debt Is Good”

Posted on by
2

 

Every Monday and Friday morning when I pick up the New York Times, I immediately turn to the OP-ED page to see what liberal icon Paul Krugman is saying. In his most recent column, “Debt Is Good,” he says that “what ails the world economy right now is that governments aren’t deep enough in debt.”
CaptureHere is my response to his argument:

  • “The federal government can (now) borrow at historically low interest rates. So this is a very good time to be borrowing and investing in the future.” Our public debt (on which we pay interest) is now $13 trillion or 74% of GDP, the highest since the end of WWII, as shown in the above chart from the Congressional Budget Office. It is likely that interest rates will soon begin to go up. Every 1% rise will increase interest payments on our already existing debt by $130 billion per year. Where are the hundreds of billions of new dollars for debt service going to come from in an already tight budget? The more we add to the debt, the worse this problem will become.
  • “Having at least some government debt helps the economy function better.” I agree! But $13 trillion is way beyond what is needed for this. It is outrageously excessive!
  • “What we need are policies that would permit higher (interest) rates in good times without causing a slump. And one such policy would be targeting a higher level of debt.” The problem here is the conceit of Keynesians, like Mr. Krugman, that monetary policy alone can restore us to economic and fiscal health. Rather than accepting that the economy has entered a “new normal” with a permanently slow growth rate of about 2% (as has been the case since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009), we need policy changes such as individual and corporate tax reform (revenue neutral to be sure) and changes in the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank Act to remove their job killing features.

 

Anybody with an ounce of common sense knows that excessive borrowing will eventually lead to disaster. Mr. Krugman seems to think that by constantly ridiculing his opponents, he can get away with denying this simple truth.

How to Avoid a New, and Much Worse, Financial Crisis

Posted on by
Reply

 

Is it possible for the U.S. to effectively address its enormous debt problem in today’s contentious political environment? Two weeks ago I discussed in “America’s Fourth Revolution” why the political scientist James Piereson thinks this is impossible. He is very persuasive but I think he is too pessimistic.
CaptureSince then I have discussed several different things we should do to turn around this perilous situation:

  • If spending for just Medicare and Medicaid (two very expensive entitlement programs) alone fell by 25% over ten years, as a percentage of GDP, and then stayed in line with GDP after that, the U.S. would actually have a budget surplus in 2040.
  • Just recognizing the magnitude of our debt problem would do wonders in public awareness.
  • If the Tea Party were able to grow beyond a protest movement and unite the country behind a majoritarian agenda of work, mobility and opportunity, it would be much more effective in achieving its fiscally conservative goals.
  • Another significant way to save money, and get better results at the same time, is to turn over more and more programs to the states. A good way to do this is with block grants to the states for federal programs in such areas as welfare, education and Medicaid. This would give the states more flexibility to get the job done in an efficient and cost saving manner.

What we need to do to turn our debt situation around is to greatly shrink our annual deficits below their current level of about $450 billion per year. If the debt is growing slower than the economy, then it will shrink as a proportion of the economy. This is what happened after WWII (see above chart) and it needs to happen again now!

Perfecting Our Union: Ending the War Against the States

Posted on by
Reply

 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”                                                 The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

As the readers of this blog know, I am very concerned about our massive (public) debt, now at 74% of GDP, the highest since the end of WWII. One way to get federal spending under better control is to give more power back to the states (which are required to balance their budgets), as described by Adam Freedman in his new book “A Less Perfect Union: the Case for States Rights.”
CaptureHere are some of the many advantages of doing this, according to Mr. Freedman:

  • Better schools, roads and infrastructure, as states are freed from wasteful federal mandates. The Common Core, for example, should be considered as federal guidelines and not as an attempt to require a specific curriculum.
  • Lower taxes, as states engage in a virtuous competition for citizens and businesses.
  • Improved stewardship of natural resources, as decisions reflect local priorities on land use.
  • Less crowded prisons, by returning criminal jurisdiction to the states, where penal reform is light-years ahead of Washington.
  • An end to national gridlock, as the most divisive social issues devolve to state and local decision-makers. A good example here is the current interest by states and localities to enact their own minimum wage laws. This is far superior to raising the national minimum wage law in a one-size-fits-all manner.

 

The way to implement a program of giving responsibility back to the states is with block grants. A plan to do this for social welfare programs was formulated by the House Budget Committee just one year ago. It is often suggested to do something similar with federal education programs and with Medicaid as well.
Moving programs back to the states will improve their quality and help get costs under much better control. It makes much sense to move in this direction!