Tag Archives: deficit

The President’s Budget

Posted on by
1

The Administration has now released its own budget, “Obama Makes Budget Gamble”  as reported by the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, April 11, 2013.  We now have three budgets to compare with each other, from the House Republicans and the Senate Democrats as well as from the President.  Not surprisingly the President’s budget is very close to the Senate’s for the entire ten year period ahead, both in year-by-year spending totals as well as revenue projections.
The President’s budget shrinks the deficit from 5.3% of GDP for 2013 to 4.4% for 2014 and down to 1.7% in 2023.  But just retaining the sequester level of spending for next year, as the Republicans propose to do, with no other cuts, would lower the deficit level to 3.7% of GDP for next year.  And, of course, the Republicans propose to entirely eliminate the deficit by 2023.  Shrinking the deficit to 1.7% of GDP by 2023, as the Democrats propose to do, sounds good on the face of it, but it means a deficit of over $400 billion still remains ten years out.  Bottom line: both the Administration and Senate budgets increase the debt by about $5 trillion over the next ten years, making no attempt to eliminate the deficit, compared with a Republican increase of $1 trillion in debt by 2023 while finally ending our awful slide into deeper debt.
The President’s budget does have some good features such as changing the way the Consumer Price Index is computed, to make it more accurate, which could save $339 billion over ten years.  The administration suggests additional means testing for Medicare recipients so that the more affluent would pay higher premiums than at present (significant but unknown savings).  Limiting tax deductions for the top 3% of taxpayers to 28% of income would generate $529 billion over ten years.  Taxing all incomes over $1 million at the minimum rate of 30% (The Buffett Rule) would raise an additional $53 billion over ten years.
The problem is that all of these spending cuts and tax increases in the President’s budget would go to new spending rather than deficit reduction.  Tax reform, with a tradeoff between lower rates and fewer deductions, would give a big boost to the economy.  But just raising taxes in order to increase spending neither helps the economy nor lowers the deficit.  The President is again failing to provide leadership on our most critical problems.
The job of providing national leadership on economic and fiscal issues thereby goes by default to the Republican majority in the House.  This is a very big responsibility for John Boehner and company.  But they’re doing a remarkably good job so far under very trying circumstances!

Why Medicare is Such an Enormous and Urgent Fiscal Problem, II

Posted on by
2

 

The National Institute for Health Care Management has just issued a report, “Health Entitlement Spending: A Story in Six Charts”, which describes in great detail why federal health care spending is such an enormous fiscal problem.  First of all, health care spending is already 21% of total federal spending in 2012.  This spending will more than double in the next ten years.  Annual Medicare expenditures are already double the revenue received from the Medicare Part A Payroll Tax and premiums paid by Medicare recipients.  This gap will continue to steadily widen in the coming years because recent retirees will only pay in total a small fraction of their lifetime benefits.
Every year since 2006, the Medicare Trustees have issued a determination of “excess general revenue Medicare funding”.  By law the President must respond by submitting legislation to correct the problem and Congress must likewise respond on an expedited basis.  But no corrective action has been taken so far.
All federal programs should operate efficiently and much can and should be done to achieve greater efficiency across the whole spectrum of federal programs.  But Medicare is the “sine qua non”, (without which, nothing) for spending reform.  Nothing else matters unless we can get Medicare spending under control.
One way would be to raise Medicare Part A taxes for everyone and also raise premiums for well-to-do Medicare recipients.  And then we’d still have to severely restrict Medicare benefits.  This would be drastic action indeed.
Another way is to give (refundable) tax credits to everyone who applies for Medicare and let them find their own insurance coverage on the private market.  This would create a huge incentive for recipients and their families to pay close attention to health care costs.
Each of the above alternatives would bring radical changes to our Medicare system.  But either we act now in a deliberate, and hopefully rational, manner or else our national debt will grow so rapidly that there will be a new fiscal crisis much worse than what happened in 2008.
Which of these three scenarios do we prefer?  Right now we have a choice!

Why Medicare Is Such an Enormous and Urgent Fiscal Problem

Posted on by
4

 

An article in today’s (April 4, 2013) New York Times, “Misperceptions of Benefits Make Trimming Harder”, explains why Medicare is such an enormous and urgent fiscal problem for the federal budget.  The article points out that an average single male who retired in 2010 will receive more than $100,000 in Medicare benefits in excess of what he pays into Medicare in taxes before retirement and premiums while receiving benefits.  The gap is projected to grow for future retirees.  Too many people are not aware of this huge discrepancy between what they pay into Medicare compared to the benefits which they will draw out after retirement.
According to the reporter, Democratic leaders, including the President, are aware of this funding gap but are unwilling to discuss it publicly.  Instead they take the easy way out by criticizing Republicans who do want to address the problem in a responsible manner.
The problem is so serious that trims around the edges, such as means testing and/or higher premiums for affluent retirees, will not accomplish anything more than making a small dent in the funding gap.  Raising taxes will not get the job done either because they would have to go up too much and too often as the problem keeps getting worse and worse.
The only way to really solve the problem is to control the costs of Medicare (and more generally for all of health care).  There are two basic ways to do this.  One way is to have a government run single payer system with very strict rationing.  The other way is to make everyone, including seniors, financially responsible for their own health care, with subsidies for people with low incomes.
The challenge for Republicans is to frame this basic choice as clearly and vividly as possible.  The American people must come to realize that the status quo in health care cannot continue.  If this message can be delivered effectively to the broad public, I am confident that a majority of people will want a free market system with choice rather than severe government rationing.

We Should Take David Stockman Seriously

Posted on by
2

 

In the March 31, 2013 edition of the New York Times David Stockman has an opinion piece entitled “Sundown in America” in which he says that “eight decades of borrowing, spending and money-printing by the government have bankrupted America” and that “these policies have brought America to an end-stage metastasis.  The way out would be so radical that it can’t happen.”
Although he exaggerates and overhypes with vivid language, I believe that he is basically correct about the gravity of our current predicament.  We should take him seriously because many of his proposed solutions are on the right track even if they are unnecessarily extreme.
For example, he berates the House Republicans for giving Social Security and Medicare a ten year pass instead of wanting to reform them right away.  Of course it would be better to reduce benefits to affluent seniors immediately but it will take bipartisan cooperation to accomplish this, and the Democrats are dragging their feet on entitlement reform.
Mr. Stockman’s strongest language is directed at the finance industry.  He wants to rein in the big Wall Street banks by cutting off their access to cheap Federal Reserve loans and deposit insurance.  The Glass-Steagall Act would be reinstated.  The central mission of the Federal Reserve should be restored: “to provide liquidity in times of crisis but never to buy government debt or try to micromanage the economy.”
Is our situation as hopeless as Mr. Stockman says?  Interestingly, he provides evidence that we may have turned the corner in the right direction.  His chart “Indebtedness Dwarfs the Economy” shows that total debt owed by government, companies or individuals, as a percentage of GDP, started dropping about three years ago.  What we need to do is make sure that we keep this total debt measure moving steadily downward for the indefinite future.

Budgeting 101: Don’t Forget Hauser’s Law!

Posted on by
4

 

In 1993 the investment analyst W Kurt Hauser pointed out that “No matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of GDP.”  Hauser’s Law of course is really just an empirical observation which is referred to as a “law” because it has been so amazingly consistent since 1945.  Some economists use Hauser’s Law to argue that there is no sense in raising tax rates because higher rates won’t really raise additional revenue over time.  To the extent which Hauser’s Law is accurate, the only way to significantly increase tax revenue is to grow the economy faster.

However Hauser’s Law is also quite relevant in figuring out how much money the federal government should be spending in a given year.  If revenues are limited to 19.5% on average over time, then overall spending should also be approximately limited to 19.5%, or else there will be a negative balance, i.e. a deficit.  If there is a large imbalance year after year, as during the past few years, then the national debt will grow rapidly and become the huge problem that it is today.

In this respect, take a look at John Taylor’s March 17, 2013 entry in his blog Economics One entitled “An Opportunity to Contrast and Compare Budgets”.  The Republican House Budget rapidly (over two or three years) brings federal spending down below 20% of GDP and then levels it off at about 19.5% after that.  On the other hand, the Democratic Senate Budget brings spending down to about 21.5% in 2017 and then it creeps back up to 22% by 2023.  This is why the House achieves a balanced budget in ten years while the Senate budget doesn’t even come close to achieving balance.

Can there be any question as to which of these two budgets is the more fiscally responsible?  To me it is obvious but if you feel otherwise please do say so in the comment section which follows this entry.

Are the Democrats Really Serious?

Posted on by
6

In the March 18, 2013 edition of the Wall Street Journal, longtime Democratic party activist, Ted Van Dyk, essentially asks the above question in his op-ed column, “My Unrecognizable Democratic Party” . Mr. Van Dyk gives many examples of the lack of seriousness of the current national Democratic leaders.
One glaring example which he omits is the enormous difference between the recently proposed House Republican budget, which eliminates deficit spending over a ten year period, and the Senate Democratic budget, which makes no such attempt or even expresses any interest in doing so. The proposed Democratic budget actually increases the national debt by $5 trillion over the next ten years and ends the decade with annual deficits of over $500 billion dollars (see my previous post).
We have added $6 trillion in national debt over the past five budget years, 2009 – 2013, and the Democratic Senate proposes to add another $5 trillion over the next 10 years, with no end in site! How irresponsible can you be! How will this enormous new debt ever be paid off? What will happen when the Federal Reserve is forced to raise interest rates to combat the inevitable inflation which will arise from prolonged quantitative easing? When our public debt reaches $20 trillion, which will soon happen under Democratic budgeting, even an interest rate of 5% will require $1 trillion of interest payments per year forever!
It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to understand the painful fate awaiting our country if this scenario plays out. It is no consolation to predict that a conservative revolution will sweep across the country as a reaction to such irresponsible behavior from the Democrats. It would be far better for Democratic leaders to wake up and address our dire fiscal predicament before it gets even worse. Will this happen? Will Democrats heed Mr. Van Dyk’s warning? Let’s hope so!

Comparing the House and Senate Budgets

Posted on by
Reply

 

The Republican House of Representatives and the Democratic Senate have each in the past few days issued 10 year budget proposals.  The Heritage Foundation has neatly and dramatically summarized the huge differences between these two budgets and the visions they convey for the future of our country in the coming years.

By limiting the growth of spending to 3.4% per year for the next ten years, the Republican budget shows that it will be possible to shrink the deficit down to zero by 2023 and restore the sound fiscal policies which have guided our country for most of its history.  On the contrary, the Democratic budget projects 5% increases in spending for the next ten years and ends the next decade with annual deficits in the neighborhood of $600 billion.

In other words, a little bit of fiscal restraint, i.e. holding year-to-year spending increases to 3.4%, is all that it will take to get the U.S. back on a sound fiscal track.  What is so difficult about achieving such a common sense approach to budgeting?  If the Obama administration, or perhaps the Senate majority, wants to start new programs on early childhood education or green energy research, for example, then all it has to do is reduce spending elsewhere in the federal budget now approaching $4 trillion annually.

Fundamentally, in the final analysis, adopting a reasonable budget and sticking to it, is a moral issue.  Living within one’s means is such basic and transparently obvious good sense that the advocates of such a policy will ultimately prevail.  For the time being at least, the Democrats are ceding the high ground to the Republicans.

The Myth of Government Default

Posted on by
2

The moment of truth is rapidly approaching and House Republicans need to crank up their resolve to force a real long term solution to the debt crisis of our federal government.  As David Rivkin and Lee Casey describe in the January 11, 2013 issue of the Wall Street Journal, the threat of government default is greatly exaggerated.  $200 billion in tax revenue is coming into the federal government every month, more than enough to keep making interest payments on the national debt as well as paying many other bills.

Far too many national leaders are in a state of denial about the seriousness of our fiscal problems.  House Speaker John Boehner says that “The American people do not support raising the debt ceiling without reducing government spending at the same time.”  The “Boehner Rule” stipulates that an increase in the debt limit must be paired with spending cuts of equal size over a ten year period.  This is an excellent framework for kicking off a national discussion to persuade the American people to support cutting back spending on entitlements and social programs as well as defense spending.

Every economic unit whether it be an individual, a family, a business, a community or a larger political subdivision, has to learn to live within its means.  This elementary rule of common sense applies to our whole country just as much as to any other social group.  Republicans have the clearest grasp of this basic truth at the present time and now need to exhibit the courage of their political convictions.  The future of our country depends on it!

The Magnitude of the Mess We’re In

Posted on by
Reply

In an opinion piece last fall in the Wall Street Journal, George Schultz, and several colleagues from Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, very cogently describe the horrendous economic and fiscal mess in which the United States is now embedded.  Trillion dollar deficits for four years in a row, now going on five, a persistently weak recovery from the great recession of 2008, several rounds of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve now totaling over three trillion dollars, and worst of all, a complete lack of consensus by political leaders on how to respond to this dangerous situation.

The President and the Democratic majority in the Senate, flush with victory after the November 2012 elections, believe that they have a mandate to continue their present expansionist policies.  The Republican majority in the House of Representatives, only slightly diminished by the 2012 elections, feels equally strongly that it has a mandate to continue applying the brakes.  As a fiscal conservative I agree with the Republicans that we must return to the sound fiscal and monetary policies advocated so eloquently in the above WSJ article.

What strategy can the House Republican’s follow to move federal policy in this direction?  House Speaker John Boehner has suggested that any increase in the debt limit be matched dollar for dollar by cuts in federal spending over a ten year period.  For example, the “Boehner Rule” would require that an increase in the debt limit of $1 trillion, enough to last about one year, would be offset by spending cuts of $100 billion a year for 10 years.  If such a regimen were then repeated a year from now, another $100 billion in spending cuts per year would be needed as well, and so on.

Taking into account the baseline budgeting process in Congress, whereby budgets are automatically increased from one year to the next by the anticipated rate of inflation, and also the occasional need for emergency appropriations to cover natural disasters and other dire events, the Boehner Rule would have the likely effect of holding spending approximately constant from one year to the next in absolute terms.  While this is not the same as what most people would understand by actual spending cuts, nevertheless it does represent significant restraint in federal spending, compared to recent patterns.

As the economy continues on its current growth trajectory of about 2% per year, this would mean that new tax revenues would eventually catch up with relatively flat spending levels and eventually lead to a balanced budget.

It sounds good but does he mean it?

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s Omaha World Herald, Representative Lee Terry explains why he voted against the fiscal cliff deal just approved by Congress a few days ago.  It is because “raising taxes with little to no spending cuts does not make for a balanced agreement.”

Of course he is entirely correct in this assessment.  But will he stand firm in the next two months as a new deal is negotiated to either implement or replace sequestration which makes across the board spending cuts?  Will he stand firm when conservatives complain about cutting defense and liberals complain about cutting social programs?  Will be stand firm when the AARP complains about cutting entitlements?  We need to do all of these things and more!

House Speaker John Boehner has said that Republicans will be “singularly focused on the deficit and the debt” in the next two months.  But the President has said that he will not “play games” with raising our nation’s debt limit.  Will Mr. Boehner, Mr. Terry and the Republican majority in the House be prepared to withstand withering criticism from the mainstream press if the default deadline grows close without agreement for significant spending cuts?

We are rapidly approaching the moment of truth.  The future of our country depends on the fiscal responsibility of our national leaders.  Let’s hope that enough of them are made of the right stuff!