Tag Archives: fiscal responsibility

The House Budget vs the President’s Budget: Another Reason for a Balanced Budget Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

 

In January I had several posts advocating in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Briefly, the argument runs as follows:

  • Our public debt (on which we pay interest) is now at 74% of GDP, the highest it has been since the end of WWII.
  • Democrats want to raise taxes and increase spending; Republicans want to cut taxes and decrease spending. The only way to satisfy both parties simultaneously is to run huge annual deficits which is exactly what has happened ever since the end of the Great Recession in 2009.

Current planning for the next budget year beginning October 1, 2016 has now begun. Both the House Budget Committee and the President have budget proposals for next year. As reported by the Peterson Foundation, these two budgets differ substantially:
Capture0

  • The President’s budget would hold the public debt at about 75% of GDP over the next ten years by both raising taxes and increasing spending on a variety of programs.
  • The House Budget Committee plan keeps revenues steady at 18.2% of GDP over the next ten years and achieves a balanced budget after ten years. By 2026 the debt held by the public would fall to 57% of GDP from its current 74% level.

Here are two significantly different ten year budget plans. What is likely to happen is a complete standoff without any bipartisan agreement.  This means that no appropriations bills for individual government agencies will be enacted by October 1.  Finally, as usual, an omnibus spending bill will be put together by Congressional leaders and forced through at the last minute to avoid a government shutdown.
A BBA would make both sides compromise and come up with an overall plan.  It would likely contain both spending restraint and new sources of revenue.  Then the various Congressional committees would hammer out the spending details for individual agencies and department.  It would be a far more sensible and transparent process than the way things are done now.
Congress and the President have to be forced to act in such a reasonable manner.  A Balance Budget Amendment is perhaps the only way to make this happen.

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

Solving America’s Most Basic Problems

Posted on by
Reply

 

My last two posts, here and here, argue that America’s two most critical problems are:

  • Speeding up economic growth in order to create more jobs and better paying jobs, especially for middle- and lower-income workers whose wages have been stagnant for the past 15 years.
  • Getting our large and rapidly growing national debt under control by shrinking annual deficit spending. This will put our debt on a downward path as a percentage of GDP.

Many Facebook comments on these posts inquire about how these goals will be accomplished. If tax reform is the best way to increase economic growth, how can this be done in a way that is fair to the non-wealthy. If spending cuts are necessary to balance the budget, what cuts should be made?  Here is a summary of my views on these questions:

  • Growing the economy with tax reform. The best way to spur investment and business expansion is with the lowest possible tax rates on owners and investors. Broad-based tax reform, with lower tax rates for all, paid for (i.e. in a revenue neutral way) by closing loopholes and shrinking deductions, will accomplish this. The 64% of taxpayers who do not itemize deductions will increase their income with tax rate cuts. Lower tax rates for the affluent will be offset by shrinking deductions and closing loopholes.
  • The corporate tax rate should also be cut to internationally competitive levels, again paid for by drastically shrinking, if not totally eliminating, all deductions. This way all corporations (including GE!) would pay the same tax rate. And American companies would have much less incentive to move overseas.
    Capture0
  • Reducing our national debt. We have got to drastically shrink our annual deficits (now running about $500 billion per year) in order to put our national debt on a downward course, as a percentage of GDP. The House Budget Committee has recently passed a plan to balance the budget within ten years. Not everyone will agree with the details, but at least it’s a starting point. An alternative approach is to adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This would require Congress to make tradeoffs annually between either restraining spending or raising taxes.  A BBA will force them to do what they should be doing anyway!

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

Why I Lean Republican II. Priorities for the Next President

Posted on by
Reply

 

In my last post, “Why I Lean Republican,” I endorse the ten year budget plan just released by the House Budget Committee which will lead to a balanced budget within ten years.  It represents an excellent starting point towards addressing one of our country’s most serious problems, our huge and rapidly growing national debt.
Capture1
Jim Vanderholm responded to this post by giving his own top priorities for the next President. They are:

  • Job Formation. All sorts of other problems would be addressed in the process. Record high numbers of unemployed and underemployed. Record numbers of people on 85 different welfare programs at a cost of over $1 trillion per year.
  • Highly targeted education/training of the workforce to fill the newly created jobs with American citizens.
  • Reducing annual deficits. Growing the economy by putting more people back to work will bring in more tax revenue. Along with slowing the growth of spending this will lead to lower annual deficits. Once the deficit is reduced by half or more of its current value (about $500 billion), then the debt as a percentage of GDP will begin to shrink.
  • Reduced focus on divisive social issues. The basic structural problems referred to above will not be solved by more gun control, higher carbon tax, shuttering the coal industry, free pre-school and college education, or discontinuing tax-payer funding to Planned Parenthood.

In other words, we need a new President who will focus on basic economic and fiscal issues and not be distracted by divisive social issues. In fact, an ideal division of labor would be for the House Budget Committee to take the lead in getting spending under control while the new President attempts to implement policies to get the economy growing faster. This would lead to real progress on both fronts!

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

The Big Picture on America’s Fiscal Crisis

Posted on by
1

 

The political scientist, James Piereson, categorizes U.S. history, after the founding years, into three primary periods:

  • A Democratic-expansionist regime from 1800 to 1860 which dissolved in the midst of the slavery and secession crisis.
  • A Republican-capitalist regime 1860 to 1930, which was ended by the Great Depression.
  • A Democratic-welfare regime from 1932 until the present, although with faltering support after 1980.

Mr. Piereson makes a persuasive argument that America’s current third regime is in the process of collapsing for three major reasons:
Capture0

  • Debt. Our public (on which we pay interest) debt today is $13 trillion or 74% of GDP, the highest since right after the end of WWII, and is continuing to climb.
  • Demographics. There are over 46 million Americans aged 65 and older today and this number is growing much faster than the overall population. The same for the number of people on Medicare (48 million) and Social Security (58 million). There will soon be only two workers for each retiree. How are we going to pay for the rapidly increasing costs of old age in the U.S.?
  • Slowing Economic Growth. We know that economic growth has averaged only 2.1% a year since the end of the Great Recession in 2009. The economist Robert Gordon makes a strong argument, here and here, that the rate of economic growth is declining for fundamental reasons which will be very hard to counteract.

There are lots of proposals to reform entitlement programs or to rewrite the tax code to stimulate more economic growth. As Mr. Piereson says, such proposals make sense on paper but they are unlikely to be adopted.  “The clearest obstacle to any preemptive solution is the polarization of the two major political parties.”  Democrats have moved leftward and Republicans have moved rightward.  “Polarization is characteristic of regimes as they begin to tear themselves apart in conflicts which defy resolution within the existing structure of politics.”
Any number of events or developments could throw the system into a terminal crisis which would make it difficult for the U.S. to pay off the many commitments it has made.  Such an upheaval would amount to the “fourth revolution” in our nation’s history.  A serious prospect indeed!

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

Why the GOP Should Reconcile with Donald Trump II. How to Do It.

Posted on by
Reply

 

As I have stated over and over again on this blog, It Does Not Add Up, my greatest concern for our country is the lack of fiscal responsibility amongst our national leaders.  The public debt (on which we pay interest) is $13 trillion, which is 74% of GDP.  This is way too high for peacetime and, furthermore, it is very likely to just keep getting worse until serious steps are taken to shrink it (as a percentage of GDP).
CaptureIt is my opinion that the Republicans are more serious than the Democrats about fixing this problem.  Therefore I want the Republicans to nominate a presidential candidate who has a good chance of being elected in November.  I don’t know if Donald Trump is that candidate but he is attracting a whole new group of people to the Republican cause.  They are working class whites who have fallen away from the Democratic Party.
Republicans can reach these voters, as Trump is doing, with suitable policies such as:

  • Immigration. Rather than “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” which would put most of our current illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, we should adopt the principle, “All the immigrants we need but only the immigrants we need.”  A tightly constrained Guest Worker program, enforced with border control and eVerify, would accomplish this.
  • Free Trade. Trade agreements are still possible but need to include provisions like Trade Adjustment Assistance or other programs to help retrain laid-off workers for the millions of well paying, high skill jobs in the U.S. which are hard to fill.
  • Tax Policy. Rather than skewing tax cuts mainly for the wealthy, as most of the Republican candidates propose, they should be applied equally to all income levels, and fully paid for by shrinking deductions which mostly benefit the wealthy. This would put more money in the pockets of all middle income workers and create more and better jobs at the same time by speeding up economic growth.

Conclusion. Donald Trump has lots of negatives as a presidential candidate but Republicans can, and hopefully will, learn a lot from his very successful campaign so far.

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

Why the GOP Should Reconcile with Donald Trump

Posted on by
6

 

I am a non-ideological fiscal conservative. I don’t judge government as being either too large or too small.  I just want to pay for however much government we do have without going into debt.  Such an approach normally leads to political compromise whereby Congress tries to operate efficiently and hold costs down, only raising taxes as a last resort when it is impossible to squeeze any more low priority programs out of the system.
Such common sense used to be a fundamental operating principle, adhered to by both political parties.  Unfortunately in recent years we have moved away from this model.  In fact our public debt (on which we pay interest) has rapidly accumulated to $13 trillion, 74% of GDP, and will continue to grow much higher unless we strongly change our ways.
In some ways our current presidential campaign is following a conventional path.  Both of the major Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, want to expand federal programs and raise taxes to pay for the new spending.  The Republican Tea Party candidate, Ted Cruz, is a constitutional and social conservative and wants to cut back on government programs.  The leading Republican establishment candidate, Marco Rubio, supports modest new programs, such as expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and also modest tax reform to stimulate the economy.
Capture0The wild card in the presidential race is Donald Trump.  He is a secular populist with unconventional and even contradictory policy views.  He not only leads the Republican field in most polls, he is steadily pulling ahead.  He is doing all this by attracting huge support from working class white voters who have fallen away from the Democratic Party.  In other words, he is potentially expanding the Republican base and therefore should be taken very seriously.
Question. Can a fiscal conservative (who just wants to balance the budget!) but who also wants to address the very serious social problems in American society, support a Donald Trump candidacy for president?  I am struggling with this question.  Stay tuned!

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

 

Health Care Spending is Driving Budget Deficits

Posted on by
12

 

In my last post, “Annual Deficits are Starting to go Back Up,” I refer to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office to show that it is the large annual increases in federal healthcare spending (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and Obamacare) which is the main driver of our annual deficit spending which is going to start increasing again unless we do something serious about it.
CaptureThe basic problem is, as shown by the above chart, that Americans, in general, don’t have enough skin in the healthcare game, i.e. we don’t pay enough of our health care expenses out of our own pockets, and therefore we don’t directly feel the pain of high and rapidly increasing health care costs.
A group of policy experts from the American Enterprise Institute have come up with a practical plan to address this problem.  Its elements are:

  • Retain employer provided coverage. This is how half of Americans get health insurance. The only change would be an upper limit on the tax preference for employer-paid premiums so that only the most expensive plans would exceed it.
  • Tax Credits. Individuals without employer coverage would get a tax credit with no strings attached to pick any state-approved plan that meets their needs.
  • Continuous coverage protection. As long as people stay insured, they cannot be denied enrollment based on health status.
  • Medicaid reform. The federal government would give states fixed, per-person payments based on historical spending patterns. Able bodied adult and their children could combine Medicaid and the (refundable) federal tax credit to enroll in a private insurance option.
  • Medicare reform. Medicare would provide a fixed level of assistance which seniors would use to purchase a health plan of their own choosing.
  • Expanded Health Savings Accounts. These are intended to be used with catastrophic insurance with a high deductible. HSAs could be established with a one-time $1000 tax credit and unused funds rolled over from one year to the next.

Such a system does not repeal, but rather improves the Affordable Care Act. It keeps the ACA exchanges and introduces cost controls in a flexible manner, i.e. without mandates.  It is the type of system the U.S. needs to get health care costs, and therefore overall deficit spending, under control.

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

Annual Deficits are Starting to Go Back Up!

Posted on by
Reply

 

As regular readers of It Does not Add Up know well, I am highly alarmed about the large budget deficits and slow economic growth in the U.S. in recent years.  Some people respond that deficits are falling and that we have entered a new era of slow-growth secular stagnation which is unavoidable.
CaptureA new report from the Congressional Budget Office, our most reliable source for objective fiscal and economic information, now predicts that the deficit for 2016 will be $544 billion, a large increase over the $439 billion deficit for 2015.  Furthermore, CBO predicts that for future years deficits will continue to grow, exceeding $1 trillion by 2022. Here is a summary of the CBO predictions:

  • Federal outlays are projected to rise by 6% this year, to $3.9 trillion, or 21.2% of GDP. This represents a 7% rise in mandatory (entitlement) spending, a 3% increase in discretionary spending, and a 14% increase in net interest on the national debt.
  • Under entitlements, Social Security payments will increase by 3% and healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP (children’s health) and Obamacare) payments will increase by 11%.
  • Revenues will increase by 4% in 2016, to $3.4 trillion, or 18.3% of GDP.
  • Deficits are projected to increase from 74% of GDP in 2015 to 86% of GDP by 2026.
  • Spending for mandatory programs will increase from 13.1% of GDP in 2016 to 15% of GDP in 2026.

First Conclusion: The spending increases from 2015 to 2016, outlined above, illustrate a clear and alarming trend which is evident in the full ten-year set of CBO data. Discretionary spending will rise but at a sustainable rate of about 3% a year or less.  Mandatory (entitlement) spending will rise at a much faster and unsustainable rate.  It is healthcare spending, i.e. for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and Obamacare, and not Social Security, which is driving the rapid increase in mandatory spending.
Second Conclusion:  Although it is government healthcare spending which is driving our rapidly worsening deficit and debt problem, this is just part of the larger problem of the rapidly increasing cost of overall (including private) healthcare spending in the U.S.  This is the basic problem we need to focus on to get both fiscal and economic policy back on the right track.

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

It’s Dark Money, Not Money in General, That’s a Problem in Politics

Posted on by
Reply

 

I have written several posts recently advocating for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  A number of people have responded (on FaceBook) that we don’t really need a BBA, we just need to elect honest politicians who won’t be corrupted by money.  Candidates at all levels need money to run a campaign.  Candidates will inevitably be grateful to their contributors and, if elected, will want to return the favor.  If the donors are publicly identified, then the influence of their money can be kept track of.
CaptureIn fact it is dark money, not money in general, which is the big problem:

  • Jeb Bush, in single digits in the Republican polls, has raised far more money than any other candidate.  Donald Trump, far ahead in the polls, is near the bottom of the list in money raised. But Mr. Trump has enough money, and media attention, to get his message out.
  • Bernie Sanders, who is rapidly gaining on Hillary Clinton in most polls, has only raised two-thirds as much money as Ms. Clinton. Again, Mr. Sanders is getting his message out, which is what counts.
  • Where dark (i.e. individual donors are undisclosed) money has been so effective is in races for the U.S. Senate which are somewhat under the radar with regard to national exposure. For example, in 2014, in 10 closely contested Senate races,  eight of the winners were heavily supported with dark money.

It is often suggested that we need an amendment to the Constitution to overturn Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that allows unlimited political contributions from outside groups. I think that such an amendment would be very difficult to either propose by a two-thirds vote or to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.  Congress itself could outlaw dark money by simply passing an appropriate law.
On the other hand, enacting a Balanced Budget Amendment is far more feasible.  In fact 27 states have already called for a Constitutional Convention to propose such an amendment.  Only 7 more states are needed to do this and we’ll be on the way!

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

The Obama Legacy

Posted on by
Reply

 

I have no antagonism for Barack Obama. He was elected because of the unpopularity of the Iraq War and George Bush who started it.  He inherited the Financial Crisis and pulled us out of it without another depression.  He has put us on the road to universal healthcare even though the structure of the Affordable Care Act does little to control costs.
Capture  But overall, the negatives of his presidency outweigh the positives.  Consider the situation we are currently in:

  • Stagnant Economy. The annual rate of growth of GDP since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009 has been an anemic 2% compared to our historical growth rate of 3% since the end of WWII. Although the official unemployment rate is down to a respectable 5%, there are millions of unemployed and underemployed people who have stopped looking for work. Obama and the Democrats in Congress have little interest in the tax reform and deregulatory measures which would boost economic growth.
  • Massive Debt. Our public debt (on which we pay interest) has doubled to over $13 trillion on Obama’s watch. As the Federal Reserve begins to raise interest rates to ward off inflation, interest payments on this debt will increase enormously. It is absolutely imperative to begin to substantially shrink our annual budget deficits. The Democratic Party, under his leadership, has expressed no willingness to do this.
  • Chaotic Middle East. The rise of ISIS in Syria, Iraq and North Africa, and the resulting refugee crisis in Europe is the result of weak U.S. leadership in the Middle East. Peace and stability depends on a strong U.S. presence in all trouble spots around the world. We neglect this responsibility at our peril.
  • Hyper-partisan Political Atmosphere. Stalemate in addressing these and other serious problems has led to the rise of extremist presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Moderate candidates with successful experience in elected office are unable to gain political traction.

Our country is in a big mess. We are being guided by ideology rather than common sense.  I am optimistic by nature.  But it’s awfully easy to be pessimistic about our future.

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