A Vivid Example of Fiscal Irresponsibility at the Federal Level

 

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.

Perfecting Our Union: Ending the War Against the States

 

“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!

Prominent Myths about Our National Debt

 

As the 2016 presidential election contest begins to heat up, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and its outreach arm, Fix the Debt, have issued a new “Fiscal FactChecker: 16 Budget Myths to Watch Out For in the 2016 Campaign.”  Here are four of the major myths:

  • We Can Continue Borrowing Without Consequences. “Low interest rates are a temporary consequence of the struggling global economy and near term Federal Reserve actions – not a permanent fixture.”

    Capture4

  • There is No Harm in Waiting to Solve Our Debt Problems. “The longer policy makers wait to control debt, the more difficult it will become. For example, reducing debt to around the historical average of about 40% of GDP by 2040 would require tax increases or spending cuts of about 2.6% of GDP per year, if enacted today, or starting at $1,450 per person per year. Waiting a decade to begin would require adjustments of over 4% of GDP.”
  • Deficit Reduction is Code for Austerity, Which Will Harm the Economy. “Most advocates of fiscal responsibility in the U.S. have called for gradual reductions in long-term deficits so that the debt grows slower than the economy. These changes tend to have minimal near-term effects as well as the potential to significantly grow the size of the economy over the long term.”
  • We Can Fix the Debt Solely by Taxing the Top 1%. “The top 1% of earners, households that make at least $450,000 annually, earn a substantial share of national income, about 13% on an after tax basis, and further tax increases on this group could help. But these increases would need to be combined with reductions in spending growth and/or broader tax increases to fully address the nation’s fiscal challenges.”

Just a few days ago, I described a persuasive argument, “America’s Fourth Revolution,” that our hyper-partisan and dysfunctional political system will be unable to rectify our debt problem until we have another and much more severe financial crisis. The above discussion of budget myths from CRFB actually suggests a way forward to solve our debt problem.
We have a choice. Which path will we take?

America’s Fourth Revolution

 

The Manhattan Institute’s James Piereson has written a fascinating new book, ”Shattered Consensus: The Rise and Decline of America’s Postwar Political Order” in which he argues that the New Deal liberal consensus has broken down and will soon be replaced by a new model containing several specific features. The coming new model will be the result of a Fourth Revolution of comparable scope to the first three:

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

America’s third regime is in the process of fading out or collapsing for three reasons:

  • Debt. The national debt of $18 trillion today, at about 100% of GDP, is comparable to the debt at the end of WWII. But once the war ended the government cut spending and stopped borrowing and the U.S. economy grew at 4% for the next 20 years. Nothing comparable to this major debt reduction is in sight today.
  • Demography. Today there are about 160 million people in the U.S. workforce of whom 120 million have full time jobs. The workforce will grow by 1 million per year for the next ten years while the number of people turning 65 will grow at nearly twice that rate. The nation will soon reach a point where 150 million working people will be paying payroll taxes to support 80 million people on Social Security and Medicare. Political leaders are doing nothing to address this looming crisis.

    Capture5

  • Slowing Economic Growth. The chart above shows how the U.S. economy has been slowing since the 1960’s. Since the end of the Great Recession in 2009, GDP has grown at only 2.2% and is likely (CBO) to continue growing indefinitely at this slow rate under current policies. The second chart shows the enormous difference between 2% growth and, for example, even 3% growth over time.

    Capture6Why don’t Congress and the President deal with these problems now, before they reach the point of crisis?   It’s because Congress has become increasingly polarized, with Democrats having moved leftward and Republicans moving rightward. Polarization is characteristic of regimes as they begin to tear themselves apart in conflicts which defy resolution within the existing structure of politics.
    My approach on this blog is that these very severe problems can be solved by politicians working together in a cooperative way. Mr. Piereson makes a very persuasive case that this is not likely to happen and that it will take a huge new crisis, a revolution, to straighten things out.
    I hate to say so but he may be right.

Fix It Now: the Political Philosophy of Chip Maxwell

 

I have just recently come across the book, “Fix It Now: Rediscover the Constitution and Get America Out of Its Fiscal Death Spiral” by Chip Maxwell, a candidate for Congress in Nebraska’s Second District May 2016 Republican Primary.
Chip lays out his political philosophy very clearly.  It is to:

  • Adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, phased-in over ten years.
  • Phase out Social Security and Medicare for those under age 55.
  • Dismantle over the next decade the rest of the federal welfare/entitlement system.
  • Provide social services at the state or local level.
  • Launch a national effort to build a majority in Congress of crusaders for limited government.
    Capture1There are some attractive features to Chip’s program but overall I think it is too radical to have much chance at implementation.
    I am very much in favor of a balanced budget amendment and a ten year phase-in period is quite reasonable. Furthermore, providing social services at the state and local level would be much more efficient than what we are currently doing and, even with federal support, would be a big help in balancing the budget.
    Social Security and Medicare are lifelines for tens of millions of people. We can and should strengthen these programs in order to make them more financially viable for future retirees. They are now part of our national fabric and are here to stay.
    Chip’s last principle, promoting limited government, has much appeal but I think is not practical in this day and age. From my perspective, simply passing a Balanced Budget Amendment is sufficient to do what is needed. A BBA will force Congress to set spending priorities and eliminate inferior programs.
    Chip Maxwell is to be commended in running for Congress. If elected, he would move the needle in the right direction, even though some of his ideas wont work.

The Root of Greece’s Problem (and Ours)

 

Will it be the Euro or Drachma for Greece?  It’s down to the wire as Greece and the European Union negotiate the necessary conditions for Greece to remain in the Eurozone.  I have devoted several recent posts to the Greek fiscal crisis, pointing out the parallels between the Greek situation and our own.
Greece needs a bailout because its public debt is nearly 180% of GDP.  Our own public debt is “only” 74% of GDP at the present time but is predicted by the CBO to reach 175% of GDP by 2040, just 25 years from now.  Furthermore, Greece is currently receiving very favorable lending conditions from the European Central Bank, much better than are likely to apply in the U.S. in the long term.  This means we’re likely to have another deep crisis on our hands much sooner than 25 years from now.
CaptureConsider the data in the above charts from today’s Wall Street Journal.  It shows that Greece is spending 14.4% of GDP on pensions, more than any other major European country.  Furthermore, the efficiency of its VAT revenue collection is the poorest in the EU.  In other words, Greece has a very high rate of entitlement spending and has a poor tax collection system to support it.
Capture1In a general sense the U.S. is in a similar situation.  Today we spend about 13% of GDP on mandatory, i.e. entitlement, programs, compared to a total tax revenue level of 18% of GDP.  Just entitlement spending alone is projected to rise to 18% of GDP by 2050, unless changes are made.
Just as Greece needs to tighten up on pension spending, improve revenue collection and get its economy growing faster, the U.S. needs to tighten up on entitlement spending and speed up its stagnant economic growth as well.
We’re not yet as bad off as Greece is today.  But we’re headed in that direction with no one to bail us out when we get there!

The High Cost of Less Austerity

 

All eyes are focused on the drama playing out in Greece.  The Greeks have just voted not to accept Europe’s latest offer to keep the credit flowing, amounting to a 5% of Greek GDP income transfer from their European neighbors, in return for additional economic reforms to put the country on a path to self-sufficiency.
Capture1The New York Times declares, “For Europe’s Sake, Keep Greece in the Eurozone,”  that the European Union should “offer some path forward for the Greek economy, starting by writing down its huge and unpayable debts.”  More than likely EU leaders will work out a new agreement with Greece to enable it to remain in the EU and the Eurozone.  Greece is lucky to be in such a position.
In a recent post, “Could the U.S. End up Like Greece? II. How Long Will It Take?”, I pointed out that the U.S. is likely to have a public debt of 175% of GDP by 2040, the same level as the Greek debt today.  Furthermore interest rates are likely to be higher than their unusually low level today which means that we will be making proportionally higher interest payments at that time.  In other words, we are likely relatively soon, within 25 years, to have a painfully high level of debt.
Who is going to bail us out when our own debt becomes “unpayable”?  Obviously, no one!  Right now the austerity and pain caused by the Greek debt is confined to the 11 million people in Greece.
Which is better?  For us to bite the bullet now and get our fiscal house in order by, for example, moving towards annual balanced budgets Or to wait until our debt becomes unbearable and there is no one to bail us out?
We are so big that if this ever happens and drastic measures have to be taken, much of the world will be drawn into the suffering along with us.  It won’t be a pretty sight!

Could the U.S. End Up Like Greece? II. How Long Will It Take?

 

My last blog post, “Could the U.S. End Up Like Greece?” compares Greece’s present fiscal situation (public debt at 180% of GDP) with our own current fiscal situation (public debt at 74% of GDP and rising fast).  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that, under current policy, the U.S. debt will not reach 180% until about 2055, forty years from now.  One could (wrongly!) conclude from this that we are okay for the time being.
CaptureHowever, this is not true!  The Peter G. Peterson Foundation has taken a closer look at the most recent CBO report.  Under a less optimistic, but more realistic, Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the U.S. debt will reach 175% in 2040.  The Alternative Fiscal Scenario assumes, for example, that:

  • About 50 expiring tax breaks will continue to be extended year by year, as they were in 2014 and have been repeatedly in the past. These “tax extenders” increase the deficit by over $40 billion per year.
  • Discretionary spending will soon rise back up to its historical share of GDP. In other words, the sequester, which is currently holding down the growth of discretionary spending, may be overridden or at least relaxed.

Greece, with its debt at 180% of GDP, is only being required by the European Central Bank to pay 1.7% interest on this debt indefinitely into the future.  Thanks to the low interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve, 1.7% is also the current rate of interest being paid on the U.S. debt.  But this historically low interest rate is unlikely to continue much longer without setting off a much higher rate of inflation.
In other words, we’ll likely be in the same situation as Greece is currently, in much less than 25 years.  Furthermore, Germany and the other EU countries have been keeping Greece afloat for years and may continue to do so.
Who is going to bail us out when we get to where Greece is now?  China?  Unlikely.  We’ll be on our own and it won’t be pretty!

Could the U.S. End Up Like Greece?

 

The whole world is watching while Greece decides between two unpleasant alternatives.  Will it further tighten its belt in order to stay in the Eurozone?  Or will it default on its massive debt, reintroduce the drachma and go through a severe recession likely accompanied by hyperinflation?   Greece has put itself into this precarious position by accumulating a debt of 180% of GDP.  It’s current situation would be much worse if it were not getting by with the low interest rate of 1.7% from the European Central Bank.
CaptureCompare Greece (see chart above) with the U.S. debt situation.  Our current public debt (on which we pay interest) is 74% of GDP.  This is the highest it has been since the end of WWII.  And, thanks to Federal Reserve policy, we are now paying an historically low interest rate of 1.7% on this debt.
The problem is that (under current policy) our debt will keep growing larger and larger until, by 2080, it would reach the enormous level of 270 % of GDP.  Our very low interest rate level of 1.7% will almost surely rise in the near future to a more normal level of 5%.  As interest rates do begin to rise, and long before the debt reaches 270%, interest payments on the debt will have increased to a much higher level, crowding out other spending.
Notice that, according to the above chart, our debt will reach the Greek level of 180% around the year 2055.  But with higher interest rates, it would be exceedingly reckless to assume that we won’t arrive at Greece’s currently perilous state much sooner than that.
Understanding that we have a very serious long term debt problem, it is imperative to begin to address it now, because the longer we wait:

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

The answer to the question in the title is: Yes, we could easily end up like Greece if we are foolish enough to postpone action on our own debt problem for much longer.

The Fiscal Time Bomb Is Still Ticking!

 

The Congressional Budget Office is by far the most objective source of detailed information about the federal budget, playing a valuable role in the super-charged political atmosphere of Washington D.C.  It has just released a new annual report, “The 2015 Long-Term Budget Outlook,” projecting our fiscal health for the 25 year window, 2015-2040, based on current policy. It is a scary scenario indeed.
CaptureAs shown in the above chart, our public debt (on which we pay interest) has increased from 38% of GDP at the beginning of the Great Recession in 2008 to 74% today.  Although it will remain steady at this high level for about five years, it will then resume a steady increase, reaching a level of about 100% of GDP by 2040.
As many observers, including myself, have pointed out, when interest rates eventually return to their normal historical level of around 5%, interest payments on this huge, and rapidly increasing, debt will double or triple from their current low level, causing a very painful budget shortfall.
Simple prudence suggests that the only responsible course of action is to put our debt on a downward path, as a percentage of GDP, in order to minimize this looming problem to the greatest possible extent.
Capture1CBO gives some useful guidelines for what is required to do this:

  • Just to keep the debt at its current value of 74% of GDP by 2040 would require an annual 6% increase in revenue or a 5½% decrease in spending. This would amount, for example, to a $210 billion spending cut for 2016.
  • To reduce the debt to 38% of GDP by 2040, its average over the past 50 years, would require an annual 14% increase in revenues or a 13% decrease in spending. The spending cut for 2016 would be $480 billion.

These examples show the enormity of the fiscal mess we have gotten ourselves into.  Under current policy it will require a big effort just to stay even with where we are right now, without showing any debt reduction over the next 25 years!
Our only hope is to change current policy.  But how?