Tag Archives: jack heidel

I Am One of Paul Krugman’s “Very Serious People”

Posted on by
Reply

 

There is a stark contrast between the fiscal and economic policies being proposed by the presidential candidates from the two different parties. The Democrats want to tax the rich to reduce income inequality while the Republicans want major tax reform in order to speed up economic growth.
CaptureI favor the latter approach as long as it does not increase deficit spending.  The Keynesian economist Paul Krugman mocks deficit hawks like me as “Very Serious People.”  But in my “serious” view we have a choice between two very different paths for our economic future:

  • Slow Growth. Continue on our present path of slow 2% annual growth. The official unemployment rate has dropped to 5% but slack in the economy caused by the low labor participation rate keeps raises low and millions still unemployed or under-employed. The slow economy also keeps inflation and interest rates low. This permits Congress and the President to shrug off deficit spending and debt accumulation because it’s virtually “free money,” being borrowed at very low interest rates.   Our present course not only prolongs income inequality but also allows the debt to keep ramping up indefinitely. The longer this continues, the greater will be the disruption when inflation and interest rates do eventually return to normal historical levels.
  • Faster Economic Growth.   There are many things we can do to speed up economic growth. Tax reform is first and foremost but deregulation (relax Obamacare and Dodd-Frank), trade expansion (pass TPP) and immigration reform (with an adequate guest worker program) would also help. But, contrary to what the Republican presidential candidates say, tax reform must be revenue neutral to be sustainable. That way the economic growth it produces will lower deficit spending rather than increasing it.  This is critical because economic growth will create new jobs and raise pay for existing jobs, thereby creating inflationary pressure. Inflation will lead to higher interest rates which in turn will make our debt much more expensive than it is now.

Conclusion. We can make our economy grow faster if we simply put our mind to it. But then inflation and interest rates will go up and interest payments on the debt will become an increasing burden on society.  This is why it is so important to put our debt on a downward path as a percentage of GDP.  We can make it happen if we want to.

Austerity’s Grim Legacy?

Posted on by
4

 

There is a very important debate going on in the country right now as I have discussed in my last three posts:

  • The Republican presidential candidates are proposing big tax cuts to stimulate the economy but at the cost of huge increases in annual deficits and the accumulated debt.
  • The Democratic candidates want to raise taxes on the wealthy but even raising the top tax rate from 39.6% to 50% would have only a modest effect in lowering income inequality.
  • The Tax Foundation has an excellent plan to lower tax rates for all in a revenue neutral manner by closing loopholes and limiting deductions. Their plan would give the economy a big boost and actually lower deficits by bringing in more tax revenue.

Now comes Paul Krugman in Friday’s New York Times, “Austerity’s Grim Legacy”  saying that “Some of us tried in vain to point out that deficit fetishism was both wrong-headed and destructive, that there was no good evidence that government debt was a problem for major economies, … And we were vindicated by events.  More than four and a half years have passed since Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles warned of a fiscal crisis within two years; U.S. borrowing costs remain at historic lows.”
Capture12How can such an obviously intelligent and articulate economist miss what is so very, very clear to so many lesser mortals?  Interest rates will not stay low forever!  And when they do go up, interest payments on our rapidly expanding debt will skyrocket! The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the interest payment on our debt will increase from 1.7% of GDP today to 3.6% of GDP in 2025, or $827 billion in 2025 compared with $227 billion in 2015.  Where will the money to pay this new $600 billion expense come from?
It is absolutely crazy not to take our enormous debt seriously.  We simply must put this huge debt on a downward path as a percentage of GDP.  It can be done but it will take a concerted effort by our national leaders to do it.

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

A Much Better Way to do Tax Reform

Posted on by
6

 

My last two posts, here and here, have pointed out the folly of the tax plans of the presidential candidates from both parties:

  • The Republican plans would stimulate the economy but at a cost of huge increases in the national debt, even using dynamic scoring to take into account the growth effects of these plans.
  • Raising the top tax rate to 50%, a Democratic idea, would bring in $100 billion per year, but this is not enough to either make a big dent on budget deficits or lower income inequality appreciably.
    CaptureThe Tax Foundation has just published an excellent guide to income tax policy which makes several good suggestions for using tax reform to boost the economy:
  • Eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes would raise $81 billion per year. Using this revenue to reduce individual income tax rates would grow the economy by 1.77% of GDP over 10 years.
    Capture11
  • Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would raise $75 billion per year. Reducing individual tax rates by the same amount would grow the economy by 1.61% of GDP over 10 years.
    Capture12
  • Capping itemized deductions at $25,000 would bring in $188 billion per year. Reducing individual tax rates by the same amount would grow the economy by 1.99% over ten years.
    Capture13

Sensible, i.e. revenue neural, tax reform will do wonders for the economy as this study from the Tax Foundation shows. It will bring in more tax revenue to help pay the bills.  It will raise salaries for the already employed.  It will create new jobs for the millions of unemployed and underemployed people who want them.  It will thus reduce income inequality by increasing the wages of people on the bottom. Why is this so hard for so many people to understand?

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

Are Democratic Presidents Better for the Economy than Republicans?

Posted on by
Reply

 

In his usual provocative manner, Paul Krugman reminded us yesterday that, according to a recent study by Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, ever since President Truman the economy has grown faster under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents.  There are a lot of different explanations for this, not necessarily demonstrating better economic policies by Democratic presidents.  Nevertheless, it is a noteworthy finding which fiscally conservative, fix-the-economy types, need to be aware of.
CaptureAmong other things, Republican presidential candidates must become more credible about their economic policies than they have been so far.  They have all proposed big cuts in tax rates to stimulate the economy. But their plans lose trillions of dollars in tax revenue.  At a time of huge deficits and a rapidly growing national debt this is simply unacceptable.
In today’s Omaha World Herald, the economics journalist, Robert Samuelson, reports on a new Brookings Institute study about the effect of raising the top individual tax rate from 39.6% to 50%.  Such a tax hike would raise as much as $100 billion per year.

  • However, if used to lower deficit spending, it would cover less than ¼ of current deficit spending ($439 billion in 2015, for example).
  • If used to reduce income inequality for the poorest 1/5 of Americans, it would give such households an average of $2,650, and the overall effect on income inequality would be very modest.

The point is that neither costly tax cuts to boost economic growth nor a sizable tax increase on the wealthiest Americans represents a viable program to straighten out our economic problems. What we need to grow the economy is:

  • Revenue neutral tax reform, lowering rates across the board, paid for by closing loopholes and shrinking deductions.
  • Lightening the regulatory burden at least on small and mid-size businesses in order to speed up business growth and entrepreneurship.
  • Trade expansion and immigration reform to increase productivity.

Fiscal conservatives are badly needed to implement such policies effectively but neither party can get the job done alone. It will take both parties working together to make progress.

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

The Republicans Need to Get Real about Tax Reform

Posted on by
2

 

The Republican presidential candidates have been releasing tax plans and they have been analyzed by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. It turns out that most of these plans lose revenue over a ten-year period even on a so-called dynamic scoring basis where the stimulatory effects of the plan are taken into effect.  Such callous disregard for the huge annual deficits we are now running, and our huge accumulated national debt, is totally unacceptable especially from the political party which bills itself as being fiscally responsible.
CaptureThe left-leaning New York Times points this out yesterday in its lead editorial, “Why the Republican Tax Plans Won’t Work.”  According to the NYT:

  • Tax Revenues will need to increase by 40% over the next 10 years just to keep federal spending even with inflation and population growth.
  • Further additional revenues will be needed to pay for health care for the elderly, transportation systems, climate change and likely increased interest payments on the national debt.
  • Thus taxes will have to go up and can only be imposed realistically on the wealthy who have had the biggest income gains in recent years.
  • Democratic presidential candidates do propose tax cuts but only for low- and middle-income Americans.
  • Democrats are calling for new taxes on financial transactions.
  • Democrats also propose to raise wages, support higher minimum wages, support unions and expand profit-sharing and employee ownership.

This is the program the Democrats will be pushing if they win the presidency next year. It has some attractive features but the likely overall outcome will be increased deficit spending, a rapidly increasing debt and a continued stagnant economy.
Meaningful tax and regulatory reform will both be needed to get the economy growing faster than the 2% average of the past six years.  Any credible tax reform program simply must be at least revenue neutral so that, combined with spending restraint, it will put our national debt on a downward path.

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

It’s Easy to be Pessimistic about America’s Future

Posted on by
Reply

 

As I remind readers from time to time, this blog is concerned with America’s fundamental fiscal and economic problems: a slow economy, massive debt, and increasing income inequality. Largely because of these apparently intractable problems, more and more people are becoming pessimistic about the future of our country.
CaptureAlthough I am by nature an optimist, these matters weigh on me as well:

  • The just introduced “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015” is a sell-out to the status quo. It breaks the agreed upon sequester spending limits by $112 billion over two years with essentially no attempt to create long term spending restraint.
  • As pointed out recently by the Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson, the presidential candidates are talking mainly about new entitlements (the Democrats) or tax cuts (the Republicans). In both cases this represents a flight from reality.
  • Entitlements: The number of people aged 65 or older will increase from 15% of the population today to 22% of the population in 2040. The cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will jump from 6.5 % of GDP today to 14% of GDP in 2040. We simply must control these costs by raising eligibility ages for SS and Medicare and increasing premiums for wealthier recipients.
  • Economic Growth: Annual growth has averaged only 2% of GDP since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009. Slow growth means weaker gains in wages, more unemployment and larger spending deficits. This can be fixed long term with honest tax reform, but not with unrealistic tax cuts.

Conclusion: Isn’t it obvious that we need political candidates who will speak forthrightly with the people about the need for addressing these humongous problems? Americans aren’t dumb.  They will respond to straight talk from their supposed leaders.   

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

The Budget Deal: A Win for the Big Spenders

Posted on by
Reply

 

A tentative budget deal has just been reached by Congress and the President to 1) suspend the debt limit until March 2017, and 2) loosen the budget sequester caps by $112 billion over the next two years.  $80 billion of the increased spending will be balanced by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget with details to be worked out later by various appropriations committees.  Specifically:

  • The current debt ceiling of $18.1 trillion will be lifted until March 2017, after a new president takes office. This will allow an expected increase in the debt of about $900 billion to take place over the next 1½ years.
  • Both military and discretionary non-military spending will increase by $40 billion each over the next 2 years with the military receiving an additional $32 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations.

The problem is that such a deal essentially just maintains the budget status-quo. It does nothing to begin shrinking annual deficits in order to put our accumulated national debt on a downward path as a percentage of GDP.  Our current debt of 74% of GDP is very high by historical standards and simply must be brought down significantly in the near term.
Capture1As I explained in my last post, Congressional Republicans, with majorities in both the House and the Senate, should be able to apply much more leverage than was used in the deal just reached, as follows:

  • Yes, extend the debt ceiling for two years. We need to pay our debts. But insist on spending discipline from now on.
  • Allow only brief temporary budget extensions at current levels until a plan is adopted to put deficits and debt on a downward path. The Republican ten year plan for a balanced budget would be a good place to start.

It’s time for fiscal conservatives to stand up and be counted!

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

Resolving the Current Budget Impasse in Congress

Posted on by
4

 

Congress is facing two critical fiscal deadlines in the very near future. Our current debt ceiling of $18.1 trillion will be exceeded by November 4.  A temporary 2016 budget was passed that will fund the federal government at its current level through December 11.  There is much pressure on Congress to lift the sequester limits for discretionary spending which have been in effect since early in 2013.  The Republican majorities in Congress should use their leverage to promote fiscal responsibility in the following way:

  • Extend the debt ceiling by $1 trillion or enough to last about two years at our current rate of deficit spending. Control over the debt ceiling gives Congress an important tool with which to remind the voters of the urgency of shrinking the national debt. Make it clear that in return for supporting payment of existing obligations, Republicans will insist on far more spending restraint in the future.
  • For example, Congress should agree to only additional short term extensions of this year’s budget at current spending levels, including sequester limits, until a long-term budget plan is locked into place along the lines of:Capture
  • The ten year budget plan adopted by Congress last Spring produces a balanced budget by 2025. Perhaps surprising to many people, it still allows spending to increase by 3.3% annually which is approximately double the current rate of inflation.

Such a plan of indefinite short term budget extensions at current levels will get the focused attention of all big spenders including conservatives who want more military spending as well as the President and his Democratic allies in Congress.  Everything should be on the table: entitlement reform, tax reform, immigration reform, etc.  There need be no deadline for agreement; the current budget could simply be renewed at short term intervals until a mutually acceptable plan was achieved.  No plan, then no budget increases.  Take your pick.
Conclusion: a national debt of 74% of GDP is in fact a fiscal crisis and the Republicans have enough leverage to force a showdown in a sensible way.  They should use it!

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

Combating the Politics of Distrust

Posted on by
2

 

My last post, “The Politics of Distrust” presents the view that the main reason for the divisiveness of today’s politics is “the stubborn torpor of the American economy.” If this is true then the solution is obvious: speed up economic growth!
CaptureA couple of weeks ago the economist Alan Blinder, a Hillary Clinton advisor, had an Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal, “A Fairness Agenda for Winning Over Angry Voters” with which I largely agree. Here are the highlights of Mr. Blinder’s fairness agenda:

  • A labor market tight enough to leave employers scouring the land for workers, the best tonic for workers the world has ever known. Mr. Blinder does say that looser purse strings by Congress would help create more demand but it is simply too risky to keep running up our already enormous national debt. Eventually interest rates will return to normal and interest payments on the debt will skyrocket.
  • Raising the federal minimum wage would be an enormous help for wage earners at the bottom. Many states and cities are doing this on their own which is a better way to go because of huge regional differences.
  • Increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, especially for childless workers. A very good way to incentivize work.
  • More Vocational Training and Apprenticeships. Strengthening community colleges and career education in high schools would go a long way to accomplish this.
  • Provide quality pre-K education for families who can’t afford it. Early childhood education for children from low-income families is another very good idea.
  • The tax code is a national disgrace. The corporate tax may be even more complex, inefficient and unfair than the personal tax. The mantra of tax reformers has always been: broaden the base, lower the rates. Amen!

What Mr. Blinder is calling a fairness agenda turns out to be a growth agenda in disguise. I would add a few more items like deregulation to encourage entrepreneurship and business expansion but basically Mr. Blinder has suggested an attractive program for economic growth which should appeal to a broad collection of political interests.

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

The Politics of Distrust

Posted on by
4

 

I define myself as a fiscal conservative with a social conscience, because I want to address budget deficits and income inequality at the same time.  There is so much divisiveness in politics these days that liberals accuse me of favoring austerity while, at the same time, conservatives accuse me of being soft on welfare.
The author Jay Cost has an article, “The Politics of Distrust” on this topic in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.  He says that the principal cause of this distrust is “the stubborn torpor of the American economy.”
Capture0According to Mr. Cost:

  • For roughly half a century after WWII economic growth averaged 3.6% a year.
  • Over the past 14 years, real growth has averaged only 1.7%.
  • Persistently weak economic growth has contributed to our sour civic mood in three important ways:
  1. It has prompted voters to turn against the incumbent party time and again.
  2. Underwhelming growth has heightened anxieties about economic anxiety – liberals blame the unfairness of market-based capitalism and conservatives blame the corrupting hand of government – in taxation, regulation and monetary policy.
  3. Finally, weak economic growth has damaged the credibility of the experts – the experts failed to foresee the slowdown of the early 2000s, failed to anticipate the housing bubble, failed to predict that economic growth would remain weak after it burst, and failed to implement policies to return it to our postwar norm.
  • These trends amount to a comprehensive assault on the political equilibrium of the past half century. During the postwar era public policy could evolve because broad agreement existed. Now the consensus has vanished and we are left with gridlock, indecision and drift.
  • The tonic to this stalemate is as obvious as it is elusive: economic growth that approximates the levels of the late 20th century.

Perhaps surprisingly there is a fair amount of agreement between liberals and conservatives on how to speed up economic growth. This will be the subject of my next post.