Tag Archives: jack heidel

Are Deficit Fears Overblown?

Posted on by
Reply

 

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel responds too mildly in “Why It’s Wrong to Dismiss the Deficit” to Larry Summers’ view that we should not worry about the deficit.  Mr. Summers says, “Let me be clear.  I am not saying that fiscal discipline and economic growth are twin priorities.  I am saying that our priority must be on increasing demand.”  According to Mr. Wessel, here is the essence of Mr. Summers’ argument:

  • The deficit isn’t an immediate problem; growth is.
  • We’ve done enough (about the deficit) already.
  • The future is so uncertain that acting now is unwise.

Granted that the deficit for fiscal year 2013 is “only” $680 billion after four years in a row of deficits over a trillion dollars each and that interest rates are at an historically low level at the present time.  The problem is that the public debt is now at the very high level of 73% of GDP and is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to continue climbing indefinitely.  Interest on the debt was $415 billion for fiscal year 2013 which represents 2.5% of GDP of $16.8 trillion.  With GDP growth increasing at about 2% per year since the end of the recession in June 2009, this means that interest on the debt is already slowing down the economy and it’s just going to keep getting worse as interest rates inevitably return to higher historical levels.
Growth is very definitely an immediate problem.  But increased government spending is the wrong way to address it.  The right way to address it is with broad based tax reform (lowering tax rates in return for closing loopholes) to stimulate investment and risk taking by businesses and entrepreneurs.  Significant relaxing of the regulatory burden would also help, especially for the small businesses which are responsible for much of the growth of new jobs.  So would immigration reform to boost the number of legal workers.
As uncertain as the future is, we can be quite sure that entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) will be going up fast in the very near future as more and more baby boomers retire and the ratio of workers to retirees continues to decline.  It would be very risky indeed to assume that economic growth will increase fast enough to pay for increased entitlement spending.
Conclusion:  large deficits are a very urgent and immediate problem which we ignore at our peril!   Furthermore the best ways of boosting the economy don’t require increased government spending.

Is Expanding The Social Safety Net Compatible With Fiscal Restraint?

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday’s New York Times addresses this issue with an article “Ohio Governor Defies G.O.P. With Defense of Social Safety Net”.  It describes how Republican Governor John Kasich has maneuvered to expand Medicaid coverage in Ohio to 275,000 low income Ohioans under the new healthcare law, over the objections of his own Republican dominated state legislature.
Mr. Kasich is a former congressional deficit hawk and there is little doubt about his fiscal conservatism.  He recently balanced his state budget by cutting revenues to local government by $720 million.  But he has also expanded state aid for the mentally ill and supported efforts to raise local taxes for improving education.  He says “for those who live in the shadows of life, for those who are the least among us, I will not accept the fact that the most vulnerable in our state should be ignored.”
Especially after the disastrous debt ceiling debate, with Tea Party Republicans willing to default on our national debt in order to defund Obama Care, it is critical for fiscal conservatives to publicly demonstrate that they are not opposed to helping the poor in a reasonable manner, as long as it is cost effective.
To be in favor of controlling entitlement spending is not the same thing as wanting to abolish entitlement programs.  In fact, it is just the opposite.  We must control their costs so that the government will have the means to continue to support them.  It is just plain ordinary common sense.  If our national debt continues to grow unchecked, we risk not only entitlement programs but our entire way of life.
Take Medicaid as a concrete example.  Right now the federal government pays a percentage of the costs incurred by state governments in running the program.  The more a state spends for Medicaid, the greater the reimbursement from the federal government. This increases spending for both the states and the federal government.  A more cost effective approach is to give each state a block grant from the federal government and enough leeway to operate its own program as efficiently as it can.  Exactly this approach is being used in Rhode Island and is working very well at a much lower overall cost.
Being a fiscal conservative is not the same thing as being mean spirited!  The future of our country depends on getting this crucial message out far and wide!

Must America Resign Itself to Much Slower Economic Growth?

Posted on by
Reply

The cover story in this week’s Barron’s, by Jonathan Laing, “The Snail Economy, Slowing to a Crawl”, makes a well-documented argument that “over the next 20 years, the U.S. economy is likely to grow only 2% a year.  That’s down from 3% or better since World War II.  Blame it on an aging population and sluggish productivity growth.  Bad news for stocks and social harmony.”
Here’s an example of the argument he makes.  “Mean incomes of minorities in the U.S. population have remained at about 60% of white incomes in recent decades.  Unless that pattern changes, and minorities earn bigger incomes, that augers slower income growth for the overall population as the baby boomers, predominately white, retire over the next 20 years. …At the same time the minority population, particularly Hispanic, will expand. …If income relationships remain the same, U.S. median income growth will drop by an estimated 0.43% a year through 2020 and 0.52% a year over the succeeding decade.”
This demographic trend can be offset to some extent by boosting the ages at which Social Security benefits are received in order to lighten the burden on those who are working.  Immigration policy could be reformed to attract more highly skilled (and therefore more highly paid as well) workers to further offset the growing number of retirees.  “And most of all, the U.S. should engage in a crash educational program to close the gap in skills and income levels among different parts of the American population.”
In addition to the demographic challenge well described by Mr. Laing, there is the problem that growing economic efficiency (caused by advances in technology and ever more globalization) will continue to replace American workers by both machines and lower cost foreign workers.
It is imperative for us to set aside partisan ideology and dramatically confront all of these economic challenges to continued American supremacy on the world stage.  First and foremost we need fundamental tax reform, significantly lowering tax rates for all productive aspects of our economy, especially for investors, risk takers, entrepreneurs and corporations.  (Lower tax rates can be made revenue neutral by eliminating deductions and closing loopholes.)  We should simplify and streamline regulatory processes, again, to give all possible support to the businesses which can make the economy grow faster.
Our status in the world and therefore the future of our country depend on our success in this urgent endeavor!

Where Are the Jobs? II. How to Create More of Them

Posted on by
Reply

My previous post, two days ago, introduced a new book by two economists, John Dearie and Courtney Geduldig, “Where the Jobs Are, Entrepreneurship and the Soul of the American Economy”.  They make a very strong case that net job creation comes primarily from businesses less than one year old, true “start-ups”.  But, unfortunately, there has been a huge drop off in the number of new businesses created each year since 2007 and, furthermore, the historical average of seven new jobs created by a firm in its first year has now fallen to less than five.
How do we reverse this alarming trend?  Here is what the authors have learned from the many entrepreneurs they have talked to:

  • “Not enough people with the skills we need”
  • “Our immigration policies are insane”
  • “Regulations are killing us”
  • “Tax payments can be the difference between survival and failure”
  • “There’s too much uncertainty and it’s Washington’s fault”

Although there are 24 million Americans either unemployed or underemployed, there are also 3 million advertised high skill job openings going begging and many more potential jobs available for qualified individuals.  A greater emphasis on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education in the U.S. would help.  But also immigration reform is urgently needed.  The Senate has passed legislation to raise the annual cap on H1-B visas (for high skilled workers) from 65,000 currently to 110,000.  Hopefully the House will concur.
A Preferential Regulatory Framework for New Businesses could be devised to help fragile new businesses in their first five years.  A Regulatory Improvement Commission could be created to streamline the entire federal regulatory process.  Likewise a Preferential Tax Framework for New Business should be created and could, for example, recommend taxing income for the first five years at a much lower rate than normal.
Regarding policy uncertainty the authors refer to the U.S. Economic Policy Uncertainty Index which is at a very high level since the Great Recession.  Economic uncertainty obviously discourages business growth.
Conclusion:  A very good way to boost the economy and create more new jobs is to put greater emphasis on supporting entrepreneurs who are trying to start new businesses.  There are a number of concrete actions that the federal government can take to do this and doing so should be a very high priority for our national leaders.

Where Are The Jobs? I. The Basics

Posted on by
Reply

Two economists, John Dearie and Courtney Geduldig, have just published a very interesting new book, “Where the Jobs Are, Entrepreneurship and the Soul of the American Economy”.   In April 2011, Mr. Dearie and Ms. Geduldig launched an effort to understand the nature and scope of the damage to the U.S. labor markets caused by the Great Recession and, if possible, identify new ways to enhance the economy’s job-creating capacity.
They quickly “learned of research that demonstrates how virtually all net new job creation in the United States over the past 30 years has come from businesses less than a year old – true ‘start-ups.’  Investigating further, they also learned that America’s job creation machine is faltering, with the rate of start-up formation declining precipitously in recent years.  To find out why, they launched an ambitious summer road trip – conducting roundtables with entrepreneurs in 12 cities across the nation.”  Here is what they learned.
First of all, the U.S. labor market is tremendously dynamic, as existing businesses create new jobs and eliminate others.  “In 2011, for example, 47.5 million separations occurred while 49.6 million Americans took new jobs.”  But “existing firms, of any age or size, in aggregate, nearly always produce more separations than hires.  … Indeed, existing businesses shed on a net basis a combined average of about 1 million jobs each year as some businesses fail, others become more efficient, and as separations simply outpace new hires.  By stark contrast, new firms in their first year of existence, create an average of 3 million new jobs.”
Unfortunately, there has been a huge drop off in the number of new businesses created annually since 2007.  Furthermore, the historical average of seven new jobs created by a new firm in its first year, has now fallen to less than five new jobs.
The obvious question which this discussion raises is: what policy changes are needed to boost the creation of new businesses?  This will be the topic of my next post in a couple of days!

The Intergenerational Financial Obligations Reform (INFORM) Act

Posted on by
2

On page nine of today’s New York Times is published a full page letter to Congress and President Obama, “Enact The Inform Act”, signed by over one thousand economists as well as former government officials.  It would require “the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Management and Budget to do fiscal gap and generational accounting on an annual basis to assess the sustainability of fiscal policy and measure, on a comprehensive basis, the fiscal obligations facing our children and future generations.
“Unlike the measurement of the official federal debt, fiscal gap and generational accounting are comprehensive.  They leave nothing off the books, be it defense spending, Medicare expenditures, or the profits of the Federal Reserve, in assessing the sustainability of fiscal policy and the size of the fiscal bills being left to our own children.”
The INFORM Act is sponsored by a nonpartisan and millennial driven organization which goes by the name, The Can Kicks Back . This is very significant because it is precisely the younger generation of Americans who should be most concerned about the fiscal irresponsibility of so many of our national leaders.  They are the ones who will be stuck with the huge national debt which is being generated by the profligacy of federal spending and also the ones who may have their own retirement benefits greatly curtailed because of it.
Young people should be especially incensed by such irresponsible behavior which will affect them so greatly.  We should support their efforts to turn around this ugly situation!

When Will Young Obama Supporters Wake Up and See the Light?

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday’s weekend interview in the Wall Street Journal with money manager Stanley Druckenmiller, “How Washington Really Redistributes Income”, vividly illustrates how disastrous Obama economic policy has been for the young people who form the core of his coalition.  “High unemployment is paired with exploding debt that they will have to finance whenever they eventually find jobs.”
“I thought that tying Obama Care to the debt ceiling was nutty”, says Mr. Druckenmiller. “I did not think it would be nutty to tie entitlements to the debt ceiling because there’s a massive long term problem.  And this president, despite what he says, has shown time and time again that he needs a gun at his head to negotiate in good faith.”
How about the “rat through the python” theory which holds that the fiscal disaster will only be temporary while the baby-boom generation moves through the benefit pipeline and then entitlement costs will become bearable.  Unfortunately for taxpayers, “the debt accumulates while the rat’s going through the python,” so that by the 2030’s the debt and its enormous interest payments become bigger problems than entitlements.  “That’s where Greece was when it hit the skids”, he says.
What is Mr. Druckenmiller’s solution?  Raise taxes on dividends and capital gains up to ordinary income rates and eliminate corporate taxes all together.  This is justified because it ends double taxation of corporate profits.  But, in addition, the people who run the corporations would be more incentivized to invest the profits in growth and expansion.  Ending corporate taxation also ends crony capitalism and corporate welfare.  All of this would be “very, very good for growth which is a good part of the solution to the debt problem long-term.  You can’t do it without growth.”
Bottom line:  we urgently need to rein in entitlement spending but we also need smarter policies to grow the economy faster.  Young people ought to be totally on board with all of this.  When will they wake up and see the light?

Who Won and Who Lost in the Fiscal Stalemate?

Posted on by
Reply

The mainstream media are uniformly agreed that the Democrats and President Obama “won” the latest debt ceiling and shutdown standoff and that the Republicans “lost”.  For example, New York Times, reporter Jeremy Peters gives the GOP a rebuke in “Losing a Lot to Get Little”. “For the Republicans who despise President Obama’s health care law, the last few weeks should have been a singular moment to turn its botched rollout into an argument against it.  Instead, in a futile campaign to strip the law of federal money, the party focused harsh scrutiny on its own divisions, hurt its national standing, and undermined its ability to win concessions from Democrats.”
This is all true and, in addition, the twenty or twenty-five Tea Party stalwarts made fools of themselves by being so intransigent.  And 145 House Republicans ran away by voting against the final deal.
But look at the broader picture.  The federal government has been reopened for just three months, until January 15, 2014, and at current funding levels which include the 2013 sequester spending cuts.  On January 1, the more stringent 2014 sequester cuts take effect.  In other words the pressure is growing on the big spenders in Congress to deal seriously with our ongoing debt and deficit crises.
The big spenders have two options.  They can continue to kick the can down the road (i.e. refuse to bargain and force additional continuing resolutions to keep the government open) as discretionary spending continues to shrink more each year.  Or they can agree to make significant adjustments to entitlements to slow down their rate of growth, in return for easing the sequester cuts.
In a more rational world, the big spenders would understand that cutbacks must be made and the two sides would bargain in good faith and reach agreement.  But fiscal conservatives continue to have the necessary leverage to force compromise, and are unlikely to give it up.
Conclusion: the Tea Party “lost” and fiscal conservatives broke even.  The big spenders didn’t “win” but they got a temporary pass because the Tea Party overreacted and was shot down.

Why Growth Is Getting Harder

Posted on by
Reply

The Cato economist, Brink Lindsey, has just issued a new report, “Why Growth Is Getting Harder”.  See also Robert Samuelson’s Op Ed in yesterday’s Omaha World Herald, “Economic growth potion slowing to anemic trickle”.  Annual GDP growth has averaged over 3% since 1950.  But for the past four years, since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009, it has averaged barely 2% annually and, as Mr. Lindsey notes, this low growth rate is widely predicted to continue.
Historically the rate of GDP growth is attributed to four factors:

  • greater labor force participation, mainly by women
  • better educated workers, as reflected in high school and college graduation rates
  • more invested capital per worker
  • technological and organizational innovation

For example, women’s labor force participation went from 30.9% in 1950 to 59.9% in 2000.  Since then it has started to lag.  The national high school graduation rate is stuck at about 70% and realistically can’t go much higher.  Mr. Lindsey shows that both the national savings rate and domestic investment rate have been falling steadily since 1950.  Productivity growth was high from 1950 – 1979, high again from 1996 – 2004 and has fallen off again since.
Mr. Lindsey concludes “In the quest for new sources of growth to support the American economy’s flagging dynamism, policy reform now looms as the most promising “low-hanging fruit” available.”
What policy changes and improvements will counteract these negative trends?  Here are several more or less obvious suggestions:  Immigration reform can bring our 11,000,000 illegals into the main stream economy.  Education reform, especially including an early childhood emphasis, will improve the quality of education for low-income kids, and maybe even boost graduation rates.  Tax reform, with lower tax rates (offset by closing loopholes) has much potential for boosting investment and risk taking, as well as for boosting innovation and entrepreneurship.
Faster economic growth is so beneficial for so many reasons, that we should insist that our national leaders make it a top priority.  Ideological objections, such as providing “tax breaks for the rich” are not acceptable and must be constantly batted down!

What Is the Best Budget Outcome in the Current Standoff?

Posted on by
Reply

 

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, columnist Holman Jenkins describes “The Best Budget Outcome: Tax Reform”.  His point is that the only way we can possibly continue to pay for our rapidly growing entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is by speeding up the growth of our economy.
All of the various fiscal reforms of these programs which have been suggested such as means testing for Medicare, raising the Social Security wage base ($113,700 in 2013), changing the way the COLA is computed, raising eligibility age limits for both Social Security and Medicare, and block granting Medicaid to the states, can at best slow down the growth of their costs.  This is because the number of retirees is growing so rapidly as well as the number of eligible recipients for Medicaid.
Most sensible people know that we have to do a much better job of controlling the cost of entitlement programs, even though it is tough in practical terms to agree on specifically which costs to rein in.
In addition to holding down the growth of government spending, the other way to shrink the deficit and slow down our soaring national debt, is by speeding up economic growth.  The best way to do this is by lowering tax rates (offset by closing tax loopholes) in order to encourage more entrepreneurial investment and risk taking.
But too many people are ideologically opposed to lowering tax rates because they think that it increases economic inequality.  As Mr. Jenkins says, such people would rather “see the lives of the young and unskilled be blighted by a slow-growth economy than approve a reform of rates and loopholes that …(could be mislabeled)… as a tax cut for the rich.”
In other words, the two sides in the budget debate can probably hammer out some reasonable ways to rein in entitlement spending.  But they probably will not be able to agree on sensible tax reforms which would grow the economy faster and put more people back to work.  What a shame!