Tag Archives: jack heidel

The Spending Crunch

Posted on by
10

 

In the March 26, 2013 edition of the Wall Street Journal, the nonpartisan columnist Gerald Seib makes a very astute observation, namely that “Liberals Face Spending Dilemma”.  The Republicans are beating the drums for a balanced budget, the economy is growing at the anemic rate of 2% per year and entitlement spending is growing much more rapidly than this.  So what is going to happen?  Discretionary spending is going to have to shrink!   This means a big hit for both defense and nondefense discretionary spending, meaning most of the traditional programs funded by the federal government.
How do we get out of this predicament?  The best way would be to make the economy grow faster but this is unlikely to happen while the Democrats control the executive branch and are unwilling to implement pro-growth policies such as tax reform, deregulation and stepped-up international trade.
But even with more business friendly pro-growth policies, entitlement spending is growing way too fast and eating up a larger and larger piece of tax revenues.  The Republicans want to control the costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid but simply cannot get this done without Democratic cooperation and support.  Either Democrats help figure out how to make significant cost cutting changes to entitlements or else steep cuts in discretionary social spending will have to be made.
The Republican drive to rapidly shrink deficit spending down to zero is for real and will not be denied.  The sooner the big spending liberals figure this out and adjust their behavior, the better off will be the whole country.

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.

What are the Economic Effects of Immigration Reform?

Posted on by
2

Mr Argeo Cellucci and Stephen Kelly have recently (WSJ on March 10, 2013) made a very interesting proposal for immigration reform: “Taking a Nafta Approach to Immigration”.  The North American Free Trade Agreement, starting in 1994, has boosted trade between Canada, Mexico and the United States by over 400%.  Their proposal is to give unrestricted visas to all American, Canadian and Mexican citizens to live and work anywhere within the borders of our three countries.

Enacting such a plan would mostly solve our long simmering immigration problem overnight.  It does not offer citizenship for illegals in the U.S. and therefore is not amnesty.  Our current illegals with Mexican citizenship would attain legal status with visas but would still have to apply for, and wait for, citizenship through ordinary channels.

But the main reason for making such a change in immigration policy is economic, rather than to ease law enforcement or border control problems.  The scholar Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda has recently demonstrated in “The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”  the huge benefits that would ensue from such a policy change.  It would boost U.S. GDP by at least .84% annually which means that our slow recovery from the recession of about 2% GDP growth per year would increase by 50%.

Faster economic growth is the elixir our country badly needs to not only provide more jobs but to enable us to rapidly shrink deficit spending at the federal level and restore our national government to sound fiscal health.  Here’s how we can do it!

Why is Healthcare so Expensive?

Posted on by
2

Time Magazine has just published its longest article ever, a 25,000 word piece by Steven Brill, entitled Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us.  The article contains one example after another of outrageous medical bills being charged to people who are the least able to pay, either the indigent or the uninsured.  Mr. Brill’s solution to this horrible mess is for the government, i.e. the bureaucracy now being expanded by the Affordable Care Act, to do a much better job of using its clout to control costs.

But there is another point of view about what is wrong with our healthcare industry and what can and should be done to make it far more efficient and enable it to provide us with quality care at a much lower cost.  David Goldhill provides a roadmap to a consumer-driven healthcare system with his new book, Catastrophic care: How American Health Care Killed My Father and How we Can Fix It. 

Mr. Goldhill’s proposal is to introduce true competition, not quasi competition dictated by over-burdensome bureaucratic rules, into the American healthcare system.  In other words, let the marketplace figure out what works best by trial and error, rather than expecting even the brightest and most well-meaning experts to be able to figure it out a-priori.  There would still be massive government sponsored programs, such as cradle-to-grave catastrophic insurance and mandatory health accounts, to provide universal care for all.  But the myriad details would be left to the consumers and providers of healthcare to work out over time.

The healthcare crisis in the United States is not just about controlling the rapidly increasing costs of Medicare and Medicaid, as serious as this problem is.  It is also about controlling the costs of private healthcare which is retarding the growth of prosperity for the entire middle class.  Fundamentally we have two basic ways to proceed. We can either move toward a single payer government run program, like much the rest of the developed world, or we can set up a minimally controlled (to insure universal access) system where each of us has the primary responsibility for our own health.

Is There a Need for Urgency in Fixing Medicare?

Posted on by
2

In the February 27, 2013 edition of the New York Times the economics analyst Eduardo Porter writes that “Medicare Needs Fixing but not Right Now”. He shows that cost increases have slowed down recently and that there are huge disparities between Medicare reimbursement rates as well as hospital utilization rates by Medicare enrollees in different parts of the country.  Therefore we should first focus on operating Medicare more efficiently before making big changes in its finances.

But a recent study by Michael Chernew, Richard Frank and Stephen Parente, “Slowing Medicare Spending Growth: Reaching for Common Ground”, points out that historically Medicare costs have been growing much faster than GDP.  And now, with demographic pressure from retiring baby boomers, the only way to stabilize Medicare costs as a percentage of GDP, will be to hold per-beneficiary cost increases below the overall rate of GDP increase.

Chernew, Frank and Parente also point out that there are many similarities between the Republican voucher plan for cost control and the Democratic proposal to move away from the fee for service model to either a fixed payment per episode model or global payment per beneficiary model.  A voucher plan shifts responsibility for cost control to beneficiaries and their insurers while the global payment model shifts this responsibility to providers.

Conclusion: yes, it is an urgent matter to slow the growth in Medicare costs and also, yes, there is lots of common ground between the two parties in getting this done.  So let’s insist that our national leaders take Medicare reform seriously and accept no excuses for further delay!

Updated Simpson Bowles Plan versus the February 2013 CBO Report

Posted on by
9

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson have just released an updated version of their two year old plan to bring our national debt under control.  The new plan is called A Bipartisan Path Forward to Securing America’s Future.   It is very worthwhile to compare their new plan with a recent Report from the Congressional Budget Office.

Bowles and Simpson propose additional deficit reduction of $2.4 trillion over 10 years (which includes the $1.1 trillion in the sequester cuts currently scheduled to take effect on March 1, 2013).  This would have the effect of reducing the national debt from its current level of 76% of GDP in 2013 to 73% in ten years.  The CBO report presents three different scenarios.  Their middle route would require an additional $2 trillion in deficit reduction over and above current law (i.e. assuming  that the $1.1 trillion in sequester spending cuts will take place as scheduled).  This CBO middle route would reduce the Debt/GDP ratio to 67% by 2023.

In other words, for an additional deficit reduction of $700 billion over ten years, we’ll get an additional 6% of Debt/GDP reduction.  These numbers have huge practical significance.  Simpson-Bowles says that we need an additional $1.3 trillion in deficit reduction over and above the sequester cuts, which presumably will soon be enacted,  just to stabilize the national debt over a ten year period at the historically very high level of 73% of GDP.  That’s $130 billion a year for ten years.  Many people are complaining about the approximately 5% cuts in discretionary spending which will be required by the sequester.  But just to stabilize, not really shrink, the Debt/GDP ratio over ten years will require more than twice as much deficit reduction as the sequester.

To even mildly shrink the Debt/GDP ratio to 67% by 2023 will require yet an additional deficit reduction of $70 billion per year.  In other words, we will essentially have to triple the size of the sequester effect in order to achieve real debt reduction over ten years.  And all of this assumes favorable economic conditions such as steady growth and continued low inflation.

Do our national leaders have the will to do what should be easily understood as needed by anyone looking at the numbers with any degree of objectivity?  Let’s hope so because the future of our country depends on it!

The Connection between Business Investment and Unemployment, Revisited

Posted on by
Reply

In my previous post I discussed the very close inverse relationship between business investment and unemployment pointed out by John Taylor in his February 4, 2013 blog entry.  Paul Krugman pointed out that that investment can be subdivided into residential and nonresidential components and that residential investment shrunk dramatically during the Great Recession.  According to Krugman, this invalidates Taylor’s conclusion that the best way to boost the economy is to boost business investment.

But Taylor has done further analysis which shows that it is the nonresidential component of total fixed investment which has the very close inverse relationship with unemployment, not the residential component.

In other words, the best way to boost the economy, and thereby increase employment, is to stop giving excuses for our slow recovery because of low housing prices and to motivate businesses in general to increase investment.  There are various ways to do this, as pointed out by many commentators including myself and, the important thing, is to increase movement in this direction.

The Connection between Business Investment and Unemployment

Posted on by
Reply

The Stanford economist, John Taylor, has pointed out in the February 4, 2013 entry of his blog, Economics One, the strikingly close correlation between business investment and the national unemployment rate. His graph shows that since 1990, whenever business investment increases, then the unemployment rate starts to fall with only a short time lag.  And, vice-versa, when business investment starts to fall, then the unemployment rate starts to increase.

It seems like plain common sense, then, that a very good way to boost the economy and thereby create more jobs, is to figure out how to motivate businesses to increase their rates of investment.  One way to accomplish this is to let businesses speed up their tax deductions for capital investment.  Of course, the best way of all would be to completely eliminate the corporate income tax.

Approximately 10% of federal tax revenue comes from the corporate income tax.  This amounts to roughly $250 billion per year.  Such a loss of federal revenue could easily be balanced by closing loopholes and deductions for high income taxpayers.  Such a shift in federal taxation would provide an enormous boost to the economy.

Making our economy grow faster is the key to solving both our very serious economic (putting people back to work) and fiscal (shrinking our federal deficit) problems.  Any and all ways to get this done should be the top priority of our national political leaders.