Tag Archives: jack heidel

Why Our National Debt Is a Very Serious Problem for All Americans, but Especially the Poor

Posted on by
2

 

Congress has just postponed the debt ceiling until December 8 but at least they didn’t repeal it.  It is crucial to retain regular and explicit debt ceilings as a reminder of the urgency of putting our debt on a downward course (as a percentage of GDP).
As a reminder:

  • The debt now stands at 77% of GDP (for the public part on which we pay interest), the highest it has been since right after WWII. The $15 trillion public debt right now is essentially “free” money because interest rates are so low. But interest rates will inevitably return to more normal, and higher, historical levels and, when this happens, interest payments on the debt will skyrocket.
  • The entitlement programs of Social Security. Medicare and Medicaid are the drivers of our debt problem because their costs are increasing so rapidly. Medicaid costs the federal government almost $400 billion per year. Medicare costs the federal government $400 billion per year more than it receives in FICA taxes and premiums paid.

The attached chart demonstrates the scope and urgency of the problem.  By 2032, just fifteen years from now, all federal tax revenues will be required to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest payments on the debt. This means that all of ordinary discretionary spending: on defense, various government operations and social welfare programs will be paid for entirely from new deficit spending and, in the process, will almost inevitably suffer huge cutbacks.  The lower-income and poor people, who are the most reliant on government programs to get by, will be the most adversely affected.

Conclusion. Such a dreary scenario of drastically tightened government spending does not have to occur. It can be avoided by immediately starting to make sensible curtailments, not actual spending cuts, all along the line.  Do our national leaders have the common sense and fortitude to do this?

Follow me on Twitter 
Follow me on Facebook 

 

 

Don’t Get Rid of the Debt Ceiling!

Posted on by
Reply

 

Congress has just voted to postpone the debt ceiling by three months until December 8. That’s okay; it’s just a tactic which also provides quick federal help for the damage caused by Hurricane Harvey.  The important thing is not to repeal the debt ceiling entirely.
As I have said before, global warming and national debt are both creeping catastrophes.  We ignore them at our great peril.  Right now hurricanes Harvey and Irma are reminding us of the huge devastation which can be caused by extreme weather events (which are made more likely by global warming).
In the same way, having an explicit debt ceiling reminds us at regular intervals that we have a very serious problem which will eventually catch up with us if we don’t take strong action to address it.


I know that I’m repeating myself but I can’t help it!

  • The National Debt, now 77% of GDP (for the public part on which we pay interest), is the highest it has been since right after WWII. It is predicted by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that it will keep getting steadily worse without major changes in current policy.
  • The urgency of the debt problem is based on the fact that interest rates are now so low that our debt is almost “free” money. But interest rates will inevitably return to more normal, and higher, historical levels and, when this happens, interest payments on the debt will increase dramatically. This will eventually lead to a new Fiscal Crisis, much worse than the Financial Crisis of 2008.
  • The solution to this problem need not be drastic. Federal spending is growing by 5% per year while tax revenues are increasing by 3% per year. All we need to do, so to speak (because it will take some restraint!), is to hold spending increases to about 2.5% per year and then the federal budget would be balanced in a few years and debt would start shrinking as a percentage of GDP.

Conclusion.  Congress, the President and the American people need to be reminded often and loudly how serious the debt problem is.  Hopefully the message will eventually sink in.  The sooner the better!

Follow me on Twitter 
Follow me on Facebook 

 

 

Why Entitlement Spending Is So Difficult to Control

Posted on by
6

 

The readers of this blog know that my favorite topic is our very large national debt, now 77% of GDP (for the public part on which we pay interest) and predicted by the Congressional Budget Office to keep steadily getting worse, without major changes in current policy.


It is also well documented (see chart)  that our entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the drivers of the huge annual budget deficits which make the accumulated debt so much worse and worse.
The economist John Cogan has an informative interview in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal explaining why entitlement spending is so difficult to control. First of all, according to Mr. Cogan, only three modern presidents have made any effort to control entitlement spending:

  • FDR who persuaded Congress to repeal unjustified disability entitlements to 400,000 WWI, Philippine War and Boxer Rebellion veterans.
  • Ronald Reagan “slowed the growth of entitlements like no other president ever had.”
  • Bill Clinton’s welfare-reform plan not only reduced welfare’s burden on taxpayers but also benefitted the recipients, whom the old program had been harming.

 

Mr. Cogan identified three necessary political conditions for any entitlement reform. They are:

  • Presidential leadership “without which there has never been a significant reduction in an entitlement.”
  • Significant agreement among the general public and the elected representatives that there’s a problem.
  • Bipartisan consensus on the solution for correcting the problem.

Conclusion.  Think about it.  This is a quite a gloomy assessment.  Nothing will get done on the primary reason for our huge debt problem without both presidential leadership and bipartisan political support. When is this going to happen?

Follow me on Twitter 
Follow me on Facebook 

Why Can’t Democrats and Republicans Work Together?

Posted on by
2

 

I am a non-ideological fiscal conservative and social moderate. I agree with Republicans on some issues and Democrats on others.  It seems to me that there is a lot of common ground between the two national parties and plenty of opportunity for working together.


For example:

  • The economy. Donald Trump was elected President with the support of blue-collar workers. He wants to help them out by speeding up economic growth.  But the Democrats also want to give a boost to the working class.  Why not lower the corporate tax rate to encourage multi-national companies to bring their profits back to the U.S.? Why not exempt small community banks from Dodd-Frank so they can lend more money to main street businesses?
  • Sustainable healthcare. After failing to repeal and replace the ACA, Republicans now have to accept that universal health insurance is here to stay even though it needs much better cost control. The popularity of employer provided health insurance makes single payer healthcare unacceptable to many. Two major changes are needed to lower healthcare costs.  The ACA Cadillac tax should be replaced by an upper limit on the tax exemption for employer provided insurance. The Medicare Part B premium covers only 25% of the cost of that program and should be increased on a means adjusted basis.
  • Immigration policy. With the unemployment rate now 4.4% and dropping, a huge labor shortage is beginning to develop which will retard economic growth. We now need more skilled and unskilled immigrants alike.  An expanded guest-worker program to meet the needs of employers should be created. Enhanced border security can be part of the mix.
  • Military spending. In a dangerous world we need a strong military defense. But there is a lot of waste in the Pentagon budget. Do we really need 800 foreign bases in over 70 different countries?  Nebraska’s own Chuck Hagel identified $25 billion a year in military waste while he was Secretary of Defense.

Conclusion. Here are just a few ways that the two parties can work together to address some of our biggest national problems. Faster economic growth and fiscal restraint just make common sense.

Follow me on Twitter 
Follow me on Facebook 

How Should We Respond to Global Warming?

Posted on by
Reply

 

In my last post I summarized the scientific evidence which convinces me that global warming is occurring and is primarily caused by the emission of carbon dioxide from the use of fossil fuels for energy production.
Several Face Book comments on my post suggest that there could be other causes such as a decrease in cloud cover over the earth, sunspot activity and even the carbon dioxide which is exhaled by the 7 billion (and growing number of) humans now alive on earth.  I am personally unable to evaluate the validity of these possible causes.  I rely on the overwhelming consensus of climate experts that the problem is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.


Perhaps the scariest evidence is the warming of the oceans and the related rising of sea levels by 1/8 of an inch per year (which is equivalent to a one foot rise per century). When I referred to the three recent catastrophic hurricanes of Katrina (2005), Sandy (2012) and now Harvey, several readers responded that there is no proof that the severity of these storms was caused by global warming.
I agree!  It is just that warmer oceans mean more evaporation and therefore more rainfall around the world.  This means that severe storms will become more likely as the oceans become warmer.


Take a look at the two charts from the current issue of The Economist.  They show that various types of natural disasters have been increasing in recent years and that record-breaking precipitation events are on the increase.
Conclusion. Global warming is already happening.  But we can act to keep it from getting worse.  More renewable energy (wind and solar) is only part of the answer.  The best way to cut back on carbon emissions is with a (revenue neutral) carbon tax.  This would be much more efficient than ad hoc regulations like the Clean Power Plan and ever higher auto gas mileage standards.

Follow me on Twitter 
Follow me on Facebook 

The Evidence for Global Warming: A Summary

Posted on by
Reply

 

Global warming is a controversial issue and I would like to take as dispassionate a look at it as I possibly can. First, I will summarize what I consider to be the main evidence for global warming and then discuss what this means for public policy.


Here is the evidence as I see it:

  • Greenhouse gasses (mostly carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution and have now reached approximately 400 parts per million.
  • Ocean heat content has been building steadily in recent years.  Warmer water means more evaporation into the atmosphere which means more precipitation around the world.
  • The extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic has gradually been receding.
  • A big chunk of sea ice (the size of Delaware) has just broken off the Antarctic Peninsula and is floating in the South Atlantic Ocean.
  • The sea level is rising at the rate of one-eighth of an inch per year which is equivalent to one foot per century. Globally, eight of the world’s ten largest cities are near a coast.
  • In the U.S. Spring is arriving earlier each year on average, especially in the Southeast.

Some of these phenomena may be beneficial such as more rainfall around the world and longer growing seasons. Less ice in the Arctic Ocean allows more summer navigation.  But rising sea levels will become catastrophic in low-lying coastal areas.

Conclusion. The above observational evidence for global warming is well established and hopefully non-controversial. The sources are scientific agencies whose integrity should be  beyond reproach. Once we accept the fact that global warming is for real and is caused by human activity, the question is what we should do about it.  This will be the topic of my next post.

Follow me on Twitter 
Follow me on Facebook 

 

Global Warming and Debt Are Both Creeping Catastrophes

Posted on by
Reply

 

Three devastating hurricanes have struck the U.S. in recent years: Katrina (2005), Sandy (2012) and now Harvey (2017). Hurricanes and tropical storms are natural events which have occurred since the distant past, long before global warming became a problem.
What has changed is that the oceans are now steadily getting warmer by absorbing much of the heat reflected back to earth by greenhouse gases (see chart).  Warmer water has more latent energy and this makes hurricanes more severe. The warmer the oceans become, the more devastating future hurricanes will be.


It is (past) time to get serious about global warming.  As the world’s strongest country, it is up to the U.S. to provide leadership on this very serious problem.  The best way we can respond is by adopting a (revenue neutral) carbon tax to discourage future carbon emissions as much as possible.  This problem is not going to disappear but it is within our power to limit the damage it causes before it gets a lot worse.
The exact same thing is true about our national debt.  At 77% of GDP (for the public part on which we pay interest), it is the highest it has been since the end of WWII. Right now interest rates are so low that our debt is almost “free money.”  But interest rates will eventually return to more historically normal levels.  When this happens, interest payments on the debt will rise by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.  At that point a severe Fiscal Crisis will not be far behind.
Again, debt is a solvable problem if only our national leaders will take it seriously.  All it requires (so to speak, because it won’t be easy!) is to limit future federal spending in sensible ways.

Conclusion. Both global warming and national debt are serious, urgent problems. The sooner we get started on addressing them, the better off we will be.

Follow me on Twitter 
Follow me on Facebook 

What Do I Mean When I Say I’m a Fiscal Conservative?

Posted on by
2

 

Americans are a very fortunate people. We are protected by two oceans and friendly neighbors to our north and south.  We are the strongest country in the world, both economically and militarily.  We provide the world with cutting edge leadership in many areas such as technology, finance, energy production, scientific research and university education.
In short we live in a very successful, prosperous and complex society.  We do have serious problems but they are being addressed by our elaborate legal and governmental processes and structures. Slowly but surely life in America is getting better and better all the time.
Given our country’s size, complexity and dominance in the world, it is inevitable that government will also grow in size and structure in order to take on new responsibilities. It is completely unrealistic to think that we can return to a more limited form of government that existed in the past.
When I say, then, that I’m a fiscal conservative, I am not advocating for less government but merely that we pay for the government that we have, in other words, act in a fiscally responsible manner.


And we are not doing this at the present time:

  • Our national debt, now 77% of GDP (for the public debt on which we pay interest), is the highest since right after WWII. It is predicted by the Congressional Budget Office that it will keep steadily getting worse without major changes in current policy.
  • The urgency of the debt problem is based on the fact that interest rates are now so low that it is almost “free” money. But interest rates will inevitably return to more normal historical levels and, when this happens, interest payments on the debt will skyrocket. Eventually this will lead to a Fiscal Crisis, much worse than the Financial Crisis of 2008.
  • The solution to this problem need not be drastic. Federal spending is growing by 5% per year while tax revenues are growing by 3% per year. If we would just hold spending increases down to 2.5% per year, the federal budget would be balanced in a few years and our debt would start shrinking as a percentage of GDP.

Conclusion. Spending restraint, with very few actual spending cuts, is all that it will take to put our debt problem on a path to solution. Surely we are capable of acting in a fiscally responsible manner like this!

Follow me on Twitter 
Follow me on Facebook 

Should I Run for the U.S. Senate?

Posted on by
6

 

For the past almost five years, beginning in November 2012, I have been blogging about fiscal and economic issues facing the United States. With the unemployment rate now down to 4.3%, and the economy growing at 2% annually and likely to pick up speed, our biggest problem by far is an exploding national debt, currently 77% of GDP (for the public debt on which we pay interest), the highest since the end of WWII.
There are two announced candidates so far for the Nebraska Senate seat which becomes open in January 2019:

  • The incumbent, Senator Deb Fischer, a Republican
  • Jane Raybould, Lincoln City Councilwoman, a Democrat.

There is always enormous pressure on members of Congress to maintain or increase spending for popular projects and little pressure to cut anything. In general, Republicans deplore large deficits and debt but are ineffective in implementing fiscal restraint while Democrats simply don’t want to talk about the debt problem at all. I am a non-ideological (registered independent) fiscal conservative and social moderate, highly focused on substantially shrinking our annual deficits over a short time period.


Here are my options for the Senate race:

  • Enter the Republican Primary. I would get almost no traction running against the incumbent Republican in the Primary, even though she is a big spender, and I am antiabortion and support a national 20 week cutoff for most abortions.
  • Run as an independent. This is futile without huge name recognition or financial resources, of which I have neither.
  • Enter the Democratic Primary. The announced candidate has a strong party affiliation which I lack. But she has little chance of defeating Senator Fischer in the general election whereas I could by credibly hammering Fischer as a big spender.

Please respond! Please give me you input on this matter one way or another. My email address is jackheidel@yahoo.com.  Would you support me as a Senate candidate?  Congress badly needs more members who are serious about shrinking our debt and I am such a person.  More later!

Follow me on Twitter 
Follow me on Facebook 

 

Getting Started on Fiscal Responsibility

Posted on by
1

 

This blog is devoted to fiscal and economic issues facing the U.S. Both the Trump Administration and the Democrats are working to speed up economic growth and I believe there is a good chance that this will happen.
However there is not nearly enough interest in addressing an even bigger problem:  our national debt, is now larger, in relative terms, than at any time since the end of WWII.


This is a very difficult political problem because elected representatives would much rather say yes than say no to new programs and more spending.  It is even more difficult to try to restrain the growth of, let alone cut, existing programs.
The Congressional Budget Office has recently published a long list of possible ways to decrease federal spending (or increase federal revenues) over the next ten years. It is interesting to pull out several of these suggestions to see what can be accomplished:

Program                                                                                              10 year savings

  • Eliminate concurrent receipt of retirement pay and disability              $139 billion for veterans.
  • Use an alternative measure of inflation to index mandatory               $182 billion
    programs.
  • Reduce funding for International Affairs Programs.                            $117 billion
  • Limit highway funding to expected highway revenues.                          $40 billion
  • Reduce the size of the federal workforce through attrition                     $50 billion
  • Reduce funding for grants to state and local governments                    $56 billion
  • Impose caps on federal spending for Medicaid                                    $680 billion
  • Increase premiums for Medicare Parts B and D from 25% to              $331 billion 35% of cost.
    Total     $1595 billion

Conclusion. This brief list of budget restraints would reduce deficit spending by about $160 billion per year.   This is significant but not nearly enough compared to the projected deficit of $685 billion for just the 2017 fiscal year alone.  About 2/3 of the savings come from the two entitlement programs of Medicare and Medicaid. The idea here is to give specific examples of the sort of changes which will be necessary to seriously confront our debt problem.

Follow me on Twitter 
Follow me on Facebook