The President’s Budget: Stabilization of the Debt Is Not Enough!

Posted on February 5, 2015 by jackheidel

President Obama has proposed a $3.99 trillion budget for next year, a $340 billion increase from the current 2015 budget year. As shown in the charts below, it projects deficits of about 2.6% over the next ten years equal to its (optimistic in comparison to the CBO) growth projections for GDP. This means that the debt would stabilize at about 73% of GDP. And, of course, achieving his predicted stabilization of debt will require big tax increases over this ten year period.
Here are the major weaknesses in the budget:

Sequestration. The President declares that “I’m not going to accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward.” Everyone deplores the mindlessness of sequestration but the only responsible alternative is to make targeted cuts throughout the budget. The President makes no attempt to do this. And he wants to add spending for various new education and research initiatives, as well as an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income workers.

Infrastructure. Spending over the next six years would increase by $238 billion to be raised from a 14% repatriation tax on the $2 trillion in foreign earnings held overseas by American multinational corporations. The problem is that any repatriation tax should be tied in with overall corporate and business tax reform, exchanging lower tax rates in return for closing loopholes and deductions, in order to make U.S. business taxes competitive with those of other countries. Fundamental tax reform is the key to getting our economy growing faster.

Entitlements. The President’s budget does not even mention the biggest threat to long-term fiscal sustainability, namely the rapidly increasing spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. It will be very difficult to make progress on this critical issue without presidential leadership.

Stabilization of the Debt. The President’s budget, with quite optimistic revenue and growth projections, stabilizes the debt over ten years. But this is not nearly good enough. To be satisfied with a public debt of 73% of GDP indefinitely into the future is simply too risky. What’s going to happen when we have another financial crisis, as we surely will? How are we going to cope with our growing rivalry with China with very little budget flexibility? And one can imagine any number of other possible emergencies which might occur. Putting the debt on a clear downward trajectory is the only prudent thing to do!

It’s Paul Krugman Who Is Being Irresponsible!

Posted on February 3, 2015 by jackheidel

The New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, writes provocatively on fiscal and economic issues and is well-known as a liberal icon. Usually I ignore his diatribes. But his column yesterday, “The Long-Run Cop-Out” goes way overboard.
I will refute several of the statements from this column.

“Think about it: Faced with mass unemployment and the enormous waste it entails, for years the beltway elite devoted all most all its energy not to promoting recovery, but to Bowles-Simpsonism – to devising “grand bargains” that would address the supposedly urgent problem of how we’ll pay for Social Security and Medicare a couple of decades from now.” Worrying about our enormous and rapidly increasing national debt, does not mean ignoring our sluggish economy and the high unemployment it causes. The way to increase economic growth is to enact broad based tax reform by lowering tax rates, offset by closing loopholes and limiting deductions. This will further boost the economy in the same way that lower gasoline prices is already doing.

“Many projections suggest that our major social insurance programs will face financial difficulties in the future (although the dramatic slowing of increases in health costs makes even that proposition uncertain).” Healthcare costs dropped to 4.1% in 2014 but this is still more than double the inflation rate of 1.7%. This isn’t nearly good enough.

“Why, exactly, is it crucial that we deal with the threat of future benefit cuts by locking in plans to cut future benefits?” The point is to protect benefits, not curtail them. If we act now, to increase revenue and/or slow down the growth of entitlement spending, then we won’t have to cut future benefits.

“So why the urge to change the subject (from austerity) to structural reform? The answer, I’d suggest, is intellectual laziness and lack of moral courage.” $6 trillion added to our debt in the last six years is profligacy, not austerity. It is immoral to burden future generations with such massive new debt.

“In today’s economic and political environment, long-termism is a cop-out.” Preparing for the future is just plain common sense. Should we ignore festering problems like global warming, illegal immigration and increasing poverty until they get much worse? Of course not. We should address these problems now and get our debt under control at the same time.

Solving the Student Debt Problem?

Posted on January 25, 2015 by jackheidel

Today’s New York Times has an excellent article by Kevin Carey on the current status of federal student loans, “A Quiet Revolution is Helping Lift the Burden of Student Debt.” Our current system, called Income-Based Repayment, allows former students to repay their college loans, on a monthly basis, at a rate of 10% of net income, after deducting basic living expenses. It forgives all loan balances after 20 years, reduced to only 10 years for people who work for government or non-profits. As shown in the chart below, participation in the IBR program is increasing rapidly.
Mr. Carey shows by example, that the IBR program is quite generous to low paid workers. Take a teacher who borrows the national average of $29,000 for a bachelor’s degree and another $13,000 for a master’s degree and then takes a teaching job starting at $35,000 and paying $50,000 ten years later. The teacher’s monthly payments will start at $117 and rise to about $200 in the tenth year. The teacher will pay back a total of $18,360 and be forgiven the remainder of $48,840 of principal and interest after 10 years.
It makes sense to subsidize college education for teachers and others who work in low wage occupations. The problem, of course, is that it is very expensive to do so. The federal government is now committing over $100 billion each year to student loans. There is over $1 trillion in outstanding federal student loan debt.
Many people have pointed out that our very generous student loan program is subsidizing the rapidly increasing cost of American higher education. Here are two specific ways to address this problem:

Put limits on the amount of money an individual can borrow for college expenses. One such suggestion, from the political scientist, Peter Salins, would set the maximum value of a loan at 50% of the full prevailing average cost of educating undergraduates at U.S. public colleges.
Require all colleges to cover 20% of a defaulting student’s loan out of their own pockets. Sheila Bair makes this suggestion for for-profit colleges only but it should apply to all colleges, public and private as well as for-profit.

There are lots of low-cost and high quality educational institutions around the country, including the University of Nebraska at Omaha where I work! Both students (and their families), as well as the colleges they attend, need to have higher stakes in limiting the explosive costs of higher education.

The Future of American Higher Education

Posted on January 13, 2015 by jackheidel

President Obama’s proposal, to make community college free of cost for all Americans, is generating a lot of controversy. Major complaints are that:

The projected cost of $6 billion per year is too high and the program is highly duplicative with other scholarship programs such as Pell grants.
Education is primarily a state and local responsibility, not federal.
The graduation rate at community colleges is only 21%, much lower than at other types of educational institutions.
There is a whole new marketplace of non-degree credentials such as competency-based programs and micro-certifications which often provide greater variety, quality and monetary value than community college programs.

These criticisms are largely valid and should largely be incorporated into the guidelines of the President’s proposal as they are drawn up and submitted to Congress.
But they miss the larger point. Today, about 30% of young people in the U.S. graduate from a four year college. Tuition and fees at public college averages $9,000 per year while the comparable cost at private colleges is $31,000. Loan debt for college graduates averages $27,000 per year, and is much higher for many. And, according to the above chart from the New York Times, educational attainment in the U.S. lags behind the rest of the developed world.
Today’s increasingly high-tech and interconnected world puts a huge premium on educational attainment and America’s system of higher education is not meeting the challenge. It is too expensive and not educating enough people, especially minorities and those with low-incomes.
The best way to address this problem in a cost-efficient manner, which is a necessity in today’s fiscal climate, is to expand opportunities at our 1100 community colleges. Community colleges are not only incredibly low cost operations, they accept all students and start them out at whatever academic level is necessary. They provide the ideal venue to lift up large numbers of average and previously-failed students and turn them into productive members of society. Boosting community college enrollments will, in turn, give our economy a big boost.
This is the real reason why President Obama’s free tuition plan should be taken seriously. It will shine a strong light on an educational sector whose potential is greatly under-appreciated by many Americans.

The American People Are Amazingly Upbeat!

Posted on December 11, 2014 by jackheidel

I think of myself as a political moderate, conservative on fiscal matters and somewhat liberal on social issues. My blog posts are usually based on a recent newspaper article or think tank study presenting one side or the other of an important issue in an intelligent way. In other words, I seldom bother to refute what I consider to be dumb ideas. I assume that they will eventually die of their own dead weight. My favorite approach is to respond to an attractive article with which I may have a somewhat different point of view.
Today’s New York Times has such an article, “Many Feel American Dream is Out of Reach, Poll Shows,” pointing out that 64% of a NYT Poll respondents think that it is possible to start out poor and become rich (see above chart), which opinion has dropped from 72% in 2009. The Poll also reports that:

81% of Americans have confidence in their own local banks whereas only 41% have confidence in Wall Street bankers and brokers.
52% think the economic system in the U.S. is basically fair, since all Americans have a chance to succeed, whereas 45% think it is unfair.
54% of Americans think that over-regulation of the economy, which interferes with economic growth, is a bigger problem than under-regulation, which may create an unequal distribution of wealth.

For almost two-thirds of Americans to be upbeat about the American Dream, after six or seven years of recession and slow recovery is to me a very positive sign. After a severe financial crisis, it is not at all surprising that “main street” bankers have a much higher favorability rating than “Wall Street” bankers.
Several months ago I reported on a survey taken by the progressive Global Strategy Group showing that 80% of voters consider economic growth more important than income inequality.
Both today’s NYT Poll and the previous GSG Survey are saying loud and clear that Americans put a high premium on economic growth and this is where our national leaders should be concentrating their time and energy. The new Republican majority in Congress has an almost historic opportunity to get this right. Let’s hope they don’t blow it!

Is Health Care Spending Really Under Control?

Posted on December 9, 2014 by jackheidel

The New York Times has two recent articles about health care spending, “Good News inside the Health Spending Numbers” and “The Battle over Douglas Elmendorf – and the Inability to See Good News.” These two articles focus on the fact, clearly evident in the chart just below, that the rate of increase in overall health care spending has slowed down since 2009. In fact health care spending has been a constant 17.4% of GDP for the past four years, while it increased by 1.9% of GDP in the four years before that. More precisely, health care spending rose by 3.6% in 2013, down from 4.1% in 2012.
It is, of course, very good news that increases in health care spending have dropped dramatically since the recession in 2007-2009, but is it really surprising that this has happened in the midst of so much economic pain, with a very high rate of unemployment as well as stagnant incomes for most Americans? In fact, even in these circumstances, health care spending is still growing at twice the rate of inflation, which has been under 2% during this same time period.
A more realistic view of health care spending has just been presented to the Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by Marc Goldwein, from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington D.C. think tank focused on fiscal responsibility. Mr. Goldwein makes the following points:

Despite the recent slowdown in health care spending, it remains incredibly important that policymakers pursue reforms to reduce future projected health care costs.
Policymakers should focus first and foremost on health care “benders” that would improve incentives in order to slow the overall growth of health care spending.
Policymakers should next look to health cost “savers” which reduce federal costs by better allocating resources within the federal health programs.
Given the aging of the population, health reforms will be necessary but not sufficient to put the debt on a sustainable long-term track.

Slowing down the rate of growth of health care is going to be a huge challenge for our national leaders. I will elaborate on how to do this in forthcoming blog posts.

Let’s Keep the Economic Momentum Going

Posted on December 7, 2014 by jackheidel

There has been lots of good economic news lately:

The economy added 321,000 jobs in November, the most in one month since January 2012.
The unemployment rate of 5.8% remains steady and is down from 7% in November 2013.
The average hourly earnings for workers is up by 2.1% from a year earlier.
Economic growth for the third quarter is up 3.9% from the previous quarter.
The deficit for the 2014-2015 fiscal year was “only” 2.8% of GDP and is predicted by the Congressional Budget Office to drop to 2.6% for the current year.
The price of a gallon of gasoline has dropped to $2.71 on average, its lowest level since 2010 and is still dropping.

Capture The New York Times predicts that the “Brighter Economy Raises Odds of Action in Congress.” Jason Furman, Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, is quoted as saying that “At least there will be less of a philosophical debate on infrastructure, tax reforms and expanding exports. You can have that agenda because the economy is not in free fall.” These three items would make a great agenda for the 114^th Congress in the following way:

Infrastructure. The continuing drop in the price of gasoline offers the opportunity to replenish the inadequately funded Highway Trust Fund in a fiscally responsible manner. Congress should raise the federal gasoline tax above its current 18 cents per gallon to a level which is sufficient to fund the entire federal share of highway construction and repair.

Tax reform. Individual and corporate tax reform will give the economy a huge boost. The idea here is to lower tax rates in a revenue neutral way by closing loopholes and deductions.

Expanding Exports. What’s needed here is to give the President fast track negotiating authority so that Congress has to vote any trade agreement up or down without modification. This is the only way to get other countries to make concessions.

Of course there are many other issues which need to be seriously addressed by the new Congress. But relatively quick action on just these three less controversial items would be a great start!

Nebraska Will Benefit From Immigration Reform

Posted on November 30, 2014 by jackheidel

Several months ago the Omaha World Herald reported that Nebraska has approximately 45,000 illegal immigrants, or about 2.5% of the state’s population. Nebraska’s unemployment rate has now dropped to 3.4%, the third lowest in the nation behind only North Dakota and South Dakota. Such a low unemployment rate represents a labor shortage. There simply aren’t enough Nebraskans to perform all of the physically demanding, low skill work needed in the agriculture, meatpacking and construction industries. It is this labor shortage which is attracting such a large number of illegal immigrants to Nebraska.
According to the New York Times, the Tea Party has recently changed its focus from “curtailing the reach of the federal government, cutting the deficit and countering the Wall Street wing of the Republican Party to becoming largely an anti-immigration overhaul movement.” This is a very unfortunate development.
Why would it be so difficult to solve our illegal immigration problem in the following manner:

Give all businesses a limited period of time, perhaps six months, to present a list of current employees who are illegal. Everyone on this list without a criminal record would receive a guest worker visa.
Going forward, businesses would be authorized to hire additional foreign workers as needed with guest worker visas issued in their home country. This would eliminate the need for illegal entry into the U.S.
As of a certain date in the near future, all businesses would be required to periodically demonstrate the legal status of all workers on their payroll.
Guest workers would be eligible to apply for citizenship after a lengthy period of time, perhaps ten years.

Once an adequate guest worker visa program has been set up and is operating efficiently, security on our southern border with Mexico would hardly be more of a problem than is security on our northern border with Canada. Illegal immigration should be considered as an economic problem, not a law-enforcement problem.
If it were handled correctly in this way, the problem would disappear in short order!

The Great Wage Slowdown and How to Fix It

Posted on November 11, 2014 by jackheidel

With a new Congress just elected, this is a good time to reflect about what changes should be made in public policy. Our biggest economic problem is to speed up growth in order to provide more and better paying jobs. In addition, a faster growing economy would bring in more tax revenue which would help pay our bills and reduce the deficit.
A column in today’s New York Times, “The Great Wage Slowdown, Looming over Politics,” by David Leonhardt, proposes a cut in the marginal tax rate for the middle class as a way of boosting their incomes. As can be seen in the above chart, median household income has been flat since the year 2000, and even lower since the 2008 recession. Mr. Leonhardt goes on to say that any tax cut for the middle class should be balanced by a tax increase for the wealthy.
It so happens that I proposed such a plan several months ago as a way of boosting the economy and reducing inequality at the same time. The idea is to enact broad-based tax reform whereby tax rates are lowered for all, offset by shrinking tax deductions. The 64% of taxpayers who do not itemize deductions will receive a big tax cut. But these are the very middle-class wage earners with stagnant incomes. So they will likely spend their tax savings, thereby giving the economy a big boost.
More specifically:

Individual tax deductions total about $1 trillion per year.
Let’s suppose that these deductions are cut in half to $500 billion per year.
Let’s further suppose that half of this amount, or $250 billion per year, is cut from the taxes of the 64% who do not itemize deductions.
If these 64% spend just 2/3 of their new income (instead of saving it or paying off debt), this will total $170 billion which is 1% of GDP.
This would increase the rate of growth of GDP from the 2.2% average, since the end of the Great Recession, to 3.2%. This represents an enormous boost to the economy and would return average GDP growth to about its 3.3% average since 1947.
Mr. Leonhardt suggests that presidential contenders in 2016 would greatly benefit from proposing a tax rate cut for the middle class. Here’s a specific plan they can use!

The Problem of Soaring World Population

Posted on November 9, 2014 by jackheidel

As I remind readers from time to time, this blog is focused on the fiscal and economic problems of the U.S. Our biggest fiscal problem is not having enough tax revenue to pay our bills. Our biggest economic problem is a stagnant economy which leaves too many people unemployed or underemployed.
My last three post have been on the subject of climate change. This is a worldwide problem which has a huge effect on the U.S. There’s going to be a cost in cutting way back on carbon emissions. But there will soon be a much greater cost if we don’t cut back and therefore suffer the growing adverse environmental effects.
Now there is another looming problem. The journal Science has just published the article “World population stabilization unlikely this century,” reporting that world population, now 7.2 billion, is likely to reach 9.6 billion by 2050 and 10.9 billion by 2100. Much of the increase will take place in Africa due to higher fertility rates because of a recent slowdown in the pace of fertility decline.
The implications of a growing world population are huge:

First of all, it will add even more stress to an environment which is already being increasingly stressed by global warming.
Secondly, it will aggravate a slowdown in middle-income wage growth throughout the developed world. This is very evident in the above chart. What is happening is that the force of globalization is shifting lower skilled work to lower paid workers in the developing world. A larger population in the developing world will simply exacerbate this trend.

The noted economist, Tyler Cowen, has a different perspective on this problem, “A Strategy for Rich Countries: Absorb More Immigrants,” in today’s New York Times. But Mr. Cowen’s approach is untenable for the long run. The idea that you can offset an increase in the elderly population with an even bigger increase in the younger population will lead to an ever-growing overall population.
What then is the answer to over-population? It is either more birth control or less sex. Take your pick!

It Does Not Add Up

Jack Heidel's blog on fiscal responsibility

Tag Archives: New York Times