Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Inching Closer to a Homeless USA?

Cartoon by Jim Gibson


Now that we avoided one cliff in October we now have a little time to avoid another one in early 2014. Predictably what gets done will be decided by real and imagined descriptions of past and future government spending growth. During the last standoff we heard about the sequester and how it limited government growth. Some Democrats use that fact today to strengthen their case for more future spending and higher taxes. 

But the government’s own forecasts belie that interpretation of austerity and show a real cause for alarm coming from future federal spending. Lawrence Summers recently argued in the Wall Street Journal that national debt is a secondary issue but I argue here that a continuing debt explosion threatens to make us all homeless.

I wrote on October 8 about the national debt and how the CBO believes that under current budget law the US net debt will hover around 70% through 2023 – staying well above the pre-recession rate and historical norm of about 36% of GDP. The implication is that even with the spending constraint implied by the Budget control Act of 2011 and the sequester, we cannot make even a tiny dent in the swollen national debt. Guest Blogger Jerry Lynch followed up on October 13 with a similar story citing the gross national debt staying at about 100% of GDP. It is one thing for debt to rise temporarily in an emergency like the world recession of 2008/2009 but it is another thing to let it remain so high for another 15 years or so!

Today’s posting reinforces this discussion of debt by focusing on government expenditures. I do that because of the many distortions we are hearing from politicians who do not want face up to tough spending challenges. Some are pointing to the fact that the US government deficit and federal government expenditures fell in 2012 and 2013 and conclude that we have taken care of the government’s financial problems and can now get on with more spending and higher taxes. But just like the debt figures already cited, the spending data show that we are on our way to financial disaster. Okay – so you lost 2 pounds on your new popcorn diet – but if you are 100 pounds overweight this is no time to celebrate with an upside-down pineapple cake with Jack Daniels flavored icing.

It is true that government spending declined during fiscal year 2012 by $61 billion dollars and by $82 billion in fiscal year 2013. That’s a two-year total decline of $143 billion. But that is a small part of a bigger story.  Between 2007 and 2011 – government spending rose by a total of $870 billion dollars. In those four years, government spending rose from $2.7 trillion to about $3.6 trillion. That’s an increase of about 30%. If we account for the spending reductions in 2012 and 2013, we are left with an increase of government spending from 2007 to 2013 of $727 billion – meaning that since 2007 government grew by about 27%.With or without the recent reductions we are nowhere near to anything one might call restraint or austerity.  

Now let’s look at the future. Whatever gains might have been started in 2012 and 2013 they are over, finished. The CBO budget scenarios assume the continuation of the budget caps and so called restraint from the Act of 2011 – but notice they do little to overcome inertial government growth. The CBO estimates that with restraint, government spending will grow by $147 billion in 2014 alone. That is, in just one year the federal government will make up for all reductions in 2012 and 2013. The yearly increases following this $147 billion increase will be (again assuming spending caps in place):
           
            2015  $175 billion
            2016  $261 billion
            2017  $223 billion

Some 10 years after the US recession began and almost eight years after it ended, government spending will have gone from $2.7 trillion in 2007 to $4.3 trillion in 2017. Government spending will have increased by about $1.5 trillion or by 56%.

Governments swear to us that crisis spending is always temporary to get permission to go deep into debt. As soon as someone suggests that the bloat be reduced, they immediate call these requests unreasonable or worse.

Debt problems are real. They won’t go away by raising taxes. The more taxes we raise the more these fiends will spend. The really sad thing is that government has the capacity to do a lot of good. But doing this good becomes harder and harder when the country goes further and further into debt. We put ourselves in the worst jeopardy by not getting the financial crisis under control. What happens if we have another recession? What happens if terrorism requires more military and security spending? What happens if the Fed tapers and interest expense doubles or triples? What happens if Larry needs more JD?

Many people become homeless because they get themselves into debt and then an emergency strikes. What happens when a country goes into debt and suffers a similar crisis? The answer is not good. Don’t listen to Washington crying. Something has to be done about government spending. Even if the progress is gradual – something must be done. For every year we remain with high debt, the more we weaken our economy and open it up to risk of crisis. That is no way to run a country.

10 comments:

  1. When we have another recession? Not if. According to a chart dating back to 1946...the year Larry and I were born... the interval between recessions averaged 7 years. 2014 looks like a good year supported by not much more than slow growth in the private economy. So most likely 2015 will see the next recession. Causes?...pick one.

    The D's need the funding for their giveaway programs and to take care of donors. The R's are in such disarray that they have no unified voice in the matter...probably after the 1014 elections...no voice at all. Does the fate of Greece sound all too familiar by 2024?. .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear James, Shame on you for telling people how old we are. You owe me a JD for that. You do make a good point however -- recessions are inevitable. If Gross Debt is 100% of GDP and we have a recession -- our choices will be much narrower. Luckily I love Greek food. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear LSD, you’ve said little will change in D.C. until a serious crisis (not yer every day, month-to-month crisis as the new normal we’ve created [I say we generally because that’s what we the country voted fer]) occurs. I thought the last crisis would be that crisis but the pols predictably kick’d the can down the alley once more only to reload in several weeks for a redux. As your current blog implies just cutting the rate of spending won’t make a dent in the debt. Major heart-lung-spinal cord intervention is needed.

    Recently talking heads have been chattering about the debt being left to the young folks—and oh, oh, the travesty. Ironically, those garrulous craniums mostly are liberals . . . Last weekend a good buddy Tea Partyer asked rhetorically if I’d vote for a leader—someone with vision—to get the two warring tribes to smoke wampum—someone like John Kennedy. My reply, “NFW ‘cause he’s a D!” I think my Tea Party buddy felt I missed his point but I doubt he missed mine—I could tell he didn’t like my answer.

    High debt-to-GDP will continue until either tribe wins the leg-wrestling contest for all three teepees. You say that condition will not—has not—produced meaningful changes. I will argue the former and concede the latter—BUT, as shure as D.C. compromise-as-usual will not produce the scalpel for major heart-lung-spinal cord intervention I shure would like to see the teepee trio in the R camp. If the Ds win then the leg wrestling loser (not only the Rs but the whole country) gets scalped. Now, that is whut I would characterize as the end-all major crisis. Are there any Indians in Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain . . . . ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Charles, A couple points. First, cutting the rate of spending would reduce the debt -- what I was saying is that while the sequester cut some spending, the other parts of the budget will more than make up that and spending is scheduled to rise a lot for the next 10 years. I strongly believe it is important to slow that growth in spending. Second, what I meant by a crisis is much bigger and worse than what we just went through. Nothing seems to get the attention of voters and congressmen. It will take a major crisis wherein we are truly unable to pay our bills for an extended period before people will catch on to the idea that too much spending and debt is damaging.

      Delete
  4. You state: Debt problems "won’t go away by raising taxes. The more taxes we raise the more these fiends will spend." Is there any empirical evidence to support this statement? It seems like the last 40 years have shown the opposite. Taxes went down in the 80s and 00s, but spending went up. Taxes went up in the 90s but spending was constrained. If anything, there seems to be a zero or negative correlation between government tax revenue and government spending.

    The problem with lowering taxes and then trying to cut spending (the Reagan Bush Cheney method) is that once you have slashed everyone's taxes, there is no incentive to rein in spending. It would be better to raise taxes and make it clear that taxes can go down again once spending is reined in. This is far more likely to result in reduced government spending.

    I understand that this may be politically unpopular, but it makes sense economically.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the comment Kyle. I think your position is very popular especially with those who see increases in tax revenues in a positive light. Much of what you say about correlations has to do with short-term changes in tax revenues and expenditures. Your conclusions would have to be supported by very careful modeling and I doubt anyone would be satisfied with the robustness of the results no matter what they found. Of considerable importance would be distinguishing cyclical from policy induced changes in taxes and spending. My skepticism is drawn from long term correlation they shows a consistent pattern of spending staying ahead of revenues -- as evidenced by deficits and growing debt. Surely in this sense increases in tax revenues have almost always been followed by more spending and more debt. My best way to get my kids to spend less is not to give them a bigger allowance!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the reply. I agree that modeling this would be difficult (although I wouldn't dismiss the results out of hand). Not sure I understand your point about long term correlations. It seems to me that US government spending has trended higher, which is obviously a concern for those who think it is too high (and generally this includes me). But that has been true whether taxes have gone up or down (hence my belief that the two are not positively correlated). Can you provide a counter-example - where taxes were cut and spending cuts followed? I can't think of one, and yet that is the default strategy that is often promoted.

      My best way to get my wife to spend less is not to quit my job. While it may eventually reduce spending, it will probably come at the cost of bankruptcy.

      It seems strange to me that you would state that the National Debt threatens to make us all homeless, but completely dismiss raising taxes. If the primary threat to our national well-being is the national debt, I would want to use all tools (spending cuts AND tax increases) to fight it off.

      Delete
    2. Hello Kyle, I don't necessarily totally reject increased taxes but I think on political and economic terms the focus must be on the long-term growth of entitlements. Getting past the next couple of years the future debt position is dominated by entitlement growth. We could raise taxes instead but we already got some tax increases in the last couple of years including those in Obamacare and those from a growing economy. A political solution would probably involve some new tax revenues but the real long-term issue is all these old people like me and their impacts on Medicare and Social Security. My point about long term correlation is to look at the trend lines rather than the deviations from trend. I won't give you a counter example because it is not my point to discuss short-term experiences. But I would suggest that if you want to do that -- that you be very careful about separating cyclical and cyclically adjusted parts of the deficit before you come to any conclusions. Also distinguish between revenues and tax rates. I have said nothing about cutting tax rates as a way to reduce government spending. I said that policies designed to raise tax revenues do not in the long run provide for smaller debt. I stick with that and simply ask you to plot the long-term trends of government revenues and government spending. If you find that sustained increases in tax revenues cause smaller sustained government deficits and debt, please let m know. No one told you to quit your job and please don't bring wives into all this or I could be in hot water :-). I said the best way to reduce the spending of your children is to not to give them a larger allowance. I stick with that though my kids are pretty old and off the family teat!.

      Delete
  6. Seems very reasonable.

    And I very much agree with your concerns about entitlement spending. Clearly this is an area where we could use political leadership. We are facing difficult problems without easy solutions, and we don't have a political leadership that is going to successfully deal with difficult solutions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Kyle. Unfortunately, it is not hard to imagine another budget cliff coming again soon...

      Delete