CUTTING SPENDING TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT

ABSTRACT: A deal was reached to address the year-end “fiscal cliff” or austerity crisis. Spending cuts were postponed for two months and most of the tax increases were eliminated, while some tax and revenue increases were enacted. The deficit reduction focus will now largely shift to spending cuts. We should be focusing on job creation and strengthening the economy, but somehow the deficit is the hot topic.

The discussion of spending cuts will probably focus on the military and on entitlement programs, specifically Social Security and the health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Much of the discussion of cutting military spending will be on avoiding cuts. However, military spending can be reduced up to $200 billion per year – without jeopardizing national security.

Turning to calls for cuts in Social Security and our public sector health programs, keep in mind that every other advanced economy has health care for all and a retirement support system. Social Security has its own funding stream and does not contribute to the deficit, so rationally it shouldn’t be part of this discussion. Ideologues are using the deficit issue to target Social Security because of their doctrinaire opposition to it. Minor changes to its funding would cover benefits for the next 75 years.

My next post will review proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

FULL POST: As you probably know, a deal was reached to address the year-end “fiscal cliff” or austerity crisis. Spending cuts were postponed for two months and most of the tax increases were eliminated, while some tax and revenue increases were enacted. The cap on the US government’s debt was not addressed and will be hit in about two months. Here’s a quick summary of what was enacted: [1]

Income tax rates on incomes over $400,000 will increase from 35% to 39.6% and some reductions in deductions will start at $250,000 in income, but there is no “Buffett Rule” requiring 30% be paid on incomes over $1 million. The net result is that new revenue from income taxes will be only about $60 billion per year as opposed to up to $450 billion with the rates increased on incomes over $250,000 and the “Buffet Rule”.
The Social Security payroll tax reduction was NOT extended, so all workers will have an additional 2% taken out of their paychecks on earnings up to $110,000.
Tax benefits for low income households were extended: a child credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which supplements income from low paying jobs. The tuition credit was extended as was the corporate research and development credit. The Alternative Minimum Tax, which originally was to function like the “Buffett Rule”, was adjusted so it won’t affect middle income taxpayers.
Unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed were extended for a year.
The estate tax was increased slightly but not nearly as much as some had proposed and only on individual estates of over $5 million or joint estates of over $10 million.

The deficit reduction focus will now largely shift to spending cuts. We should be focusing on job creation and strengthening the economy, given high unemployment and slow economic growth, but somehow the deficit is the hot topic. As the current experience in Europe is clearly showing, cutting government spending weakens the economy and job growth and can put countries back into a recession.

Having said that, the discussion of spending cuts will probably focus on the military and on entitlement programs, specifically Social Security and the health care programs, Medicare (for seniors) and Medicaid (for low income people including low income seniors).

Unfortunately, much of the discussion of cutting military spending will be on avoiding cuts, including the $50 billion per year cut that is now scheduled for March 1. Military spending can be reduced this much and more – up to $200 billion per year – without jeopardizing national security. (See blog posts of 9/29/12 and 11/17/11 for more information.) For example, Lawrence Korb, an assistant defense secretary under President Reagan, has itemized $150 billion in annual cuts to the military budget. [2]

In the recently enacted $633 billion Defense Department spending bill, there was widespread criticism of inclusion of unnecessary spending. The dollar amount was more than the Department or President requested. The Pentagon complained that it is required to keep weapons, as well as bases and units, that are not needed or efficient. Defense Secretary Panetta decried meddling by Congress that required “excess force structure and infrastructure.” [3][4]

Turning to calls for cuts in Social Security and our public sector health programs, keep in mind that every other advanced economy has health care for all and a retirement support system. So the issue is not whether it is possible to have these programs, it is are we willing to pay for them and are we willing to control health care costs.

Social Security has its own funding stream and does not contribute to the deficit, so rationally it shouldn’t be part of this discussion. Ideologues are using the deficit issue to target Social Security because of their doctrinaire opposition to it. Furthermore, its current funding will cover its benefits for roughly the next 20 years and after that minor changes to its funding would cover benefits for the next 75 years without any cuts in benefits. (See post of 12/4/11 for more details.)

The most prominent proposal for cutting Social Security spending is to reduce the annual increase in benefits that adjusts for inflation. This would save less than $20 billion per year over 10 years. [5] Ask any senior you know if the inflation adjustment is sufficient to keep up with their cost of living and I bet they’ll say, “No.” So cutting this will only hurt our seniors and reduce Social Security’s ability to keep seniors out of poverty. Furthermore, Social Security has become an increasingly important part of retirement income as private sector pensions have largely disappeared; cutting its rather modest benefits seems inappropriate in this environment.

My next post will review proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

[1] New York Times, 1/1/13, “Highlights of the agreement,” The Boston Globe

[2] Dubose, L., 11/15/12, Book review of Ralph Nader’s “The seventeen solutions: Bold ideas for our American future,” The Washington Spectator

[3] Bender, B., 1/5/13, “A reprieve for local military bases: New Congressional funding flouts Pentagon’s plan for cutbacks,” The Boston Globe

[4] Boston Globe Political Notebook, 12/21/12, “House approves defense bill despite Pentagon objections,” The Boston Globe

[5] Krugman, P., 12/3/12, “The GOP’s big budget mumble,” The New York Times

REBUTTING ARGUMENTS AGAINST INCREASING INCOME TAXES ON THE WEALTHY

ABSTRACT: The Bush tax cuts, and the even larger cuts in the income tax rates for high incomes over the last 30 years, have contributed to creating the federal government’s deficit (see post of 12/22/12) and to dramatically widening income and wealth inequality in the U.S. There has been a dramatic shift of the tax burden from the well-off and corporations to middle and lower income households. This shift in the tax burden has contributed to stagnant incomes for middle and lower income earners while incomes at the top have skyrocketed.

Despite the Republican rhetoric that high income individuals are “job creators,” the fact is that increased income for them is far less effective in stimulating job growth than increased incomes for low and middle income individuals. There is strong evidence, from multiple perspectives, that increasing taxes on the wealthy and redirecting the funds to productive investments or to lower income individuals, for example through unemployment benefits, will benefit the economy and job creation. It would also reduce inequality and address a root cause of the deficit.

FULL POST: The Bush tax cuts, and the even larger cuts in the income tax rates for high incomes over the last 30 years, have contributed to creating the federal government’s deficit (see post of 12/22/12) and to dramatically widening income and wealth inequality in the U.S., which are at their highest levels since the 1930s.

The 400 richest individuals in the US, as identified by Forbes magazine, have pocketed $1.3 trillion because of the Bush tax cuts. The best estimates are that these individuals actually pay only about 18% of their income in taxes, while their predecessors in 1960 paid more than 70%. Not only have their tax rates fallen dramatically (from 91% in 1960 and 70% in 1980 to 35% today [see 11/27/11 post for more detail]), but their increased use of offshore tax havens and other tax reduction strategies has further reduced the taxes they actually pay. For example, the tax return Mitt Romney released shows that he, and presumably his partners at Bain Capital, reported their management fees as capital gains rather than earned income. Assuming they all did, they saved an estimated $200 million on income taxes and another $20 million on the Medicare payroll tax. [1] Also since the 1960s, corporate taxes have fallen from over 27% of federal government revenue to about 10% today. [2]

These reductions in government revenue from high income individuals and corporations have dramatically shifted the tax burden from them to middle and lower income households at the federal, state, and local levels. This shift to regressive revenue sources [3] includes flat rate payroll taxes (i.e., Social Security and Medicare), and in the case of Social Security a cap so that no tax is paid on earnings over $110,000. It also includes most state and local revenue sources, such as sales and excise (e.g., cigarette, alcohol, and car) taxes; flat rate state income taxes; and state revenue from gambling (i.e., lotteries and casinos), all of which are quite regressive. [4] This shift in the tax burden has contributed to stagnant incomes for middle and lower income earners while incomes at the top have skyrocketed. [5] (See my post of 11/13/11 for more detail.) Both fairness and reversing causes of the deficit would argue for increased income tax rates on high incomes.

Despite the Republican rhetoric that high income individuals are “job creators,” the fact is that increased income for them is far less effective in stimulating job growth than increased incomes for middle and low income individuals. The US economy is driven by consumer spending; it’s 70% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure of overall economic activity. The lower an individual’s income, the more likely he or she is to spend any additional income to buy goods and services in the local economy. On the other hand, the wealthy are more likely to save additional income or to spend or invest it outside of the US. Furthermore, they are much more likely than the less well-off to use the money for speculative rather than productive investments. Speculative investments do not help the economy or create jobs; they actually harm the economy by increasing prices for consumer goods (e.g., food and gasoline [see my post of 3/5/12]) and by contributing to speculative bubbles (e.g., Internet stocks and mortgage investments) that eventually burst and harm the economy.

Republicans have opposed an increase in the tax rate on high incomes, claiming it will hurt small businesses. But only about 2 – 3% of “small businesses” would be affected and many of these aren’t really small or aren’t businesses at all. Republicans also claim that such a tax increase would hurt the economy and job creation, but “yearly gains in employment, GDP growth, and small business job growth were all greater after the Clinton tax hikes of 1993 than after the Bush tax cuts of 2001.” [6]

In summary, there is strong evidence, from multiple perspectives, that increasing taxes on the wealthy and redirecting the funds to productive investments (such as infrastructure building) or to lower income individuals (who will spend it in their local economies), for example through unemployment benefits, will benefit the economy and job creation. [7] It would also reduce inequality and address a root cause of the deficit.

In my next posts, I’ll take a look at cutting the deficit through spending cuts, the spending cuts in the austerity package, and alternatives to them.

[1] Peters, C. Nov./Dec. issue, “The Bain of my existence,” Washington Monthly

[2] Van Gelder, S., 12/8/12, “4 ways to leap the ‘fiscal cliff’ to a better USA,” YES! Magazine

[3] Regressive revenue sources place a greater burden, relative to one’s ability to forego the income, on middle and lower income households than on higher income individuals.

[4] Jacoby, J., 12/9/12, “Biggest lottery winner? That’d be the Treasury,” The Boston Globe

[5] Appelbaum, B., & Gebeloff, R., 11/29/12, “Tax burden is lower for most Americans than in the 1980s,” The New York Times

[6] Lehigh, S., 12/14/12, “Points of clarity through the fiscal cliff fog,” The Boston Globe

[7] Judis, J.B., 12/12/12, “Rein in the rich: How higher taxes could lift the economy,” The New Republic

INCREASING REVENUE TO CUT THE DEFICIT

ABSTRACT: Increased revenue needs to be part of the effort to reduce the federal government’s budget deficit. Two revenue sources that are not included in the austerity package are closing corporate tax loopholes and enacting a financial transactions tax. They could eliminate over half the deficit with little negative impact on the economy.

The highest profile revenue issue in the austerity package is the personal income tax. Given that the 2001 – 2003 tax cuts on earned and unearned income were significant contributors to creating the deficit, reversing them for high income individuals would seem appropriate. Maintaining the Bush tax cuts on high incomes would cost up to $160 billion per year in lost revenue. Alternatively, using these funds on high impact spending will reduce the deficit over the long-term while strengthening the economy and creating jobs in the short-term.

FULL POST: Increased revenue needs to be part of the effort to reduce the federal government’s budget deficit. However, the increased or new taxes that produce the revenue should not be so large or so quickly implemented that they put the economy back into recession. Here’s a look at the revenue increases that are part of the current austerity package (aka the “fiscal cliff”), some of the negotiations that have occurred on them, and some alternatives that are not included in the package.

First, two revenue sources that are not included in the austerity package are closing corporate tax loopholes and enacting a financial transactions tax (as 10 European countries are doing). These could provide $250 billion and $350 – $500 billion annually, respectively, in new revenue, and eliminate over half the deficit with little negative impact on the economy. (See my post of 9/29/12 for more detail.) An alternative minimum tax for highly profitable corporations that would ensure that they pay a minimum tax rate – similar to the Buffet Tax proposal for high income individuals – would seem quite reasonable. Roughly a quarter of our large and profitable corporations pay NO federal income tax despite multi-billion dollar annual profits. (See my post of 11/5/11 for more detail.) Google, for example, avoided paying $2 billion in taxes in 2011 by funneling profits to overseas shell companies. [1]

The highest profile revenue issue in the austerity package is the personal income tax. The tax cuts enacted by President Bush in 2001 and 2003 are scheduled to expire. President Obama originally proposed letting the cuts expire on income over $250,000 per year, but keeping the cuts on income under that amount. The Republicans proposed a $1 million cut off and Obama has countered with a $400,000 cut off. As the cut off gets higher, the amount of revenue (and deficit reduction) is reduced. The difference between a $250,000 and a $400,000 cut off is estimated to be $40 billion per year in revenue (i.e., $160 billion versus $120 billion in increased revenue).

Expiration means the tax rate on upper incomes would increase from the current 35% to 39.6%, the rate that was in place in the late 1990s. (Note that for an individual with $20 million in taxable income, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 – 2003 have put roughly $1 million in their pockets each year for the last 10 years.) In addition, increasing the tax rate on unearned income – capital gains, dividends, and interest – back to 1990s rates is another hot topic. Given that the 2001 – 2003 tax cuts on earned and unearned income were significant contributors to creating the deficit, reversing them for high income individuals would seem appropriate.

The bottom line is that maintaining the Bush tax cuts on high incomes would cost up to $160 billion per year in lost revenue. Alternatively, using these funds on high impact spending, such as infrastructure investments or unemployment benefits, would generate an estimated net gain of 1.2 million to 1.5 million jobs and add 1.0% to 1.5% to economic growth. The growth in jobs and the economy will, in and of itself, reduce the deficit because taxes and revenue grow when the economy grows. Therefore, this approach will reduce the deficit over the long-term while strengthening the economy and creating jobs in the short-term. The only revenue increase in the austerity package that has a greater positive effect on jobs and the economy than letting the tax cuts on high incomes expire is terminating the cuts in the estate and gift taxes. [2]

In my next post, I’ll review the arguments against raising tax rates on high income individuals. In subsequent posts, I’ll take a look at cutting the deficit through spending cuts, the spending cuts in the austerity package, and alternatives to them.

[1] Brown, C., 12/13/12, “Google on ‘immoral’ tax evasion: ‘It’s capitalism’,” Common Dreams

[2] Bivens, J., & Fieldhouse, A., 9/18/12, “A fiscal obstacle course, not a cliff,” Economic Policy Institute

A MANUFACTURED AUSTERITY CRISIS, NOT A FISCAL CLIFF

ABSTRACT: The so-called fiscal cliff you’ve been hearing so much about is actually a manufactured austerity crisis. There is widespread agreement that if nothing is changed by or relatively soon after December 31 that our economy is extremely likely to fall into a recession and unemployment is likely to increase to over 9%, an increase of between 1% and 1.5%.

The austerity package bundles together a variety of measures that are largely unrelated. Addressing these complex issues individually and with time for thoughtful consideration would make more sense than doing so in a bundle under severe time constraints. The austerity package’s cuts to social programs would be 8.4% across the board, with a few programs exempted. These cuts would have very significant negative effects on low income families and on education.

FULL POST: The so-called fiscal cliff you’ve been hearing so much about is actually a manufactured austerity crisis. [1] Congress and the President agreed on this package of spending cuts and tax increases (which take effect on December 31) because the Republicans demanded it in exchange for their votes to increase the federal government’s debt cap back in August 2011. As you may remember, they pushed the government to the brink of default – which hurt its credit rating and the economy – in order to extract these austerity measures. (By the way, I believe this brinksmanship and the harm it caused is incredibly UNpatriotic; but that’s a separate discussion.) A Congressional “Super-committee” was created to find alternative ways to reduce the deficit but was unable to come to a consensus recommendation, so we are left with this “fiscal cliff.” However, the effects of the austerity package would occur over time, so it is actually more of a “slope” than a “cliff.” [2]

There is widespread agreement that if nothing is changed by or relatively soon after December 31 that our economy is extremely likely to fall into a recession and unemployment is likely to increase to over 9%, an increase of between 1% and 1.5%. The roughly $100 billion per year in spending cuts and $350 billion in annual tax increases would reduce the deficit from about $1 trillion per year to about $600 billion. But taking this $400 billion out of the country’s economic activity would almost certainly turn slow economic growth into a recession. (See my post, The “Fiscal Cliff” and the Economy of 9/19/12 for more details.) As we’ve seen in Europe, austerity measures have pushed Greece, Spain, and Britain into a recession and the whole Eurozone is teetering on the edge of recession.

The federal government’s deficit does need to be addressed, but doing so precipitously and in the wrong ways will hurt the economic recovery. The immediate problems are not the government deficit, but the lack of jobs, particularly middle class jobs, and the lack of consumer spending, which represents two-thirds of our economic activity. [3] In addressing the deficit, we should use strategies that minimize negative effects on jobs and the economy. (See my post, Addressing the Deficit on 9/29/12 for four specific policy changes that would eliminate the roughly $1 trillion per year deficit with minimal impact on jobs and the economy.) Furthermore, spending cuts and increased tax revenue should be phased in over time to reduce their impact on our weak economy. [4]

The austerity package bundles together a variety of measures that are largely unrelated other than they have some impact on the federal government’s revenue or spending; although some actually have no impact on the deficit. Therefore, some view this “fiscal cliff’ as more of a “fiscal obstacle course.” [5] Major changes to both the personal and corporate tax codes are included, as well as significant changes to spending on a wide range of government programs from defense to social programs. Addressing these complex issues individually and with time for thoughtful consideration would make more sense than doing so in a bundle under severe time constraints.

In addition to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which expire for all income levels in the austerity package, other benefits for middle and low income households are scheduled to expire as well. These include:

Unemployment benefit extensions beyond the traditional 26 weeks (2 million individuals would lose benefits in December and another 1 million in April)
The reduction in the Social Security and Medicare payroll tax (by 2% of pay, which puts about $1,000 a year in the average worker’s pocket)
An enhancement to the Child Care Tax Credit
The expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which augments incomes of low income workers
An exemption from income tax on mortgage debt that is forgiven

The austerity package’s spending cuts come 50% from the military and 50% from social programs. Many members of Congress oppose the cuts to the military. However, there are strong arguments for cutting military spending: 1) it has more than doubled (to $733 billion per year) since 2001, 2) we are winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 3) we have far and away the largest military budget in the world, and 4) it’s widely acknowledged that there is significant waste in the military budget. Furthermore, military spending is not an efficient way to create jobs and at 58% of the federal government’s discretionary spending, it would be difficult and unfair to significantly reduce spending without cutting the military budget. (See posts of 9/29/12 and 11/17/11 for more details.)

The austerity package’s cuts to social programs would be 8.4% across the board, with a few programs exempted, such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. These cuts would have very significant negative effects on low income families and on education. It is estimated that: [6]

75,000 3 and 4 year old, disadvantaged children would lose the enriched preschool services of Head Start;
25,000 young children would lose subsidies for early care and education (aka child care);
16,000 teachers and other school staff would lose their jobs;
460,000 students would lose special education services and 12,500 special education staff would lose their jobs;
20,000 youth would lose job training;
734,000 households would lose heating (or cooling) assistance;
Community health centers would lose $55 million; and
1.3 million college students would lose tuition support.

If cuts to military spending are reduced, but overall spending reductions are maintained, cuts to social programs would be even more severe.

In my next two posts, I’ll discuss reducing the deficit through alternatives to the current austerity package, including reviewing various alternative proposals that have been put forth. I’ll focus first on options for increasing revenue and second on options for cutting spending.

[1] Klein, E., 11/28/12, “It’s not a fiscal cliff, it’s an austerity crisis,” Bloomberg

[2] Stone, C., 9/24/12, “Misguided ‘fiscal cliff’ fears pose challenges to productive budget negotiations. Failure to extend tax cuts before January will not plunge economy into immediate recession,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

[3] Krugman, P., 11/12/12, “On deficit hawks and hypocrites,” The New York Times

[4] Woolhouse, M., 11/19/12, “Phase in deficit cuts, economists say,” The Boston Globe

[5] Bivens, J., & Fieldhouse, A., 9/18/12, “A fiscal obstacle course, not a cliff,” Economic Policy Institute

[6] Every Child Matters Education Fund, 11/16/12, “The pending threat of Congressional actions to children’s safety net programs,” Every Child Matters, http://everychildmatters.org

THE DEBT, THE ECONOMY, AND THE POLITICAL PARTIES

ABSTRACT: Since 1945, Democratic presidents have on average reduced the federal government’s debt as a percentage of GDP by about 3% while Republican presidents have on average increased it by about 3%. PresidentObama has increased the debt percentage more than any president in this period. However, this is largely due to his inheriting a large deficit and the worst recession since the Great Depression. Other than this, the six largest increases in the debt percentage have occurred in recent Republican presidents’ terms.

Multiple measures of economic performance are better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. Since 1949, overall economic growth measured by median annual increase in GDP has been 4.2% under Democratic presidents and 2.6% under Republican presidents. Stock market performance since 1913 as measured by the median increase in Standard and Poor’s index of 500 stocks has increased 12.1% under Democratic presidents and 5.1% under Republican presidents. The annual increase in corporate earnings since 1936 has been 10.5% under Democrats and 8.9% under Republicans.

This data certainly shows that Republicans aren’t more fiscally responsible than Democrats; if anything it strongly suggests the opposite. The data also show that Republicans aren’t the party of economic prosperity more so than Democrats.

FULL POST: The historical record of the federal debt and the performance of the economy under Republican and Democratic presidents is interesting to examine.

First, the federal government’s total debt (the total of all the previous annual deficits and surpluses) as a percentage of the overall economy (i.e., the Gross Domestic Product or GDP) is probably the most meaningful statistic about the debt. Since 1945, Democratic presidents have on average reduced the debt’s percentage of GDP by about 3% while Republican presidents have on average increased it by about 3%.

President Obama has increased the debt percentage more than any president in this period. However, this is largely, if not totally, due to his inheriting a large deficit and the worst recession since the Great Depression. Other than this, the six largest increases in the debt percentage have occurred in recent Republican presidents’ terms: George W. Bush’s two terms (with 2005 – 2009 being the worst other than Obama), George H.W. Bush’s term, Ronald Reagan’s two terms, and Gerald Ford’s partial term. The only two terms under Democratic presidents where the debt percentage increased were Harry Truman’s and Bill Clinton’s first terms. Both of them reduced the debt percentage in their second terms significantly more than the increase in their first terms, so overall they both reduced the debt percentage. [1]

Stock market performance since 1913 as measured by the median increase in Standard and Poor’s index of 500 stocks has increased 12.1% under Democratic presidents and 5.1% under Republican presidents. The annual increase in corporate earnings since 1936 has been 10.5% under Democrats and 8.9% under Republicans. [2]

While a president’s actions have only indirect influences on these measures and a president inherits policies and the state of the economy from his predecessors, this data certainly shows that Republicans aren’t more fiscally responsible than Democrats; if anything it strongly suggests the opposite. The data also show that Republicans aren’t the party of economic prosperity more so than Democrats.

[1] The Economist, 11/1/12, “The change in America’s debt by presidential term,” www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/11/daily-chart

[2] Healy, B., 11/2/12, “Taking stock of past races,” The Boston Globe

CANDIDATES’ BUDGET PROPOSALS AND THE DEFICIT

ABSTRACT: Both Presidential candidates, Obama and Romney, have put forward tax and budget proposals that they say will reduce the deficit. Obama’s tax and spending proposals would reduce the deficit by about one quarter. Romney’s proposals cannot be reasonably expected to reduce the deficit. Furthermore, they are likely to increase the deficit and the already high levels of inequality in income and wealth.

FULL POST: Both Presidential candidates, Obama and Romney, have put forward tax and budget proposals that they say will reduce the deficit. Obama has specified tax increases and a cut to military spending that would begin to reduce the deficit. Romney says his tax proposals would be revenue neutral, although he fails to specify how he would offset his tax cuts, and he promises to increase military spending. He asserts that his proposals would produce economic growth that would increase tax revenue and reduce the deficit; however, there is no credible evidence for that assertion. (Note: President G. W. Bush’s tax cuts, increases in military spending, and promises of economic growth that would pay for them are what began the process of turning a federal government surplus into deficits.)

Obama would let the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 expire and would also restore or increase taxes on unearned income (i.e., capital gains, dividends, and interest). He has also proposed limiting deductions and exclusions from income, as well as implementing the “Buffett Rule,” so that households with incomes over $1 million would at least pay taxes at the rate that middle class families do. These measures would generate roughly $200 billion per year in additional revenue, reducing the deficit by one-fifth. [1]

Obama has also proposed reducing the $700 billion military budget by about $50 billion per year as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq wind down. Together, these tax and spending proposals would reduce the deficit by about one quarter.

Romney proposes keeping the Bush tax cuts and further reducing tax rates on earned income by one-fifth. He would maintain even lower tax rates on unearned income than earned income. Overall, these proposals would reduce income tax revenue by about $400 billion per year. Romney says he will make up for the lost revenue by reducing tax deductions and credits, and that the well-off will continue to pay at least the same amount in taxes. He says would do this by limiting total deductions and credits on a tax return to a fixed dollar amount and has mentioned amounts ranging from $17,000 to $50,000. [2]

While it is theoretically possible to achieve the same amount of revenue (i.e., revenue neutrality) under Romney’s proposals, it would be challenging and would require significantly cutting very popular deductions. [3] Four deductions account for 80% of all deductions and credits; in order of size they are the deductions for 1) home mortgage interest, 2) state and local taxes paid, 3) real estate taxes paid, and 4) charitable contributions. If an across the board cut to deductions were used to offset the loss in revenue, Romney would have to cut all these deductions by about one-third. Clearly, this would be unpopular and would also hit the middle class as well as high income families.

Romney has also proposed eliminating the estate tax, while Obama proposes maintaining an estate tax on estates over $3.5 million. Romney has also stated that he will increase the military budget. Here again, Obama’s proposal clearly reduces the deficit and these Romney proposals would clearly increase the deficit. The benefits of eliminating the estate tax, of course, go to wealthy families.

With a backdrop of 30 years of decreasing income tax rates that have seen dramatic increases in income and wealth in our best-off households and middle class families struggling to keep their heads above water, further cuts in tax rates do not seem at all likely to reverse this trend or benefit the middle class. Further, to provide some perspective on Romney’s proposal, looking at the cuts in tax rates alone, a family with taxable income of $100,000 or less, whose tax rate is cut from 25% to 20%, would see a benefit of $5,000 or less. A family with taxable income of $1 million, whose rate is cut from 35% to 28%, would see a benefit of $70,000; and if income is $10 million, a benefit of $700,000. This just doesn’t seem fair, especially on top of the huge tax cuts these high income households have seen over the last 30 years.

In addition, Romney’s proposal maintains lower rates on all unearned income (i.e., capital gains, dividends, and interest), while Obama’s has lower rates only on long-term capital gains (i.e., investments held for over one year). Having lower rates on all unearned income also doesn’t seem fair, especially given that the great bulk of unearned income goes to high income, high wealth households. Moreover, one of Romney’s arguments for lower tax rates is that by letting taxpayers keep more of what they earn, they will be rewarded for working. If we want to reward work, then income tax rates on work, namely earned income, should be lower (not higher) than the rates on non-work (unearned) income.

Finally, Romney’s assertion that cuts in tax rates will spur economic growth does not have any credible evidence. [4] This rationale has been used for the tax rate cuts that have occurred over the last 30 years. The strongest economic growth of the past 30 years (and the only elimination of the federal government’s deficit) occurred under President Clinton when he increased tax rates on high incomes. Furthermore, the rationale for tax cuts spurring growth has been that they put more money in consumers’ pockets and, with consumer spending being two-thirds of our economy, their spending will grow the economy. However, Romney has said his tax cuts will be offset by reducing deductions so that there will be no loss in government revenue or increase in the deficit. Therefore, there is no increase in the money in consumers’ pockets and no increased spending to spur economic growth.

If Romney’s tax cuts are indeed offset by reducing deductions so the result is revenue neutral, and if he lives up to his commitment to cap federal government spending at 20% of the overall economy (i.e., of gross domestic product), which would require significant spending cuts, Romney’s plans are likely to lead to job losses and a recession, not economic growth. Overall, Obama’s budget and tax proposals are highly likely to do more to spur near-term growth in jobs and the economy than Romney’s. [5]

In conclusion, Obama’s tax and budget proposals do take steps that can be reasonably expected to reduce the deficit by about one-quarter. Romney’s proposals cannot be reasonably expected to reduce the deficit. Furthermore, they are likely to increase the deficit and the already high levels of inequality in income and wealth.

[1] Tax Policy Center, Oct. 2012, “Major tax proposals by President Obama and Governor Romney”

[2] Wirzbicki, A., & Borchers, C., 10/5/12, “Questions on challenger’s idea to cap tax deductions,” The Boston Globe

[3] Kranish, M., 9/21/12, “Candidates leave much unsaid on tax plans,” The Boston Globe

[4] Rowland, C., 10/15/12, “GOP faith unshaken in supply-side tax policies,” The Boston Globe

[5] Bivens, J., & Fieldhouse, A., 9/26/12, “Who would promote job growth most in the near term?” The Century Foundation

THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTION TAX

ABSTRACT: A financial transaction tax (FTT) could generate $350 to $500 billion of revenue per year by applying a very low tax rate to financial transactions. The US had a financial transaction tax from 1914 to 1966 and 40 other countries have such a tax. It would not only generate needed revenue, it would also provide a disincentive for high volume, short-term, speculative trading. It has been dubbed “The Robin Hood Tax” (see www.robinhoodtax.org).

Multiple bills to create a FTT have been introduced in Congress, one of which, HR 6411, would rebate the tax to households with incomes under $75,000. It is also aligned with a broad, international campaign for the FTT.

FULL POST: As presented in my previous post (9/29/12), a financial transaction tax (FTT) could generate $350 to $500 billion of revenue per year by applying a very low tax rate to financial transactions. This would in effect be a sales tax on Wall St. transactions.

The US had a financial transaction tax from 1914 to 1966 and 40 other countries have such a tax. The US tax on purchases and sales of stock was 0.04% (40 cents on a $1,000 transaction). Currently, the US has a very small 0.0034% tax (3.4 cents per $1,000) that is levied on stock transactions to support the operating costs of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which regulates financial markets. However, much of the revenue is being diverted to other purposes. [1]

A financial transaction tax would not only generate needed revenue, it would also provide a disincentive for high volume, short-term, speculative trading. Such trading produces profits for speculators, but no benefit for the overall economy. It actually harms the economy by contributing to increased market volatility and increased prices for commodities such as food and gasoline (see blog post 3/5/12).

The financial transaction tax has been dubbed “The Robin Hood Tax” and is being supported by National Nurses United (www.nationalnursesunited.org) and others (see www.robinhoodtax.org). Multiple bills to create a FTT have been introduced in Congress. One is House bill HR 6411, The Inclusive Prosperity Act. It would impose a 0.5% tax on stock trades ($5 per $1,000) and a lesser rate on other financial transactions (e.g., trading of bonds, currencies, and derivatives). The tax would be rebated to households with incomes under $75,000. It would generate an estimated $350 billion per year that could be used for deficit reduction or social and human needs, as recommended in the bill. It is aligned with a broad, international campaign for the FTT, including a very active effort in the European Union. The international campaign includes a specific focus on using revenue generated to address climate change and global health issues. [2]

[1] Wikipedia, retrieved 9/28/12, “Financial transaction tax,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax

[2] Vanden Heuvel, K., 9/26/12, “The better bargain: Transaction tax, not austerity,” The Nation

ADDRESSING THE DEFICIT

ABSTRACT: The federal government’s deficit does need to be addressed, but doing so precipitously and in the wrong ways will hurt the economic recovery. Spending cuts and tax increases that have the least negative impact on jobs and the economy should be used. Given these criteria, four items come to the top of the list: 1) A financial transaction tax, 2) Cuts in military spending, 3) Reversing tax cuts and loopholes for high income individuals, and 4) Closing tax loopholes for profitable corporations. These four policy changes would eliminate the roughly $1 trillion per year deficit.

I urge you to determine where candidates for election stand on these measures as alternatives to the “fiscal cliff”. After the election, I urge you to contact your elected representatives to let them know where you stand and to ask them their position on these issues.

FULL POST: The federal government’s deficit does need to be addressed, but doing so precipitously and in the wrong ways will hurt the economic recovery. Specifically, the austerity approach of across the board budget cuts and tax increases, as in the 12/31/12 US deficit reduction “fiscal cliff” (see 9/19/12 blog post) and as currently being implemented in Europe, would hurt job creation and likely push our economy back into a recession, as is happening in Europe.

Selected spending cuts and tax increases that have the least negative impact on jobs and the economy should be used, as opposed to the broad ones of the “fiscal cliff.” Spending cuts in areas that have seen significant recent increases and the reversing of recent tax cuts should be prioritized. Fairness should also be considered.

Given these criteria, four items come to the top of the list:

A financial transaction tax
Cuts in military spending
Reversing tax cuts and loopholes for high income individuals
Closing tax loopholes for profitable corporations

These four policy changes would eliminate the roughly $1 trillion per year deficit. Here’s some detail on each of them.

A financial transaction tax (FTT) could generate $500 billion of revenue per year with a very low tax rate of between 0.1% and 0.5% on financial transactions (i.e., between $1.00 and $5.00 on the purchase or sale of each $1,000 worth of stocks, bonds, currency, commodities, or other financial instruments, including “derivatives”). If such a tax were applied very broadly to all financial transactions (there are over $1 quadrillion of financial transactions each year in the US), a 0.1% tax would actually generate over $1 trillion and eliminate the full deficit by itself. [1] A bill to create a FTT tax has been introduced in Congress. It would generate an estimated $350 billion per year. Most of us pay a sales tax on many of our purchases, so why shouldn’t there be a sales tax on Wall St. transactions? (More on the FTT in my next post.)

Military spending could be reduced without jeopardizing national security because:

We are winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ($170 billion in 2011),
Military spending has more than doubled since 2001 (increasing almost $400 billion per year and more in percentage terms than any other component of the federal budget),
There is significant waste (easily tens of billions each year) in the military budget (some of it pork barrel spending to favor specific Congressional districts), and
The US alone spends over 40% of all global military expenditures and three times what our European allies spend relative to the size of their economies. (See blog post of 11/17/11.)

Furthermore, military spending produces fewer jobs than just about any other kind of public spending. Overall, phasing in cuts to military spending of $100 – $200 billion per year would be quite reasonable.

Personal income tax rates have been reduced significantly over the last 30 years and most recently in 2001 and 2003. Since 1981, tax rates on high incomes (the cut off has varied between incomes over $200,000 and over $400,000) have been cut in half (from 70% to 35% on regular income). The lowest rate has been cut from 14% or 15% to 10%. Note that if you have taxable income of $1 million, the reduction from 70% to 35% puts $350,000 in your pocket every year. (See blog post of 11/27/11 for more detail.)

Reversing the tax cuts of 2001 – 2003 for those with incomes over $250,000 would generate $200 billion per year. If The Buffet Rule were implemented, eliminating loopholes and special tax benefits so that those with the top 10% of incomes actually paid at least 30% in income tax, revenue of $450 billion would be generated.

The corporate income tax rate today is 35%, down from 46% in the late 1980s. The effective tax rate (what is actually paid) was 18.5% in a recent study of 280 large, profitable corporations; down from 26.5% in the late 1980s. (See blog post of 11/5/11 for more detail.) If corporations actually paid the 35% rate an additional $500 billion in revenue would be generated. If they paid an effective rate of 22.5%, which was the average between 1987 and 2008, revenue would increase by $250 billion.

In summary, four manageable steps that would return us to the status quo of the 1990s and add a financial transactions tax from the 1960s, both periods when the economy was doing very well, would eliminate the $1 trillion deficit:

A financial transaction tax: $350 – $500 billion
Cuts in military spending: $100 – $200 billion
Reversing tax cuts and loopholes for high income individuals: $200 – $450 billion
Closing tax loopholes for profitable corporations: $250 billion
TOTAL: $900 billion – $1.4 trillion

These steps, some phased in over time, would result in federal budget surpluses (as occurred in the 1990s). They would strengthen our economy and reduce inequality. None of them are radical; they simply reinstitute previous policies.

I urge you to determine where candidates for election stand on these measures as alternatives to the “fiscal cliff” that is in place for December 31, 2012. (See 9/19/12 blog post.) And after the election, I urge you to contact your elected representatives to let them know where you stand and to ask them their position on these issues.

[1] Buchheit, P., 8/27/12, “Add it up: Taxes avoided by the rich could pay off the deficit,” http://www.CommonDreams.org/view/2012/08/27

THE “FISCAL CLIFF” AND THE ECONOMY

ABSTRACT: The federal budget’s “fiscal cliff” is looming on December 31, 2012. If Congress and the President let us fall over its edge, it will significantly harm our fragile economy. It cuts annual spending by about $100 billion per year and increases taxes by about $350 billion per year. The result would be a significant reduction in the annual deficit, from about $1 trillion to about $600 billion. However it would also negatively affect the economy: a recession or projected growth of only 0.5% versus growth of between 1.7% and 4.4% if the fiscal cliff were completely eliminated. The negative impact on the economy would make it harder, over the longer-term, to reduce the deficit.

There are many ways to soften the cliff’s impact. One would be to eliminate the tax increase on income under $250,000. Another would be reducing the spending cuts. It’s clear that the US government’s stimulus package helped soften the US recession; it’s equally clear that austerity is not a route to economic recovery. Austerity in Europe has turned a slow recovery into a stalled economy with recession in some countries. We need to call on Congress and the President to soften the fiscal cliff. Right now, the primary focus needs to be on strengthening the economy and creating jobs, which, over the longer-term, will help reduce the deficit.

FULL POST: The federal budget’s “fiscal cliff” is looming on December 31, 2012. If Congress and the President let us fall over its edge, it will significantly harm our fragile economy. Under current law, annual spending cuts of about $100 billion per year would occur and the Bush tax cuts of 2001 through 2003 would expire, which would result in an annual tax increase of about $350 billion.

The result would be a significant reduction in the annual deficit, from about $1 trillion to about $600 billion. However, it would also negatively affect the economy; projections range from a recession (i.e., negative economic growth as economic output shrinks) to growth of only 0.5%. If the fiscal cliff is completely eliminated, in other words if all the tax cuts are extended and the spending cuts are eliminated, projected economic growth would be between 1.7% and 4.4%. [1][2] The negative impact on the economy would make it harder, over the longer-term, to reduce the deficit.

There are, of course, many ways to soften the impact on the economy and on specific groups or agencies. The fiscal cliff’s increased taxes would affect almost everyone and, therefore, hurt consumer spending. Some people are proposing eliminating the tax increase on income under $250,000. This would reduce the tax increase to about $200 billion per year (instead of $350 billion). In addition, it would significantly reduce the impact on our economy (which is 70% consumer spending) because those with incomes over $250,000, who would see their taxes increase, spend only a fraction of their income on goods and services in the local economy. The real job creators in our economy are the vast middle class; their consumer spending is businesses’ revenue and increased business revenue is what leads to job creation. [3]

Reducing the spending cuts would soften their impact. The fiscal cliff’s spending cuts would be split roughly evenly between the military and social programs. Some of the loudest voices arguing for reducing the spending cuts are opposing the $50 billion cut to military spending despite the facts that:

Military spending has more than doubled since 2001,
We’re winding down two wars, and
This represents less than 7% of the over $700 billion per year military budget, which is roughly half of discretionary spending.

One argument that is being put forth is that a cut to military spending would cost jobs. Ironically, this argument is being put forward by many of the same people who have said that government spending doesn’t create jobs and that the way to improve the economy and create jobs is to cut government spending. Yes, cutting military spending will cost jobs in the military-industrial complex. But because military spending creates fewer jobs per dollar than other types of spending, cutting it will cost fewer jobs than cuts in other areas, or, if these cuts will allow spending elsewhere, more jobs will be created than those lost, resulting in a net gain in jobs. [4] (See 11/17/11 post: Defense spending: Can we afford to cut it?)

It’s clear that the US government’s stimulus package helped soften the US recession; it’s equally clear that austerity – cutting government spending and benefits often while raising taxes in an effort to reduce government deficits – is not a route to economic recovery. [5] While deficits do need to be addressed over the longer term, doing so while our economy is weak will only exacerbate the problem. Austerity in Europe has turned the slow recovery of 2009 into, at best, a stalled economy and recession or even depression in some countries. Demands for austerity in exchange for financial aid have occurred five times in Europe, with Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, and Italy. Each time the austerity measures have deepened the economic crisis and weakened the country’s economy. Cutting public spending and benefits, while increasing taxes, decreases employment and incomes. This reduces consumer spending which hurts businesses and kills jobs. As a result, tax revenue falls, increasing (not reducing) government deficits. [6]

We need to call on Congress and the President to soften the fiscal cliff. Right now, the primary focus needs to be on strengthening the economy and creating jobs, which, over the longer-term, will help reduce the deficit. There is ample evidence that austerity will only make the economy and the deficit problem worse.

My next post will examine strategies for reducing the deficit in both the short and the long-term that would be less damaging to the economy than the fiscal cliff.

[1] Businessweek, 8/2/12, “A decade of tax cuts and deficits,” Bloomberg Businessweek

[2] Lipschutz, N., 8/22/12, “Even if ‘fiscal cliff’ gets resolved, outlook is anemic,” The Wall Street Journal

[3] Reich, R., 8/30/12, “Labor Day 2012 and the election of 2012: It’s inequality, stupid,” http://www.RobertReich.org

[4] Pemberton, M., 8/16/12, “Top 10 myths of the jobs argument against military cuts,” Institute for Policy Studies

[5] Loth, R., 9/1/12, “The value of public-sector jobs,” The Boston Globe

[6] Kuttner, R., 9/10/12, “Angela Merkel’s bad medicine,” The American Prospect

SPURRING ECONOMIC RECOVERY

Here’s issue #30 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 5/15/12. The US government budget process and the elections in Europe have focused attention on how government can best spur economic recovery.

There are basically two schools of thought on how governments can spur economic recovery:

Austerity: cut spending, raise taxes, and have tight monetary policy (i.e., high interest rates)
Stimulate: increase or maintain spending, cut taxes, and have loose monetary policy (i.e., low interest rates)

The theory behind the austerity approach is that it will spur consumer and business confidence so they will increase spending and grow the economy. In addition, government spending and borrowing (i.e., deficits) take money out of the private economy. The theory behind the stimulate approach is that when consumers and the private sector are not spending enough to grow the economy, the government should step in and spend, even if it creates deficits in the short run.

In the short run, cuts in government spending eliminate jobs, either those of public sector workers or those of the workers who provide the goods or services purchased. Those goods and services may be purchased directly by governments (e.g., military equipment or construction of highways) or by the beneficiaries of government benefits (e.g., purchases by those receiving unemployment benefits or food stamps). In the US, the public sector, primarily state and local governments, are laying off about 10,000 workers a month because of reduced spending. This hurts efforts to reduce unemployment and the economic recovery.

On the other hand, government spending does create jobs; the best estimates are that the 2009 federal stimulus package created roughly 3 million jobs and kept the unemployment rate 2% lower than it would have been otherwise. (See newsletter #26, Economic Recovery: How and for Whom.)

In the US, the federal government initially took the stimulate approach, increasing spending and cutting taxes while moving interest rates to near zero to stimulate business and consumer borrowing. Now, the approach is shifting toward austerity with calls for reducing the federal deficit by cutting spending as evidenced by the budget deal last August and the budget recently passed by the House.

In the Eurozone and Great Britain, the austerity approach was adopted. The 17 Eurozone countries have slipped back into recession and Britain is tottering on the edge of recession, while the US has seen slow growth for eleven consecutive quarters. As Paul Krugman puts it, “the confidence fairy doesn’t exist – … claims that slashing government spending would somehow encourage consumers and businesses to spend more have been overwhelmingly refuted by the experience of the last two years.” [1]

Although everyone agrees that the US government must address its deficit, the question is when. Many economists and Federal Reserve officials believe that austerity now would hurt the US economy and that we should stimulate the economy first and tackle deficits after the economy strengthens. [2] Keep in mind that when the economy strengthens, more jobs, more production, and more sales will increase tax revenues and automatically begin to reduce the deficit.

The evidence seems pretty clear, both from current experience and the Great Depression, that in the short run austerity doesn’t work and that government spending spurs job creation and economic recovery. However, it appears that ideology is overwhelming the facts in both the US and Europe.

[1] Krugman, P., 5/7/12, “Those revolting Europeans: How dare the French and Greeks reject a failed strategy!” The New York Times

[2] Fitzgerald, J., 5/13/12, “Austerity vs. stimulus debate revived by elections inEurope,” The Boston Globe

MEDICARE AND MEDICAID AND OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

Here’s issue #10 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 12/9/11. The previous newsletter discussed Social Security and the fact that 1) it has no impact on the deficit, 2) the shortfall is relatively small, and 3) there are a number of straightforward ways to address the shortfall. This newsletter will begin to address Medicare and Medicaid, the other two entitlement programs that are consistently raised during deficit discussions.

Medicare and Medicaid present much greater challenges than Social Security, both because they do have a significant impact on the deficit and because the solutions are much more difficult.

Medicare is our universal health insurance program for seniors. It spent $502 billion in 2009. Medicaid is our health insurance program for low income, low wealth individuals. It spent $374 billion in 2009. Note that more than a quarter of Medicaid spending is for seniors. [1]

Medicare and Medicaid are NOT socialized health care. (Neither is the health care system under the recent reform legislation.) In a socialized health care system, the health care providers (e.g., the hospitals, doctors, and nurses) are government facilities or employees. Our Veterans’ Administration’s health care system and theUnited Kingdom’s health system are socialized health care. Both are highly regarded, although not perfect.

Medicare is a single payer system for our seniors (with some twists). Most other advanced countries’ have single payer health care systems that cover all residents (not just seniors).

Medicare and Medicaid, as parts of our overall health care system, face the same challenges of rapidly increasing costs that the overall system is experiencing. In the US, we spend over $7,500 per person per year on health care; almost two and a half times the average of other advanced countries. And yet our outcomes are worse: we have the highest infant mortality rate, many people with no health insurance or under insurance (where they pay significant costs and/or are exposed to significant risk), and a shorter life expectancy (77.9 years versus 79.4 years). [2]

Health care costs are high and growing rapidly in the US. Our system creates incentives to spend money on unnecessary tests, drugs, and procedures. Our privatized system includes marketing costs and profits. Our fragmented system has high administrative costs of 15 – 30%; twice the rate of other advanced countries. (Medicare is very efficient; its administrative costs are roughly 3%.) Our overall health system has high drug costs because there is no central entity that can negotiate with drug companies for cost control as other countries’ single payer systems do. This is why drugs are cheaper in Canada. Our Veterans’ Administration and some large health insurance companies do negotiate and get much better drug prices. (Medicare was prohibited from negotiating drug prices by the drug coverage law enacted by the Bush administration.)

Medicare, because of its size and role as the single payer for seniors, offers a means to controlling health care costs, if our politicians would let it. Medicaid, because of its size, also has significant leverage. (They can also address quality issues more effectively than our fragmented private payers.) Furthermore, Medicare’s clout could be enhanced by allowing non-seniors to join. Estimates of the potential savings of an expanded Medicare program range from $58 billion to $400 billion per year.

Medicare and Medicaid aren’t the problem. They only reflect the problems of our overall health care system. They have the potential to lead the way in solving our health care system’s problems, if our politicians will let them. Cutting back on Medicare and Medicaid will only exacerbate the problems by further complicating and fragmenting the system, while leaving many more people without affordable, decent health insurance – on top of the 50 million without insurance today.

[1] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 12/9/11, “National Health Expenditure Data,” https://ww.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData

[2] Reich, Robert, 7/22/11, “Why Medicare is the Solution – Not the Problem,” http://robertreich.org/post/7941066493

SOCIAL SECURITY: FACTS AND FIXES

Here’s issue #9 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 12/4/11. A topic that is receiving quite a bit of attention in the deficit reduction discussions is Social Security, although it has no impact on the deficit. Sorry this is a bit long, but the complexity is tough to abbreviate further.

Social Security does have an imbalance between available resources and projected benefits over the 75 year time horizon that is typically used for analysis of it. There is a trust fund that the Social Security deductions from wages go into. It currently has a surplus, but it is projected to run out in 2037 as more people, i.e., the baby boomers, begin collecting benefits. After 2037 and until 2086, the on-going payments from workers would be able to pay about 75% of the benefits Social Security recipients are currently promised. So even in a worst case scenario, beneficiaries over the next 75 years will receive significant Social Security checks.

Social Security is the country’s most effective anti-poverty program. Poverty among seniors is roughly 10%, but without Social Security it would be 45%. Social Security lifts 13 million seniors out of poverty. [1]

Note that Social Security does not have an impact on the deficit. It is funded through the dedicated payroll tax and Social Security Trust Fund. Therefore, discussions of Social Security’s long-term solvency should be kept separate from the deficit reduction discussions.

Social Security’s imbalance can be fixed by reducing the benefits it provides or increasing the revenue for it or a combination of the two. Key options include the following: [2] [3]

Increase revenue
- Currently, Social Security tax is paid only on earnings up to $106,800. If this cap were increased, some or all of the shortfall would be eliminated. The Social Security tax was designed to cover 90% of all wages and is adjusted for wage growth. But because of the dramatic rise in very high wages, only 83% of wages are currently taxed. If the cap were increased to cover 90% of wages, it would be roughly $180,000. If this were done without increasing future benefits for those who paid more into the Trust Fund as a result, the shortfall would be eliminated.
- The current payroll tax is 12.4% with half paid by the employee and half paid by the employer. If the rate was increase by 2% to 14.4%, the shortfall would be eliminated. This would have a negative impact on low wage workers, for whom the Social Security tax is their biggest tax burden. An increase of this amount or less could be phased in over time to lessen the impact, but this would also reduce the amount of the shortfall eliminated.
- If part of the current Trust Fund balance were invested in stocks, presumably a privately managed index fund, the earnings would likely be significantly greater than the current earnings from the Treasury Bonds in which the Trust Fund is invested. This could reduce the shortfall by up to a third.
- Various other sources of revenue could cover part or all of the shortfall. Possibilities include Social Security taxes on high incomes that are above the current or future tax cap and using some or all of the estate tax for Social Security.
Reduce amounts paid to current or future beneficiaries
- Reduce the annual cost of living increase that is linked to inflation. Reducing the increase by 1% each year, would reduce the shortfall by 78%. However, well into the future, this would mean that Social Security benefits would be much less than they are today in relation to the cost of living. Furthermore, some data suggest that the current cost of living increases are less than the typical increases in expenses for seniors.
- Raise the age at which full benefits can be collected. Currently, this age is increasing from 65 to 67 by 2022. This increase could be accelerated or the age could be increased to 68 or 70, but would reduce the shortfall by less than a third. Arguments for this are that we are living longer and healthier on average and, therefore, could work longer before collecting Social Security. However, this is less true for minorities and for those in physically demanding jobs.
- Reduce the dollar amount paid to future beneficiaries. If, for example, benefits to new enrollees were cut by 5% starting immediately, the shortfall would be cut by about 30%.

Note that given that these projections go out 75 years, the assumptions that are made about economic growth and the growth of the labor force have a significant impact on the estimates of the shortfall and the impact of possible solutions. Small differences in the assumptions of annual growth have large impacts over 75 years.

In conclusion, relatively modest changes to Social Security can put it on a solid financial basis for the next 75 years. A variety of options for increasing revenue and/or reducing benefits are available, and could be carefully crafted and implemented to shield the neediest recipients from harm and provide amply advance notice of changes to participants. [4]

[1] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/4/11, “Social Security,” http;//www.cbpp.org/research under Areas of Research, Social Security.

[2] U.S. News & World Report, 5/18/10, “12 Ways to Fix Social Security,” http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2010/05/18.

[3] S. Sass, A. Munnell, & A. Eschtruth, 2009, “The Social Security Fix-It Book,” Center for Retirement Research,BostonCollege.

[4] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/4/11, “Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security on the Program’s 75^th Anniversary,” http;//www.cbpp.org/research under Areas of Research, Social Security.

THE FLAT TAX AND FAIRNESS

Here’s issue #8 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 12/1/11 . Having reviewed historical income tax rates in the last newsletter, this one will take a look at the flat tax, which is being proposed by a number of the Republican presidential candidates.

The flat tax – a simplified federal income tax with one tax rate for everyone – is a favorite tax reform of many of the Republican presidential candidates. It is almost always designed to be a “revenue neutral” option to the current, more complicated income tax, meaning that it would raise the same amount of revenue for the federal government as the current tax.

To produce the same amount of revenue, the flat rate has to be somewhere in the middle between the highest rate (now 35%) and the lowest rate (now 10%). Because the flat rate is lower than the current rates for high income filers, high income people would pay less. As a result, to be revenue neutral, middle and low income people will have to pay more. [1]

Some of the Republican presidential candidates have proposed variations on the flat tax to ensure that no one would pay more income tax than they do currently or to reduce the negative impact on low and middle income filers. Because these variations would reduce the total revenue to the federal government, they would not be revenue neutral and would increase the federal deficit substantially.

For example, under candidate Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, the flat income tax rate of 9% is lower than all the current rates. (Note that the lowest income filers actually currently pay no income tax because of the personal exemption [$3,650 per person] and the Earned Income Tax Credit.) To make the overall plan revenue neutral, he proposes a 9% national sales tax that would apply to all purchases, including food and clothing. As a result, it is estimated that the highest income 1% of filers would pay $210,000 less in taxes and the lowest income 60% of filers would pay on average $2,000 more. [2] (Note candidate Cain has since said that his plan would include a provision to ensure that those with the very lowest incomes wouldn’t pay more.)

The flat tax is often promoted as being “fair,” because everyone pays the same rate. However, many people believe “fair” means a graduated or progressive income tax, where people with higher incomes pay a higher percentage of their income because they can afford it, as a smaller portion of their income is needed to pay for basic living expenses. In other words, higher income people have more discretionary income and therefore can afford to pay more in taxes. This is the concept behind our graduated federal income tax system and has been since the income tax was first implemented in 1913. If you believe a graduated income tax is “fair,” then the flat tax, by definition, is not “fair.” [3] And as you know from the previous newsletter, today’s income tax rates are less progressive than they used to be: today’s highest rate for the highest income filers is 35%, while in 1980 it was 72% and in 1950s and early 1960s it was 91%.

[1] Reischauer, Robert, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office as quoted in Scott Leigh, 10/28/11, “Flat-tax fantasies – and the realities,” The Boston Globe.

[2] Citizens for Tax Justice as cited in Jay Fitzgerald, Boston Globe article, 10/30/11, “Flat tax, fat cats, and you.”

[3] Leigh, Scott, 10/28/11, “Flat-tax fantasies – and the realities,” The Boston Globe.

INCOME TAX RATES: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Here’s issue #7 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 11/27/11. As you probably know, the Congressional Super Committee failed this week to reach an agreement on a recommendation for reducing the federal deficit. One of the key sticking points was income tax rates. The Republicans insisted on reducing income tax rates along with reducing some deductions, while the Democrats refused to lower tax rates for the wealthy and supported rolling back the Bush cuts in tax rates for the wealthy.

The federal income tax went into effect in 1913. The income tax rates have always been progressive, meaning that the tax rate for lower income tax filers has always been lower than the rates for higher income filers. The rates are much less progressive today than they have been historically and they have been simplified by reducing the number of steps between the lowest rate and the highest.

A summary of federal income tax rates: [1]

Year	Lowest Rate	Highest Rate	# of Steps	Notes
2003 – 2011	10%	35%	6	Bush tax cuts
1993	15%	39.6%	5	Clintontax increase
1988	15%	28%	2	Reagan tax cuts
1981	14%	70%	16
1964	16%	77%	26
1946	20%	91%	24
1944	23%	94%	24

During most of the post World War II economic boom in theUS(1946-1964), the wealthy paid at a 91% rate while the lowest income filers paid at 20%. For the next 18 years, the wealthy paid at a 70% or higher rate while the lowest income paid at roughly 15%. Since then the rates for the wealthy have been reduced dramatically. The threshold for paying the top rate has been between $200,000 and $400,000 of income since 1964.

Note that if your taxable income is $1 million, a 1% rate reduction reduces your taxes by $10,000. If your taxable income is $50,000, a 1% rate reduction reduces your taxes by $500.

The argument typically advanced for reducing tax rates for the wealthy (or for not increasing them) is that if they have more money they will invest it and that, therefore, the economy will grow, jobs will be created, and everyone will be better off. However, in the 1990s, when President Clinton increased income tax rates on the wealthy, the economy performed very well. And in the 1980s and the 2000s, when tax rates were cut, there was no economic boom. Furthermore, over the last 30 years, as the income tax rates for the wealthy have been cut in half, income inequality in the US have widen considerably and middle and low income households have seen very little growth in their incomes (see newsletter #4, 11/13/11).

In summary, both the performance of the economy and changes in household incomes over the last 30 years do not support the argument that cutting income taxes for the wealthy will lift all boats, trickle down to middle and lower income households, or stimulate the economy.

[1] Wikipedia, 11/4/11, “Income tax in theUnited States: Tax rates in history,” retrieved from the Internet at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT: DOES IT MAKE SENSE?

Here’s issue #6 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 11/20/11. As you probably know, the US House voted on and rejected a Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution this week.

Consideration of a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the US Constitution by both houses of Congress was required as part of the agreement that raised the debt ceiling back in August. The House and Senate will probably vote on different versions of the BBA. (See below for more detail.) A BBA, if ratified, would constitute a dramatic, some say radical, shift in policy making.

The biggest concern about a BBA is that in a recession, when government revenue falls, the BBA would require cuts in expenditures. Therefore, government likely would have to cut safety net programs, such as unemployment compensation, food stamps, heating assistance, and subsidies for health care when they are most needed. It would eliminate the ability of the government to serve as a counter weight to recessions by spending when other sectors of the economy are on a downswing. Seven Nobel Prize-winning economists have stated that a BBA would “mandate perverse actions in a recession” and would harm economic growth. Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute has called a BBA “about the most irresponsible action imaginable.” [1]

An argument advanced in support of a BBA is that states have and have managed to live with requirements for balanced budgets. However, because of this, during the current recession, state and local governments have been cutting jobs nationwide by roughly 10,000 a month and have been making painful cuts in services and programs. They have been helped through this crisis by federal government support and federal deficit spending, where they get roughly a third of their revenue, and especially by the stimulus funding in 2009 that explicitly supported states. Moreover, states can borrow for capital spending outside of their balanced budgets, something the federal BBA would prohibit.

Possible provisions of a BBA include: [2]

Super majority votes in both houses of Congress are required for:
- Deficit spending (most likely a three-fifths [60%] majority)
- Tax increases (most likely a two-thirds [67%] majority)
Cap on overall spending at 18% of gross domestic product (GDP, the size of the overall economy) (Note: Under President Reagan spending averaged 22% of GDP)
Capital spending (i.e., long-term investments in infrastructure and human capital) would be included under the cap and spending controls (Note: Generally not the case at the state level)
Exemptions for national emergencies and Social Security

In summary, the BBA makes for great politics for some but is lousy policy. Please note that President Reagan promoted and popularized the BBA while the budgets he presented to Congress were the eight most out of balance budgets since WWII. And that for many of those pushing the BBA today, it was not a priority for them when George W. Bush was president and significant surpluses inherited from President Clinton became large deficits.

[1] Loth, Renee, 8/13/11, “Danger in the balanced budget amendment,” The Boston Globe

[2] Beutler, Brian, 11/14/11, “Despite packed agenda, Congress returns to radical balanced budget amendment,” http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/debt-limit-hangover-despite-packed-agenda-congress-returns-to-radical-balanced-budget-amendment.php

DEFENSE SPENDING: CAN WE AFFORD TO CUT IT?

Here’s issue #5 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 11/17/11. Another piece of the debate on how to reduce the deficit is whether defense spending should be cut. Here’s some context.

Defense spending has more than doubled from 2001 to 2011, increasing 121%, more than any other component of the federal budget (all other discretionary items together increased 60%). It now stands at $733 billion, 58% of discretionary spending. [1] In 2011, theUS spent $51 billion on the war inIraq and $122 billion on the war inAfghanistan, together representing 24% of the defense budget.

If the Super Committee of Congress cannot present a deficit reduction compromise that is approved by Congress, defense spending will be automatically cut by about $1 trillion over 10years, a 17% reduction. For the sake of comparison, after the Korean War ended defense spending declined 31%, after Vietnam28%, and after the Cold War 31%. [2] Both of the bipartisan deficit reduction commissions, which if anything tilted to the conservative side, recommended cutting defense spending by $1 trillion over 10 years and said this could be done responsibly. Therefore, substantial cuts in defense spending should not only be possible, but are appropriate.

Some people are arguing against cuts in defense spending because of their negative effect on employment. Ironically, this argument is coming from many of the same people who have argued against federal stimulus spending, saying the government spending doesn’t create jobs. Many of them have also supported government budget cuts that reduced jobs for teachers, construction workers, police officers, and firefighters. [3] So these arguments against defense cuts ring hollow.

Furthermore, a study from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Boston by Pollin and Garrett-Peltier found that for every 12 jobs created by defense spending, the same spending for education would create 29 jobs, or in health care would create 20 jobs, or in clean energy would create 17 jobs. [4]

The USnow spends more on defense than all our top rivals in the world combined. We spend 5.4% of our overall economy, our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), on defense, while our European allies spend 1.7% of GDP on the military. They, Japan, Korea, and other countries around the world no longer need tens of billions of dollars in USmilitary support. “We can still maintain the superiority of our own security, … for two-thirds of what we now spend.” [5]

All indications would seem to be that we can safely cut our defense spending, particularly as the wars inIraqandAfghanistanwind down. Furthermore, cuts in other areas are likely to be more painful both in terms of jobs and in the reductions in the services or support people receive, such as through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, education programs, etc.

Perhaps the question should be, “Can we afford NOT to cut defense spending?”

[1] Government Printing Office, retrieved from the Internet at www.gpo.gov on 11/0/11, “Table 8.9 – Budget Authority for Discretionary Programs: 1976-2015”

[2] Kayyem, Juliette. 11/7/11, “Paychecks as defense weapons,” The Boston Globe

[3] Frank, Barney, 11/12/11, “Defense cuts affect jobs, but other cuts are worse,” The Boston Globe

[4] This study is cited in both of the above articles. It can be accessed at: http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/spending_priorities_PERI.pdf

[5] Frank, Barney, 11/12/11, “Defense cuts affect jobs, but other cuts are worse,” The Boston Globe

THE FEDERAL DEFICIT: HOW DID WE GET HERE?

In the previous newsletter on corporate taxes, I mentioned that having corporations pay their fair share of taxes would help reduce the deficit. The deficit is a hot topic with the federal Super Committee required to submit its recommendations on how to reduce the deficit in 2 weeks. (This is issue #3 of my Politics and Policy Newsletter, written 11/10/11.)

The deficit does need to be addressed, especially over the long term. However, the strategies for reducing the deficit are hotly contested. The context and rational debate on the deficit often get lost in the heated rhetoric and political posturing. So here’s a first piece of perspective on the deficit.

In 2001, President Clinton turned over to new President George W. Bush a federal budget with a substantial surplus: [1]

2001 federal budget: a $127 billion surplus (asClinton left office)
Projected surplus over the next 10 years of $5.6 trillion

When President Bush left office 8 years later, he had turned this surplus into a substantial deficit:

2008 federal budget: a $455 billion deficit (as Bush left office)
Projected deficit for 2009 of $1.2 trillion and many trillions of dollars of deficits over the next 10 years

The surpluses turned into deficits due to three major reasons:

Large tax cuts that particularly benefited high income individuals and corporations
Increased military spending (including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq)
An economic recession (largely caused by a lack of regulation of the financial industry)

To reduce the deficit, therefore, it only makes sense to reverse the policies that caused it in the first place:

Reverse the Bush tax cuts. If all of them were allowed to expire at the end of 2012 as scheduled, future deficits would be cut roughly in half. [2]
Reduce military spending. Military spending more than doubled from 2001 to 2008 ($332 billion to $686 billion). All other federal spending increased less than 50% ($332 billion to $494 billion), excluding Social Security and Medicare, which have their own funding separate from general revenue. [3] (Figures are not adjusted for inflation.)
Improve the health of the economy, most importantly by increasing jobs and reducing unemployment. (More on this in a subsequent newsletter.)

I hope this is helpful context as you hear coverage of the Super Committee’s work to reach recommendations on deficit reduction. If you are so inclined, I encourage you to contact yourUSRepresentative and Senators by phone, email, or regular mail to share your thoughts on deficit reduction.

[1] Manuel, Dave, retrieved from the Internet at www.davemanuel.com on 8/14/11, “A history of surpluses and deficits in theUnited States”

[2] Tritch, Teresa, 7/23/11, “How the deficit got this big,” The New York Times

[3] Government Printing Office, retrieved from the Internet at www.gpo.gov on 11/0/11, “Table 8.9 – Budget Authority for Discretionary Programs: 1976-2015”