Category: Government

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

STOP THE GUN MASSACRES

ABSTRACT: Gun massacres must stop. We must enact sensible gun laws. Automatic weapons with magazines that hold over a dozen bullets turn tragic murder into horrifying massacre. Sensible gun laws would make a difference; they lead to much lower gun violence in other countries, and the federal assault weapon ban made a difference in the 10 years it was in effect.

The profits of gun and ammunition makers are at stake. The right to bear arms the framers of our Constitution had in mind was not unfettered access to weapons that fire a dozen bullets per second.

We must seize this moment to loudly and collectively demand that our elected leaders enact strong, sensible gun laws (detail below). To take action, start by going to the White House petitions site (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions). Find a petition calling for action on gun laws and sign it.

FULL POST: Gun massacres must stop. We must enact sensible gun laws. Yes, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But automatic weapons with magazines that hold over a dozen bullets turn tragic murder into horrifying massacre. There is no reason anyone other than law enforcement or military personnel should have automatic weapons with high capacity magazines. The federal bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines that were in place from 1994 to 2004 need to be reinstated.

Why is getting a driver’s license so much more rigorous than getting a gun, including an automatic? With over 4 times as many civilians murdered each year with guns (over 12,000) as died in the September 11 attacks, why do we do so much to prevent terrorism and so little to prevent gun violence? Why do we allow gun homicides in the US at almost 20 times the rate in similar countries with similar overall crime and violence rates? [1]

Sensible gun laws would make a difference; they lead to much lower gun violence in other countries and the federal assault weapon ban made a difference in the 10 years it was in effect. In the struggle for sensible gun laws, remember that the profits of gun and ammunition makers are at stake. They support loose gun laws and the National Rifle Association so they can maximize their profits.

The right to bear arms (as part of a well regulated militia) that is in the second amendment to the Constitution was written when guns were muzzle loaders and the time per bullet – to reload and fire again – was measured in minutes. Today we measure the number of bullets fired per second. The right to bear arms the framers of our Constitution had in mind was not unfettered access to weapons that fire a dozen bullets per second.

We must seize this moment to loudly and collectively demand that our elected leaders – our President and Members of Congress, our Governors and State Legislators – enact strong, sensible gun laws including 1) a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, 2) limits on the number of guns and amount of ammunition an individual can buy, 3) reasonable requirements for obtaining a gun license, and 4) strong background check requirements for all gun purchases. In addition, the penalties for violating gun laws should be tough; any gun or ammunition seller who violates the law and allows an individual to obtain guns or ammunition illegally should be treated as an accomplice to murder, under criminal and civil law.

To take action, start by going to the White House petitions site (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions). Find a petition calling for action on gun laws and sign it. (If you don’t already have an account you will need to go through the quick process of obtaining one.) There are multiple petitions on the firearms issue, which you can scroll down to find or select the “Filter by issue” button and select “Firearms”. I urge you to sign at least one and as many as you support if you have the time. This will send a strong signal of support for this issue. The two I’d suggest starting with are:

  • “Immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress” (http://wh.gov/RN6U). It already has over 100,000 signers; please add your voice.
  • “Today IS the day: Sponsor strict gun control laws in the wake of the CT school massacre” (http://wh.gov/RRkn). It has over 19,000 signers and you can add your support.

Also, call, email, and / or write your federal and state elected officials and demand gun laws that will end the massacres now. Participate in local or on-line actions to express your support for sensible gun laws.

It’s past time to take serious steps to reduce and hopefully eventually eliminate the occurrence of gun massacres. We must insist that our elected officials pass sensible gun laws.

[1]       Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, retrieved 12/15/12, “Facts: Gun violence,” www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence

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 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. We should use strategies for addressing the deficit that minimize negative effects on jobs and the economy, and phase them in over time to reduce their impact on our weak economy.

 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

IRRATIONAL EXTREMISM BLOCKS PROGRESS

ABSTRACT: The irrational extremism associated with the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party has just blocked progress for disabled people around the world by defeating ratification of a treaty. Radical Republicans used scare tactics and lies to defeat it. They ignored the support of 61 Senators including John McCain, of former President G. W. Bush, of every veterans group in America, and of former Senator Dole, who came to the Senate chamber to support the treaty in a wheelchair as an 89 year old, disabled veteran, and former Republican Presidential nominee. They ignored the fact that it would improve opportunities for 4.5 million children worldwide who don’t attend school because they are blind.

This is an example of how a small number of extremists in Congress is blocking progress for millions of people in the U.S. – and around the world.

FULL POST: The irrational extremism associated with the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party has just blocked progress for disabled people around the world by defeating ratification of a treaty. The treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is:

  • Based on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) passed 22 years ago.
  • Supported by 61 Senators including John McCain as well as former President G. W. Bush and former Senator Bob Dole.
  • Ratified by 126 other countries.

Despite 61 votesin favor of ratification, radical Republicans used scare tactics and lies to defeat it. (Treaty ratification requires a 2/3s majority or 66 votes.) [1]

Because it is based on the ADA, the U.S. is already basically in compliance. But because it conflicts with Tea Party ideology that views cooperation with the United Nations and other countries as surrendering U.S. sovereignty, arguments were fabricated to defeat it. Tea Party types argued that it would threaten parents and home schooling because it says that disabled children have a right to education, and that it would promote abortion because it says that disabled people have a right to health care including reproductive health. They argued both that the treaty was toothless in forcing other countries to provide access for disabled persons and that it would tie the hands of the U.S. and force unwanted changes here despite the fact that the ADA is already in place. [2]

They ignored the support of every veterans group in America, who viewed it as supporting disabled veterans, and of former Senator Dole, who came to the Senate chamber to support the treaty in a wheelchair as an 89 year old, disabled veteran, and former Republican Presidential nominee. Among other potential treaty benefits, they ignored the fact that it would improve opportunities for 4.5 million children worldwide who don’t attend school because they are blind.

This is an example of how a small number of extremists in Congress is blocking progress for millions of people in the U.S. – and around the world.

[1]       Calvan, B.C., 12/5/12, “Treaty for disabled rights falls short in Senate,” The Boston Globe

[2]       Boston Globe Editorial, 12/6/12, “Tea Party scare tactics doom disabled treaty in the Senate,” The Boston Globe

CAMPAIGN SPENDING: THE FUTURE

ABSTRACT: The huge sums of money in our political system are corrupting it, in subtle and not so subtle ways, and are undermining the promise of democracy of, by, and for the people. We the people need to work to blunt the impact and eventually stop the flow of these huge amounts of money. Steps that could and should be taken include: 1) Legislation at the federal and state levels should be enacted promptly that requires disclosure on a timely basis of all political spending and the sources of the funds; 2) Lobbyists’ contributions to candidates must be severely restricted and perhaps prohibited; 3) Tougher rules and enforcement are needed of the ban on coordination between Super PACs or other groups and candidates’ campaigns; and 4) Ultimately, a Constitutional Amendment is needed to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

 I urge you to communicate to your elected representatives at the federal and state levels your concern about the corrupting influence of huge amounts of money in our political system. Ask them what remedies they support and encourage them to support the steps listed above.

FULL POST: The huge sums of money in our political system are corrupting it, in subtle and not so subtle ways, and are undermining the promise of democracy of, by, and for the people. Despite the fact that all the outside money and all the advertising it bought were less effective in the 2012 election than was anticipated and than was hoped for by those paying for it, the big spenders learned some valuable lessons. They won’t give up on their efforts to influence and control government and its policy making. They will find more effective ways to use their money and will have substantial impacts in the future. [1] Therefore, we the people need to work to blunt the impact and eventually stop the flow of these huge amounts of money.

First, some of the lessons the big spenders learned:

  • Advertising, and particularly negative advertising, has diminishing returns as the amount of it and repetition of it increases.
  • Grassroots efforts to identify and turn out supporters can have a big impact.
  • Grassroots, person-to-person communications can be more effective than advertising.
  • Untested candidates or ones with extreme positions are more likely to lose.
  • Money can have a bigger impact in less visible, lower cost races.

The less visible, lower cost races include primary, US House of Representatives, and state office races (as opposed to the final Presidential election and final US Senate races). In the Republican Presidential primary, the big money from Super PACs clearly had an effect. Money from the Super PAC supporting Romney deluged state primary elections with negative advertising against whichever competitor was threatening Romney at that point. This clearly allowed Romney to win state primaries he wouldn’t have won otherwise. Huge Super PAC expenditures by extremely rich individuals single-handedly kept Gingrich and Santorum in the primary race longer than they would have been otherwise. [2]

In lower cost races, a given amount of money (e.g., $100,000) is more significant, may overwhelm other campaign spending, and can have a disproportionate impact, especially if spent late in the election period and as a surprise. State office races such as those for Governor, state legislative seats, and elected judges can be dramatically affected by relatively small amounts of money. State ballot initiatives can also be significantly altered by relatively small sums of money.

Given the corrosive effects of huge amounts of money in our political system, a New York Times Editorial stated, “A backlash against the damaging power of big money cannot come too soon.” [3] Steps that could and should be taken include:

  • Legislation at the federal and state levels should be enacted promptly that requires disclosure on a timely basis of all political spending and the sources of the funds. The DISCLOSE Act that has been introduced in Congress is one example. (It was filibustered by Senate Republicans multiple times.) Disclosure must cover all entities engaged in political spending, including non-profit, “social welfare” groups, known as 501(c)(4)s to the IRS.
  • Lobbyists’ contributions to candidates must be severely restricted and perhaps prohibited, especially for an elected official sitting on the legislative committee that oversees the special interest the lobbyist represents. The definition of a lobbyist must be expanded to cover all individuals and entities that work to influence government policies, rules, and regulations. The ability of lobbyists and others to deliver aggregated contributions from multiple individuals or groups, often referred to as “bundling,” and which can occur through fundraising events organized by a lobbyist, should be banned or at least fully disclosed.
  • Tougher rules and enforcement are needed of the ban on coordination between Super PACs or other groups and candidates’ campaigns. The overlap and connections between candidates’ current and former campaign staff and the staff of the supposedly independent groups, and the use of the same consultants, provide clear evidence that these groups are not, in fact, independent. [4]
  • Ultimately, a Constitutional Amendment is needed to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, to make it clear that corporations are not persons with Constitutional rights, that money is not the same as speech, and that corporations and political spending can be regulated.

 I urge you to communicate to your elected representatives at the federal and state levels your concern about the corrupting influence of huge amounts of money in our political system. Ask them what remedies they support and encourage them to support the steps listed above.

[1]       New York Times Editorial, 11/10/12, “A landslide loss for big money,” The New York Times

[2]       Boston Globe Editorial, 11/8/12, “Billionaires: Now, mind your own business(es),” The Boston Globe

[3]       New York Times Editorial, 11/10/12, “A landslide loss for big money,” The New York Times

[4]       Boston Globe Editorial, 9/29/12, “As super PACs link arms, mega-donors’ clout increases,” 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

PRIVATIZATION EXAMPLES I

ABSTRACT: Currently, privatization of public sector functions is being looked to to generate badly needed immediate cash. First example: the city of Chicago, desperate for cash to cover a budget shortfall, sold its parking meter revenue for the next 75 years for $1.2 billion. Parking rates in some neighborhoods have quadrupled. The city is prohibited from engaging in any activity that could be competition for the parking meters and has to reimburse the private owners for any lost revenue due to a street closing, a meter being out of commission, and free parking provided to the disabled. Chicago has given up the ability to make decisions about parking for 75 years and appears to have in effect guaranteed substantial profits to the private investors.

Second example: Indiana received $3.8 billion in 2006 from an international consortium in exchange for the right to maintain, operate, and collect tolls for 75 years on 157 miles of Interstate 90. The 400 page lease agreement is indicative of both the thought that went into it and the complexity of such an arrangement.

A danger in these high-value, long-term privatization deals is that sophisticated investors will take advantage of government officials desperate for short-term revenue, who often don’t take the time or have the expertise to perform appropriate, long-term, cost-benefit analyses. Because of their significant impact on the public, any privatization deal should require public hearings, and those with a longer time span than the term of office of the person signing it should require super-majority approval (say 2/3) by the relevant legislative body, while those over 10 years should require a voter referendum with a super-majority (say 2/3) needed for approval.

FULL POST: In my previous post (10/16/12), I provided an overview of privatization of public sector functions and evidence that there’s no guarantee of improved performance. Privatization doesn’t always meet its stated goals of saving taxpayers’ money, improving public services, and/or increasing accountability. It only tends to be successful if there is good oversight and regulation, as well as real competition.

Currently, privatization is being looked to, not for those traditional reasons, but to generate badly needed immediate cash. This is occurring because the public sector is being squeezed by falling revenues (largely due to the recession and in some cases due to tax cuts) and rising costs (generally due to inflation). Here are two examples of privatization to raise immediate cash.

First, in 2009, the city of Chicago, desperate for cash to cover a budget shortfall, sold its parking meter revenue for the next 75 years for $1.2 billion. The private consortium of investors was led by the huge Wall Street financial corporation, Morgan Stanley (one of the companies responsible for the collapse of the financial sector and the recession that contributed to Chicago’s severe budget shortfall).

The deal will allow the private owners to increase parking fees substantially and parking rates in some neighborhoods have quadrupled. [1] It prohibits the city from any activity, such as building a new parking garage, that could be competition for the parking meters. The city has to reimburse the private owners for any lost revenue due to a street closing for repairs or a street festival. If a meter is out of commission for six hours, the city must reimburse the owners for a full day’s worth of revenue. In May 2012, the private owners had billed the city for $50 million for reimbursements for out of service meters and free parking provided to the disabled. [2]

Not only will this deal cost Chicago substantial money for 75 years, it also means it has given up the ability to make decisions about parking and its cost for 75 years. Furthermore, it appears to have in effect guaranteed substantial profits to the private investors, as there is no competition and little risk.

Second, Indiana received $3.8 billion in 2006 from an international consortium in exchange for the right to maintain, operate, and collect tolls for 75 years on 157 miles of Interstate 90 as it crosses Indiana. The 400 page lease agreement has limits on toll increases, requires the state to reimburse the private owners if tolls are waived during an emergency (such as a natural disaster), and covers details such as how quickly the consortium must remove dead animals from the highway. While the length of the agreement is indicative of both the thought that went into it and the complexity of such an arrangement, it is hard to imagine that every issue that could come up in 75 years has been identified.

In the short run, with the economy in recession and traffic down on the highway, it appears that Indiana taxpayers are coming out ahead. Indiana wisely used the funds for investments in infrastructure rather than short-term spending. [3] But it’s only six years into a 75 year lease and lots can happen over that time. For example, if traffic levels don’t increase and the consortium of owners goes into bankruptcy or defaults on their debt, what will happen? Could a bankruptcy court throw out the limits on toll increases?

Experiences with highway privatization in California, Virginia, and San Diego have all had significant problems. These privatization contracts are typically long-term, generally limit competition, and, therefore, result in significant limits on future public decisions and policies. [4]

A danger in these high-value, long-term privatization deals is that sophisticated investors and corporations will take advantage of government officials desperate for short-term revenue, who often don’t take the time or have the expertise to perform appropriate, long-term, cost-benefit analyses. A 75 year commitment clearly goes long beyond the longevity in office of the public officials who make the deal and it’s hard to believe that such a deal can be known to be in the public’s best interest over that time span.

“[P]rivatization can undermine good public policy and democratic decision making. Turning tax dollars and control of public services over to companies whose overriding incentive is to maximize profits can lead to long-term costs and sometimes devastating consequences.” (p. 4) [5]

Because of their significant impact on the public – on public services, on public policy and flexibility, on accountability, and on transparency – I would suggest that any privatization deal should require public hearings before (and after) the fact. Furthermore, those with a longer time span than the term of office of the person signing it should require super-majority approval (say 2/3) by the relevant legislative body. Privatization contracts of over 10 years should require a voter referendum with a super-majority (say 2/3) needed for approval.

[1]       Rusnak, K., retrieved 10/21/12, “Privatization plans lack long-term focus,” economyincrisis.org/content//privatization-plans-lack-long-term-focus

[2]       People for the American Way, retrieved 7/31/12, “Predatory privatization: Exploiting financial hardship, enriching the 1 percent, undermining democracy,” http://www.pfaw.org

[3]       Daniels, M., 5/10/12, “Indiana didn’t ‘sell’ its toll road,” The Washington Post

[4]       Dannin, E., 3/15/11, “The toll road to serfdom,” American Constitution Society (www.acslaw.org/acsblog/node/18553)

[5]      People for the American Way, retrieved 7/31/12,, see above

AN OVERVIEW OF PRIVATIZATION

ABSTRACT: Privatization of public services or “outsourcing” has been promoted for decades as a way to save taxpayers money, improve public services, and increase public sector accountability. A resurgence is occurring as the public sector is being squeezed by falling revenues and rising costs. In this environment, privatization is often looked to to generate badly needed cash immediately. As a result, privatization is big business these days.

As background for a detailed look at current privatization activity, municipal level privatization has been used significantly and studied quite extensively, especially for water and sewer systems and for solid waste collection and disposal. From 1997 – 2002, more services were brought back in house or deprivatized than were outsourced. Services were deprivatized because of unsatisfactory results. Most studies of water, sewer, and solid waste privatization (21 of 35) found no cost or efficiency difference between public or private delivery. The other 14 studies were split.

Competition and careful monitoring are required to obtain benefits from privatization and to ensure that profit maximization doesn’t result in a loss of quality. A review of privatization by The Century Foundation [1] states that “public monopoly or government regulation is a more effective approach to ensuring efficient service delivery than privatization or deregulation.”

The delivery of public services must incorporate the fact that citizens are more than consumers. They frequently want to be engaged and have a voice. Public services are not just part of a market but part of a community.

FULL POST: Privatization of public services or “outsourcing” has been promoted for decades as a way to save taxpayers money, improve public services, and increase public sector accountability. A resurgence is occurring as the public sector is being squeezed by falling revenues and rising costs, much of which are due to inflation. In this environment, privatization is often looked to not for the traditional reasons of saving money or improving services and accountability, but to generate badly needed cash immediately. In this environment, privatization of public assets (e.g., buildings, parking facilities, roads, and land), which has been used in the past to cover short-term cash problems, has taken on new importance.

The privatization resurgence is bolstered by rhetoric from the right, which favors smaller government, and by lobbying from corporations, which are always looking for new ways to make profits.

As a result, privatization is big business these days. Wall Street firms and the big management consulting companies have public sector or public private partnership business divisions to pursue privatization deals. Financial corporations are setting up “Infrastructure Funds” that create pools of money to buy privatization deals as investments. Over $100 billion is available to Infrastructure Funds run by large financial corporations such as Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.

As background for a detailed look at current privatization activity, municipal level privatization has been used significantly since the 1960s and surged in the 1990s. It has been studied quite extensively, especially for water and sewer systems and for solid waste collection and disposal. These studies have tracked privatization, the contracting out of services, and deprivatization, the bringing of services back in house into the public sector. An overall review of privatization of 67 basic local services with a focus on water, sewer, and waste services was conducted by The Century Foundation. [2]

Up until 1997, privatization of water, sewer, and waste services was growing, but from 1997 – 2002 more services were brought back in house or deprivatized than were outsourced. The reasons for deprivatization were tracked. In 2002, among 245 cases of deprivatization the following reasons were given, including multiple reasons in many cases:

  • Service quality not satisfactory                                            73% of cases
  • Cost savings insufficient                                                       51%
  • In house efficiency improved                                               36%
  • Problems with contract monitoring or specifications             35%

In summary, services were deprivatized because of unsatisfactory results. Furthermore, despite the fact the privatization is promoted as reducing costs and saving taxpayers money, most studies of water, sewer, and solid waste privatization (21 of 35) found no cost or efficiency difference between public or private delivery. The other 14 studies were split with 9 of the 35 finding private delivery cheaper or more efficient and 5 finding public delivery cheaper or more efficient.

The Century Foundation report notes that competition and careful monitoring are required to obtain benefits from privatization and to ensure that profit maximization doesn’t result in a loss of quality. However, it noted that in many cases, such as water and sewer services, there was no competition and privatization merely substituted a private monopoly for a public one. The report states that “public monopoly or government regulation is a more effective approach to ensuring efficient service delivery than privatization or deregulation.” (page 12)

The delivery of public services, even when privatized, must incorporate the fact that citizens are more than consumers. They frequently want to be engaged and have a voice in what, how, and the quality with which services are delivered. From a citizen’s perspective, more than just efficiency is involved; safety, reliability, transparency, and other values; local control; public accountability; and community identity can all be important. Public services are not just part of a market but part of a community.

Future posts will build on this overview and review specific examples of current and proposed privatization of public services and assets.

[1]       The Century Foundation describes itself as a progressive, non-partisan think tank, founded in 1919. It convenes and promotes the best thinkers and thinking across a range of public policy questions and produces timely and critical analyses of major economic, political, and social institutions and issues.

[2]      Warner, M., 2009, “Local government infrastructure and the false promise of privatization,” The Century Foundation, http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/pdf/Warner_2009_TCF.pdf

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

OUR SLOW ECONOMIC RECOVERY

ABSTRACT: Our economy is recovering slowly, as would be expected after such a deep recession and the near collapse of the financial system. Most economists agree that the federal government’s stimulus package aided the recovery by increasing employment by about 3 million jobs. Since the recovery began in 2009, the private sector has added 4.5 million jobs. The loss of public sector jobs, however, has been a drag on the recovery; over 600,000 jobs have been lost since 2009, including over 200,000 teachers. Without these job losses, the unemployment rate would be about 0.5% lower, or roughly 7.6%. Regardless of some people’s rhetoric, a public sector job puts money into a family and the economy the same way a private sector job does.

The current rate of economic growth is too slow to generate enough jobs to quickly and significantly reduce the unemployment rate. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently made a forceful argument that additional steps are needed to stimulate the economy and attack high unemployment. The implied message is that stimulus through spending by the federal government would make sense and that cuts in government spending would not help economic growth or unemployment reduction.

FULL POST: Our economy was the subject of much rhetoric at the recent Republican and Democratic conventions. The reality is that the economy is recovering slowly, as would be expected after such a deep recession and the near collapse of the financial system. Most economists agree that the federal government’s stimulus package aided the recovery by increasing employment by about 3 million jobs and keeping the unemployment rate lower than it would have been (by about 2%).

The recovery began in mid-2009. The private sector has added 4.5 million jobs with net increases in each of the last 29 months. However, this is only half of the 9 million jobs lost in the recession and unemployment is still high at 8.1%. The worst month for job losses was January 2009 when over 800,000 jobs were lost just as President Obama was taking office.

The loss of public sector jobs has been a drag on the recovery; over 600,000 jobs have been lost since 2009, including over 200,000 teachers. The public sector continues to lose roughly 10,000 jobs per month, including teachers, firefighters, police, and other local, state, and federal government workers. Without these job losses, the unemployment rate would be about 0.5% lower, or roughly 7.6%. [1][2] Regardless of some people’s rhetoric, a public sector job is a job and puts money into a family and the economy the same way a private sector job does.

Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, who has studied recessions historically and globally, says the pace of the current recovery is consistent with what would be expected after this recession, which continues to reverberate around the globe. Economies damaged by financial crises recover more slowly and the brinkmanship in Congress over increasing the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011 created an additional drag on the recovery. The recovery after the 2001 recession (one of four in the last 30 years) actually experienced even slower job growth than the current recession.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and advisor to Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, notes that the economy’s problems were brought on by Wall Street’s recklessness and that “government saved our bacon. … the cost [to the economy] would have been measurably … greater had the government not interceded.” [3]

Nonetheless, the rate of economic growth has been too slow to generate enough jobs to quickly and significantly reduce the unemployment rate, let alone the numbers of underemployed workers and those who have given up looking for a job and therefore are not counted in the unemployment figures. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently made a forceful argument that additional steps are needed to stimulate the economy and attack high unemployment. He noted that the likely benefits outweigh the potential costs. However, monetary policy from the Federal Reserve has limited ability to stimulate the economy at this point because interest rates, the main tool at its disposal, are already extremely low. Therefore, the Federal Reserve may take other, nontraditional steps. [4] The implied message is that stimulus through spending by the federal government would also make sense and that cuts in government spending would not help economic growth or unemployment reduction.

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

[2]       Woolhouse, M., 9/9/12, “Recovery slow, fits post-crisis pattern,” The Boston Globe

[3]       Quoted in Woolhouse, 9/9/12, see above

[4]       Appelbaum, B., 9/1/12, “Fed chief makes a detailed case for a stimulus,” The New York Times

WHY WE NEED STRONG REGULATION

ABSTRACT: A fierce battle is occurring over government regulation. Key arguments against regulation are that corporations will regulate themselves and that the discipline of free market capitalism will punish bad corporate behavior and reward good behavior. The series of scandals in our large banks have clearly proven these arguments are wrong. And there are many examples beyond the recent bad behavior in the financial industry.

The market is unable to detect, publicize, and punish bad behavior before very serious damage has been done. Corporations resist efforts to exert control or set standards from outside and our huge corporations have the power to successfully do so. As Robert Sherrill wrote, “thievery is what unregulated capitalism is all about.” “Trust but verify” seems applicable here. We need strong regulators and regulations to verify that large corporations are behaving in a legal and ethical manner. Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Deregulation is insanity; we’ve seen the results time and again. Strong regulation of corporations, particularly large corporations, by government is necessary.

FULL POST: A fierce battle is occurring in Congress and the federal government over regulation of the financial industry and over government regulation in general. Key arguments against regulation are that corporations will regulate themselves (with minimal standards from government) and that the discipline of free market capitalism will punish bad corporate behavior and reward good behavior. President George W. Bush asserted that these forces were effective and sufficient as he promoted deregulation.

Over the last couple of years, the series of scandals in our large banks have clearly proven these arguments are wrong. The large banks have not regulated themselves. The mortgage and LIBOR scandals (among others) have shown a pattern of behavior by many banks over many years where they clearly did not regulate themselves, but spun further and further out of control and into illegal and unethical behavior. The recent huge JPMorgan trading loss, currently estimated at $6 billion, shows that they simply cannot control internal behavior despite strong incentives to do so. And there are many examples beyond the recent bad behavior in the financial industry: for example, the Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1980s, Enron and WorldCom’s collapses of 2001 and 2002, and the “dot com” stock bubble of 2000. Our large corporations don’t even seem to be able to exert reasonable control over executive compensation.

The discipline of a competitive market place has also clearly not been effective as a deterrent for bad behavior. The recent scandals have shown as false the assumption that banks would behave honestly to protect their reputations with customers. Moreover, it is clear in all of the examples cited above that the market is unable to detect, publicize, and punish bad behavior before very serious damage has been done. [1]

Finally, corporate capitalism, where the goal is to maximize profits, clearly has strong incentives for promoting self-interest. Conversely, the corporations have strong incentives to resist the public interest, such as worker safety, fair employee compensation, and clean air and water, because they might increase costs and reduce profits. Therefore, corporations resist efforts to exert control or set standards from outside. And our huge corporations have the power to successfully do so, in the market place, in the courts, and in our elections and government.

As Robert Sherrill (the reporter and investigative journalist for The Nation, the Washington Post, and the New York Times Magazine, among others, and the author of numerous books on politics and society [2] ) wrote about the Savings and Loan scandal, “thievery is what unregulated capitalism is all about.” The recent behavior of our large banks seems to have proven this statement again.

“Trust but verify,” a phrase President Reagan popularized when he used it to describe relations with the Soviet Union, seems applicable here. [3] We need strong regulators and regulations to verify that large corporations are behaving in a legal and ethical manner.

Finally, Albert Einstein is quoted as defining insanity as “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” [4] Deregulation of the financial industry in particular, and corporate America in general, is insanity. We’ve seen the results time and again over the last 30 years of deregulation and in the events leading up to the Great Depression. We’re paying a very steep price right now in high unemployment, lost wealth in homes and investments, and over the longer haul in lower wages and reduced benefits for workers.

We need to push back against the large corporations and their special interests in the name of the public interest and the interests of we the people. Strong regulation of corporations, particularly large corporations, by government is necessary.

[1]       Surowiecki, J., 7/30/12, “Bankers gone wild,” The New Yorker

[2]       Wikipedia, retrieved 7/25/12, “Robert Sherrill,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rovbert_Sherrill

[3]       Wikipedia, retrieved 7/26/12, “Trust, but verify,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_but_verify

[4]       BrainyQuote, retrieved 7/26/12, “Albert Einstein quotes,” http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

DODD-FRANK & CFPB ANNIVERSARIES

ABSTRACT: We have just reached the second anniversary of the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the first anniversary of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that it created. Much has been accomplished despite efforts of the financial industry and some in Congress to block, weaken, and/or delay progress. The CFPB, in its first major enforcement action, ordered Capital One Bank to pay $210 million to settle charges of deceptive marketing. The CFPB has received 45,000 complaints and projects over 200,000 per year. (To file a complaint go to http://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint.)

For the Dodd-Frank law overall, it is estimated that 31% of the rule making required by the law has been finalized. This effort is extensive because Congress was unable to resolve many of the complex and controversial issues and instead passed them on to the regulators’ rulemaking process. The financial industry has been lobbying heavily (over $200 million over the last two years and 1,300 meetings with three key regulatory agencies) to delay, weaken, and complicate the rulemaking and implementation. Sheila Bair, the very effective former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) writes, “we see regulators who are too timid … they try to placate industry lobbyists … We need a regulatory system focused on the public interest, not the special interest. … and Congress needs to support them.” [1]

I urge you to let your representatives in or candidates for Congress know that you support strong regulation of the financial industry and strong penalties, including jail time, for violators.

FULL POST:We have just reached the second anniversary of the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the first anniversary of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that it created. (The existence of a similar agency in Canada has been credited by some with having avoided the mortgage fraud and predatory lending that contributed to the financial and housing market collapse in the US. [2]) Much has been accomplished despite efforts of the financial industry and some in Congress to block, weaken, and/or delay progress. Most notably, Senate Republicans blocked President Obama’s appointment of anyone to head the CFPB to prevent it from functioning effectively. Obama eventually appointed a head of the CFPB in January 2012 without Senate approval when it was in recess.

The CFPB, in its first major enforcement action, ordered Capital One Bank to pay $210 million to settle charges of deceptive marketing to credit card customers. In addition, the CFPB has:

  • Engaged in lots of fact-finding and gathering of input from a wide range of constituencies
  • Undertaken its “Know Before You Owe” initiative to help people understand the consequences of debt
  • Proposed a redesign of mortgage forms to enhance disclosure and understanding
  • Started developing a range of mortgage regulations making them safer for borrowers and lenders, including a ban on balloon payments and prepayment penalties, and a cap on late fees
  • Jointly with the Education Department, issued a report on subprime-style lending in the private student loan market and created a model document on college costs and financing options [3]
  • Initiated oversight of companies reporting on individuals’ creditworthiness
  • Launched a database that tracks credit card complaints

The CFPB has received 45,000 complaints, many about credit cards and mortgages. The frequency is increasing and is projected to exceed 200,000 per year, perhaps by a lot. [4][5] (To file a complaint go to http://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint.)

For the Dodd-Frank law overall, it is estimated that 31% of the rule making required by the law has been finalized (123 of 398 rules). To-date, 8,843 pages of rules and regulations have been created by 10 regulatory agencies. The CFPB is responsible for 1,013 of those pages and most of the 1,561 pages devoted to consumer protection. The other major contributors are the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) each with 3,200 pages and the Federal Reserve with 1,439 pages. [6] This effort is so extensive because Congress was unable to resolve many of the complex and controversial issues and instead passed them on to the regulators’ rulemaking process.

The financial industry has been lobbying heavily (over $200 million over the last two years and 1,300 meetings with three key regulatory agencies: the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the CFTC) to delay, weaken, and complicate the rulemaking and implementation. For example, new requirements for reserves to protect against losses won’t begin kicking in until January and won’t be fully implemented until 2019. New rules on trading of derivatives won’t start until later this year and will apply to many fewer companies than originally envisioned. The Volcker Rule, to prevent excessive, risky trading by federally insured banks, is still in the works with no draft released and nothing implemented, despite JPMorgan’s recent huge loss on such trading, estimated to be $6 billion. [7][8]

Sheila Bair, the very effective, former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), writes, “Yet, still, we see regulators who are too timid … they try to placate industry lobbyists by creating this clarification or that exception, resulting in indecipherable rules that are hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of pages long. … And the irony is that once the rules have ballooned … the lobbyists who sought all the clarifications and exceptions ridicule the regulators for … red tape. … We need a regulatory system focused on the public interest, not the special interest. And we need strong, credible voices who will weigh into the debate on the side of the population at large. … The system is not getting fixed and we need to send a message to Washington. … We need regulators to write rules that the public can understand and the [bank] examiners can enforce. … and Congress needs to support them.” [9]

I hope this information and that in previous posts will help you do anything you can to support strong regulation of the financial industry. I urge you to let your representatives in or candidates for Congress know that you support strong regulation of the financial industry and strong penalties, including jail time, for violators. Tell them your personal stories about how the financial collapse has affected you and your family. Only strong grassroots pressure by voters will ultimately make the difference.

[1]       Bair, S., 7/20/12, “Two years after Dodd-Frank, why isn’t anything fixed?” Yahoo! Finance

[2]       Krugman, P., 2/1/10, “Good and boring,” The New York Times

[3]       Dougherty, C., & Lorin, J., 7/20/12, “CFPB says students victimized by ‘subprime-style’ lending,” Bloomberg Businessweek

[4]       Singletary, M., 7/11/12, “Consumer protection bureau nears its first anniversary,” The Boston Globe

[5]       Puzzanghera, J., 7/23/12, “Cordray marks consumer protection agency’s 1st year,” Los Angeles Times

[6]       Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (law firm), 7/20/12, “Dodd-Frank progress report,” http://www.davispolk.com/dodd-frank-rulemaking-progress-report

[7]       Liberto, J., 7/21/12, “Two-thirds of Dodd-Frank still not in place,” CNN Money

[8]       Drutman, L., 7/19/12, “Big banks dominate Dodd-Frank meetings with regulators,” Sunlight Foundation

[9]       Bair, S., 7/20/12, “Two years after Dodd-Frank, why isn’t anything fixed?” Yahoo! Finance

FIXING THE FILIBUSTER

Here’s issue #36 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 6/15/12. The previous issue outlined the abuse of the filibuster [1] and its impact on the gridlock in Congress. This issue focuses on what can be done about it.

The requirement for 60 votes to end debate and stop a filibuster is part of the Senate’s rules of operation. This cloture rule, as it is called, was adopted in 1975, so it is not part of the Constitution or even a rule with great historical tradition. [2] It means that 41 Senators, who potentially represent less than 15% of the US population, can bring progress in the Senate to a halt.

The Founding Fathers and the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected requiring a super majority vote to pass legislation. They established the fundamental principle of our democracy of majority rule in a legislative body. [3] As a result, the Constitution specifically lists six instances when a super majority vote is required, such as impeachment, overriding a presidential veto, ratifying a treaty, and amending the Constitution. [4]

The current, unprecedented use of the filibuster is largely unreported by the media. They typically describe the need for 60 votes to proceed in the Senate as ordinary procedure and rarely differentiate a bill or other matter that had enough votes to pass (51 or more) but was filibustered (i.e., didn’t have the 60 votes needed to end debate) from one that didn’t have the 51 votes to pass. [5]

Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat from Iowa) has proposed that the first cloture vote to end debate require 60 votes, but that over a period of days or weeks the required vote fall to a simple majority of 51 Senators. This would allow ample time for debate and discussion, in the Senate and with the public, but would provide an incentive for compromise and an ability to stop obstruction. He originally introduced this proposal in 1995 when the Democrats were in the minority, so he is offering it as an institutional reform, not to gain a partisan advantage. [6] Other Senators have presented other proposals to change the Senate’s rules to weaken the power of the filibuster. However, it takes 67 votes to change a Senate rule in the middle of a two year Congressional session. A simple majority vote of 51 Senators can change the rules when they are adopted at the beginning of a session, which occurs after an election (e.g., in January 2013).

In May 2012, a lawsuit was filed against the Senate claiming that the filibuster is unconstitutional. It was brought by four members of the US House of Representatives, three immigrant students (who would have been helped by the DREAM Act that was filibustered), and the nonpartisan, good government group Common Cause. [7] [8]

There is growing agreement that the filibuster is being seriously abused and significantly harming the ability of our federal government to govern effectively. Because of the partisan implications of filibuster reform, it is unclear whether this consensus or the current efforts to fix the filibuster will reduce its use.

[1]       A filibuster occurs when one or more Senators refuse to end debate on a piece of legislation or other matter. It requires a super-majority of 60 out of 100 votes to close off debate (cloture) and allow a vote on the bill or other matter.

[2]       Wikipedia, retrieved 6/8/12, “Filibuster in the United States Senate”

[3]       Harkin, T., 6/30/10, “Fixing the filibuster,” The Nation

[4]       Millhiser,I., 5/15/12, “Four members of Congress sue to declare the filibuster unconstitutional,” Think Progress

[5]       PR Newswire, 12/18/07, “Record breaking: Senate conservatives use filibuster for 62nd time in this session of Congress,” United Business Media

[6]       Harkin, T., 6/30/10, “Fixing the filibuster,” The Nation

[7]       Wong, S., 5/14/12, “Group sues Senate to scrap filibuster,” Politico

[8]       Millhiser,I., 5/15/12, “Four members of Congress sue to declare the filibuster unconstitutional,” Think Progress

THE FILIBUSTER: WEAPON OF OBSTRUCTION

Here’s issue #35 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 6/10/12. It focuses on the filibuster as an important problem contributing to the gridlock in Congress.

The use of the filibuster [1] – or the threat of a filibuster – by the minority party in the Senate to block action has become much more frequent in the last six years, accelerating a trend that goes back to the 1970s. “The filibuster … became a routine weapon of obstruction” according to Mann and Ornstein in their Washington Post article of April 27 [2] (see Newsletter issue #32). Traditionally, it was used to block legislation, such as civil rights laws. More recently, since 2005, a filibuster or the threat of one has been used to block presidential nominations of judges. [3] Most recently, it has been used to block presidential nominations for positions in the executive branch and to obstruct progress in general.

The official Senate statistics only track the formal motions to end a filibuster, not the threats to filibuster, so they understate the use and impact of the filibuster. In the last six years, since the Democrats gained control of the Senate, the occurrence of formal motions to end filibusters by the Republican minority has doubled (average per two year Congressional session of 138 vs. 65 in the previous four years when the Democrats were the minority). The pattern of the Republicans increasing the use of the filibuster also occurred in the 1987-94 (average of 58 vs. 38 in the previous six years with a Democratic minority) and in 1971-80 (average of 32 vs. 7 or fewer in all previous Congressional sessions). [4]

Presidents used to receive routine approval of personnel for high-ranking executive branch positions that require Senate approval because it was seen as the President’s right to build his own team. Recently, however, the Republicans have blocked some of President Obama’s executive branch appointments. Most notably, they threatened a filibuster to block his nomination of anyone to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This body was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in the wake of the 2008 collapse of the financial sector, to protect consumers from abuses particularly in mortgage lending, but also in credit card and banking practices. To prevent the CFPB from functioning effectively, the Senate Republicans threatened to filibuster the appointment the head of the CFPB, first Elizabeth Warren (so Obama never formally nominated her) and then Richard Cordray (former Ohio Attorney General). Obama eventually appointed Cordray without Senate approval when the Senate was in recess so the agency could function. [5]

On the judicial front, Republican filibusters and other delaying tactics have created a situation where nearly one in nine federal judgeships sits empty (80 positions in the District and Circuit Courts), and nearly half of those vacancies are in courts so overburdened that they have been deemed judicial emergencies. As-of March, there were 22 judicial nominees who had been approved by the Judiciary Committee and were waiting yes or no votes in the full Senate. Sixteen had strong bipartisan support in the Committee, having received unanimous support or one dissenting vote. The wait for full Senate votes on committee-approved nominees is averaging over 3 months. For comparison, under President George W. Bush the wait was less than one month. Of the 22 filibusters of district court nominees that have occurred in the last 60 years, 19 have been of Obama nominees.

On the legislative front, the filibuster threat has been used to block the legislation preventing a doubling of the interest on student loans, the Paycheck Fairness Act promoting gender equity in wages, attempts to extend unemployment benefits, the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, the DREAM Act providing a path to citizenship for immigrant children brought to the country when they were quite young, and the DISCLOSE Act that requires increased disclosure of political contributions. The last three of these had passed in the House of Representatives and would have passed in the Senate except for a filibuster. [6]

As Republicans filibuster or threaten to filibuster 70% of the major legislation in the Senate, not only is important legislation blocked, but laws that ultimately pass are watered down, often hopelessly convoluted, and sometimes include irrelevant or wasteful add-ons or earmarks as necessary to get the 60 vote super-majority needed to move to a vote. The filibuster incentivizes grandstanding and the power of small minorities (sometimes an individual Senator’s threat of a filibuster) rather than effective governance. [7]

The next issue of the newsletter will examine efforts to limit the impact of the filibuster.

[1]       A filibuster occurs when one or more Senators refuse to end debate on a piece of legislation or other matter. It requires a super-majority of 60 out of 100 votes to close off debate (cloture) and allow a vote on the bill or other matter.

[2]       Mann, T.E., andOrnstein,N.J., 4/27/12, “Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem,” The Washington Post. Adapted from their book “It’s even worse than it looks: How the American Constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism.”

[3]       Wikipedia, retrieved 6/8/12, “Filibuster in the U.S. Senate”

[4]       U.S. Senate, retrieved 6/8/12, “Senate action on cloture motions,” http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

[5]       Editorial, 1/28/12, “Filibustering nominees must end,” The New York Times

[6]       Wong, S., 5/14/12, “Group sues Senate to scrap filibuster,” Politico

[7]       Guess, S., 1/21/10, “Filibusters are strangling the Senate,” The Guardian

WHY GRIDLOCK IN D.C.?

Here’s issue #31 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 5/20/12. Just about everyone is concerned about the political and policy gridlock in our federal government. This issue of the newsletter takes a look at why this is happening.

The Washington Post published an article on April 27 that is the best piece I’ve seen on why we are experiencing gridlock in Congress. It’s entitled, “Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.” [1] It is important to know that it is co-written by two scholars from two institutions that tend to have different, if not opposing, perspectives. Thomas E. Mann is at the Brookings Institution, which is often described as centrist or liberal leaning. (However, I don’t think it has ever been called progressive or aligned with Democrats.) Norman J. Ornstein is at the American Enterprise Institute, which is almost invariably described as conservative and is often seen as aligned with the Republican Party.

In the article, they state, “We have been studying politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.” They describe the Republican Party as “an insurgent outlier … ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

The authors note that both parties have moved away from the center, the Democrats in large part because of the loss of conservative, southern Democrats. They use a football metaphor, where the 50 yard line is the center, to describe the current situation: “While the Democrats may have moved from their 40 yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal posts.” (The goal line is the 0 yard line and the goal posts are actually 10 yards behind the goal line.)

They identify two individuals as key movers in the shift in the Republican Party: Newt Gingrich (Republican Representative from Georgia in Congress from 1979 to 1999) and Grover Norquist (president and founder in 1985 of Americans for Tax Reform). They state that “the forces Gingrich unleashed destroyed whatever comity existed across party lines, activated an extreme and virulent anti-Washington base … and helped drive moderate Republicans out of Congress.” Norquist created the Taxpayer Protection Pledge where signers pledge never to support a tax increase even to close a loophole. Currently, 238 of 242 Republicans in the House and 41 of 47 Republican Senators have signed the pledge. Mann and Ornstein note that this pledge, and others that it has led to, “make cross-party coalitions nearly impossible.”

They note that bipartisan groups “propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach,” and that “In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republic opposition … followed by efforts to delegitimize results and repeal the policies.” Republicans have voted against measures that they co-sponsored to deny President Obama anything that might look like progress.

Procedurally, particularly in the Senate, progress has ground to a near halt. “The filibuster [2] … became a routine weapon of obstruction.” The confirmation process for presidential nominees has also been “abused … to block any and every nominee,” including to “posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws … legitimately enacted from being implemented.”

Mann and Ornstein critique the media, noting that they understand journalism, “But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality.” They advise the press, among other things, to “stop lending legitimacy to Senate filibusters by treating the 60-vote hurdle as routine. The framers certainly didn’t intend it to be. Report individual senator’s abusive use of holds [on presidential nominations] and identify every time the minority party uses a filibuster.”

In closing, they note that “If our democracy is to regain its health and vitality, the culture and ideological center of the Republican Party must change.”

[1]       Mann, T.E., andOrnstein,N.J., 4/27/12, “Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem,” The Washington Post. Adapted from their book “It’s even worse than it looks: How the American Constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism.”

[2]       A filibuster requires a super-majority of 60 out of 100 votes to end debate and allow a vote on passage of a bill or other matter.

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

GOVERNMENTS’ ROLES

Here’s issue #27 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 4/22/12. After a bit of a hiatus from the newsletter while I was on vacation, I’m back with an issue that looks at the role of government in our economy and society.

Our federal and state governments play important roles in supporting people and our economy and providing opportunities both for individuals and companies. Although sometimes criticized for hindering personal or companies’ initiative, which does happen on occasion, for the most part governments do foster opportunity – and we need them to.

Government supports are sometimes criticized as “entitlements,” which has almost become pejorative in its use. The concern is that government support leads to individuals becoming dependent on it and hence lazy and lacking in initiative. However, the great, great majority of government supports – including, for example, support for education from birth through college – provide individuals opportunities to become productive members of society.

Interestingly, government supports for businesses are almost never referred to as entitlements, although some of them have been around for a long time. Furthermore, there are many examples of companies taking advantage of government supports, sometimes to engage in highly risky or other types of activities that they wouldn’t if they didn’t have – or believe they would have – government support. The recent bailouts of the financial and automotive industries, the subsidies for large agribusiness, and tax benefits for fossil fuel companies are all examples.

In addition, companies depend on government supported infrastructure in numerous ways, including:

  • Availability of productive workers based on publicly supported education and job training
  • Ability to get products to consumers through publicly funded transportation systems
  • Copyrights, patents, trademarks, and a legal system to protect companies’ intellectual properties and the profits they gain from them, as well as to maintain the overall legal infrastructure of contracts and laws
  • Support for innovation through government sponsored research and tax credits for research and development
  • A supportive financial system including direct financial support (such as Small Business Administration loans) and well-regulated markets through which investors feel confident in investing their money

Although business people tend to exalt the “free market,” this isn’t really what they want or what exists. What they want – and need to succeed – is a well-regulated and supported economy where productive workers and capital are readily available, where their ideas and innovations are protected, and where they can inform and deliver products to customers.

To create a productive workforce, government provides a range of essential supports to individuals and families. Although sometimes criticized as “entitlements,” these supports provide opportunity to individuals to realize their potential and become the productive workers employers need.

Our education system is probably the primary example. This includes not only K-12 schools but also support for higher education through public colleges and universities, loans and grants for student tuition, as well as grants to higher education for direct and research support. Early care and education – often referred to child care – is receiving growing attention as our knowledge of the importance of early brain development grows and the evidence accumulates that children who arrive at school unready are unlikely to succeed in school or in life. Government financial support and regulation to ensure that children receive safe, nurturing, stimulating, and educational experiences in early care and education are essential, especially for children from low income families.

Clearly, children who aren’t well nourished or healthy will struggle to learn and succeed whether they are newborns or teenagers. Government food programs (e.g., food stamps) and Medicaid (health insurance for poor children and their families) are essential to healthy brain development, school readiness and success, and ultimately becoming productive members of society.

There are many other examples of governments’ supportive roles that range from public libraries to support for seniors (i.e., Medicare and Social Security), not to mention police, fire, and water and sewer services.

In summary, government supports or “entitlements” exist for both individuals and companies. They are important to providing opportunity and maintaining a vibrant economy and society. Although some political rhetoric juxtaposes an entitlement society as the opposite of an opportunity society, that is not the case or the reality. As Renee Loth wrote in her Boston Globe column (3/3/12), “Far from being in opposition, entitlements and opportunity go together like milk and Cocoa Puffs.”