Tag Archives: US politics

Resolving the US Fiscal Deficit: Understanding the Causes, and What to Do Now

Posted on by

The US came close to defaulting on its public debt in August 2011, when Congressional Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling unless their demands were met.  And the public discussion and what was presented in the press accepted the view that to bring the US budget dynamics back to a sustainable path would require drastic cut-backs in federal expenditures.  Of necessity, it was said, this would have to include drastic cut-backs in important social support programs, which would devastate the lives of many who were struggling to get by.  Not surprisingly given these presumptions, the deficit and debt issues are still not resolved.

Actually, the issue is not that difficult, at least for the next decade.  While there will, indeed, be long term problems that need to be addressed in the US budget dynamics, these will not arise until the 2020s and 2030s.  They will stem at that time from rising medical costs coupled with an aging population, and will need to be addressed by health system reform (which the Obama reforms start to address, but do not go far enough).  But as will be shown below, the issue through at least 2022 would be fully addressed provided one allows the Bush tax cuts to be phased out (and under current law, they are due to expire), leading us back to tax rates under which the economy performed quite well during the Clinton years.

One first needs to understand what led to the current budgetary problems, problems which (due to Congressional brinkmanship) almost led to the US Government defaulting on its debt last summer.  One can then work out alternative scenarios for the fiscal accounts, to examine “what if” questions to see the impacts of certain policy decisions.  These are worked out below, using numbers made available by the Congressional Budget Office, in its recent, January 31, 2012, report titled “The Budget and Economic Outlook:  Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022”.  The calculations were somewhat complex to work out (it is especially important to include the feedback from higher or lower fiscal deficits on the future interest payments then due on the resulting debt; many analysts ignore this).  But I was then surprised by how quickly the fiscal accounts would stabilize provided only that the Bush tax cuts were phased out.  Not more is needed.

We can start with the fiscal accounts based on the historic actuals between fiscal years 1972 and 2011, and then (for 2012 to 2022) as projected by the CBO under its current policy scenario.  The current policy scenario (which the CBO calls its “Alternative Fiscal Scenario”) assumes that the Bush tax cuts will be renewed and that the “automatic” spending reductions mandated under last year’s Budget Control Act will not in fact happen (and also that compensation of doctors under Medicare is kept as now rather than being cut:  but this is minor).  The resulting fiscal accounts look like this:

One sees here the deterioration in the accounts during the Reagan presidency, as revenues were cut (the Reagan tax cuts) and outlays were increased (defense expenditures) leading the public debt to GDP ratio to almost double during the Reagan and Bush I years, from 26% in 1981 to almost 50% in 1993.  Outlays were then reduced and revenues increased during the Clinton years, reducing the deficit and in fact leading to a surplus by 1998.  The public debt to GDP ratio fell sharply.  Bush II then cut taxes sharply soon after taking office in 2001 and increased outlays, leading back to deficits, and the public debt to GDP ratio started to rise again.

Revenues then fell sharply in 2008 and especially in 2009 as a result of the 2008 economic collapse as well as tax cuts aimed at stimulating the economy.  Outlays rose in the downturn to cover increased expenditures on unemployment compensation and similar support programs, as well as a consequence of the Obama stimulus measures enacted in response to the sharpest downturn the US had faced since the Great Depression.  Under the CBO projections going forward, outlays are expected to remain well above revenues, leading only to a gradual fall in the deficit.  The public debt to GDP ratio then explodes, reaching 94% of GDP in 2022 and still rising.

This scenario is pretty grim and is clearly not sustainable.  Hence the agreement by all that something needs to be done.  But first it is important to see why the fiscal situation deteriorated so much since 2001, when Bush II took office.  There were two main reasons:  the Bush tax cuts, and the decision to fight major and lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without taking any step whatsoever to pay for them other than through borrowing.

Of these two, the Bush tax cuts are the more important.  The CBO estimates that the Bush tax cuts will lead to reductions in collected tax revenues of about 2.5% of GDP each year going forward (up to 2020 when the losses are projected to rise a bit to 2.6%, and then to 2.7% of GDP in 2021 and 2022).  Over a twenty year period, and considering also the resulting higher public debt and hence the interest due on this higher debt, this is huge.

The unfinanced wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have also been costly.  Based on CBO estimates, the wars have cost on average 1.0% of GDP each year between 2003 and 2011, and will decline only modestly in 2012 and 2013.

Using the CBO data, one can then calculate what the fiscal picture would have been, and what it would then be expected to be, had the Bush tax cuts never been passed, and had the Iraq and Afghan wars not been started (or, in terms of the impact on the deficit and the debt, had they been paid for by current taxes rather than borrowing).  Under this scenario the budget is in surplus and debt falls rapidly until the shock of the 2008 crisis.  And the deficit and the debt then stabilize quickly after that shock:


Note the scale here is different from that in the figure above.  With just these two changes, and leaving all else as before (including the economic collapse of 2008, even though some have argued it would not have then been so severe), the fiscal deficit diminishes and becomes a surplus by 2020, and the public debt to GDP ratio levels off and then starts to fall by 2014/15.  (Note for those not familiar with such dynamics:  The debt to GDP ratio can fall even while the public accounts are in a modest deficit because of GDP growth, which increases the denominator in the debt to GDP ratio.)  The public debt to GDP ratio peaks at 35% of GDP, well below what it reached during the Reagan / Bush I period.

Putting the two scenarios together on one figure allows for easier comparison:

All is the same until 2001, so this focusses only on 2001 to the projected 2022.  Revenues are always substantially lower as a result of the Bush tax cuts.  Outlays are always higher, for two reasons:  the costs of the Iraq and Afghan wars, and then, growing over time, due to outlays for interest on a growing public debt as a result of the deficits.  Deficits are always substantially higher with the Bush tax cuts and wars, and worsen over time due to growing interest expenditures.

And the impact on the public debt to GDP ratios is particularly stark:

The cause of the fiscal mess we are in is therefore clear:  without the Bush tax cuts and the unfinanced Iraq and Afghan wars, the fiscal accounts would not have worsened so much in the 2008 economic collapse, and would soon be back on a sustainable path.  This is taking all else as equal, including all other revenues and expenditures, as well as overall economic growth.  While it is certainly fair to note that all else would likely not then have been equal, there is no evidence to support the Republican argument that higher taxes (without the Bush tax cuts) would have stifled economic growth.  Without the Bush tax cuts, one would have had tax rates as they were during the Clinton years, when the economy grew well.  Why would taxes have suddenly become such a problem?  And growth during the Bush years was in fact quite poor (and terrible if one measures it by growth over his two full terms, with the 2008 collapse at the end of his second term).  The lower taxes under the Bush tax cuts did not lead to better growth than what the US economy achieved during the Clinton years.  It was far worse.

It is also fair to note that while the above may help us understand better the causes of the current fiscal mess, it does not by itself tell us how to solve the mess.  We cannot change the past.  But it does point out that re-establishing prior tax rates would be a clear place to start.  And it turns out that by themselves they would be more than enough:

This scenario assumes that the Bush tax cuts will be phased out starting in 2014 (and not earlier, as the economy has not yet fully recovered from the 2008 economic collapse), with 50% phased out in 2014 and 100% phased out from 2015 and onwards.  This, by itself, puts the economy on a stable and sustainable fiscal path.  The public debt to GDP ratio peaks in 2014 and then starts to fall, and the fiscal deficit falls steadily if slowly, to just 1% of GDP by 2021.  Revenues stabilize at about 21% of GDP and outlays at 22% of GDP.

In summary, the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 (and extended in 2010 for two further years, through 2012), plus the costs of the unfinanced Iraq and Afghan wars, have undermined the US fiscal accounts, to the extent they are now unstable and lead to explosive growth in debt.  Had these decisions not been taken, the fiscal accounts would be quite stable, even with the extraordinary measures that were necessary (and the decline in fiscal revenues received) due to the economic collapse of 2008 and the then slow recovery.  But even with the debts incurred due to the Bush tax cuts and his unfinanced wars, the fiscal accounts can be put on a sustainable path simply by phasing out the tax cuts starting in 2014.

The Impact of Reagan: Good for the Rich, Bad for Most

Posted on by

No belief is more firmly held in Republican dogma than that the Reagan “Revolution” turned the US economy around from perpetual stagnation to strong growth, with consequent benefits for all.  It is now 30 years since Reagan took office and started his program of tax cuts, financial deregulation, and other measures, and we therefore now have 30 years of data to see what the impact has been.  We can compare this to how the US economy performed in the 30 years before Reagan, 1950 to 1980, to see what the differences have been.

We will do this with a series of graphs, starting with:

This shows the path of per capita real GDP, real labor productivity, and real hourly compensation (everything will be in real terms in this note).  Per capita GDP grew by 94% over this 30 year period, or an average of 2.2% a year, while labor productivity grew by a bit more, by a total of 113% or 2.5% a year.  Real hourly compensation grew similarly, by 100%, for a 2.3% annual rate.  In “normal” times one would expect these three measures of productivity and real incomes to grow at similar rates and to track each other, and this is basically what one observes in the pre-Reagan period.

If the Reagan measures helped spur growth, then these growth rates should have shot upwards in the next 30 years.  But one finds:

Per capita real GDP and labor productivity still grew following Reagan, but at a slower rate than before.  Per capita GDP grew only by 65% in the thirty years following Reagan (1.7% a year), vs. 94% (i.e. 45% higher) in the thirty years before.  Much of this difference is due to the weak economy at the very end of the period, due to the 2008 collapse at the end of the Bush administration and only weak recovery after, and it could be argued that one should allow for this.  Growth in the 25 years to 2005 was almost as high as the growth in the 25 years to 1975.  But then growth was strong during the Carter years (despite the widespread and oft-repeated incorrect assertion that the economy was stagnant then), while it collapsed at the end of the Bush Administration.

Growth in the economy ultimately comes from growth in labor productivity, and here the record post-Reagan is consistently weaker relative to before.  Labor productivity over 1980 to 2010 consistently tracks below where it was over 1950 to 1980, and grew by a total of 90% (2.2% a year) vs. 113% (2.5%) before Reagan.

But the really startling difference is in real hourly labor compensation:

Instead of tracking closely to the growth in labor productivity, as one would normally expect, real hourly compensation was well below.  For all workers, average real hourly compensation grew only by 39% (1.1% a year) over the thirty years post-Reagan, vs. 100% in the thirty years before.  There clearly was a change, post-Reagan, but if you were a worker, it was sharply for the worse.

The figures so far have been about overall averages:  for per capita GDP, productivity per worker, and hourly compensation per worker.  But it is also of interest to see how the average gains have been distributed across income groups.

First, for 1950 to 1980:

This data comes from Piketty and Saez, and is based on incomes as reported in US income tax returns (deflated to real terms using the GDP deflator).  Taxable income (including income from capital gains) is a different concept from income as defined in the GDP accounts, but the two concepts track each other fairly well over time, so comparisons in terms of growth relative to a base period will be similar.

For 1950 to 1980, one sees that average real incomes, the real incomes of the bottom 90%, and the real incomes of the top 10%, all track each other within a relatively narrow band.  Overall growth (of taxable income) was 85% (2.1% a year), with slightly more (88%, still 2.1% a year) for the bottom 90%, and a bit less (80%, or 2.0% a year) for the top 10%.  Pre-Reagan, all income groups shared similarly in income growth.  A rising tide lifted all boats.  And with incomes of the bottom 90% growing a bit faster than that of the top 10%, income equality improved some.

But things changed post-Reagan:

First of all, note that the scale here is very different than that in the previous graphs.  Note also that the data goes only up to 2008, the most recent year for which such US income tax return data has been released in a form that Piketty and Saez could analyze.  Note also that with the economic collapse in 2008, some comparisons can better be made using 2007 instead of to a trough in the business cycle.

For the full period of 1980 to 2008, average real taxable income for everyone grew by 60% (1.7% a year).  This is a somewhat slower pace than that for the thirty years before Reagan (where average real taxable income grew by 2.1% a year), consistent with and similar to the slower pace noted above for per capita real GDP.  But real incomes of the bottom 90% grew only by a total of 26% over 1980 to 2008, or 1.1% a year.  In contrast, the top 10% saw their incomes grow by 122% in the post-Reagan period, or 2.9% a year.  Distribution became more unequal, with incomes of the top 10% growing substantially faster than the incomes of the bottom 90%.

But what is startling is the growth in the shares of income going to the increasingly rich.  The top 10% enjoyed income growth over 1980 to 2008 of 122% (2.9% a year), vs. just 26% for the bottom 90%, as noted above.  But the top 1% enjoyed income growth of 234% (4.4% a year) over this period, while the top 0.1% saw their real incomes grow by 387% (5.8% a year), and the top 0.01% saw their incomes grow by 527% (6.8% a year).  The super-rich became far far richer.

Furthermore, the last year of the Bush Administration, 2008, was a year of economic collapse, with the stock market also crashing.  There were few capital gains to report as part of taxable income.  If one takes 2007 rather than 2008 as a more reasonable point of comparison, real income growth over the 27 years post-Reagan was only 33% for the bottom 90%, but 149% for the top 10%, 306% for the top 1%, 523% for the top 0.1%, and 716% for the top 0.01%.  Distribution became sharply worse.

To summarize:

1)  Overall growth in per capita GDP and in labor productivity was not higher post-Reagan, but rather was lower.  Per capita GDP, relative to the starting point, grew by 45% more in the 30 years before Reagan than in the 30 years after Reagan.

2)  Before Reagan, the paths of per capita GDP, labor productivity, and hourly compensation, tracked each other fairly closely.  After Reagan, hourly compensation rose at a far slower rate than labor productivity or per capita GDP.  Wage earners did far worse relative to others post-Reagan.

3)  Before Reagan, the incomes of the bottom 90% and the top 10% grew at fairly similar rates.  Indeed, income growth of the bottom 90% was a bit higher than that of the top 10%, indicating some move in the direction of greater equality of incomes.  But this was shattered post-Reagan, with the bottom 90% seeing income growth of just 26% over the 28 years from 1980 to 2008, while the top 10% enjoyed income growth of 122%.  But even this growth by the top 10% was small compared to that enjoyed by the top 1%, top 0.1% and especially the top 0.01%.

In other words, if you are among the rich, and especially the super-rich, you have benefited post-Reagan.  It is this elite that account for most of the money given to political campaigns, who drive the political discussion, and from the evidence considered here, have good reason to believe Reagan was positive.

But for the economy as a whole, and especially for those in the middle and lower classes all the way to the 90% mark, growth in living standards was far better before Reagan than it has been after.

Romney Would Pay Almost Nothing in Taxes Under the Gingrich Plan

Posted on by

If the Gingrich tax proposals had been in place in 2010, Romney would have paid almost nothing in Federal taxes despite a gross income of $20.9 million that year.  An analysis of his recently released tax returns by Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, concluded that his taxes would have totaled only about $30,000 on this $20.9 million in income, for an average tax rate of only 0.14%.  Note this is 0.14%, not 14%, but one-hundreth of that.  The figures are reported in an article in the Washington Post today.

Under the tax system in place for 2010, Romney had to pay an already low rate (for someone with his income) of just 14%.  Under Gingrich’s proposal, he would have gotten a 99% cut.

Ordinary income in 2010 was taxed at a rate of 35% for income above $373,650, but Romney benefits from the low tax rates on capital income.  He noted when he released his returns that he paid all that was owed “and not a dollar more”, and I would take this as an honest statement.  That is, I do not believe that Romney was doing anything illegal.

But this is precisely the problem:  the tax system is now structured so that the extremely rich in Romney’s position can legally pay a far lower rate than those in the middle.  Gingrich would have the rich legally pay almost nothing.  And when Obama says this is just not right, the Republicans loudly assert he is waging class warfare.