This Ryan Won’t Fly-Part
1
Back in the days when economists had a sense of humor and
irony Herbert Stein noted that something that is unsustainable will not
continue. This unalterable fact is true of federal finances as currently
constructed. The budget has a structural deficit of about 4%+ of GDP and this
structural component will grow if the spending/taxing relationship is not
changed. The Debt/GDP ratio will have to be reduced and stabilized. Empirical
research indicates a ratio of around 60% is necessary for long-run economic
stability. We are currently at 80% and moving towards a three digit level
within the next few years. The recession is only partially responsible (about
60% of the current deficit can be attributed to the slow economy).
Currently there are three fully formed budgetary proposals
designed to put federal finances on a sustainable path and reduce deficits and
federal debt. They are : The Bowles-Simpson plan put forward by the President’s
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the Rivlin-Domenici deficit
reduction plan proposed by the Bipartisan Policy Center and the “Path to
Prosperity” fiscal plan proposed by Congressman Ryan. And recently the Obama
Late Entry Plan. I take it as a political truth that only bipartisan support will
generate a plan that has any chance of legislative enactment, and bipartisan
support indicates the public has the stomach for the plan’s distribution of
pains and benefits.
This eliminates two extremes: A plan that claims to attack the fiscal crisis by only cutting spending (The
Ryan Plan )or a plan that solves the problem by only raising revenues (I’m
speaking of both of these as a share of GDP). The current fiscal gap is roughly
10% of GDP.Under the current structure of taxes and expenditures. This gap
would close to around 5% if the economy were operating at a full employment
level of output. Any plan must reduce this structural gap to claim it will
achieve fiscal sustainability.
The trick is to move toward a sustainable fiscal balance
without jeopardizing the recovery. The adoption of a plan will not in itself
immediately stimulate the recovery. It will improve the nation’s balance sheet
overtime and provide a foundation for more economic stability. It accomplishes
this by stabilizing and gradually reducing the Debt/GDP ratio at the 60% range,
and reduces the potential “crowding out” effect of increasing federal debt held
by the public. This does not assure balancing of the budget, at least not,
annually. The ideal solution (I think) involves cyclical balancing of the
budget with a virtual balance at around 5% unemployment and surpluses at output
levels that generate unemployment a lower levels.
In the real world a politically acceptable solution will
involve increased taxes, and program cuts (this will involve actual reductions
in the growth rate of entitlement spending, actual reductions in Medicare and
Medicaid. Pain for all is the politically acceptable solution.
A balanced plan also implies some growth in the federal
share of the GDP. Demographic trends augur for an aging population and this
means increased medical care per capita. Demography is destiny.There is no
extant evidence that medical costs for the elderly will decline in absolute
terms, or for that matter in relative terms. This means that the current and
future generations will have to save more (either through increased personal
savings or increased taxes) to cover growing medical expenses. Geriatric care
is the elephant in the closet, and the elephant is growing. We can offset some
of this burden through economic growth but growth is unlikely to offset all of
it. We can try and offset the growth in medical federal medical liabilities
trend by reducing government expenditures on other programs. That will buy some
time but unless you can envision defense spending and non-defense discretionary
spending trending to zero, the budget will increase. The interest on the debt
is the other item that seems primed for inexorable growth absent serious fiscal
discipline.
The Ryan approach throws all the burden of hunting elephants
to the expenditure side of the budget. Over time discretionary spending
declines by 91% as a share of the budget and Medicare and Medicaid spending are
significantly reduced The burden of all these cuts falls on the majority of the
population.
Nothing real has changed. The elephant is still growing
demography and medical cost trends guarantee this result. The cost is shifted
to the consumers of medical services. (Additionally, The Affordable Care Act is
also repealed) Let me suggest that all of this is politically impossible, but
the fight will slow down the search for real alternatives.
The federal budget deficit is not the real focus of the Ryan
Plan. He wants to reduce the share of Federal spending to GDP to its post WW2
average of around 18% and just cuts spending growth to get there. The deficit
is not eliminated until 2030 under his favorable economic growth assumptions. A
discussion of these assumptions will follow in the next installment of the Ryan
flight plan.
These spending cuts and medical cost redistributions will be
combined with higher income earners sacrificing pre-Bush tax rates. This is the
most regressive fiscal revision in US history.
No comments:
Post a Comment