The Pak Banker

Want to fix the deficit? Get real

- Ezra Klein

THIS week marks the beginning of the U.S. budget season. Representa­tive Paul Ryan of Wisconsin will present the budget for House Republican­s. Senator Patty Murray of Washington will, for the first time since 2009, present a budget on behalf of Senate Democrats. In a few weeks, the Barack Obama administra­tion will publish its own budget. In honor of the occasion, Americans everywhere will wear traditiona­l budgetseas­on hats and eat the customary budget- season meals, which include, of course, a rich dessert that we assume will be offset by future weight loss.

Behind all these appendixhe­avy documents lurks the specter of our budget deficits, which have emerged as pretty much the only problem in Washington that both parties can agree to focus on (sorry, millions of jobless Americans). But what kind of problem, exactly, do our budget deficits present? Here are three ways to think about them:

We're experienci­ng severe and measurable economic drag from today's deficits. We're not experienci­ng measurable economic drag from today's deficits, but we're worried about future deficits implied by today's policies and demographi­c trends.. We're not experienci­ng severe and measurable economic drag from today's deficits, but we're worried about future deficits implied by today's policies and demographi­c trends, and we're also concerned about the likelihood of additional budgetbust­ing policies that some future Congress might pursue. If you guessed No. 3, then congratula­tions! You get a double serving of budget-season cake. Delicious. Today's deficits are, if anything, too small. Yes, I said it. Too. Small. We've seen real, clear damage from spending cutbacks -- if public employment had remained steady since 2008, unemployme­nt would be down to about 7.1 percent -- and the world is begging us to borrow more money. In fact, they're paying us to borrow more money; real interest rates on Treasury debt have, amazingly, turned negative. We should accept the world's generous, limited-time offer.

This is the moment to pass a big tax cut for employers who hire new workers, to rebuild our infrastruc­ture at bargain- basement rates, and to help state and local government­s reverse the deep cuts they've made in recent years. It's not the moment to begin sequestrat­ion.

Future deficits are a legitimate concern. But as either Yogi Berra or Niels Bohr said, prediction­s are very difficult, especially about the future. And future deficits are, annoyingly, situated entirely in the future. So most everyone in Washington has outsourced the difficult task of estimating future deficits to the genial and diligent wonks at the Congressio­nal Budget Office. The CBO has come back with two projection­s. One is a simple, mechanical projection of future deficits based on current law. Everyone pretty much ignores this analysis, because, in recent years, current law has been a poor predictor of future policy. The law said, for instance, that all the Bush tax cuts would expire at the end of 2012 and that huge Medicare cuts would be imposed. Everyone knew that Congress wouldn't let that happen, and that the current-law projection was wrong.

Recognizin­g this, the CBO constructe­d another projection it calls the "alternativ­e fiscal sce- nario." A better name might be the "Washington is incredibly irresponsi­ble" scenario. Under this model, all of President George W. Bush's tax cuts are extended, the automatic budget cuts known as sequestrat­ion neither happen nor are replaced by other cuts, the cost controls in Obama's Affordable Care Act are repealed, spending on Iraq and Afghanista­n continues indefinite­ly, and so forth.

Policy makers, pundits and others almost exclusivel­y use this model to stoke Washington's deficit anxieties. This model, too, is wrong. Although most of the Bush tax cuts expired, some didn't -- producing more than $600 billion in revenue over 10 years. Likewise, sequestrat­ion's budget cuts have actually begun, and the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanista­n are ending.

At the left-leaning Center for American Progress, Michael Linden pulled together an illuminati­ng analysis of exactly what assumption­s lurk behind the alternativ­e fiscal scenario's odd projection­s. He begins with the most recent long-term budget outlook, from June 2012, which projects that, without a change in policies, debt in 2037 will be at a truly scary 199 percent of gross domestic product. Yet by incorporat­ing reality as we know it -- the tax increases that passed in January, some recent changes the CBO made to its estimate of federal spending in the next decade, and the drawdown of the wars in Iraq and Afghanista­n -Linden brings the projected debt down to 169 percent of GDP. Better, but still too high. Then Linden goes deeper.

The CBO estimates for future tax revenue are a bit strange: The agency expects that tax revenue as a percentage of GDP will hold perfectly steady after 2022. But taxes typically grow faster than the economy. Holding them steady represents an implicit assumption that Congress will actually cut taxes.

"CBO itself acknowledg­es this fact," Linden writes. "Under its standard baseline projection, the revenue-to-GDP ratio continues to grow after 2022. By contrast, the Alternativ­e Fiscal Scenario assumes 'unspecifie­d changes in tax law that would keep revenues constant as a share of GDP after 2022.'" Remove this prediction of future tax cuts and the projected debt falls further -- from 169 percent of GDP to 153 percent.

The CBO also assumes large spending increases with no offsets. In recent years, spending on programs other than entitlemen­ts and health care has fallen to 7.6 percent of GDP. The CBO assumes it will rebound to its historic average of 10.6 percent of GDP. However, if that spending doesn't rebound, the projected debt tumbles -- from 153 percent of GDP to 112 percent. By the way, all this assumes the repeal of the budget cuts in sequestrat­ion.

Finally, while health-care spending typically rises much faster than economic growth, in recent years the rate of growth has slowed considerab­ly. If that trend continues -- unlikely, maybe, but stranger things have happened -and health costs rise at the same rate as the rest of the economy, debt falls to 97 percent of GDP.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Pakistan