Category: Politics

US debt to exceed GDP by 2010!

In Febuary, I predicted that US federal debt would exceed US GDP by 2015. It appears that I was too optimistic at that time.

The Obama Administration’s latest budget projections now show that the debt may exceed GDP as soon as 2010! This year’s deficit is expected to rise to $1.75 Trillion, raising the total debt from the current 11.2 trillion (4/9/09) to almost 13 trillion by year end. Next year’s deficit is projected to be in the trillion dollar range, driving the debt up to 14 trillion [1], which is roughly equivalent to 2008 GDP. Since GDP growth will be negative in 2009 and modest in 2010, it’s not unlikely that GDP and gross federal debt will be equal at the end of 2010 [2].

It looks like the budget situation may force decisions on big government programs like Medicare, Social Security, and Defense sooner than most expected – and likely sooner than the Administration would prefer. Here’s to the return (or beginning?)  of fiscal discipline!

[1] See Table S-9 in the White House Budget for FY 2010, showing gross debt of 14.078 Trillion for 2010.

[2] Table S-8 shows the White House’s economic growth assumptions, which are more optimistic than many mainstream economists’ assumptions. In fact, the table itself shows that both the CBO and private economists have lower growth projections than the White House (kudos for the honesty). The CBO estimates GDP at 14.6 Trillion for 2010, meaning that any further slippage in the budget cause the debt to surpass GDP.

Posted on by praveenghanta 6

US Defense Spending Is Out Of Control

In the federal budget, there are three untouchable categories of spending: Medicare, Social Security, and Defense. Which of these expenditures has grown fastest over the past decade? While the media is constantly pointing to runaway healthcare spending, defense spending has grown at 10% per year in the past decade, faster than any part of the budget. The Korean and Vietnam Wars were fought on 2/3 the current defense budget, and those were much larger conflicts than Iraq and Afghanistan! In his proposed budget, President Obama has indicated that he will attempt to make defense spending more efficient. Nonetheless, the budget shows defense spending rising from $600 Billion this year to nearly $700 Billion by 2019.

US defense spending during the Cold War (1946-1991) averaged $400 Billion per year in 2008 dollars, including both the Korean and Vietnam wars. By comparison, the 2008 defense budget including the Iraq War and troop surge was $676 Billion. It’s absurd enough that we defeated the Soviets with a much smaller military budget, but proposed budgets increase spending further, when the winding down of the Iraq war should enable a $100 Billion dollar decrease.

Winslow Wheeler at the Center for Defense Information notes that the military budget has doubled while the quantity of weaponry and quality of military readiness has actually declined. Department of Defense accounting is so poor (perhaps intentionally?) that the DoD has no idea how much money is really spent on its weapons programs. Rather than increasing the defense budget, President Obama should consider freezing it at the 2007 level for the balance of his presidency. This would eliminate almost $1 trillion in deficit spending, and would finally force the DoD to focus on accountability and efficiency. A $600 Billion defense budget is still triple that of our potential adversaries’ defense budgets combined, and would ensure our safety while forcing fiscal discipline on an untamed federal department.

Sources:

[1] $258 Billion in 1998, $676 Billion in 2008 = 10% growth per year. Health care spending and social security also rise rapidly over the same period, but neither grew at this rate. See the following links for data:

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/afr/fy2008/Fiscal_Year_2008_Department_of_Defense_Agency_Wide_Financial_Statements_and_Notes.pdf – Figure 1-5 and 1-6 show actual expenditures for 2008

Click to access tables.pdf

Click to access budget.pdf

[2] $676 Billion in 2008 vs. $400 Billion per year in 2008 dollars during the Cold War including Vietnam and Korea

http://www.cdi.org/Issues/milspend.html

Posted on by praveenghanta 3

Healthcare Bubble

Dot com bubble. Real estate bubble. Commodities bubble. Healthcare bubble? How can the US healthcare system be a bubble when tens of millions are uninsured and more people fall through the cracks daily? The media, public, and politicians alike have been more concerned with the inadequacies of the system than with its rapid growth. US healthcare spending has grown enormously, exceeding the rate of inflation for decades to become the largest sector of the US economy. The United States now spends over 16% of its GDP on healthcare, almost double the average for developed nations.

Perhaps Americans just demand the best and priciest healthcare, with the most modern technology and treatments. Other insurance prices are on a steep rise, including home, accidental and auto insurance. If Americans paid for healthcare themselves, this would simply represent a rational spending choice. But the federal government now incurs 60% of all healthcare spending, meaning that taxpayers, and not individuals, pay for most of our healthcare. Medicare, Medicaid, and other direct government healthcare accounts for 46% of healthcare spending, while tax breaks on healthcare subsidize another 10-15% of healthcare spending [1].

At current growth rates, government healthcare spending will exceed the entire Federal budget by 2050 [2]. Total spending on healthcare will near one-third of GDP by 2030. It’s unlikely that the US can devote 1/3rd of all productive capacity to healthcare without crippling other sectors of the economy and reducing overall economic growth. The healthcare bubble thus dwarfs all previous bubbles in size, since the technology, real estate, and energy sectors are all so much smaller.

How will the bubble pop, and what will its effects be? Since most healthcare spending is federal, the bubble will pop when the government can no longer afford its healthcare outlays. The US has been able to borrow freely by issuing debt for many decades, but this will eventually end once our debt exceeds GDP. With the current downturn, government debt may actually exceed GDP by 2015 [3]. Thus the reckoning may come sooner than many expect.

Will healthcare reform contain costs and deflate the bubble gradually? Most reform plans focus more on increased coverage than on cost control, so they may exacerbate the problem. Eventually the hard choices will have to be made, and they will include some combination of reducing Medicare benefits, cutting provider reimbursements, openly rationing government health care, and limiting the tax break on health insurance. I just hope that some of the hard choices are made before we are collectively up against a fiscal wall.

[1] $200 Billion in taxes are foregone as a result of the employer-based healthcare tax deduction, equivalent to 10% of all healthcare spending. When this subsidy is included the government’s share of healthcare spending rises to 56%. This analysis does not include the exemptions on property taxes and sales taxes that healthcare providers receive; adding these subsidies in would likely drive the government’s share of health care spending over 60%.

[2] The CBO predicts that Medicare and Medicaid will account for 14% of GDP by 2050. This figure doesn’t include healthcare spending through the VA system, SCHIP program, and other federal healthcare programs, which total $100 Billion in spending today. If these programs also grow commensurately, total government spending may near 18% of GDP in 2050, roughly equivalent to total government revenue.

[3] This projection of public debt growth shows that US government debt will exceed gdp by 2050. This only takes into account debt held by the public, however. Gross government debt is already above 65% of GDP, and may grow to 75% by the end of 2010 as a result of the recession and stimulus spending. With deficits of $500B+ per year possible for several year, US total government debt could exceed gdp in less than 10 years.

Posted on by praveenghanta 13

What’s the Real Federal Deficit?

The federal deficit for the past ten weeks alone is now 650 Billion dollars, in addition to a fiscal 2008 deficit of $1 Trillion.

Since the US government fiscal year ended on 9/30/08, the federal debt has increased from $10,024 Billion to $10,656 Billion (as of 12/9/08).* The federal debt increased by $1 Trillion over the 12 months ending 9/30/08.

As I’ve previously noted, measuring the Federal deficit by looking at growth in the Federal debt provides a clearer picture of budget shortfalls than the officially announced numbers, which hide significant expenditures, and paint too rosy a picture.

A large part of the recent increase in the debt can be tied to the Treasury Department’s various stabilization and bailout initiatives, including the TARP and other programs. President-elect Obama plans to add a significant dose of fiscal stimulus to the Treasury and Federal Reserve efforts, driving the deficit up by another 500 Billion to one trillion in the next year. While current circumstances do call for aggressive action, the government should take care not to exacerbate our economic problems by trying to roll the clock back to 2006. Lowering mortgage rates for new home purchases, for instance, provides an incentive to create and buy more of a product that is already in a state of massive over-supply.

When the bad times end, we’ll have to start paying these debts back. Let’s hope President-elect Obama and his team spend their stimulus money on projects with tangible return on investment, and not just on make-work programs.

 

* A significant portion of the increase in deficit spending is being used to buy financial institution shares and various commercial debt instruments, which might be thought of as investments. Nonetheless, the federal debt grows when we borrow, even if we use the money to buy investments. This holds true for personal balance sheets, corporate balance sheets, and for the federal government as well. The federal government has a particularly poor record of decreasing the size of its debt, so I believe it’s fair to regard any excess borrowing as a deficit.

Posted on by praveenghanta 4

US Healthcare Reform: Possible Choices

The United States’ health care system is a patchwork of private care, Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for some of the poor, and emergency-only care for the 47M uninsured. Both presidential candidates insist that change is needed, with increased coverage and decreased costs as primary goals. Neither candidate mentions how public dollars will be rationed, though government resources are limited.

Here’s a list of a range of health care systems in place around the world, with the most market-oriented systems listed first, and the most government controlled systems listed last. The future of American health care will mostly take the form of one of the middle options, as both extremes appear politically unpalatable.

US Health Care System Choices:

Health Care System Description Found Where
Traditional Free Market Little government intervention, patients pay health care providers directly. Those without financial means rely on charity hospitals or receive no care. India, many developing countries
Public Senior Care + Semi-Free Market The government provides health care for seniors, while others rely on a regulated private health insurance market (whether purchased individually or through an employer). United States
Public Care for Children and Seniors The government provides health care for seniors and children, while others rely primarily on the private health insurance market (whether purchased individually or through an employer). Barack Obama’s health care plan approximates this
Mandatory Health Insurance The government requires that all individuals purchase health insurance, and provides subsidies to assist the poor and unhealthy in purchasing coverage. Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton’s Plan
Dual Public-Private System The government provides health care for all residents not enrolled in private care, and provides incentives for employers to provide health care and for individuals to purchase care. Individuals may also pay extra to supplement their basic government plan. Australia
Single Payer, Private Premium Care The government provides health care for all residents, and individuals can choose to pay extra for premium health care services (like private rooms, experimental treatments, etc). France, other European countries
Single Payer Only The government pays for all health care, and does not allow private market health care transactions. Canada
Posted on by praveenghanta 2

How Large is the Real Federal Deficit?

Politicians have a habit of trying to obfuscate facts that don’t paint a positive picture.  Thus when uncomfortable discussions on the federal deficit cannot be avoided, attempts are made to conceal its true size.  For instance, the Iraq war has been funded through emergency supplemental spending, leaving it outside the official federal budget and deficit numbers, though the spending is quite real.

A simple technique can be used to reveal the true* size of the annual Federal deficit. Since all federal revenue shortfalls (deficits) are paid for through increases in the total US debt, the increase in debt each year exactly equals that year’s real federal deficit.

Here is the amount of US Federal debt outstanding from 1997-2008, for Sept. 30th of each year:

Year US Debt ($ Billions)
2008 10,024
2007 9,007
2006 8,506
2005 7,932
2004 7,379
2003 6,783
2002 6,228
2001 5,807
2000 5,674
1999 5,656
1998 5,526
1997 5,413

Using this data, we can calculate the true Federal deficit for each year, and compare it to the publicly announced deficit for that year:

Year Official US Surplus / Deficit ($Billions) Actual US Deficit
($Billions, based on actual borrowing)		 % Larger than Official
2008 -410 -1017 115%
2007 -162 -501 209%
2006 -248 -574 131%
2005 -318 -553 74%
2004 -412 -596 45%
2003 -377 -555 47%
2002 -158 -421 166%
2001 128 -133 204%
2000 236 -18 108%
1999 125 -130 204%
1998 69 -113 263%

The Federal government’s need to borrow has been consistently understated in official deficits for the past decade, and has been as large as triple the official number! These numbers also show that the US government never actually ran a surplus at any time in the last decade. It appears that the first step to dealing with our government’s revenue shortfalls is to get our government to admit how large they are!

* Under US GAAP, federal deficits would be even larger, because they would take into account future Social Security and Medicare shortfalls. These programs are likely to be modified in the future, however, and so I believe that the method used above provides an accurate measure of the government’s cash deficit each year. This is a number most Americans would recognize – how much do you have to borrow to pay the bills each year?

** The argument might be made that during the “surplus” years of the late 90s, debt was increased simply to provide liquidity in treasury bond markets. This doesn’t make sense, however – if it had a cash surplus, the Treasury could easily have issued new debt while retiring old debt, leaving net debt unchanged. Economists generally take the view that government debt crowds out private sector borrowing, so why would the Treasury borrow if it didn’t need the funds?

Posted on by praveenghanta 8

We Need a Good Recession

“I believe if the credit markets are not functioning, that jobs will be lost, that our credit rate will rise, more houses will be foreclosed upon, GDP will contract, that the economy will just not be able to recover in a normal, healthy way.” – Ben Bernanke, Fed Chairman, Sept. 23rd, 2008

“that our American economy’s arteries, our financial system, is clogged and if we don’t act the patient will surely suffer a heart attack — maybe next week, maybe in six months, but it will happen.” – Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, Sept. 23rd, 2008

Even before testimony concluded yesterday on Capitol Hill, reports with headlines like “Bernanke: Recession Certain in Absence of Bailout” and “Bush Administration Tells Congress to Act Quickly or Risk Recession” hit the wire services. Both Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson stated clearly that a recession would occur if the proposed $700 Billion dollar bailout plan were not enacted. Similar threats of recession were used earlier this year when President Bush and Congress enacted a tax rebate stimulus program.

Let me ask a simple question: why is everyone so afraid of a recession? Recessions and boom times are both natural parts of the business cycle in market economies, and the United States experienced twenty recessions (including the Great Depression) in the 20th century alone. Economic downturns, with the associated bankruptcies and layoffs, help trim inefficient investments made at the peak of economic cycles, thus paving the way for the next round of economic growth.

The alternative to business cycles can be found in state-controlled economies, where inability to reallocate capital to new enterprises slows overall economic growth dramatically. Governments presiding over market economies also attempt to tamper with business cycles, and while intervention may soften the landing in a recession, it may also delay the recovery. Japan’s “lost decade” of the 90’s, where poor economic growth was the norm, resulted after Japan’s incredible economic boom of the 80’s. The extraordinary length of Japan’s recovery stemmed partly from the Japanese government’s inability to allow corporate and bank bankruptcies progress at the rate needed to clear out bad loans and start a new economic cycle.

The US would do well to heed Japan’s allegory. Ideally, any intervention in the financial markets should enable orderly collapse and restructuring of businesses overridden with bad debt. No one gains in a financial panic, but an unwinding of the excesses of the US housing bubble is inevitable. Creative Destruction is at the heart of the business cycle, it’s at the heart of the American economy, and it will be necessary in this cycle as well. Let’s not make it take longer than necessary.

Posted on by praveenghanta 4

Mortgages and Health Insurance: The Biggest Subsidies of Them All

Economists decry government subsidies, because they distort the market and cause inefficiencies, thus wasting taxpayers’ money and decreasing overall economic growth. Taxpayers and advocacy groups rightly decry government subsidies to corporations as pork-barrel spending.

Where then is the indignation regarding the two biggest subsidy programs of them all?

I’m talking about the home mortgage interest deduction and the employer health insurance deduction. The home mortgage interest deduction subsidizes homeowners at the rate of $100 billion per year, while employer health insurance is similarly subsidized at $250 billion per year. These subsidies carve a large hole in government revenue, which could otherwise be used to reduce the deficit or reduce taxes for everyone.

Both subsidies also have a more insidious effect – they raise prices for both homes and medical care, thereby making it harder for those with low incomes to afford either one. The mortgage deduction lowers the effective cost of a house for all buyers, thus increasing demand and raising prices. The net effect of the subsidy is to cause Americans to live in bigger houses than they otherwise would, without raising rates of home ownership significantly. Similarly, the employee health care deduction raises the cost of health care for everyone, and causes Americans to spend more on health care than they otherwise would.

Neither deduction is designed to help those with the greatest difficulty in getting a home or health insurance. Lower income families can’t afford the down payment required to avail themselves of the mortgage tax break, and most low-paying jobs don’t provide health care as a benefit.

These subsidies are popular because they target middle and upper-income America, but that doesn’t make them any more effective than much-maligned corporate subsidies. $350 Billion is a lot of money, and should either be given back to ALL American taxpayers, or spent paying for the deficit, recent wars, or other priorities.

Posted on by praveenghanta 6

Return on our Iraq Investment

As the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war comes and goes, the Bush administration touts the success of the “surge” in American force levels begun last year, while those opposed to the war point to a litany of failures to denounce the entire enterprise. Both the administration and presidential hopeful John McCain contend that success in Iraq will pay huge dividends for future generations. Which side is right, and how can we measure the true cost (and benefits) of our Iraq engagement?

An estimate of the Iraq War’s return on investment can measured by weighing estimates of its total cost against its current and projected future benefits. On the cost front, the most conservative measure of the cost of the war is $600 Billion, roughly the amount directly spent on the war over its first five years. The benefits of the war can be measured in terms of its effects on US national security, US political relations, US energy security, and potential social and economic benefits for Iraq.
Read the full entry (461 words) …

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

Politics and Race: Obama’s Hurdle

Barack Obama looks ever more likely to take the Democratic nomination for President this year, having won every race since Super Tuesday, and with polls showing him closing the gap with Hillary Clinton in the upcoming races in Ohio and Texas. This raises the question: in a general election, will Americans vote for a black candidate to be the next President of the United States?

Polls done on this topic in recent years have shown that an overwhelming percentage of Americans (94% according to a recent Gallup Poll) are willing to vote for a black candidate. While this sounds encouraging, it is important to look at this number from another perspective. What percentage of Americans are willing to vote for a white, Protestant male? Though polls on this are unavailable, the implicit answer is close to 100%, since every president but JFK (and arguably Thomas Jefferson) has been a white Protestant male, and since almost all Presidential candidates fall into this group.
Read the full entry (428 words) …

Posted on by praveenghanta 0