Federal Budget

A Balanced Approach to Restoring Fiscal Responsibility

Rather than spending time trying to hammer out complex budget procedures of dubious merit and effectiveness, policymakers should focus on actual steps they can start taking to reduce projected deficits by slowing the growth of health care spending throughout the U.S. health care system while also reforming Medicare, closing the Social Security shortfall, and raising more revenue. While policymakers may not yet be ready to address such matters fully, they can begin by seeking “grand bargains” involving changes in both the big spending programs and taxes, including the changes suggested below. To be sure, some of these changes will be difficult to enact on their own. But, in the spirit of “shared sacrifice” as exemplified by the deficit‐reduction packages of 1990 and 1993, these measures may be achievable as part of overall deficit‐reduction packages. (Note: Not all signatories to this statement favor all of the following measures, but all favor at least a majority of them.)

• Adopting recommendations of Congress’ Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which could generate substantial savings;
• Increasing the Medicare premiums that affluent beneficiaries pay;
• Instituting vigorous research programs to determine the comparative effectiveness of different health care treatments and procedures as well as what is causing the huge differences in health care costs across the country, and using the results as the basis for new policies to restrain health care costs without compromising health care quality;
• Curbing or eliminating outdated or unproductive tax expenditures;
• Switching to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ alternative, more accurate Consumer Price Index in computing the annual cost‐of‐living adjustments in Social Security and other entitlement programs (while taking steps to shield low‐income and other vulnerable beneficiaries) and the annual inflation adjustments in the tax code;
• Reforming farm price supports; and
• Adhering to Pay‐As‐You‐Go rules for both increases in mandatory programs and tax cuts.

While, taken together, these proposals would have a substantial effect on future deficits, policymakers will need ultimately to enact more extensive measures to achieve long‐term fiscal sustainability.

Social Security and immigration

IMMIGRATION AND SOCIAL SECURITY

In general, researchers conclude that increases in immigration will somewhat improve the financial status of Social Security and that decreases in immigration will worsen it. According to the chief actuary of Social Security, “Provisions that will increase net immigration tend to improve the financial status of the [Social Security] program both because of the immigrants themselves and their children. This effect is much like the effect of increased birth rates, which also have positive effects of the financial status of the program.”[6] Adding more young workers to the labor force, whether through higher birth rates or more immigration, improves the outlook for Social Security because the resulting increase in payroll tax collections occurs relatively soon, while Social Security benefit outlays grow only in the more distant future. Social Security’s trustees estimate that an increase in net immigration of 300,000 persons a year would eliminate about one-tenth of Social Security’s 75-year deficit.[7] The Congressional Budget Office also finds that increases in immigration generally improve Social Security’s finances.[8]

The presence of unauthorized (undocumented) workers in the United States also has a positive effect on the financial status of Social Security. The earnings of unauthorized workers are less likely to be reported for tax purposes than the earnings of the rest of the population and even less likely to result in future benefits, according to Social Security’s chief actuary. Although the magnitudes cannot be precisely determined, the actuary has estimated that unauthorized immigrants paid as much as $13 billion in Social Security payroll taxes in 2007. About $1 billion in benefit payments were made based on unauthorized work (for example, survivor benefits paid to U.S. citizens who were dependents of deceased individuals who had made payments into the Social Security system while performing unauthorized work). Thus, undocumented immigrants improved Social Security’s cash flow by an estimated $12 billion in 2007.[9]

For any "free market" advocates the free flow of labor should be top priority... also you "the government is going broke" types. Lynn Westmoreland didn't get the memo... for all the "free market" grandstanding he does...

Lets put away 102 Trillion dollars this week...

I should be studying for my theories of democracy final but this is too much fun...

Jason responds again:

How can you say that it's not true with any certainty? These programs will be consuming almost 20% of GDP in 30 years. The current budget, not including bailouts, is around 21% of GDP. You're talking about adding another entitlement to these boondoogles programs.

It doesn't make any sense.

I believe markets work.

And I'm assuming we're speaking to the medicare issue and the market competition that the government can bring via a plan you can buy into as the entitlement you are speaking of?

Does anyone really believe cutting into profit margins of other firms doesn't lower costs and makes markets more efficient?

Does anyone believe that government purchasing power won't lower costs of medicare by providing cheaper drugs? We're not currently allowed to negotiate prices by purchasing in bulk thanks to Republicans.

We have to waste revenue subsidizing private companies who already get protectionism from patents. I'm on board with getting rid of wasteful spending--who isn't by the by?

If one doesn't think purchasing power would push down costs why is the purchasing power of walmart so effective for lowering costs?

Also note a clever chess move in the NCPA study Jason cites...

"Looking indefinitely into the future, anticipated benefits, over and above expected premiums and dedicated tax revenues, amount to $102 trillion. This is about 7 times the size of the U.S. economy. It is the amount the government needs to have set aside today, invested and earning interest, to fund these programs indefinitely"

Look at social security... its set up so the workforce today is paying for the current benefits going out. So its a straw man to say anyone is arguing we put all that money away today.

And once again... are there any other government programs we project 70 years into the future? Why not project the military expenditures for the next 1000 years? Might as well throw up the white flag, cut and run so to speak... we can't afford it.

I don't know of anyone saying we save all of it up today? Err... aside from ncpa. No wonder they are worried about it... (on second reading my hyperbole doesn't work... of coarse they don't.)

update: also check this... they state:

Congress often passes legislation that benefits current generations by imposing costs on future ones — Social
Security and Medicare are prominent examples.

Question... are there any government programs whose sole goal is to benifit future generations?

In what democracy could a politician possibly get elected by saying: "We need to spend x amount of dollars so that every child in 2085 has a robot of their own--I don't care about helping citizens today... we need to think about our future first." Whose gonna vote for that? People are greedy and selfish (i.e. people work on incentives--the reason markets work so effectively).

Obviously the social security surplus was about thinking about the future... but it was for the future in the sense that its our economic sustainability that is important--and people do have incentives to give a decent quality of life to their kids...

We aren't going to do something between now and 2041???

Jason Pye posted on the social security/medicare crisis stating:

These two programs are cause for serious concern and it is irresponsible of our leaders, Republicans and Democrats, to keep avoiding the issue. But like Sullum says, there is no political will to take it up and we'll pay the price in the long run.

I hate the corruption, red tape, and slowness of a Republic. Our founding fathers consciously put slow reform as a top priority... but I don't seriously believe we won't do something about the health care crisis within the next 10 years or address social security funding between now and 2041. I may be cynical about government but I'm not that cynical.


There is so much here... I don't know where to begin. Both in the description of the problem and then from a political theory perspective...

The 2008 trustee's report:

Social Security's current annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures will begin to decline in 2011 and then turn into rapidly growing deficits as the baby boom generation retires.

First we knew that, its not a shocker. In fact we've been taking in more taxes--building the surplus--for that very reason. So its not going bankrupt in 2011... its turning towards the surplus we built up for this very reason:

Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2019 and Social Security reserves in 2041.

Not exactly top priority in the way of "major drains on the budget" (i.e. the Iraq war boon-doggle)

On the "crisis" itself. You'll often see Medicare and Social Security lopped together... to talk about the "crisis." One reason is that the trustee's are mandated (I think it's a mandate) by law to address them together as if they are one program, but this plays right into those who want to drum up business for their fiancial industry buddies. Medicare's crisis is one built on the house of cards we call our health care industry. We pay 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations for health care and get worse quality care for it--we rank 37th in the world for health care according to the world health organization.

Back to the trustee's report:

Medicare's financial status is even worse. This year Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up from general revenues which pay for interest credits to the Trust Fund.

Two things... If we brought competition into the health care market--by way of a government plan that people could choose to buy into if they wanted--we would bring down costs and remove the excessive bureaucracy that runs up your doctors bill and gives you and your doctor headaches dealing with the insurance companies who make money by denying coverage. But there are a lot of people making money off our status quo so the obvious fix, universal health care is off the table of discussion for the "crisis" crew.

So problem one is not only a medicare problem... its a huge private sector problem that has put health care reform on the table for discussion (finally). Meaning we will get some kind of reform soon--many in the business community who opposed the Clinton effort in the 90's are now on board... See here.

If you care about Medicare check out is The Impact of the Medicare Drug Benefit on Health Care Spending by Older Households
December 2008, Dean Baker and Ben Zipperer

So the health care crisis is part of the drag on the long term "crisis" we face with Medicare. Keep in mind its 2008 not 2018... lets fix the health care system now! It'll save the lives of people who are falling through the cracks, save you time and money personally, and help with our fiscal woes. Joining the rest of the industriziled world on this issue is going to be a dynamic long term fix to many problems we face.

Secondly if we aren't taking in enough revenue and needing to dig into the general budget thats a revenue problem (i.e. we are paying enough taxes towards it... gasp!!!) At least the increasing revenue to deal with this problem should be on the table as one solution--but its not even on the agenda of the "crisis" folks.
Further from the report:

The Medicare Report shows that the program could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by an immediate 122 percent increase in the payroll tax (from 2.9 percent to 6.44 percent),

There is also a demographic issue in the form of the baby boomers getting old (which means I'm getting old... sigh...).

But there's a very simple solution to that. Increase the workforce. Increasing immigration--for those who are concerned about the demographic aspect of the "crisis", has got to be a top priority--there is no way around that one (that or heavey subsidies to promote technological innovations that will make our workforce more productive which we used to create this new fangeled thing here i'm typing on, not to mention the internet these words are crossing through).

The majority of these folks do not support free markets, therefore they do not believe in open borders to allow for the free flow of labor--one of the fundamental aspects of "free market theory". In polite society the immigration reform required-- in regards to the demographic crisis--though necessary, is also not on the agenda and therefore is not to be discussed.

Also... and this seems absurd but maybe i'm just not educated enough on such things--how many government programs are projected 75 years!!!

Its hard for economist to project into next year let alone 75 years. It is the dismal science! Thats why the trustee's do three predictions... from bad to rosy. If I remember correctly, the historical long term economic growth we've seen in this country--which we have no reason to believe will change--leans towards a more optimistic forecast. I can't source it off the top of my head--trust me on that one!

There is another fact we often forget. In 2041 its not like there will be zero benefits. Its like 75% of promised benefits--which is adjusted for inflation better benefits than currently received by people on social security.

Bottom line 2041 is a long ways a way and you'll still be getting more bang for your buck. Social security has been in far worse buget situations in the past which we addressed. Don't lose any sleep over it.

Now onto the theoretical questions which I think are very concerning for those of us who believe in democratic principles and living in a civilized world where we are our brothers keeper. If you don't believe we are all in this together--which is an incoherent concept to begin with. Or don't believe in a basic quality of life for your fellow man nothing I have to say will be of any relevance to you. We just disagree. But for those of you concerned about living in a civilized world, where we combat and reject the dog eat dog pathology of our popular culture, I think there are some unstated premises that pop up in regards to this question.

I'll point to two that come to mind from the comments on Jason's post

Again it is all about personal responsibility ....BUT the government with its arrogance and stupidity on the economy have made it all but impossible for the average citizen and I am talking about those who hold legal citizenship to plan,save and execute a workable plan to save for their own future.

incoherent conception of government and market systems. Also I disagree on the question of representation of the population. Social security and medicare are very popular programs. If you believe in democracy in some form or fashion it is an obvious truism that you support fixing not gutting these plans. From the tone of the comments i'll infer this person does not. Difference of opinion. Also note that they state "legal citizenship" therefore this person obviously is not a proponent of free market theory so some of the easy fixes will not be on the table for him. Free flow of labor, as noted above, is an important step in the demographic crisis involved in this issue.

I agree that individuals need to plan for their retirement--these programs are saftey nets. But market systems by definition will cause some people to not thrive. These programs keep millions above the poverty line and provide a basic standard of living for all of our citizens. Freedom means responsibility... and those of us who have benifited from the economy--it is a collective effort mind you--should from an ethical standpoint in my mind provide basic subsitance for others. Take John Rawl's veil of ignorance that sets out to show that

principles of justice would be manifest in a society premised on free and fair cooperation between citizens, including respect for liberty, and an interest in reciprocity.

In the state of nature, it might be argued that certain persons (the strong and talented) would be able to coerce others (the weak and disabled) by virtue of the fact that the stronger and more talented would fare better in the state of nature. This coercion is sometimes thought to invalidate any contractual arrangement occurring in the state of nature. In the original position, however, representatives of citizens are placed behind a "veil of ignorance", depriving the representatives of information about the individuating characteristics of the citizens they represent. Thus, the representative parties would be unaware of the talents and abilities, ethnicity and gender, religion or belief system of the citizens they represent. As a result, they lack the information with which to threaten their fellows and thus invalidate the social contract they are attempting to agree to.

back to the commentor...

We have a government that is out of control and will not change its ways of stupidity and waste until the citizens see the food from their table going to feed the do nothings in Washington.

I'm not really sure what this means.

When are we going to demand Washington,Atlanta and in my case McDonough stop the wasteful,non essential spending habits they are so fond of?

once again these are popular programs. Therefore the bums in DC actually are--this in situation--representing the people. So it can't possibly be nonessential spending. Again if you don't accept my two theoretical premises this will not logically follow.

So in both the actual facts on the ground... and from a theoretical standpoint--which is quite common and has been for a long time--see moreal teachings of christianity, judaism, Islam, buddhism... for examples--just ask someone on the streets at random. 9 times out of 10 they like democracy and believe humans should have food, shelter, and opportunities to thrive beyond abject poverty.

Also most of the "crisis" folks don't mention they are often just pushing privitization for theoretical reasons and are just looking for any reason to attack these programs. These programs are founded on the belief that we owe citizens of this country a safety net. No one gets left behind.

Some people bleive in an abstration that states its every man for themselves and that a privitized world where your neigher is a consumer and an object of labor who sells themselves on the market for the highest bidder.

Though i'm not necessarily opposed to privitization plans as an add-on to create incentives for further savings beyond the safety net the unmentionable by these types is that the transition costs are huge. If they want to talk about some kind of add on to create incentives for individuals to actually save for their future (which is think is not done enough these days) then you ought to start talking about the way we bring in the revenue to pay for this program. Once again this question is not on the table for discussion.

Anyways that was my two cents for now. I'm sure I left something out...

Just don't worry social security and medicare will be okay if we join the rest of the industrizlied world and fix our health care system. And social security won't be gone tomorrow--at least if we are smart enough to do something about between now and 2041...

by the by if you want to see a cool tool that helps put our health insurance crisis into perspective and helps us look at the buget issues more objectively, check out CEPR's Health Care Cost-Adjusted IOUSA Deficit Calculator which

allows you to see what the projected U.S. budget deficit would be, as a percentage of GDP, if the United States had the same per person health care costs as any of the countries in the list below, all of which enjoy longer life expectancies than the United States. All of the other budget assumptions are the ones used by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which form the basis for the scary deficit numbers in IOUSA. Each country is listed with its life expectancy in parentheses.

Or on the question of privitization: Accurate Benifits Calculaor which

compares current-law Social Security benefits to the Bush Plan based on "Progressive Indexing" and the 2005 State of the Union proposal, which includes private accounts paid for by 4 percentage points of the employee's payroll tax

And if your worried about the economy. Call your Representative and demand a fiscal stimulus plan (see the open letter from over 375 economist calling on a quick, effictive bill which "should be in the range of $300 to $400 billion per year and should be geared toward targets that inject capital into the nation's economic system immediately" )

update: Jason responds with a good chess move...

update part deux: ah the en passant