{"id":14669,"date":"2024-09-09T14:31:49","date_gmt":"2024-09-09T14:31:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=14669"},"modified":"2024-09-09T14:31:50","modified_gmt":"2024-09-09T14:31:50","slug":"the-us-government-has-to-start-paying-for-things-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=14669","title":{"rendered":"The US government has to start paying for things again"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

“The US debt total is reported in many ways, but the most accurate, in my opinion, is a ratio: debt held by private investors<\/em> as a share of gross domestic product, net of government assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHeld by private investors\u201d is an important caveat: A huge share of the US debt is held by the government itself, in vehicles like the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare. Still more was purchased by the Federal Reserve<\/a> as part of its \u201cquantitative easing\u201d programs to fight the Great Recession and the Covid downturn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, it\u2019s money that the federal government owes to itself. That makes it fairly unimportant, economically; it doesn\u2019t actually limit the resources available to the government. The debt that poses the biggest worry is debt owed to non-governmental investors, who can demand higher interest rates in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cShare of gross domestic product\u201d is also an important adjustment. Dividing by the size of the economy puts the debt burden in the context of the US\u2019s resources. Just as a big mortgage can make sense if you have a high income to pay for it, a high debt load is more manageable if the US as a whole is earning enough money to finance it. It also points to an often-neglected way to reduce the budget deficit: passing economic growth-enhancing policies<\/a>, like expanded immigration by STEM workers and would-be entrepreneurs or expanding support for science<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNet of assets\u201d means adjusting for the considerable resources the government owns<\/a>, like land and loans that it made to other people (like student loan recipients).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As of this writing, debt held by private investors net of assets represents 75.7 percent of GDP<\/a>; without subtracting assets, it\u2019s 91.2 percent. That\u2019s not full-on debt crisis levels, but it\u2019s high. The figure before adjusting for assets (for which data is more readily available) is the highest it\u2019s ever been since the Treasury started keeping track in 1970. It\u2019s much higher than it was before Covid (66.4 percent) and much, much higher than before the global financial crisis (under 30 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cost this debt imposes can be measured most directly by the interest the US pays on its debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the amount the US will spend on debt interest will hit 3.1 percent of GDP<\/a> this year. That\u2019s a serious expense: It\u2019s close to what we spend on defense every year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More worrisome, the CBO projects<\/a> that the debt and interest burdens are set to increase substantially. Debt held by private investors net of assets is set to rise from 75.7 percent this year to 93.7 percent in 10 years. The agency doesn\u2019t project that figure out longer, but does provide projections<\/a> for debt held by the public, which includes Federal Reserve holdings and doesn\u2019t subtract assets. That\u2019s set to grow from 99 percent in 2024 to 166 percent by 2054.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s driving this trend? It\u2019s not defense spending or \u201cnondefense discretionary,\u201d a category encompassing everything from the FBI to the National Institutes of Health. The CBO projects that discretionary spending, both defense and nondefense, will fall to historic lows as a share of the economy over the next 30 years (though this is a projection I\u2019m pretty skeptical about, especially as the US urge to counter China militarily grows<\/a>). It also sees tax revenues modestly increasing over the next 30 years, due in part to the expiration of many Trump tax cuts next year and because household incomes tend to grow faster than inflation, which means the income tax raises more money over time.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“the CBO sees spending on \u201cmajor health care programs\u201d (including Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare subsidies) growing from 6.3 percent of GDP in 2024 to 9.8 percent of GDP in 2054; Social Security is set to grow from 5.2 percent of GDP in 2024 to 5.9 percent of GDP in 2054.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two major factors are, in turn, driving higher spending on these programs. One is that as baby boomers age the US population is getting older, meaning more people are benefiting from Social Security and Medicare and fewer are paying in. This adds 2.4 percent of GDP to federal spending by 2054, half from health care and half from Social Security. The second driver is that health care costs are projected to grow faster than the economy, independent of the aging population; this adds 2.6 percent of GDP to the federal budget by 2054.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“There\u2019s an old saying in DC that the federal government is basically an insurance company with an army<\/a>. That\u2019s not exactly true, but it\u2019s close. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, plus defense spending, combined to make up about 66 percent<\/a> of non-interest federal spending in 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Within that mix, health care is becoming increasingly important. The Congressional Budget Office<\/a> estimates that health insurance subsidies, encompassing Medicare, Medicaid, the Children\u2019s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Affordable Care Act subsidies, and subsidies for employer-based coverage \u2014 will rise from 7 percent of GDP in 2023 to 8.3 percent in 2033. The biggest increase they project, by far, is in Medicare, which is swelling as the US population ages and whose patients tend to need more expensive care as they near the end of their lives. By contrast, defense spending, already far below where it was in the Cold War, is projected to keep falling relative to GDP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Embedded in the projections of the CBO, and of the Medicare program\u2019s actuaries too, is a prediction that per-person health expenses are going to increase in coming years, and increase faster than inflation. Over the past half-century or so that\u2019s been the norm. Legislators have been making these programs progressively more generous in terms of the services covered, like extending prescription drug coverage in 2003<\/a>, and new treatments and services keep getting developed that push costs higher<\/a>. Add to that the fact that prices for most health services are higher in the US<\/a> than in other rich countries and you have a recipe for spiraling expenses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Except, since about 2011 or so, we haven\u2019t seen that<\/a>. In an almost miraculous development from a budgetary perspective, per-capita spending in Medicare has remained essentially constant for over a decade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s considerable disagreement about why exactly this slowdown is happening. Some researchers emphasize technological change<\/a>, arguing, in the words of Sheila Smith, Joseph Newhouse, and Gigi Cuckler, that \u201ccost-reducing \u2026 innovation may have become more prominent relative to highly beneficial but expensive treatments\u201d in recent years. That is, the ways we\u2019ve improved health technology have cut, rather than raised, costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Melinda Buntin, a health economist who studied the slowdown first at the CBO and now as a professor at Johns Hopkins, told me in an interview she chalks up the slowdown to a fundamental mindset change in American health care. Partly as a result of the Affordable Care Act\u2019s emphasis on \u201cvalue-based\u201d care, but partly also just due to an increased emphasis on paying for results on the part of doctors and hospital administrators, we\u2019re seeing less wasteful use of new, expensive technologies than we used to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whatever the cause, the slowdown in medical costs is a hugely hopeful sign for the budget picture. Recall that the CBO projects that greater medical costs will add 2.6 percent of GDP to the federal budget by 2054. By comparison, it projects that the primary deficit (revenue minus spending, but excluding interest payments on past deficits) will be 2.2 percent of GDP<\/a>. That suggests that the US could be in primary budget balance, a key sign of fiscal health, just by keeping health costs under control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That said, it is by no means guaranteed that the recent slowdown will continue. Medical innovation continues apace, and new expensive drugs and treatments will continue to come on the market. For at least some of them, we will want the government to pay up, because they do so much to improve the lives of patients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If there is a policy path that can keep the slowdown going, it is likely to be a combination of small steps rather than one big change. The 1% Steps project<\/a> provides a great model for what this could look like: a crew of leading health economists have proposed measures ranging from fighting hospital mergers<\/a> to changing how health claims are adjudicated<\/a> to encouraging kidney donation<\/a> that each save only a small amount of health spending, but together could do a lot.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“First: use tax hikes or spending cuts to offset any new spending or tax cuts. This has hardly been the norm in Congress lately<\/a>, with bipartisan spending laws under both Trump and Biden costing hundreds of billions if not trillions without being remotely paid for. Those will need to be combined with tax hikes or offsetting spending cuts going forward. This also means giving up on some wilder spending visions that would require offsetting tax hikes no one is prepared to pass. Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, wants to raise spending on defense from 2.9 percent to 5 percent of GDP<\/a> by the end of this decade, as part of an ambitious plan to counter China and Russia<\/a>. If not paid for, this would absolutely explode budget deficits<\/a>. If Wicker wants to pass the tax hikes necessary to cover the expense, god bless \u2014 but I have my doubts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, take growth seriously. The point of deficit reduction is to reduce a long-term drag on economic growth, and so the best way to reduce the deficit is through actions that simultaneously enhance growth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is much easier said than done, of course, but expanded green cards for immigrants with science and engineering degrees<\/a> seems like a no-brainer, cutting the deficit substantially over time while boosting growth. A growing literature also finds that funding<\/a> for scientific research<\/a> boosts productivity<\/a> and economic growth. That funding doesn\u2019t pay for itself, necessarily, but raising taxes or cutting less useful spending to boost scientific grants seems like a strong strategy. More generally, Congress should be searching for more policies in this category, ones that can boost growth however modestly at little or no budgetary cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third: the coming tax fight in 2025<\/a> should be used to raise revenue, not just avoid losing it. Most of the individual tax cuts signed into law by Donald Trump in 2017 are due to expire at the end of next year. Some of these cuts, like slashing the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 37 percent, are things Democrats will absolutely want to expire. But most of them have bipartisan appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kamala Harris has pledged not to raise taxes on people making under $400,000 a year, which means keeping the expanded standard deduction and child tax credit that Trump enacted. It also means keeping his lower 12, 22, 24, and 32 percent brackets from the bill. All this and bringing back the child tax credit that Biden and Harris passed in 2021 costs about 1 percent of GDP in tax revenue by my estimations using the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget\u2019s tool<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taking the debt at all seriously means that whoever\u2019s in office next year needs to pay for whatever part of the Trump cuts they want to keep. Biden\u2019s most recent budget<\/a> contains a number of tax hikes on top earners, but notably doesn\u2019t explicitly pay for<\/a> extending the Trump cuts. Ideally, policymakers would not just pay for the extensions they want but come up with a revenue-positive package: one that doesn\u2019t merely pay for the Trump cuts but goes further and reduces the deficit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This won\u2019t be easy but it\u2019s certainly possible. Playing around with the Yale Budget Lab\u2019s handy make-your-own-2025-tax-plan<\/a> tool \u2014 which my sports-knowing editor tells me is like ESPN\u2019s Trade Machine<\/a> but for budget nerds \u2014 you can pay for the bigger standard deduction and Democrats\u2019 desired child credit by letting all the Trump income tax rate cuts expire, letting the cuts to the estate tax expire too, raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, adding a new 45 percent tax bracket on the rich, and eliminating the tax break for pass-through corporations. That raises about 0.4 percent of GDP over a decade, a real bite of the long-run deficit. This does mean tax hikes on a small share of people making under $400,000 \u2014 but under the circumstances, I think that\u2019s called for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourth: Social Security should be addressed, not punted. Barring any Congressional action, the program is due for across-the-board cuts to benefits of over 20 percent starting in 2033<\/a>, because payroll taxes and the trust fund will no longer be enough to pay promised benefits. This would unleash a political backlash on the part of affected seniors like nothing DC has ever seen, and Congress is almost guaranteed to do something<\/em> to avoid that outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The easiest way for Congress to deal with this doomsday deadline is to simply tap general tax revenues to avoid the cuts, thereby breaking the linkage between payroll taxes and Social Security benefits. They should not do this. The 2033 deadline provides one of the few forcing mechanisms that can push Congress to address the long-run imbalance between revenues and spending, and if they punt they might never get another opportunity. Democrats will push to pay for the program by raising taxes on high earners; Republicans will push for benefit cuts. Either way, the gap needs to be filled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Congress will also get an opportunity to reform either Social Security<\/a> or its sister program Supplemental Security Income<\/a> to eliminate senior poverty \u2014 14.1 percent of seniors<\/a> are in poverty, a higher share than either children or working-age adults, despite the hundreds of billions the government spends on old-age pensions. That\u2019s a travesty, and even Democratic plans to expand the program don\u2019t address it sufficiently<\/a>. It\u2019s likely that even a relatively conservative plan could make real progress here. See, for instance, conservative Social Security expert Andrew Biggs\u2019 plan to convert the old-age insurance program to a flat basic income for all seniors aged 62 and over<\/a>, set at or above the poverty line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fifth and finally, Congress needs to work to ensure that per-person health spending stays roughly constant. This will likely take the form of several small reforms, along the 1% Steps<\/a> suggestions, instead of another big effort like the Affordable Care Act. But precisely because the steps necessarily are more modest, the opportunities for bipartisan collaboration here are immense. See, for instance, this bill<\/a> from Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Mike Braun (R-IN), and John Kennedy (R-LA) to reform Medicare billing, with support from the liberal Families USA to the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity. Keeping health costs low might be the least unpopular way to deal with the budget imbalance, and that will hopefully spur politicians into more collaborations like this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Congress does all this \u2014 pays for future spending, prioritizes economic growth, raises revenue in the 2025 tax fight, fixes Social Security, and keeps per-capita health spending constant \u2014 it\u2019ll be on track to stabilize the debt. It\u2019s not easy. But it\u2019s not impossible either. Bill Clinton and Congress were able to accomplish something similar in the 1990s, and now the time is ripe to try again.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/policy\/367278\/us-national-debt-gdp-government-inflation-solutions-recession<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The US debt total is reported in many ways, but the most accurate, in my opinion, is a ratio: debt held by private investors as a share of gross domestic product, net of government assets.
\n\u201cHeld by private investors\u201d is an important caveat: A huge share of the US debt is held by the government itself, in vehicles like the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare. Still more was purchased by the Federal Reserve as part of its \u201cquantitative easing\u201d programs to fight the Great Recession and the Covid downturn.<\/p>\n

Thus, it\u2019s money that the federal government owes to itself. That makes it fairly unimportant, economically; it doesn\u2019t actually limit the resources available to the government. The debt that poses the biggest worry is debt owed to non-governmental investors, who can demand higher interest rates in the future.<\/p>\n

\u201cShare of gross domestic product\u201d is also an important adjustment. Dividing by the size of the economy puts the debt burden in the context of the US\u2019s resources. Just as a big mortgage can make sense if you have a high income to pay for it, a high debt load is more manageable if the US as a whole is earning enough money to finance it. It also points to an often-neglected way to reduce the budget deficit: passing economic growth-enhancing policies, like expanded immigration by STEM workers and would-be entrepreneurs or expanding support for science.<\/p>\n

\u201cNet of assets\u201d means adjusting for the considerable resources the government owns, like land and loans that it made to other people (like student loan recipients).<\/p>\n

As of this writing, debt held by private investors net of assets represents 75.7 percent of GDP; without subtracting assets, it\u2019s 91.2 percent. That\u2019s not full-on debt crisis levels, but it\u2019s high. The figure before adjusting for assets (for which data is more readily available) is the highest it\u2019s ever been since the Treasury started keeping track in 1970. It\u2019s much higher than it was before Covid (66.4 percent) and much, much higher than before the global financial crisis (under 30 percent).<\/p>\n

The cost this debt imposes can be measured most directly by the interest the US pays on its debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the amount the US will spend on debt interest will hit 3.1 percent of GDP this year. That\u2019s a serious expense: It\u2019s close to what we spend on defense every year.<\/p>\n

More worrisome, the CBO projects that the debt and interest burdens are set to increase substantially. Debt held by private investors net of assets is set to rise from 75.7 percent this year to 93.7 percent in 10 years. The agency doesn\u2019t project that figure out longer, but does provide projections for debt held by the public, which includes Federal Reserve holdings and doesn\u2019t subtract assets. That\u2019s set to grow from 99 percent in 2024 to 166 percent by 2054.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s driving this trend? It\u2019s not defense spending or \u201cnondefense discretionary,\u201d a category encompassing everything from the FBI to the National Institutes of Health. The CBO projects that discretionary spending, both defense and nondefense, will fall to historic lows as a share of the economy over the next 30 years (though this is a projection I\u2019m pretty skeptical about, especially as the US urge to counter China militarily grows). It also sees tax revenues modestly increasing over the next 30 years, due in part to the expiration of many Trump tax cuts next year and because household incomes tend to grow faster than inflation, which means the income tax raises more money over time.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“the CBO sees spending on \u201cmajor health care programs\u201d (including Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare subsidies) growing from 6.3 percent of GDP in 2024 to 9.8 percent of GDP in 2054; Social Security is set to grow from 5.2 percent of GDP in 2024 to 5.9 percent of GDP in 2054.<\/p>\n

Two major factors are, in turn, driving higher spending on these programs. One is that as baby boomers age the US population is getting older, meaning more people are benefiting from Social Security and Medicare and fewer are paying in. This adds 2.4 percent of GDP to federal spending by 2054, half from health care and half from Social Security. The second driver is that health care costs are projected to grow faster than the economy, independent of the aging population; this adds 2.6 percent of GDP to the federal budget by 2054.” <\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“There\u2019s an old saying in DC that the federal government is basically an insurance company with an army. That\u2019s not exactly true, but it\u2019s close. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, plus defense spending, combined to make up about 66 percent of non-interest federal spending in 2023.<\/p>\n

Within that mix, health care is becoming increasingly important. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that health insurance subsidies, encompassing Medicare, Medicaid, the Children\u2019s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Affordable Care Act subsidies, and subsidies for employer-based coverage \u2014 will rise from 7 percent of GDP in 2023 to 8.3 percent in 2033. The biggest increase they project, by far, is in Medicare, which is swelling as the US population ages and whose patients tend to need more expensive care as they near the end of their lives. By contrast, defense spending, already far below where it was in the Cold War, is projected to keep falling relative to GDP.<\/p>\n

Embedded in the projections of the CBO, and of the Medicare program\u2019s actuaries too, is a prediction that per-person health expenses are going to increase in coming years, and increase faster than inflation. Over the past half-century or so that\u2019s been the norm. Legislators have been making these programs progressively more generous in terms of the services covered, like extending prescription drug coverage in 2003, and new treatments and services keep getting developed that push costs higher. Add to that the fact that prices for most health services are higher in the US than in other rich countries and you have a recipe for spiraling expenses.<\/p>\n

Except, since about 2011 or so, we haven\u2019t seen that. In an almost miraculous development from a budgetary perspective, per-capita spending in Medicare has remained essentially constant for over a decade.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s considerable disagreement about why exactly this slowdown is happening. Some researchers emphasize technological change, arguing, in the words of Sheila Smith, Joseph Newhouse, and Gigi Cuckler, that \u201ccost-reducing \u2026 innovation may have become more prominent relative to highly beneficial but expensive treatments\u201d in recent years. That is, the ways we\u2019ve improved health technology have cut, rather than raised, costs.<\/p>\n

Melinda Buntin, a health economist who studied the slowdown first at the CBO and now as a professor at Johns Hopkins, told me in an interview she chalks up the slowdown to a fundamental mindset change in American health care. Partly as a result of the Affordable Care Act\u2019s emphasis on \u201cvalue-based\u201d care, but partly also just due to an increased emphasis on paying for results on the part of doctors and hospital administrators, we\u2019re seeing less wasteful use of new, expensive technologies than we used to.<\/p>\n

Whatever the cause, the slowdown in medical costs is a hugely hopeful sign for the budget picture. Recall that the CBO projects that greater medical costs will add 2.6 percent of GDP to the federal budget by 2054. By comparison, it projects that the primary deficit (revenue minus spending, but excluding interest payments on past deficits) will be 2.2 percent of GDP. That suggests that the US could be in primary budget balance, a key sign of fiscal health, just by keeping health costs under control.<\/p>\n

That said, it is by no means guaranteed that the recent slowdown will continue. Medical innovation continues apace, and new expensive drugs and treatments will continue to come on the market. For at least some of them, we will want the government to pay up, because they do so much to improve the lives of patients.<\/p>\n

If there is a policy path that can keep the slowdown going, it is likely to be a combination of small steps rather than one big change. The 1% Steps project provides a great model for what this could look like: a crew of leading health economists have proposed measures ranging from fighting hospital mergers to changing how health claims are adjudicated to encouraging kidney donation that each save only a small amount of health spending, but together could do a lot.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“First: use tax hikes or spending cuts to offset any new spending or tax cuts. This has hardly been the norm in Congress lately, with bipartisan spending laws under both Trump and Biden costing hundreds of billions if not trillions without being remotely paid for. Those will need to be combined with tax hikes or offsetting spending cuts going forward. This also means giving up on some wilder spending visions that would require offsetting tax hikes no one is prepared to pass. Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, wants to raise spending on defense from 2.9 percent to 5 percent of GDP by the end of this decade, as part of an ambitious plan to counter China and Russia. If not paid for, this would absolutely explode budget deficits. If Wicker wants to pass the tax hikes necessary to cover the expense, god bless \u2014 but I have my doubts.<\/p>\n

Second, take growth seriously. The point of deficit reduction is to reduce a long-term drag on economic growth, and so the best way to reduce the deficit is through actions that simultaneously enhance growth.<\/p>\n

This is much easier said than done, of course, but expanded green cards for immigrants with science and engineering degrees seems like a no-brainer, cutting the deficit substantially over time while boosting growth. A growing literature also finds that funding for scientific research boosts productivity and economic growth. That funding doesn\u2019t pay for itself, necessarily, but raising taxes or cutting less useful spending to boost scientific grants seems like a strong strategy. More generally, Congress should be searching for more policies in this category, ones that can boost growth however modestly at little or no budgetary cost.<\/p>\n

Third: the coming tax fight in 2025 should be used to raise revenue, not just avoid losing it. Most of the individual tax cuts signed into law by Donald Trump in 2017 are due to expire at the end of next year. Some of these cuts, like slashing the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 37 percent, are things Democrats will absolutely want to expire. But most of them have bipartisan appeal.<\/p>\n

Kamala Harris has pledged not to raise taxes on people making under $400,000 a year, which means keeping the expanded standard deduction and child tax credit that Trump enacted. It also means keeping his lower 12, 22, 24, and 32 percent brackets from the bill. All this and bringing back the child tax credit that Biden and Harris passed in 2021 costs about 1 percent of GDP in tax revenue by my estimations using the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget\u2019s tool.<\/p>\n

Taking the debt at all seriously means that whoever\u2019s in office next year needs to pay for whatever part of the Trump cuts they want to keep. Biden\u2019s most recent budget contains a number of tax hikes on top earners, but notably doesn\u2019t explicitly pay for extending the Trump cuts. Ideally, policymakers would not just pay for the extensions they want but come up with a revenue-positive package: one that doesn\u2019t merely pay for the Trump cuts but goes further and reduces the deficit.<\/p>\n

This won\u2019t be easy but it\u2019s certainly possible. Playing around with the Yale Budget Lab\u2019s handy make-your-own-2025-tax-plan tool \u2014 which my sports-knowing editor tells me is like ESPN\u2019s Trade Machine but for budget nerds \u2014 you can pay for the bigger standard deduction and Democrats\u2019 desired child credit by letting all the Trump income tax rate cuts expire, letting the cuts to the estate tax expire too, raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, adding a new 45 percent tax bracket on the rich, and eliminating the tax break for pass-through corporations. That raises about 0.4 percent of GDP over a decade, a real bite of the long-run deficit. This does mean tax hikes on a small share of people making under $400,000 \u2014 but under the circumstances, I think that\u2019s called for.<\/p>\n

Fourth: Social Security should be addressed, not punted. Barring any Congressional action, the program is due for across-the-board cuts to benefits of over 20 percent starting in 2033, because payroll taxes and the trust fund will no longer be enough to pay promised benefits. This would unleash a political backlash on the part of affected seniors like nothing DC has ever seen, and Congress is almost guaranteed to do something to avoid that outcome.<\/p>\n

The easiest way for Congress to deal with this doomsday deadline is to simply tap general tax revenues to avoid the cuts, thereby breaking the linkage between payroll taxes and Social Security benefits. They should not do this. The 2033 deadline provides one of the few forcing mechanisms that can push Congress to address the long-run imbalance between revenues and spending, and if they punt they might never get another opportunity. Democrats will push to pay for the program by raising taxes on high earners; Republicans will push for benefit cuts. Either way, the gap needs to be filled.<\/p>\n

Congress will also get an opportunity to reform either Social Security or its sister program Supplemental Security Income to eliminate senior poverty \u2014 14.1 percent of seniors are in poverty, a higher share than either children or working-age adults, despite the hundreds of billions the government spends on old-age pensions. That\u2019s a travesty, and even Democratic plans to expand the program don\u2019t address it sufficiently. It\u2019s likely that even a relatively conservative plan could make real progress here. See, for instance, conservative Social Security expert Andrew Biggs\u2019 plan to convert the old-age insurance program to a flat basic income for all seniors aged 62 and over, set at or above the poverty line.<\/p>\n

Fifth and finally, Congress needs to work to ensure that per-person health spending stays roughly constant. This will likely take the form of several small reforms, along the 1% Steps suggestions, instead of another big effort like the Affordable Care Act. But precisely because the steps necessarily are more modest, the opportunities for bipartisan collaboration here are immense. See, for instance, this bill from Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Mike Braun (R-IN), and John Kennedy (R-LA) to reform Medicare billing, with support from the liberal Families USA to the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity. Keeping health costs low might be the least unpopular way to deal with the budget imbalance, and that will hopefully spur politicians into more collaborations like this.<\/p>\n

If Congress does all this \u2014 pays for future spending, prioritizes economic growth, raises revenue in the 2025 tax fight, fixes Social Security, and keeps per-capita health spending constant \u2014 it\u2019ll be on track to stabilize the debt. It\u2019s not easy. But it\u2019s not impossible either. Bill Clinton and Congress were able to accomplish something similar in the 1990s, and now the time is ripe to try again.”<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/policy\/367278\/us-national-debt-gdp-government-inflation-solutions-recession<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[7,278,1193,279,619],"class_list":["post-14669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-debt","tag-deficit","tag-government-spending","tag-spending","tag-united-states"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14669","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14669"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14669\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14670,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14669\/revisions\/14670"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}