Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

Demanding a federal budget that is fair, responsible, and meets our nation's priorities

Home :  Federal Budget & Tax : 
Federal Budget & Tax:      News     Blog     Background    



Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Projections and Prophecy

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-SD) must be getting bored. He's been having hearings on long-term fiscal issues, but pretty much every speaker has been saying the exact same thing: there's huge problems in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, so we better start cutting benefits, and maybe find a way to raise revenues.

Now I'm not going to go through all the reasons I think this way of identifying the problem and the stark set of options to address it is too narrow and deeply flawed. I'd just ask, has this formulation risen above the level of argument? Are they now the unassailable truth? Have these budget projections become budget prophecy?

Seriously, is there no respectable opinion that dissents, that thinks there's a better way to address long-term fiscal issues?

Of course, there are others. They should get a hearing, too. I mean, you've got to be bored silly by now, Sen. Conrad. Shake things up a little.



Posted by Matt Lewis, 03:23:16 PM



Monday, January 29, 2007

Give With One Hand, Take With The Other

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has an big-time paper out on entitlement costs and the budget, where they both move forward the debate over future fiscal problems, and move it back.

Laudably, they dispel the myth that there is an "entitlement" crisis. Many entitlement programs are actually going down in costs and getting more efficient. Just because the program is an entitlement doesn't mean it's got problems.

But they then go on to include Social Security among the entitlement programs that are in crisis. That's misleading. A fiscal crisis is when costs are rising much faster than revenues can keep up. CBPP accurately makes the distinction that health care costs are projected to rise much faster than social security costs. But it fails to make the crucial distinction that built-in revenues will not keep up with health care costs, but will keep up with social security for at least the next 40 years. That's not a crisis in my book.

The report then states clearly that increased health care costs, irrespective of demographics, is the main driver of future fiscal problems. Great! But then they go on to downplay how much inefficiencies within the health care system have driven up costs across the public and private sector. Rather, they argue, innovations in heath care provision, and patient demand for these new goods and services, account for the rate of growth in health care costs, both in government programs and in the private sector.

Kudos to CBPP for recognizing the systemic nature of the problem, and for dispelling the myth that demographics are mostly or even solely to blame. Still, this analysis has the same-old, wrong-headed, focus on trade-offs. It suggests that the nation must deal with a dilemma: do we want more health care or less health care? More health care or less of something else? And it suggests inevitability: we can't avoid these hard choices. And it ultimately suggests that costs are too high to pay for all the health care we might want: we'll have to make cuts somewhere, because if we don't, it'll mean a reduction in living standards somewhere else.

I feel like I've heard that one before. It's pretty much the same old story about entitlement programs, isn't it?

CBPP still isn't thinking about this stuff the right way. Health care provision, for all intents and purposes, is not just a zero-sum game. The alternative here is to focus on creating a more efficient health care system.

In other words, let's talk about the elephant in the room: universal health care and its power to contain costs. In the spirit of bi-partisan, high-minded, wonk-style fairness, shouldn't we have a conversation about it, too?



Posted by Matt Lewis, 06:01:17 PM



Congressional Neglect Hits Timber-Dependent Communities

Last year's Congress failed to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determiniation act, which provides a funding stream for rural areas suffering from the decline in the timber industry. Unless Congress acts soon, these rural communities may lose millions of federal funding. Oregon would be particularly hard-hit. The LA Times has more:

This west-central Oregon county, population 335,180, is one of 34 counties in the state that had received payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Congress passed the act in 2000 as a safety net for timber-dependent counties, whose revenues were in steady decline because of changes in federal forest policies and the rise of environmentalism. When Congress failed to renew the act last year, the stage was set for layoffs in Oregon — and for budget cuts in rural counties nationwide.

The last payments from the program went out at the end of December.

Forty states had been receiving money that, in most cases, was directed to schools and road-building. The program doled out more than $2.9 billion. Oregon got the largest share, $250 million a year; California was receiving $60 million, Washington about $40 million.



Posted by Matt Lewis, 10:34:26 AM



Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Bush's Fiscal Rhetoric Falls Short

In case you missed it this morning, OMB Watch released a statement responding to the president's State of the Union address last night. In short, we were unimpressed with Bush's empty rhetoric about fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.

Bush's Fiscal Policy Rhetoric Continues to Fall Short

Posted by Adam Hughes, 07:16:09 PM



Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Commissions & Task Forces & Working Groups, Oh My!

Yesterday afternoon, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) announced plans to force Congress to consider changes to entitlement programs through the establishment of yet another commission. The Feinstein-Domenici plan would require a 15-member commission to deliver recommendations one year from the date it was established and would force, through specific deadlines, action by committees, debate on the floor or each chamber, and conference committee negotiations. Everything is scripted just so in the Feinstein/Domenici plan. It's almost as if we don't even need a Congress at all.

The Feinstein/Domenici announcement comes of the heels of two other proposals to establish entitlement commissions (or an entitlement task force), first by Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), and more recently by Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). Proposing commissions, task forces, and working groups is all fine and good, but until someone actually starts to propose some vital solutions - solutions that will only work if they increase revenues and decrease benefits over time - these proposals are mostly smoke, and little fire.

The most interesting thing about the Feinstein/Domenici commission is that it would be permanent - making fast-tracked recommendations to Congress every five years about adjustments and changes to keep solutions to fiscal problems on track. Feinstein and Domenici are apparently so confident in the commission model and potential recommendations it would submit, they think it should stick around, just in case it needs to fix its mistakes. While it is true it is a great challenge to tackle fiscal issues involving projections and estimation over many years and decades, and nobody can predict the future, a permanent commission would seem to take over the role of Congress, permanently. Only time will tell, but something tells me I'm not the only person who thinks that is just a little bit weird.

Posted by Adam Hughes, 10:29:21 PM



PayGo on TPM Cafe

An interesting discussion on PayGo has popped up on TPM Cafe. Amitai Etzioni wrote we shouldn't go by PayGo because it'll only lead to surpluses that Republicans will squander on their well-heeled constituents. Point well taken. Paul Krugman recently made a similar point, though less in terms of PayGo and more in terms of the deficit.

But that's not the end of the story. Greg Anrig at TPM Cafe has an interesting response to Etzioni's post. He thinks PayGo is a good way to define Democrats as responsible and competent and Republicans as crazy.

I'd go farther and say PayGo is plain old good policy. And it doesn't, as Etzioni seems to claim, necessarily lead to deficit-reduction. All it does is help keep Congress from making the deficit worse. If Democrats want to invest more in social priorities, they can certainly do so as long as they pay for it.

Perhaps Etzioni is worried that tax receipts will go way up on their own this session, and PayGo will keep the Dems from spending these new revenues. In that unlikely event, which I haven't heard anyone say they expect, maybe Dems should go ahead and spend some of it. But let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

Plus, PayGo doesn't have anything to do with discretionary spending; Dems could spend as much as they want through the appropriations process. Discretionary programs, after all, could use more funding. Why not concentrate on that?

But the bottom line is that PayGo mostly puts up a (surmountable) obstacle for massive legislated increases in entitlement spending or decreases in revenues. If any party wants to do either of those things, they should abide by PayGo and budget for it. Otherwise, it's too easy for present Congresses to reduce future revenues, which makes it harder for future Congresses to pass important policy. Isn't having Congress in such a weakened position all too familiar by now?



Posted by Matt Lewis, 04:50:43 PM



Friday, January 19, 2007

Dionne Column Not Perfect?

EJ Dionne's column today, as usual, is good, but one thing kinda bugged me:

No. 1: Extending President Bush's tax cuts to eternity will make the long-term problem much worse. Hint No. 2: The hardest part will be how -- simultaneously -- to meet the fiscal need to rein in health costs and the social need to get health insurance to everyone. Hint No. 3: Most Democrats don't like to talk about it, but somebody's taxes are going to have to go up.

He sets up the "social need" for universal health insurance in tension to the "fiscal need" to rein in health costs, but I'm not so sure that's the right relationship. As I tried to write yesterday, there's some evidence that a greater role for the government would help bring down health care costs across all sectors in the long term.

Anyway, I confess my ignorance of the mechanisms involved here. But doesn't this seem like the perfect silo-crossing issue? It'd be nice if health care wonks helped us ignorant budget wonks understand this aspect of universal coverage better.

The best I can do is put Jacob Hacker's summary of the argument for cost-containment after the jump.



Read More...

Posted by Matt Lewis, 01:09:49 PM



Thursday, January 18, 2007

Entitlement Options

Ben Bernanke gave testimony on increasing entitlement program costs today. There was one key point I wanted to discuss:

Addressing the country's fiscal problems will take persistence and a willingness to make difficult choices. In the end, the fundamental decision that the Congress, the Administration, and the American people must confront is how large a share of the nation's economic resources to devote to federal government programs, including transfer programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

I think the most fundamental decision is different. This country needs to make a decision about how it wants to organize the social insurance system. Do we want the public/private hybrid we have now, or something more like the public/private hybrid that almost all other industrialized countries have?

The foreign model tends to be much cheaper (not to mention more generous and inclusive). They're organized better.

Social insurance in this country is really, really expensive. We should talk about how to organize ours better.

Jacob Hacker's proposal gets us started in that direction. Why not talk about it as a way to keep down costs?

We can fix this long-term fiscal imbalance, but it's going to take something that goes much deeper than the decision Bernanke claims is most fundamental. We need to reorganize, step by step, the way social insurance is provided in this country. It would be nice if Bernanke at least acknowledged that this was an option.



Posted by Matt Lewis, 06:18:59 PM



Thursday, January 11, 2007

Senators Broach Fiscal and Entitlement Reform Initiative

We last left the subject of budget and entitlement reform in 2006 (here and here) amid muted congressional response to bids by OMB Director Rob Portman and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to discuss concrete solutions.

But the 2007 cycle of the long-term fiscal policy and entitlement reform merry-go-round opened with a bang yesterday, as Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH) announced the goal of forming a bipartsan group to look at procedural and substantive ways to address the nation's long-term fiscal challenges, chiefly, the cost of providing benefits to the roughly 80 million baby boomers who are beginning to retire.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also called for a bipartisan approach to overhauling Social Security and Medicare. But he poo-pooed the notion that divided government is a more favorable environment for reform, noting in choice words that President Bush persists in calling for personal accounts as part of Social Security reform, saying, in an interview with Congress Daily:

"There's no chance this will happen in the foreseeable future. He couldn't do it when they had the majority. How in the world does he expect to do that in the minority? It's as if he wants to fail. "Maybe it means something to him to stand on his principles no matter how flawed they are."



Posted by Dana Chasin, 06:43:49 PM



Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Sen. Baucus Taken to Task in Washington Post

Steven Pearlstein, the business columnists for the Washington Post, has a blistering expose on Sen. Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) in today's paper. Pearlstein wonders how (or perhaps why?) Sen. Baucus was able to work his way to the top of the Democrats' list to lead the Finance Committee when many if not all of his views on committee business are essentially contrary to the Democratic Party platform. A few excerpts:

But while Baucus is surely entitled to his opinions, and entitled to do what is necessary to assure his own political survival, he is not entitled to be chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which handles such key Democratic issues as health care, trade and tax policy. That position ought to be reserved for a statesman with enough political confidence and backbone that he isn't constantly sacrificing the interests of his party and his country to the narrow interests of his subsidy-addicted constituents.

You'd think Baucus would have learned his lesson in 2001, when he won the enmity of Democrats everywhere by striking the deal that led to passage of the Bush tax cuts, including the phase-out of the estate tax. Apparently not. For on the very day the new Democratic House is set to push through a long-overdue minimum-wage increase, over in the Senate, Baucus has called a hearing on how to offset the "economic hardship" caused by the higher minimum wage with yet another round of business tax breaks.

[...]

Real Democrats know that raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do -- economically, politically, morally. The question is why they have chosen a Senate Finance chairman who can't articulate that position without equivocation or apology even before the first vote is cast.

That's pretty hard hitting stuff, and Pearlstein makes a convincing argument in the full article. It's definitely worth a read.



Posted by Adam Hughes, 04:07:58 PM



WaPo's Samuelson Needlessly Freaks Out About Social Security

Robert Samuelson bashes his generation in today’s Washington Post:

Shame on us [baby boomers]. We are trying to rob our children and grandchildren, putting the country's future at risk in the process. On one of the great issues of our time, the social and economic costs of our retirement, we have adopted a policy of selfish silence.

*Sigh* What is Samuelson so exercised about? He’s huffing and puffing over something that may or may not happen 33 years from now.

Here’s the thing about Social Security: There’s nothing wrong with Social Security; it does not need to be fixed. The 2006 Social Security Trustees report indicates that in 2040, Social Security benefit payouts may have to be reduced by 26%. That’s it. That’s the "great issue of our time."

Here’s the text from the report:

Despite these cash-flow deficits, beginning in 2017, redemption of trust fund assets will allow continuation of full benefit payments on a timely basis until 2040, when the trust funds will become exhausted. This redemption process will require a flow of cash from the General Fund of the Treasury. Pressures on the Federal Budget will thus emerge well before 2040. Even if a trust fund’s assets are exhausted, however, tax income will continue to flow into the fund. Present tax rates would be sufficient to pay 74 percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2040 and 70 percent of scheduled benefits in 2080.

Samuelson also engages in the classic scare tactics of Social Security haters - lumping Medicare in with Social Security to create the illusion that there’s one really big program that costs unimaginable sums, hand-waving about soul-crushing tax increases, and citing population and budget figures without context or caveat.

Shame on Samuelson for using precious column inches to raise holy hell about such a non-problem when he could be addressing real issues.



Posted by Craig Jennings, 10:30:17 AM



Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Humbled Bush Writes in WSJ

President Bush has fired the opening shot of the 2007 budget battle, writing an op-ed in today's WSJ. The piece is mostly PR, which is an encouraging sign that the President is more interested in repairing his image than pursuing harmful policy. Substance-wise, the President is not asking for much more than the continuation of the status quo.

Some notable budgetary policies and goals mentioned in the op-ed:

  • No new taxes:
    "Now is not the time to raise taxes on the American people."
  • A balanced budget by 2012:
    "By continuing these policies, we can balance the federal budget by 2012 while funding our priorities and making the tax cuts permanent. In early February, I will submit a budget that does exactly that."
  • An vague reference to entitlement cuts as a way to balance the budget:
    "By balancing the budget through pro-growth economic policies and spending restraint, we are better positioned to tackle the longer term fiscal challenge facing our country: reforming entitlements -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- so future generations can benefit from these vital programs without bankrupting our country."
  • Legislative process changes and a line-item veto:
    "It's time Congress give the president a line-item veto. And today I will announce my own proposal to end this dead-of-the-night process and substantially cut the earmarks passed each year."


Posted by Matt Lewis, 11:04:05 AM




Latest Entries by Theme

All Themes

Appropriations & Spending

Federal Tax Policy

Income/Wealth Inequality

Budget Projections

Government Performance

Estate Tax

State Fiscal Policy

Watcher

Entitlements

Budget Process

Debt & Deficit

Oversight & Enforcement

Transparency

Privatization

Contact Us

Most Recent Entries for Federal Budget & Tax

Approps Update: Senate Back to Work

OMB Releases FY 2008 Earmarks Data

DPC Hearing on Iraq Contracting This Week

Monthly Budget Review: June, 2008

Congress to End White House Forest Conservation Program

Fiscal Policy Agenda Returns to Washington

Bush Signs War Supplemental

BudgetBlog on Hiatus for Holiday: Happy Fourth Everyone!

The Heat Must Be Getting to Them

GAO Report Finds Private Medicare Providers Prefer Profits Over Providing Better Service

Archived Entries for Entitlements

June

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

August, 2006

June, 2006

February, 2006

November, 2005

October, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

June, 2005

May, 2005

April, 2005

March, 2005

February, 2005

January, 2005

December, 2004

November, 2004

August, 2003