StanCollender'sCapitalGainsandGames Washington, Wall Street and Everything in Between



Obama Could Become The Most Fiscally Responsible President In U.S. History

27 Jan 2009
Posted by Stan Collender

Here's my "Fiscal Fitness" column from this week's Roll Call.

Obama Could Be Most Fiscally Responsible President in History

January 27, 2009

What you are about to read is anything but the current conventional wisdom: President Barack Obama has an opportunity to have such a positive impact on the federal budget that he could end up being considered one of the most fiscally responsible presidents of all time.

How could this happen? It begins with what is now incontrovertible: Obama has “permission” to preside over an increase in the federal deficit to levels never previously imagined.

Even though a few might prefer it not happen at all, or that it get to this level differently, a trillion-dollar deficit, which heretofore was so completely unthinkable that it was never mentioned in polite company, has now become a fait accompli, inescapable and, most important, politically acceptable.

As a result, Obama has the ability to support policies that will dramatically raise the deficit. And even though that previously unmentionable trillion-dollar deficit will become so commonplace during the first two years of his administration that it will no longer result in raised eyebrows, the Obama White House will be able to credibly claim that it is fiscally responsible. (For the record, and even though no one has said so officially, my back-of-an-envelope estimate shows that the fiscal 2009 deficit is more likely to be closer to $2 trillion than $1 trillion. Even that number won’t affect the administration’s budget credentials.)

The reason for this is simple: The demand that the president deal with the economy is so strong and his proposed higher deficit is considered to be the right medicine by so many that it will be very hard to successfully characterize this White House as being fiscally reckless almost regardless of what it proposes, supports and approves during its first year or two. Few other presidents in history had a similar opportunity.

The second reason Obama could end up being considered one of the most fiscally responsible presidents of all time is that the previously unimaginably high deficit means that as soon as the economy allows it, there will be a strong, and probably bipartisan, consensus that deficit reduction has to happen.

This is obviously the mirror image of the initial reason for Obama’s budget opportunity. First, he’ll be able to increase the deficit without harming his fiscal responsibility credentials because the political opposition to how much it rises as a result of his policies will be relatively muted. But as soon as the economy unambiguously is understood to be recovering, the need for the president to deal with the budget will replace the necessity of his dealing with the economy. This will mean that the previously politically unacceptable deficit-increasing proposals from the first year or two of the Obama administration could be replaced with similar previously unacceptable deficit-reduction spending cuts and revenue increases.

Despite the fact that a balanced budget has almost always taken on religious qualities throughout American history, there have been few times when a bipartisan consensus existed that the deficit should be reduced. Even during George W. Bush’s administration, when the deficit repeatedly hit record nominal highs, there was widespread disagreement about whether action was required.

That’s not likely to be the case this time. The annual trillion-dollar deficits and multitrillion-dollar increases in the national debt in 2009 and 2010 will change the discussion from whether the deficit needs to be addressed to how it should happen. The bond market, which was so instrumental in forcing the Clinton administration to deal with the budget, will again likely be an active and influential participant in the debate as the concern shifts to continued government borrowing that could raise interest rates and stop the recovery in its tracks. That will provide elected officials with the permission they need to move from their previous feet-in-cement positions opposing certain spending cuts and tax increases. Reducing the deficit at that point will become as much a fait accompli as increasing it was before.

The fact that a consensus to reduce the deficit will exist is the third reason Obama could end up being considered one of the most fiscally responsible presidents in history. Why? This consensus, the first that will have existed for well over a decade, will allow the president to propose, Congress to support and both branches to implement a new budget process.

Having a consensus about what needs to be done on the budget has long been the key requirement for putting a budget process in place. The Congressional Budget Act was only enacted in 1974 after a clear consensus developed that Congress needed a process to deal with the executive branch on budget issues. That was replaced in 1985 when a consensus developed that deficit reduction rather than just the outcome-neutral 1974 process was needed. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was the result.

There’s been a great deal of discussion since the mid-1990s about a new budget process, especially since most of the major enforcement provisions of GRH were allowed to expire. Nothing has been adopted, however, because there has been no agreement on what a new process was supposed to accomplish. That will change completely, however, if what happens on the budget during Obama’s first two years creates a consensus that reducing the deficit again has to be the priority.

There are already indications all of this is starting to happen. The trillion-dollar-plus deficits projected for 2009 and 2010 are being agreed to, but there is increasing talk from the White House about what will need to be done afterward to get control. There also seems to be growing interest in tackling entitlement spending and tax reform — two previously verboten subjects — when the time is right. And the president is already talking about fiscal responsibility summits and entitlement reform initiatives that sound remarkably like process changes in the making.

All of this means that, as far as the budget is concerned, the first two years of the Obama administration could be among the most active, and confounding, of any presidency in recent memory.

Dream on

Republicans are totally committed to making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, deficits be damned. As Dick Cheney famously said, "Deficits don't matter."

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would put the budget back in surplus once the economy recovers. Republicans will not only move against it, they will demagogue the issue claiming that "Democrats raised your taxes."

Republicans are against transfer of wealth. If the budget deficit can be used to argue against spending on the lower and middle class, we hear howls about the budget deficit. If large budget deficits are needed for Bush tax cuts, we hear "Deficits don't matter."

The last time a president raised tax rates to reduce the deficit (1993) how much bipartisan support did it get then?


Bakho, Allowing the Bush tax

Bakho,

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would put the budget back in surplus once the economy recovers.

Please provide a link to the analysis on which you are basing that assertion (I'm assuming you didn't just make it up). I want to see what the assumptions are. For one thing, what is assumed regarding the AMT?

So, have a link?


Budget Balance

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8877/12-13-LTBO.pdf

See Fig 1-1.

Of course revenues will drop substantially this year because of economic conditions. Once the economy recovers, revenues would increase should the Bush tax cuts expire. There is even room to fix the AMT. Note that Bush would have run very small to no deficits if not for his tax cuts. Republicans presidents like to spend a lot of money but don't want to pay for it. Clinton was willing to raise the top tax rates to pay for his spending (which made him unpopular with the wealthy and media elites).

In the longer term, if we do nothing to contain health care costs (not just government costs but system-wide costs) the deficit will balloon. This is why health care reform is so important. The government cannot continue to be a cash cow for the insurance industry and BigPharma.


Bakho, Just to address a few

Bakho,

Just to address a few points:

- You are referring to a December, 2007 report, obviously based on projections made before the recession. I realize you are speaking (vaguely) of when the economy recovers, but I think you'd need more to support your contention tht we'd be back in surplus under that policy scenario even with a full sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts and no patching of the AMT. The recession means lower GDP. I don't know at what level of GDP you would consider the economy "recovered", but given the lower starting point for GDP and the added interest expense (vs. that 2007 projection), the point at which GDP reaches the point at which revenue would put us back in surplus even with nothing left of the Bush tax cuts and no patching of the AMT may be near or at the end of that window of surplus projected in that 2007 projection for that scenario.

- You have apparently overlooked the fact that the spending represented in Figure 1.1 excludes interest on the federal debt. When added, per appropriate assumptions for interest expense today given the growth of the debt now occurring and expected (particularly once interest rates rise again, as they will with recovery), I think that that alone pretty much wipes out the surpluses shown in that projection of the Extended Baseline Scenario.

- In addition to the above, continued patching (or permanent indexing to inflation of) the AMT -- as is only realistic politically, given that it would otherwise reach into the "middle class" (and I don't know if even you oppose such a policy) -- puts surpluses farther away.

- Even per that outdated projection there is not much of a window of time and magnitude of surpluses relative to the long-term fiscal imbalance (and that's without considering what I've mentioned above, which obviously makes that outlook even worse) so just repealing the Bush tax cuts -- even if accompanied by the full hit of the AMT on everyone to whom it would apply under current law -- would be far, far, far from a solution to our long-term fiscal imbalance.


Tax rates

My bigger point is that the top tax rates need to return to at least pre-Bush levels to drive the budget toward balance. Plus the estate tax needs to be brought back for high value estates. I would support even high top tax rates once we are in recovery to balance the budget. Our problem is not too much spending, it is too little revenue.

We should cut spending by flatlining defense and getting back into "peace dividend" territory.
Of course none of this well help if we do not control health care costs.

Our political problem is two competing visions for the future. Republicans support a society of haves and have nots where the wealthy get most of the money in the economy and live isolated in gated communities with little to no responsibility to pay their fair share of public infrastructure or the costs of maintaining a healthy, educated and productive workforce.

Democrats are split between those wanting a social safety net that is comparable to that of other developed countries and those that are willing to tolerate a lot of wealth inequality in exchange for a few more crumbs being tossed into the pot to patch the worst holes in the social safety net. The majority of Americans want a fair deal and know they are not getting it because wealthy special interests have hijacked our economic distribution system. This will be a very ugly fight and in the end, it will not be bipartisan unless the Republican Party is forced to undergo major reforms in their economic ideology.


Bakho, You write: Our

Bakho,

You write:
Our political problem is two competing visions for the future.

Actually, the two political problems that continue to get in the way of significant movement toward responsible fiscal policy are:

1) The general ignorance of the public on our fiscal outlook and trade-offs we face, combined with a sort of immaturity: a strong disinclination to sacrifice today for the sake of tomorrow, and to believe and support politicians (and others) who present relatively painless (phony) "solutions" over those who tell them the truth about the need for real sacrifice.

2) Hyperpartisans (quite possibly including you) of right and left who persist in their respective, self-righteous delusions about how we can solve the long-term fiscal imbalance problem. Hyperpartisans on the right who think we can solve the problem entirely on the spending side. And hyperpartisans on the left who think we can solve it all through a combination of tax increases on "the rich", Defense cuts that don't significantly reduce our economic or physical security, and painless means of slowing the excess cost growth of Medicare and Medicaid.

The truth is that even most hyperpartisans, if better informed, would choose some combination of (post-recession) broad-based tax increases and reductions in projected spending pretty much across the board: Defense, non-Defense discretionary, and entitlements. And the latter includes reductions in projected spending on Social Security (at least in terms of means testing [upfront or retroactively via higher taxation of benefits] and raising the retirement age), and reductions in projected spending on Medicare via similar reductions in eligibility (retirement age; means testing) plus systematic cost-savings that go beyond painless measures such as digitized medical records and cost-effective preventive medicine and get into restrictions on treatment, restrictions that involve real sacrifice.

Not only are the "solutions" demanded by hyperpartisans unrealistic politically (an eventual compromise, combination solution as I've described above is inevitable, although the longer it is delayed by hyperpartisans and self-serving politicians, the greater the ultimate pain), and not only are these "solutions" in many cases not even realistic in terms of economics (meaning the math just doesn't add up), but again, if better informed, even the hyperpartisans would realize that a broad, combination solution is optimal.

But of course, hyperpartisans cling strongly to their cherished myths, positions and talking points for emotional reasons, and breaking that grip is an enormous, difficult challenge. The way some people deal with cognitive dissonance is a hard habit to break, especially when it is tied up in their sense of identity and self-worth.


Obama Presidency

Obama is already being considered by the radical left, the lunatic fringe of the Baby Boomer generation, as the greatest President this nation has ever seen and he has not even served one hundred days! Unfortunately, as a member of the conservative wing of the Boomer generation, I will probably not live long enough to see how historians yet to be born will critique the Obama administration. Its bad enough that I and many other conservatives have to put up with the daily fawning over someone who has yet to be in office 100 days as if he came to us on a golden chariot pulled by winged white horses.





Recent comments


Advertising


Order from Amazon


Copyright

Creative Commons LicenseThe content of CapitalGainsandGames.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Need permissions beyond the scope of this license? Please submit a request here.