Most of my readers know by now that I am an economist by training and formal education. My clients know this as well. The net result is that I’ve been queried, almost to death as of late, as to what this current round of Washington folly is really all about. Is it about the ACA? Is it about the budget? Spending? Is there really a debt ceiling, etc.? Suffice to say, this post is intended as a concise answer (and no, economists are not known to be concise or clear on anything so I’m going out on a limb here).
While most Americans express concern over the amount of debt at the Federal level, the truth is that the amount is really not the issue. The ratio of debt to GDP is the bigger issue plus the cost of servicing the debt as percentage of the revenue received by the government. Today, the debt load is approximately $16 trillion (beginning of 2013). Of this total, around $10 trillion arrived since 2002. The $10 trillion is the result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, entitlement growth, stimulus spending, tax cuts, and the recession. Income flows into the government coffers reduce substantially during recessionary periods and periods of stagnant GDP growth. As revenue evaporates faster than spending, and during recessions spending on behalf of the government normally increases (income support programs, entitlement growth, etc.), the deficit gap widens. Deficits require funding (the bills must be paid) and thus, the source for the government is borrowing. As of late (last few years), the government has borrowed more than $1 trillion annually to cover its cash outflow shortfalls.
While the question of long-term sustainability begs and the debate wages on about fiscal balance, the truth is that while this process (escalating borrowing) is on its face unsustainable, it is likely more temporary in nature than permanent. At the very least, the policy drivers and economic factors will shift, altering the present course of borrowing. For example, across the last two fiscal years, borrowing has reduced as budget deficits recede naturally. Spending priorities in Washington have shifted and taxes increased. The 2013 deficit will not exceed the trillion-dollar mark, coming in at $700 billion or so. As wars conclude and the economy recovers, even if slightly more than present, the deficit shrinks and the need to borrow is lessened.
What is central to the issues referenced in the title is the budgetary math and how the dollars are received and spent. Within a budget of $3.8 trillion, two-thirds is allocated toward “fixed” or “mandated” spending. That leaves $1.2 trillion in the variable or discretionary bucket. Interesting to note, the budget proportion as a percent of GDP hasn’t changed all that much – up only 2% compared to the most recent forty-year average. What has changed is the allocation percentages with more dollars spent today on entitlement programs. For example, Medicare spending is nearly three times greater as a percent of GDP compared the forty-year average. Health spending is more than double and Social Security is one and a third times more. Because the percentage of GDP spent is roughly the same, the offsets are found in defense spending, science and technology, general government and interest (yes, even with a rising debt level, lower rates have kept the interest cost lower than the historical average).
The government via taxes, will take in approximately $3 trillion. The gap thus is $800 billion, give or take a billion or so. This gap is the driver of borrowing limits and debt ceilings. In effect, the debt ceiling is a self-imposed number and one that is totally arbitrary. Congress established the debt ceiling back in 1917 with the passage of the Liberty Bond Act. In the 70s, via passage of the Budget Control and Impoundment Act, the debt ceiling became less relevant. Effectively, the debt ceiling issue was tied to the budget and a parliamentarian procedure known as the Gephardt Rule (after Congressman Dick Gephardt) allow the ceiling to automatically adjust incident to budget passage. The problem to a certain extent of late is that the government hasn’t operated with a budget for at least three years and spending bills (appropriations) have stalled in the Senate. Essentially, a debt ceiling discussion thus becomes separate from other fiscal operation activities.
So where are we now and what does this mean? In cold hard reality, the issue of the debt ceiling is less about default on credit but about the ripple effect economically that will occur. The U.S. really can’t default on its debt and does operate with enough cash flow to keep interest payments current. The President does have unique authority via executive privilege and orders to adjust the U.S. borrowing limit. The Treasury also has other temporary powers. Using these powers is a last resort as doing so will certainly cause economic havoc world-wide via the real signal that the U.S. government is in chaos. Remember, the stability of much of our economy is based on the stability of our systems of banking, credit and government – the full faith and credit stuff – nothing more. If this system isn’t credible and stable, the erosion is tsunamic.
History and an updated view of the economic reality we live in, paints the true picture. Today, our debt driver and our economic structural flaws within the government budget (such as it is) are entitlements as presently configured. There simply is not enough room on the discretionary side or the variable side to right size the budget, offsetting the entitlement growth. The demographic shift that is occurring in the U.S. and all first world countries (aging) is the catalyst. By 2033, 20% of our population will be 65 and older, eligible as presently configured, for Social Security and Medicare. Moreover, the expenditure to income ratio per each under Medicare produces a significant outflow deficit. For example, a 65-year-old couple in 2020, assuming average wages earned during their work years will contribute $110 thousand (with employer share) into Medicare. Across their remaining life, Medicare will spend in present dollars, almost 4 times more ($430,000). By 2022, Medicare spending is projected (under current law) to consumer 4.5% of GDP (3% today) and rise of 6.7% by 2035. This net change equates to a spend rate of more than $1 trillion in current dollars on Medicare alone.
To the point: Health policy is the shutdown, budget and debt ceiling debate. The good news is that it is fixable but the bad news is that it must be fixed by government. There is no other course of action that can and will adjust the debt trajectory. Now, hope is also muddled within the mix. The healthcare industry has gotten smarter and evidence suggests that recent reductions in healthcare spending increases are as much due to more efficiencies in healthcare delivery (generic drugs, better insurance bargaining, smarter consumption habits of patients) as due to a weak economy. A public-private initiative could create a paradigm shift, favorably changing the entitlement spending outlook. Congress and the President will need to get creative and utilize a different legislative approach to resolve the present dilemma.
Is the sky falling because of too much debt? Not really. Governments and especially ours, don’t really need to be too concerned about the debt load in the short-run. The concern is about changing or adjusting the factors that drive debt. As long as the increase in new debt is less proportionately, than the increase in GDP, debt load as percentage of economic activity reduces. For example, between 1945 and 1980, the government only encountered 8 years with surplus revenue. Fully all other years involved deficit spending. In 1945, at the end of World War II, debt as percent of GDP weighed in at 120%. By 1981, the level subsided to 30%. The reason? GDP growth accelerated during these years and the deficits were relatively small. The economic truth is that government policy needs to focus-in on all things fundamentally favorable to GDP growth while constraining with simple austerity, the deficit levels. The debt problem thus resolves itself. There is no need to “pay it back” and fundamentally, no reason to do so. The best approach is to minimize its impact on the economy by fixing the root cause. In this case, adjusting entitlement spending by relatively modest means (currently structural changes to reduce about $500 billion) is all that is needed.