Transcript Austerity vs. Stimulus: The U.S. Fiscal Policy Debate Jeffrey Frankel Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth REAI International Advisory Board Harvard Faculty Club, May.

Austerity vs. Stimulus:
The U.S. Fiscal Policy Debate
Jeffrey Frankel
Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth
REAI International Advisory Board
Harvard Faculty Club, May 2013
Austerity vs. Stimulus
Definitions
• Fiscal austerity or contraction:
– cut government spending or raise taxes
– to raise budget surplus (or reduce budget deficit),
• to avoid economic overheating
• & strengthen long-run debt sustainability (deficit = Δ debt).
• Fiscal stimulus or expansion:
– Raise government spending or cut taxes
– to provide short-term economic stimulus,
• for growth & employment.
Austerity vs. Stimulus, continued
• The question
“What is the best fiscal policy,
Austerity or Stimulus?”
is as foolish as the question
“Should a driver turn left or right?”
• It depends where he is in the road.
– Sometimes left is the answer, sometimes right.
Cyclicality of Fiscal Policy
• Keynes favored counter-cyclical policy:
– fiscal stimulus when under conditions like the 1930s
-- depressed income, high unemployment,
low inflation, low interest rates –
to moderate the downturn,
– But fiscal contraction
during boom periods,
to prevent over-heating.
• The boom, not the slump, is the right time for
austerity at the Treasury.” - John Maynard Keynes
(1937) Collected Writings
• Keynesian policy (“fine tuning”) fell into disfavor
in part because it was hard to get the timing right:
• by the time fiscal stimulus became law,
the recession would be over,
• e.g., the Kennedy tax cut,
• passed in 1964.
• But that is no excuse for pro-cyclical fiscal policy.
• Definition of pro-cyclical fiscal policy:
Governments raise spending (or cut taxes) in booms;
and are then forced to retrench in downturns,
thereby exacerbating upswings & downswings.
Central message:
• As in Europe,
• many US politicians have forgotten how to do
counter-cyclical fiscal policy,
• turning pro-cyclical instead,
• exacerbating the business cycle.
Cyclicality of Fiscal Policy, continued
• Conspicuously, Greece & other euro members
failed to reduce budget deficits
during years of growth, 2002-08
– and were then forced to cut spending & raise taxes
during the euro debt crisis of 2010-12,
• exacerbating the recession,
• even raising Debt/GDP.
• But the United Kingdom did the same,
– despite no euro-constraint forcing austerity in 2010-13.
• And so did the United States !
Why do leaders fail to take advantage
of booms to strengthen the budget?
• People don’t see the need to “fix the hole
in the roof when the sun is shining.”
– They do see the mistake
when the storm hits,
• but then it is too late.
• Official forecasts
are over-optimistic
in boom periods,
rationalizing the failure to act.
– according to data from 33 countries.
Three distinct US fiscal problems
• The long-term debt problem
• The medium-term economic problem
• The short-term political problem
Three distinct US fiscal problems
• The long-term problem -- debt unsustainability
– warrants a path back to fiscal discipline.
• The medium-term economic problem -slow recovery in aftermath of the 2007-08 financial crisis,
– warrants demand stimulus today, not contraction,
• which is now holding back growth.
• The short-term problem is political:
– A succession of artificial “cliffs”
& shutdown deadlines, each threatening disaster.
– Since March 1: the “sequester” is in effect
• $1.2 tr. over decade = ½ defense + ½ domestic..
– Soon we will hit the debt ceiling again.
The long-term US debt problem..
National debt/GDP is the highest since WWII spike.
Source: CBO, March 2012
The long-term US debt problem, continued
• “Long-term” in the sense that debt/GDP
will rise alarmingly after the 2020s
– unless entitlements are put on a sound footing:
• Social Security & Medicare are due to run big deficits
– as the baby-boomers retire (predictably)
– and the cost of health care rises rapidly (less predictably).
• Definition of debt sustainability:
– regardless the level of the debt, it is sustainable
if the future debt/GDP ratio is forecast to fall indefinitely.
Long-term debt problem, continued
Federal
Not sustainable
Long-term debt problem, continued
• There is not a short-term problem:
– Far from tiring of absorbing ever-greater levels
of US treasury securities, global investors
continue happily to lend at record-low interest rates (2008-13):
• The US enjoys safe-haven status; the $ enjoys “exorbitant privilege.”
– There is no fiscal crisis. The US is not Greece,
• though we want to be sure not to become Greece in 20 years.
• Indeed the federal budget deficit is now coming down
• from 10 % of GDP in FY 2009 to 7 % in FY 2012.
– despite the continued weakness in the economy.
• Recent steps will bring debt/GDP down over 2014-18.
• 2011-13 $1.5 trillion in spending cuts
• + $0.6 tr. 1/1/2013 tax “increase” (relative to having renewed all Bush tax cuts).
The budget deficit is currently on a declining path.
“The Rapidly Shrinking Federal Deficit”
Goldman Sachs Global Economics, Commodities & Strategy Research (Hatzius), Apr.10, 2013
Debt / GDP is set to decline over 2014 -18.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Jan.9, 2013
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3885
CBPP recommends a further $1.2 tr. in spending cuts & tax rises to stabilize debt out to 2022.
But there is no need for it to hit this year. That would send us back into recession.
Long-term debt problem, continued
The debt problem is also “long-term” in the sense
that we have known about it a long time.
E.g., when Ronald Reagan, took office:
"For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit,
mortgaging our future and our children's future
for the temporary convenience of the present…
We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow.
And let there be no misunderstanding:
We are going to begin to act, beginning today.”
– Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981
The US public discussion is framed as a battle between
conservatives who philosophically believe in strong budgets
& small government, and liberals who do not.
Democrats, Republicans, & the media all use this language.
It is not the right way to characterize the debate.
[1]
• (1) The right goal should be budgets that allow
surpluses in booms and deficits in recession.
• (2) The correlation between how loudly an
American politician proclaims a belief in fiscal
conservatism and how likely he is to take genuine
policy steps < 0.
[1] Never mind that small government is classically supposed to be the aim of “liberals,” in the 19th century definition, not “conservatives.”
My point is different: those who call themselves conservatives in practice tend to adopt policies that are the opposite of fiscal conservatism. I call them “illiberal.”
“Republican & Democratic Presidents Have Switched Economic Policies” Milken Inst.Rev. 2003.
Brief US fiscalhistory: The1980s
• The newly elected Reagan complained of the inherited debt:
– “Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. …
A trillion dollars would be a stack of 1,000-$ bills 67 miles high.”
•
address to Congress, Feb. 18, 1981.
• Reagan’s actions: sharp tax cuts & rise in defense spending.
• The claim: budget surpluses would result.
• The reality: record deficits that added to the national debt
– a 2nd trillion in his 1st term
– a 3rd trillion in his 2nd term
– a 4th trillion when G.H.W. Bush initially continued the policies.
(“Read my lips, no new taxes.”)
US fiscal history, continued: The 1990s
• The deficits were gradually cut, and then
converted to surpluses by the end of the 1990s.
• How was this accomplished?
– Regime of “Shared Sacrifice” -- 3 key policy events.
• 1990: GHW Bush bravely agreed spending caps, taxes & PAYGO
• 1993: Clinton extended the policy.
• 1998: As surpluses emerged, “Save Social Security 1st.”
– Strong growth in late 1990s.
Fiscal history, continued: The 2000s
• The Shared Sacrifice regime ended
on the day G.W. Bush took office in Jan. 2001.
• He returned to the Reagan policies:
– Large tax cuts
– together with rapid increase in spending (triple Clinton’s)
• not just in military spending (esp. Iraq & Afghanistan),
• but also domestic spending: discretionary + Medicare drugs benefit.
• Just like Reagan, he claimed budget surpluses would result.
• Just like Reagan, the result was record deficits:
– The national debt doubled.
• I.e., GWB incurred more debt than his father + Reagan + 39 predecessors
Where are we now,
in April 2013?
• The political crisis:
• repeated partisan standoffs in Congress.
• To reduce the budget deficit:
• how far can we get by discretionary spending cuts?
• Where are the right places to squeeze,
• politics aside ?
Repeated partisan stand-offs in Congress
• In the summer of 2011, Congress
at first refused the usual debt ceiling increase,
– recklessly threatening government default.
– Political dysfunction led S&P to downgrade US bonds from AAA.
• “Fiscal cliff” deadline at the end of 2012
– risked fiscal contraction sharp enough
to cause a new recession.
• New debt ceiling, May 18 :
(+)
• postponed from January 23, 2013.
•
How far can we get by cutting spending?
• Total federal spending = $3 ½ trillion in round numbers.
• That spending minus tax revenue left
a budget deficit of $1.1 trillion in FY 2012,
• down from $1.4 trillion in 2009.
• Many Republican congressmen have campaigned
to cut only non-defense discretionary spending,
– to exempt defense & senior-related spending (Soc. Security & Medicare).
– And adamantly no tax increase.
• That was their official platform in the 2010 election.
• How much would we have to trim non-defense
discretionary spending to balance the budget?
How far can we get by cutting spending? continued
• Start by eliminating PBS funding
• =1/10,000 of spending
• Then all foreign aid.
• = 1 ½ % of total outlays, not 25% as Americans think.
• Next, veterans’ benefits.
• The same. We are now up to a total of 3 % of outlays.
• Next imagine zeroing out all federal spending on agriculture,
science & environment, education & transportation,
• which includes programs too popular for congressmen to vote for.
• That is a total of $364 b = 1/3 of the 2012 deficit.
• Conclusion: Domestic discretionary spending
is not where the big bucks are.
• Would would also need to eliminate either all of defense,
– or all medicare payments
– or all social security payments
– while still collecting the social security taxes that are supposed to pay for it!
Eliminating all non-defense discretionary spending
(including also parks, weather service, food safety, SEC, FBI, border patrol,
politicians’ salaries… everything !)
would not come close to eliminating the budget deficit
Total ≈ ½ deficit
$92 b
$86 b
$61 b
$59 b
$56 b
$35 b
$30 b
$17 b
$6 b
Concord Coalition.
Data Source: CBO, Jan.2012
3 biggest spending categories:
Health, Social security, & Defense
{ Medicare
& medicaid
Concord Coalition.
Data Source: CBO, Jan. 2012
Breakdown of federal spending
Even if one could somehow eliminate all domestic spending,
it would not come close to eliminating the deficit
Budget deficit was $1.1 trillion in FY 2012
Outlays: $3.5 trillion
Deficit
$1.1 tr.
Tax
revenue
$2.5 tr.
Concord Coalition.
Data Source: CBO, Jan. 2012
Updated: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2012_09_MBR.pdf
• 12 years ago, if the country thought it important enough
to protect any single category against belt-tightening
in the long run -- say military or social security or tax cuts for the rich -it would have been arithmetically possible,
by making the cuts elsewhere.
• But we no longer have the luxury of such choices
after the legacy of the last decade —
–
–
–
–
after the effects of mammoth tax cuts (2001 & 2003),
two wars (2001, 2003),
the Medicare prescription drug benefit (2003),
and the severe financial crisis & recession (2008).
• Starting from our current position, each of the 5
components must play a role, along with taxes.
If there were no political constraints…
• What steps should be taken today
to lock in future fiscal consolidation?
– Not by raising taxes or cutting spending today (new recession);
– nor by promising to do so in a year or two (not credible).
– There are lots of economically sensible proposals
• for spending to eliminate over time,
• more efficient taxes to phase in,
• and “tax expenditures” to phase out.
How to reduce the budget deficit
The only way to do this is both reduce spending
& raise tax revenue, as we did in the 1990s.
• Spending.
Examples:
– Eliminate agricultural subsidies.
– Cut manned space program.
– Trim National Guard & Reserves,
– Close unwanted military bases
– Cut unwanted weapons systems
•
•
•
•
A rare success: the F22 Raptor fighter.
Now, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ($600b/10 yrs.)
The C-27J Spartan cargo aircraft
Upgrades to the M1 Abrams tank
•
Virginia-class submarine? ($2.6 b) ; Global Hawk Block 30 drone program?
How to reduce the budget deficit
The only way is both reduce spending & raise tax revenue, continued.
• Tax revenue options
– We could have let G.W. Bush’s
tax cuts expire in 2013.
– Can still curtail expensive & distorting “tax expenditures”
• E.g., Tax-deductibility of mortgage interest,
•&
of health insurance
• Subsidies to oil industry, low tax rate on carried interest, …
– Or launch more ambitious tax reform:
• Introduce a VAT, sales, or consumption tax
• or phase in an energy or carbon tax
– or auctioning of tradable emission permits
Distortionary subsidies hiding as tax expenditures
$128 b
$305 billion
$93 b
$84 b
Joint Committee of Taxation, Jan. 2012
The long-term problem is entitlements
Concord Coalition.
Data Source: CBO, Jan. 2012
• Social security
– Raise retirement age – just a little,
• perhaps exempting low-income workers.
– Index benefit growth to chain measure of inflation.
– Further options:
• To please Democrats: Raise the cap on social security taxes.
• To please Republicans: encourage private accounts
– though they contribute nothing to closing the gap.
35
• Health care
– Encourage hospitals to standardize
around best-practice medicine.
• Pay health providers for “value,” not per medical procedure.
• Standardize around best-practice treatment:
–
–
–
–
evidence-based (to be facilitated by electronic health records).
E.g., pursue the checklist that minimizes patient infections,
and avoid unnecessary medical tests & procedures.
That is not “death panels.”
• Levers to get providers to follow best practices:
– make Medicare payments conditional
– or protection from malpractice litigation.
– Curtail corporate tax-deductibility of health insurance,
–
especially gold-plated.
36
Some US politicians have pursued pro-cyclical
(i.e., destabilizing) fiscal policy
1st cycle:
Recession: austerity.
• 1980-81: Reagan’s
speeches pledging action
to reduce the national debt
“beginning today” came
during a period of severe
recession.
Boom: profligacy.
• 1988: As the economy neared
the peak of the business cycle,
candidate George H.W. Bush
was unconcerned about
budget deficits:
• “Read my lips,
no new taxes.”
Some US politicians have sought pro-cyclical fiscal policy,
continued
2nd cycle
Recession: austerity.
• 1990:
The first President Bush
summoned the political will
to raise taxes & rein in
spending (PAYGO)
at precisely the wrong
moment -- just as the US
entered another recession.
Boom: profligacy.
• 1993-2000: Despite the most
robust recovery in US history,
– 1993: all Republican congressmen
voted against Clinton’s legislation
to continue PAYGO etc.
– 2000: Even after 7 years of strong
growth, with unemployment < 4%,
G. W. Bush campaigned on tax cuts.
• 2003: After his fiscal expansion had
turned the inherited surpluses into
deficits, GWB went for a 2nd round
of tax cuts & continued a spending
growth rate > Clinton’s.
–
VP Cheney: “Reagan proved
that deficits don’t matter.”
Some US politicians have sought pro-cyclical fiscal policy, continued
3rd cycle
Recession: austerity.
• 2007-09: Predictably, when the new
worst recession since the Great
Depression hit, Republican congressmen
suddenly re-discovered the evil of deficits,
deciding that retrenchment was urgent.
– They opposed Obama’s initial
fiscal stimulus in February 2009.
• 2011: Subsequently, with a majority
in the House, they blocked further efforts
by Obama when the stimulus ran out,
despite still-high unemployment.
Thus, through 3 cycles,
Republican austerity efforts came during recessions,
followed by attempts at fiscal expansion
when the economy was already expanding.
The US has its own version of biased forecasts
Official US forecasts
in the 2000s
• White House forecasts were over-optimistic:
– OMB in Jan. 2001 forecast rapid rise in tax revenue,
• in effect assuming there would never be a recession.
– Four tricks to justify tax cuts, dating from the 1980s:
• The Magic Asterisk
• Rosy Scenario
• Laffer Hypothesis
• Starve the Beast Hypothesis
The US version of biased forecasts, continued
Official US forecasts
in the 2000s
•
• Congressional Budget Office forecasts are honest.
– But the Bush Administration adopted new tricks,
– so that “current-law budget” would show future surpluses:
• continuation of Iraq & Afghan wars treated as a surprise each year;
• phony sun-setting of tax cuts…
Writings by Jeffrey Frankel on fiscal policy:
• On Graduation from Fiscal Procyclicality,” 2013, with C.Végh & G.Vuletin,
.
J. Developmt. Econ. Summary: "Fiscal Policy in Developing Countries: Escape from Procyclicality," VoxEU, 2011. NBER WP 17619
• "Over-optimism in Forecasts by Official Budget Agencies and Its Implications,"
Oxford Review of Econ. Policy Vol.27, Issue 4, 2011, 536-62. NBER WP 17239; Summary in NBER Digest, Nov.2011.
• “Snake-Oil Tax Cuts,” 2008, EPI, Briefing Paper 221. HKS RWP 08-056.
• "Responding to Crises," Cato Journal vol.27, no. 2, Spring/Summer, 2007.
• “Republican and Democratic Presidents Have Switched Economic
Policies,” Milken Institute Review 5, no. 1, 2003 QI.
Google “Jeffrey Frankel Harvard” for webpage
or
blog
http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/ Blog:
http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/