Category: Politics

OMB’s 2009 Deficit Estimate Is Likely Too High

As expected, the new budget projections from the Office of Management and Budget show an estimated deficit of $1.58 trillion in the current year (which ends on September 30).

In their coverage of the dueling budget releases, many members of the media are noting that this estimate is almost identical to the $1.59 trillion estimate released by the Congressional Budget Office. Thus, it may appear that OMB and CBO reached similar conclusions about this year’s deficit.

That is not correct.

OMB and CBO use different accounting for a growing part of the budget — the federal take-over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  If you adjust for those accounting differences, an apples-to-apples comparison shows that OMB’s projection of a $1.58 trillion deficit should be compared to a CBO estimate of $1.41 trillion. (For details, see the table on p. 2 and the box on pp. 8-9 of CBO’s report.)

In other words, using identical accounting, CBO is projecting a deficit that is almost $200 billion less than projected by OMB.

Here’s how it works:

Continue reading “OMB’s 2009 Deficit Estimate Is Likely Too High”

More Stimulus Spending Than Originally Projected

Lots of budget news this morning, with the release of the newest projections from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office.

One headline is that spending on the stimulus will be higher than expected. As reported by Lori Montgomery at the Washington Post (ht EconomistMom):

The $787 billion economic stimulus package President Obama signed earlier this year is likely to cost “tens of billions of dollars” more than expected, helping to drive projections for next year’s budget deficit to $1.5 trillion, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.

With unemployment climbing, costs for a variety of stimulus programs are running higher than anticipated, Orszag said, including expanded unemployment benefits, food stamps and energy grants. In an interview embargoed for release Tuesday morning, Orszag said he could not estimate the overall cost of the package, but he called Republican estimates of $900 billion “slightly high.”

The $900 billion estimate that Peter mentions is reported in this letter from former CBO Director Doug Holtz-Eakin to Republican House Leader John Boehner.

The CBO also addresses this issue in its report (box on pp. 10-11). The box discusses lots of pesky nuances about budget accounting and the timing of payments. Perhaps the most interesting observation, consistent with the OMB quote above, is that:

The higher-than-expected unemployment rate has led CBO to raise its estimates of spending in 2009 for ARRA [i.e., stimulus] provisions that affect unemployment compensation (by $7 billion) and Medicaid (by $1 billion).

In other words, the weaker economy has added $8 billion to stimulus spending in fiscal 2009 alone with, presumably, more to come in fiscal 2010.

These developments further complicate the challenging task of tracking the stimulus.

President Obama Makes A Great Decision

David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal reports that President Obama will re-appoint Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Excellent decision.

P.S. Don’t let this good news distract you from the much-less-good economic news on Tuesday: CBO and OMB are releasing new budget projections that will show trillions upon trillions of coming deficits.

$9 Trillion in Deficits for 2010 – 2019

If you have bad news to report in our nation’s capital, Friday afternoon in August is a good time.

So what did we learn this afternoon? Well, according to various news services (e.g., Bloomberg and Reuters) the Obama administration is projecting that budget deficits will total about $9 trillion from 2010 – 2019. That figure was released by an unnamed official (the usual practice) in advance of the release of new administration forecasts next Tuesday

That projected ten-year deficit is up about $2 trillion from the administration’s previous forecast, reportedly because of weaker economic assumptions. The new figure is in line with earlier estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, which will release new estimates on Tuesday as well.

As I discussed a few days ago, the administration estimates that the budget deficit this year will total about $1.58 trillion; that figure is not included in the $9 trillion figure, which covers the next ten years.

2009 Budget Deficit: $1.58 Trillion

Next Tuesday is a big day for budget watchers. The Congressional Budget Office will release its updated budget and economic projections in the morning, and the Office of Management and Budget will release its projections later in the day.

CBO isn’t a fan of leaks, so we probably won’t know much about its updated projections until Tuesday. The Obama administration, on the other hand, will likely allow select tidbits out early, as have previous administrations.

Indeed, Bloomberg is already reporting that an administration official told them that this year’s deficit will come in at “$1.58 trillion, about $262 billion less than forecast in May.”

There are several things you should know about this estimate:

  • The $262 billion difference is largely explained by a single factor: no TARP II. The administration’s original budget included a $250 billion placeholder for additional financial stabilization efforts. Happily, that never happened.
  • A second big factor, as reported by Bloomberg, is that spending on bank failures has come in $78 billion lower than originally forecast.
  • That good news is partly offset by the fact that tax revenues are projected to be about $83 billion less than originally forecast (presumably because of the weak economy). All other spending is forecast to be about $17 billion less than originally projected.

In short, the cost of fighting the financial crisis has been much lower than forecast in May, while the rest of the budget has done slightly worse than forecast.

This being Washington, there will be some debate about whether the $1.84 trillion figure from May is the right benchmark for evaluating whether the deficit is lower than forecast. That figure (the “policy deficit”) reflected not only the administration’s expectations about how the economy was affecting the budget, but also the budget impacts of its policy proposals, including the potential TARP II. At the time, the administration also made a second forecast that did not include any policy changes. That “baseline deficit” was $1.62 trillion, almost identical to the new estimate. Folks who use the baseline as a benchmark will thus conclude that the deficit is essentially in line with earlier expectations.

Note: The estimates of this year’s budget deficit will get lots of press (and blog) attention, but they are by no means the most important information in the new projections. The real question is what 2010, 2011, and subsequent years look like. We know the deficits will be scary-looking, but we will have to wait until Tuesday to find out just how scary.

Prevention, Health Costs, and Value

Cost has played a leading role in the policy debate over health care / health insurance. That’s appropriate since private health costs put such a burden on workers and families, and public health costs place such a burden on state and federal budgets.

I worry, however, that the focus on costs and spending sometimes overshadows what ought to be the real goal: getting as much value as possible from our health care system.

A case in point is the debate over preventative care.

Policymakers are desperate for painless ways to pay for expanded health care coverage. Many of them have therefore become enamored of the idea that increased spending on preventative care could reduce overall health spending. As I noted yesterday, however, there’s a problem with that idea: it generally isn’t true.

If your only goal is paying for expanded health care, that finding is both unwelcome and fatal – the search for painless pay-fors will have to look elsewhere.

If your goal is increasing the value we get from our health system, however, your inquiry isn’t done. Instead, you should say “That’s too bad; I was hoping it would save money. But while we’re talking about it, do the benefits of preventative care justify the higher spending?”

Good question.

Continue reading “Prevention, Health Costs, and Value”

Does Prevention Reduce Costs?

One of the common memes in the health debate is the claim that increased spending on preventative medical care (e.g., cancer screening) can reduce overall health spending.

That idea is very attractive, since it seems to offer a free lunch: greater health at lower cost. It has just one small problem, though: it isn’t true.

As the Congressional Budget Office describes in an analysis released on Friday:

Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.

That result may seem counterintuitive. For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending—for that individual. But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. Even when the unit cost of a particular preventive service is low, costs can accumulate quickly when a large number of patients are treated preventively. Judging the overall effect on medical spending requires analysts to calculate not just the savings from the relatively few individuals who would avoid more expensive treatment later, but also the costs for the many who would make greater use of preventive care.

In short, an ounce of prevention may save a pound of cure for the patients it helps. But those ounces of prevention can add up to tons of costs when spread over millions of patients.

And that’s not all.

Continue reading “Does Prevention Reduce Costs?”

Budget Deficit Likely Lower Than Forecast

As I’ve noted in a series of posts, the budget deficit this year will be gigantic. Indeed, it’s already reached almost $1.3 trillion. That’s big money, even in Washington.

As Stan Collender points out over at Capital Gains and Games, however, the absolute amount of the deficit is not the only thing that matters politically. Also important is how the deficit stacks up relative to expectations. And, as Stan says, there’s good reason to believe that the deficit will come in less than original forecasts.

Back in May, the Obama administration projected that this year’s deficit would come in at $1.84 trillion, assuming enactment of the President’s policies. In June, the Congressional Budget Office came up with a very similar estimate.

Now it’s looking as though the deficit could come in several hundred billion dollars lower than that.

The evidence for this is two-fold:

Continue reading “Budget Deficit Likely Lower Than Forecast”

The Budget Battle Over Student Loans

Summary: President Obama and congressional Democrats have good reasons for wanting to eliminate federal guarantees for private student loans. They should keep in mind, however, that the resulting budget savings will likely be much smaller than official estimates suggest.

Health care and defense spending have grabbed most of the budget headlines lately, but they aren’t the only budget battles in Washington.

The latest tussle? Student loans.

The federal government supports college loans in two ways: by making loans directly to students and by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders. The current budget battle has arisen because President Obama and many congressional Democrats want to kill the guarantee program in favor of the direct program. Many Republicans, on the other hand, support private lenders, and thus want the guarantee program to continue.

There are three things you should know about this debate:

1. The guarantee program has experienced two crises in recent years. In 2007, the problem was kickbacks. Private lenders were being overpaid by the program, and some of them started competing for business by giving goodies to student loan officers. President Bush and Congress put an end to that by reducing payments to private lenders. Then the financial crisis hit, and we had the reverse problem: private lenders stopped lending. So President Bush and Congress stepped in with some duct tape and paperclips to keep the guaranteed loan market working. (Actually they gave private lenders a put option — the right to sell the loans back to the government — which many lenders used; in essence, the lenders got paid for originating loans, but didn’t hold them very long.)

In short, the guarantee program has been a headache for policymakers in recent years.

2. Guaranteed loans cost the government more than direct loans. There’s no law of nature that says that has to be the case. In principle, one can imagine a guarantee program that would cost less than direct loans. That could happen, for example, if the private sector is more efficient than the government in making the loans or if the private sector is willing to use student loans as a loss leader to promote other financial products (e.g., credit cards). In practice, however, the government has never been able to calibrate guarantees to the private lenders so that (a) lenders are willing to make the loans and (b) the guarantees cost less than direct loans.

When you put points 1 and 2 together, you can understand why many budget analysts and lawmakers want to kill the guarantee program and have the government make all the loans directly. That’s certainly the way that I am leaning. (If readers have any compelling arguments in favor of the guarantee program, however, I’m all ears.)

In fairness, though, opponents of the guarantee program should acknowledge one complication to their position:

3. Congressional budget procedures are biased in favor of direct student loans over guaranteed loans. As a result, the budget case against guaranteed loans is overstated. It isn’t wrong — we are still talking tens of billions of dollars over the next ten years — but it isn’t as strong as the official numbers suggest. One implication is that eliminating the guarantee program may not save as much money as lawmakers think. That’s important, particularly if lawmakers want to spend those savings on other programs.

This third point is the key to current budget brouhaha over student loans. To understand it fully, we need to delve into a bit of budget arcana.

Continue reading “The Budget Battle Over Student Loans”

Follow-up: Defense, Mortgage Modifications, and Yahoo/Microsoft

This morning’s headlines include some important follow-ups to recent posts:

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%