Budget – Page 16 – Donald Marron

Some Questions about TARP’s Future

As I discussed the other day, using TARP to pay for new jobs programs faces some serious practical issues. First, the administration is limited in how it can deploy existing TARP funds. It should be straightforward to use more funds to support lending to small businesses (which TARP already does to some extent), but it would take great legal ingenuity to use it to fund infrastructure projects or aid to state and local governments. Indeed, in an article titled “Use of Cash from TARP Hits Hurdle“, the Wall Street Journal reports that top Democrats have concluded that TARP money can’t be used for either of those ideas.

Second, legislative use of TARP money are limited by budget scoring rules, which currently would attribute only 50 cents of budget savings to each dollar by which TARP’s authority might be reduced. And even then, careful budgeteers would realize that such savings are make-believe if, as seems likely, any such limits would apply only to TARP authority that was unlikely to be used anyway.

In short, the rhetoric about using TARP to finance various proposals seems to have gotten ahead of reality.

The President’s speech at the Brookings Institution today provided some additional insight into the Administration’s plans for TARP, but some important questions still remain.

Here are the President’s three forward-looking statements about TARP (he also made some comments about TARP’s origin and history, but that’s a topic for another day):

I’m asking my Treasury Secretary to continue mobilizing the remaining TARP funds to facilitate lending to small businesses. …

[W]ith a fiscal crisis to match our economic crisis, we also must be prudent about how we fund [initiatives to accelerate the pace of private hiring]. So to help support these efforts, we are going to wind down the Troubled Asset Relief Program — or TARP — the fund created to stabilize the financial system so banks would lend again. …

TARP is expected to cost the taxpayers at least $200 billion less than what was anticipated just this past summer. And the assistance to banks, once thought to cost taxpayers untold billions, is on track to actually reap billions in profits for the taxpaying public. So this gives us a chance to pay down the deficit faster than we thought possible and to shift funds that would have gone to help the banks on Wall Street to help create jobs on Main Street.

If I am reading that right, the President would like to (a) continue Treasury’s existing effort to support small business lending through TARP, (b) wind down the TARP program, and (c) shift funds to other purposes. That leaves me with some important questions, including:

Does the administration plan to expand TARP’s small business lending support or just execute the one that’s already been announced? (NB: The President also endorsed several other steps to help small businesses, including easier access to SBA loans.)

Does “wind down the TARP program” mean that Secretary Geithner won’t use his authority to extend the program beyond December 31, 2009? If I were him I would sleep much better at night if I had some “dry powder” in an extended TARP, just in case we have another September-October of 2008. Such a replay seems highly unlikely (knock on wood), but if that exceedingly remote event did happen, I wouldn’t want to be the Treasury Secretary who went up to Capitol Hill to ask for a TARP II.

CBO Comments on the Budget Impacts of the Health Bills

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf posted a particularly interesting piece on his Director’s Blog today. Summarizing a presentation he gave to the Group of 30, Doug responds to some of the more common concerns one hears about the budget effects of the health bills:

First, some analysts argue that CBO is underestimating the ultimate costs of the new subsidies to buy health insurance. My response was that the budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems was very uncertain, but that CBO staff, in consultation with outside experts, has devoted a great deal of care and effort to this analysis, and the agency strives to have its estimates reflect the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes. CBO’s estimates of subsidy costs may turn out to be too low, but they could also turn out to be too high.

Second, some observers argue that CBO’s estimates are unrealistic because Congress will not allow the Medicare spending cuts in the proposals to take effect. My response was that CBO estimates the effects of proposals as written and does not forecast future legislation, but that the agency does try to provide information about the consequences of implementing proposals. Our cost estimate for the Senate proposal and our cost estimate for the House bill said that inflation-adjusted Medicare spending per beneficiary would slow sharply under those proposals. For example, growth in such spending under the Senate proposal would drop from about 4 percent per year for the past two decades to roughly 2 percent per year for the next two decades; whether such a reduction could be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care is unclear. In addition, relaxing previously enacted constraints on Medicare spending can add significantly to long-run budget deficits, as we wrote in answer to a question about the effects of combining the House bill with a change in the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate mechanism for Medicare physician payments.

Third, some analysts argue that the pending proposals will hamper future efforts at deficit reduction by using spending cuts and new revenues to pay for a new entitlement rather than to cover the costs of existing entitlements. My response was, again, that CBO does not and should not forecast future legislation; its cost estimates address the specific legislation at hand and do not speculate about the possible impact of a bill on future legislative actions. However, our June analysis of health reform and the federal budget noted that using savings in certain programs to finance new programs instead of reducing the deficit would ultimately necessitate even stronger policy actions in other areas of the budget.

Fourth, some experts argue that the proposals are missing opportunities to reform health care delivery and reduce spending more significantly. My response was that it is not CBO’s role to make such judgments, but that our December volume on Budget Options included a wide range of alternatives for changing the nation’s health care and health insurance systems. Those options covered many different types of reforms and included reforms with different degrees of aggressiveness in altering existing systems and pursuing cost-saving goals.

(I don’t usually post such long excerpts, but this one struck me as worth quoting in its entirety. Doug also shared some thoughts on stimulus and the state of the economy; click on over to his post for those.)

Yes, It Is Possible to Cut Deficits

A couple weeks ago, I highlighted an IMF report that compared the fiscal challenges facing developed economies. Not surprisingly, the IMF concludes that the United States has one of the largest structural deficits. To get our national debt back down to 2007 levels (relative to the economy), the IMF believes that we need to undertake a major fiscal adjustment–equivalent to a whopping 8.8% of GDP.

I have some quibbles about that figure, not least because the United States could avoid a fiscal crisis without getting the gross government debt all the way back to 2007 levels. But the basic message is sound: we face an enormous fiscal challenge.

However, we should not give up hope. As I discuss in a new piece over at e21, the IMF report also provides some reason for optimism: history provides numerous examples of developed economies that have successfully undertaken major fiscal adjustments. Indeed, the IMF finds 30 instances during the past three decades in which countries made adjustments of at least 5% of GDP, and nine cases in which the adjustments were even larger than the IMF currently prescribes for the United States:

The United States itself makes the list, with a fiscal adjustment (i.e., reduction in the cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit) of 5.7% back in the 1990s.

Looking through the list, you will notice that many of these large adjustments occurred, at least in part, during the economic boom of the late 1990s. That isn’t surprising: fiscal adjustment is much easier if strong economic growth reinforces responsible fiscal policies.

P.S. For related posts, see this and this.

Good Budget Reads

1. Jeff Frankel tops my National Journal post with nine more ways to trim the deficit.

2. EconomistMom Diane Lim Rogers scores the budget quote of the week: “‘Loosey-goosey’ out, loosey-goosey’ back at ya.”

3. Bruce Bartlett makes the case for a war tax: “wars financed heavily by higher taxes, such as the Korean War and the first Gulf War, end quickly, while those financed largely by deficits, such as the Vietnam War and current Middle East conflicts, tend to drag on indefinitely.”

Climate Change and the Deficit

Over at the National Journal’s Economy blog, John Maggs asks some budget experts for recommendations of how President Obama can bring the budget deficit down by 2016.

Here’s an excerpt from my contribution:

President Obama should combine his concern about climate change with his concern about the budget. … President Obama should demand … that any climate change bill achieve significant deficit reduction. For example, he could refuse to sign any cap-and-trade bill unless it auctions a large fraction of the allowances and dedicates the resulting revenues to deficit reduction. … A reasonable approach could easily reduce deficits by $300 to $400 billion over the next ten years, including both the value of the allowances and lower interest payments.

For Health Bills, A Year Makes a Big Difference

The coverage provisions in the Senate health bill have a much lower ten-year cost that do the coverage provisions in the House bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the coverage provisions in the Senate bill will cost $848 billion from 2010 through 2019, while the corresponding costs for the House bill are $1.052 trillion, more than $200 billion higher. (Please keep in mind, though, that the total cost of both bills is higher because of other provisions.)

When I was reading newspapers this morning (yes, I still get ink on dead trees), I noticed several claims that this difference in gross costs could be traced to a timing difference. The main coverage provisions in the House bill start in 2013, while the corresponding provisions in the Senate bill start in 2014.

This seems like a potentially important point, so I took another look at the cost estimates to get a sense of how big this effect is. The answer? It’s big. As illustrated in the following chart, a year makes a big difference in the gross coverage costs within the ten-year window:

The coverage costs in the House bill (denoted in gray) do indeed ramp up a year earlier than the costs in the Senate bill (denoted in orange). As a result, the ten-year cost estimates include seven years of coverage efforts under the House bill, but only six years under the Senate bill.

That timing difference accounts for almost all of the gap between the $848 billion gross coverage cost of the Senate bill and the $1.052 trillion of the House bill. (One way to see this is to note that the seventh year of the House bill costs about $200 billion, almost exactly equal to the difference in the ten-year cost estimates).

Bottom line: Over the ten-year window, the gross coverage costs of the two bills appear quite different, with the Senate bill coming in about 20% lower than the House bill. But much of that difference is timing. Over longer time periods, the gross coverage costs are much closer together.

How Much Does the Senate Health Bill Cost?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled his health bill yesterday. As everyone knows by now, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill would spend $848 billion to expand coverage over the next ten years, reducing the number of uninsured in 2019 by about 31 million. (The House bill would spend $1.05 trillion over the next ten years, and would reduce the number of uninsured in 2019 by about 36 million.)

As regular readers know, CBO reports two estimates of the cost of expanding coverage: the gross cost, which reflects all new spending and tax incentives to increase insurance coverage, and the net cost, which subtracts any tax revenue increases associated with coverage policies. Leader Reid, Finance Chair Baucus, and their Senate colleagues deserve credit for emphasizing the higher figure in explaining the cost of their bill. In contrast, House leaders tried to focus attention on the lower, net cost of their bill, which led to unnecessary confusion (nb: the net coverage cost of the Senate bill is $599 billion versus $891 billion for the House bill.)

Everyone following this debate should keep in mind, however, that even the gross coverage figures do not capture all the costs of these bills. As I’ve pointed out several times (e.g., here and here), the health bills include many important provisions in addition to those expanding coverage. Many of those non-coverage provisions are intended to save money and thus pay for the coverage expansions. But some of the provisions expand spending on other health programs.

To get a fair read on the total cost of the health bills, we should therefore add together the gross cost of coverage expansions and the cost of the other provisions that increase spending (or decrease revenues). I estimate, for example, the real gross cost of the Senate health bill is $940 billion over ten years:
As noted in the table, the biggest non-coverage items are new discounts for drug purchases in the Medicare Part D program, a new fund to finance efforts in prevention and public health, and a one-year doctor “fix”. Together with other provisions, they add up to a bit more than $90 billion in additional spending, Along with about $1 billion in tax reductions, that means the bill costs $940 billion over ten years, about $92 billion more than for coverage alone. (In contrast, the House bill has a total cost that’s up near $1.3 trillion.)

Caveats: CBO does not calculate a total cost figure for the health bills. The bills include dozens of policy changes, and it would be difficult (perhaps impossible) to allocate all their impacts to specific provisions. Thus, my figures should be considered approximate. I calculated the $90 billion figure for additional spending by adding up all the individual line items in Table 4 of the cost estimate that increased direct spending, with a couple of exceptions. First, I did not include the interaction effects that CBO lists as the end of the estimate because I was not sure how to allocate them; the interactions are large and could have a material effect on my estimate, potentially up or down. Second, there was one policy that led to both spending increases and spending decreases; I included the net spending increase in my figure. I am certainly open to other suggestions about how to add up the other spending in the bill. It’s also worth noting that I have taken as given CBO’s estimate of the gross cost of expanding coverage. There are some nuances in the calculation of that figure (e.g., the treatment of payments in a reinsurance program) that I need to understand better.

The U.S. Budget Challenge in International Context

A few weeks ago, the International Monetary Fund released a report analyzing the fiscal situation of the world’s largest economies. As I discuss at greater length in a piece over at e21, the IMF finds that the United States is not alone in facing daunting fiscal challenges. For example, the IMF predicts that the United States will have the fifth highest structural primary budget deficit in 2010:

Now you might be wondering what a structural primary budget deficit is. Good question. The “primary” part means that the IMF excludes from the calculation any interest that governments are paying on their outstanding debts. That’s a useful thing to do if you want to focus on the programmatic spending and revenue decisions that governments are currently making. The “structural” part means that the IMF has tried to strip out the effects of the business cycle to identify the underlying posture of government policy. (Because of the weak economy, the IMF estimates that the U.S. primary deficit will be 8.1% of GDP in 2010, much higher than the 3.7% of GDP structural primary deficit.) And just to round out the details, you should also be aware that to make things comparable across countries, the IMF combines all levels of government together, so the U.S. figures include not only the federal government, but also the state and local governments.

With that context, the basic message of my first chart is that the United States has a very large structural primary deficit, but a few countries are even worse off: Japan (which has been running large deficits for years) and Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Spain (which had more severe credit booms and busts than we did, suggesting that the crisis had some structural effects, not just cyclical ones). At the other extreme, Norway is sitting pretty with its oil revenues.

The IMF also estimated how large a fiscal adjustment (i.e., spending reductions and tax increases) each economy would have to undertake to get their government debts back to a reasonable level. The basic idea is that, at a minimum, nations should run small primary surpluses and, in addition, some (including the United States) may need to reduce the size of their debts relative to the economy. Using a quite ambitious debt target (60% of GDP for the gross government debt for most countries), the IMF projects the following adjustments would be necessary:

If you take these results at face value, they suggest that the United States will have to cut spending and increase revenues by a combined 8.8% of GDP between 2010 and 2020, a fiscal adjustment of around 0.9% per year. Imagine having to enact a permanent spending reduction or tax increase of $120 billion per year next year, and then do it again in each of the next nine years. Rather daunting.

One can, of course, quibble with the specific assumptions that IMF has used. For example, getting the gross government debt down to 60% of GDP (about where it was before the financial crisis) may be a bridge too far. But clearly the United States will have a lot of work to do. But hey, things could be worse. We could be Spain, Ireland, the UK, or Japan.

Climate Change vs. Deficit Reduction?

Next February, President Obama will unveil his 2011 budget. Over the past few days, the news media have begun to speculate about some of the steps that he might propose in order to tame our growing deficits.

Over at Politico, Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei suggest that one policy casualty ought to be the effort to combat climate change:

The big question for Obama – and the country – is whether the sudden concern about deficits will be more rhetoric than reality once his first State of the Union address concludes.

All presidents promise deficit reduction – and almost always fall short. There is good reason to be skeptical of this White House, too, on its commitment.

For starters, the White House has not dropped plans for an aggressive global warming bill early next year that will be loaded with new spending on green technology and jobs – that would be paid for with tax increases. Democratic lobbyist Steve Elmendorf says the White House focus on deficit reduction could easily kill the cap-and-trade effort. “I think this means cap-and-trade has to go to the backburner,” he said.

This line of argument makes no sense to me. And its mere existence reinforces my concern that the politics of climate change are completely dysfunctional from a budget perspective. As I have noted before, the government could combat climate change in a way that would also combat our out-of-control deficits:

A carbon tax, for example, could raise revenue and reduce carbon emissions at the same time.

Alternatively, the government could auction off allowances under a cap-and-trade system and then designate some or all of the resulting revenues for deficit reduction.

Unfortunately, that is not the way our Congressional leaders are approaching this challenge. The House, for example, passed a climate change bill that would create allowances worth almost $1 trillion over ten years. The net reduction in the deficit? A paltry $9 billion since Congress would give most of the allowances away to industries with good lobbyists and would spend almost all of the rest.

Senate leaders, meanwhile, are touting their climate change bill as “not worsening the deficit” — a ridiculously low standard in this new era of trillion-dollar deficits.

My recommendation to the President is quite different from that in the article. If the President is committed to both climate change legislation and reducing the deficit, he should tell Congress to levy a carbon tax or designate a large fraction of the carbon allowances for deficit reduction.

Talking about Health Care (and Trillions)

Last night I did my first ever interview on local television, appearing on the Federal News Report on News Channel 8 in Virginia.

Going in, I had my usual talking points in mind on the various health bills pending in Congress, how much they cost, how they are paid for, whether the pay fors will actually work, etc.

But I wasn’t prepared for the best question Beverly Kirk asked me, even though I really should be. That question was very simple: How on earth do you make figures like a trillion dollars tangible to a normal human being? I didn’t have a particularly good answer and would welcome suggestions.

Last week, I was talking with a Senate candidate who asked a very similar question about the size of the deficit, which reached $1.4 trillion in 2009. I had a better answer for that one, noting that the imbalance between federal revenues and spending last year was equivalent to a family earning $40,000 per year but spending more than $65,000.