Debt and Deficits - Economic and Political Issues

Debt and Deficits: Economic and Political Issues DEBT AND DEFICITS: ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ISSUES I. THE BUDGET Introduction "A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing." -Alexander Hamilton Since 2008, political and economic buzzwords like "national debt" and "budget deficit" and even "European Austerity" have become commonplace in the media. Debate over how to deal with debt and deficits has become a major economic and political issue, both in the U.S. and other countries. As of 2014, the U.S. national debt stood at over $17 trillion dollars, or over $54,000 per U.S. resident. What is the national debt and how did it get so high? What will the national debt to do jobs, or to economic growth? Will foreign countries stop buying U.S. debt? Is it possible to get rid of the debt, and what are the consequences? How are Europe's debt issues different from those of the United States? Can the solution for the United States work for the rest of the world? Or is it possible that debt is not that important? How these questions are answered and how the solutions are implemented over the next several years will have immediate effects on fiscal policy, as well as effects on short run and long run growth prospects. Economics is a social science that draws from history, political science, and an assortment of other fields in order to understand the world. To understand the role of deficits and debt in our society, this module will address specific economic questions, and will also present the historical and political contexts. This background is important for making appropriate decisions on policies to respond to deficits and debt. Understanding the Budget There is an important distinction between a budget deficit and total debt. The national debt is the total amount borrowed and owed by the federal government. A budget deficit is the yearly accrual of debt, or how much expenditures exceed revenues on a yearly basis. Conversely, a budget surplus is how much revenues exceed expenditures on a yearly basis. Another way to think of this is that debt is a stock (i.e., accumulation) variable, and deficit is a flow (i.e., change) variable, with the flow of deficits adding to the stock of debt. Figure 1 illustrates revenues and expenditures since 1980. NOTE − terms denoted in bold face are defined in the KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS section at the end of the module. 2 Figure 1. U.S. Revenues and Expenditures 1980-2012 Source: Whitehouse.gov A budget deficit occurs when the government expenditures are greater than the revenues it receives. This can arise from either a shortfall of revenue, an increase in expenditures, or both. Figure 2 illustrates sources of U.S. government revenue. Income taxes are the largest source of revenue at 46%, with social insurance taxes such as the FICA tax (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) second at 35% of revenues. Corporate taxes are 10% of the total, and excise and other taxes contribute another 3% and 6% respectively. Figure 3 illustrates government expenditures, or what the Federal government spends its money on. Social Security and Defense (military spending) each take up 20% of the budget, with non-defense discretionary spending at 18% of the budget. Other important spending programs are Medicaid (healthcare for the poor) at 8% and Medicare (healthcare for the elderly) at 16%. Income security consists of unemployment insurance, TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), Foster Care, food stamps, and several other smaller programs that don't belong in one of the other categories and totals 11% of spending. These programs are part of the social safety net, which all U.S. citizens have access to if they meet eligibility requirements. The final 7% is made of Retirement and Disability, and "Other Programs," which is everything else. Government spending is divided up into what is called discretionary and mandatory spending. Discretionary spending is optional, and can be implemented at any time, as long as Congress approves the bill without a presidential veto. In Figure 3 this primarily includes defense spending and non-defense discretionary spending. This is 3 different from mandatory spending, which is spending that is built into the budget and required by law. Examples of mandatory spending are Social Security and Medicare. Figure 2. 2012 Revenue Sources Figure 3. 2012 Government Expenditures Source: Whitehouse.gov, table 2.1 There is another important way the budget is divided; off budget expenditures and on budget expenditures. Off budget expenditures are government funded programs that are exempt from the normal budgeting process because they have their own sources of funding separate from congressional appropriation. Social Security and Medicare are the two primary off budget items. On budget expenditures are everything else that relies on general revenue from Congress, such as military spending or spending on Federal Highways. Each of these depend on Congress approving the budget every year. Off budget and on budget expenditures are added to obtain the yearly total expenditure numbers. On budget expenditures may generate either a surplus or a deficit, depending on whether they are larger or smaller than their funding sources. For example, Social Security runs a deficit in years when the total collected in social security taxes is less than the total paid out from this program to retirees.1 1 Social security taxes are 6.2% on employees and 6.2% on employers, for a total of 12.4% up to a maximum wage base level ($117,000 in 2014). 4 Figure 4 shows the total on and off budget deficits and surpluses from 1980 to 2012. Off budget revenues rose after 1983 due to the increase in Social Security taxes that were necessary to cover the baby boom generation’s retirement, creating a surplus in this category which provided a small offset to the total budget deficit. Figure 4. Off Budget and On Budget Deficit and Surplus Source: Whitehouse.gov, table 1.2 The cumulative total of net budget deficits is the national debt. As noted above, the total national debt figure sounds very high, but we need to be a bit careful about how we evaluate this. Suppose you were asked to determine which country has a worse debt problem: Japan, which as of 2014 had just over $10 trillion in total government debt, or the United States, with over $17 trillion. Many people would answer the U.S., but this is incorrect since the U.S. economy is nearly three times the size of Japan's. In order to compare the fiscal positions of countries accurately, we must think of the figures in relation to GDP – that is, look at the debt to GDP and deficit to GDP ratios. This allows us to view the deficit and the debt as a percentage of total output, which gives an indication of the national ability to manage the debt. Seventeen trillion dollars in debt sounds like a lot, but it should be considered in context of the ability of a country to pay over time. This is why we use the debt/GDP ratio, which shows debt levels adjusted by total output, or our ability to pay the debt. Figure 5 illustrates the debt/GDP ratio and Figure 6 illustrates the deficit/GDP ratio. This is a more accurate way to compare deficits and debt over time. Figure 1 and Figure 4 provide information on debt and deficits in dollar terms, but this does not take into account either inflation or the growth of the economy over time. Figure 5 illustrates both 5 total debt as a percentage of GDP and public debt as a percentage of GDP. (Public debt subtracts the debt that government owes to itself. This will be explained in detail in section 4.2.) Figure 5. Debt/GDP Source: Whitehouse.gov Figure 6. Deficit/GDP Source: Whitehouse.gov 6 Who Is Responsible For The Deficit? People sometimes tend to place disproportionate blame or credit on the President when it comes to matters relating to the budget deficit. According to the U.S. Constitution, it is Congress that approves spending bills; the President only has veto power. Many policies for which Congress is essentially responsible, such as tax rates, spending bills, and economic policies that affect tax revenue, can all have a large impact on the budget. Of course, Presidents can influence Congressional decision-making, and as we will see have often promoted particular budget approaches, including some that have tended to increase the deficit. There are other factors that affect the budget besides our elected officials' policy. One is the effect of the business cycle on both revenue and expenditures. The portion of the deficit that is caused by fluctuations in the business cycle is called the cyclical deficit. Deficits can be caused by a fall in tax revenue or an increase in expenditures. Taxable revenue generally falls during a recession because income is falling due to job losses or profits falling. In an economic boom, these revenues increase because of job growth and profit growth and can reduce the deficit. Look back at the graph in figure 1, and notice how far revenues fell after the recession that began in 2008. Structural deficits, in contrast, are deficits that exist when the economy is at full capacity. A structural deficit indicates that even at full employment, spending is too high or revenue collection too low to balance the budget. During recessions it is likely that expenditures will growth faster than revenues, in part because in recessions a number of government expenditures automatically increase due to automatic stabilizers, such as unemployment benefits and Medicaid programs. There is less demand for these programs during an economic boom when unemployment is lower, so automatic stabilizer expenditures fall during a boom. Expenditures may also increase in a recession because of discretionary fiscal policy. During recessions, it is common to have some sort of spending bill to stimulate economic activity. In the recession of 2001, President Bush pushed a program of tax rebate checks which was meant to increase consumer spending. In 2009, President Obama passed the American Economic Recovery Act which had a mix of infrastructure spending and tax cuts intended to increase aggregate demand. A famous example of spending during a recession is the New Deal programs passed by President Roosevelt in the 1930's that put American workers to work at a time when unemployment was as high as 25%. At the trough of a recession, government revenue is normally at its lowest point and expenditures tend to be higher, and vice versa in an economic boom. This is one of the reasons that government budgets were balanced during the tech stock boom in 1998, and that budget deficits were so large in 2009 during the worst part of the financial crisisinduced recession. 7 Perfectly balancing the budget over the business cycle would entail cutting expenditures, including automatic stabilizers, when people rely on these programs the most. We all pay taxes for unemployment insurance and expect to receive it when we need it, and the duration of unemployment insurance is often extended during severe recessions. On the revenue side, raising taxes is also not advisable during a recession because it would hurt consumer spending power when the economy needs it most. A policy of running surpluses during good economic times and running deficits in bad economic times is called “countercyclical policy.” How Does Government Borrow? Government issues debt by selling treasury bonds. Treasury bonds are sold at different maturities, or times until the debt contract expires. The Federal Government sells 30 year bonds, 10 year bonds, and a host of shorter term bonds. Each year the Treasury Department pays out interest on the bonds to meet their obligations. When the bond matures, the government pays back the original amount of the bond. If the government does not have cash or excess revenue to pay off the bond, or if it has different budget priorities, the debt is "rolled over"; that is, new debt is issued to pay expiring debt. A simple analogy is a house loan. Suppose that a family owes $300,000 on their new house with a mortgage payment of $1,500 a month, and that is what the family budgets for. This family does not consider whether they can afford $300,000 in payments, they ask if they can afford $1,500. The Federal Government is similar in this regard, as the debt obligation is the cost of paying interest payments on the bonds. The combination of interest and principal payments is called debt service. If servicing the bond payments becomes too high, the debt becomes a large part of the budget. Because of this, interest rates are very important to the cost of running a deficit. If the interest rates on bonds are low, then issuing and servicing debt becomes cheap. If interest rates are high, then issuing and servicing newly issued bonds can become more expensive. Discussion Questions 1) Many people confuse the deficit and the national debt. What is difference, and what is the actual relationship between the two? 2) Why was the budget deficit in 2009 so large? (See Figure 6.) Was this a revenue or an expenditure issue, or both? Explain. 8 II. THEORIES OF DECIFITS Classical Theory of Deficits What effects do deficits have on the economy? Economists have different views on this question. According to the classical theory of deficits, budget deficits have the effect of increasing current consumption by government or consumers, but this is counterbalanced by a fall in investment. By definition, if consumption rises then savings must fall. A fall in savings raises interest rates, which then reduces investment. The phenomenon by which budget deficits increase interest rates and reduce investment is called crowding out. This can be shown by the loanable funds model presented in Figure 7 below. The supply curve in this model represents savings. As interest rates rise, people are more likely to save. The demand curve represents the demand for investment funds. It has a downward slope because as interest rates increase, assuming other economic factors are constant, businesses generally want to invest less. Suppose government borrows money to run a budget deficit. This would shift the demand for loanable funds out. This has the effect of raising the interest rate, which makes investment more expensive. Figure 7. Supply and Demand for Loanable Funds 9 Point A is the initial equilibrium in the model, and Q1 represents the quantity of loanable funds available to private business. When government runs a deficit, they borrow money from the loanable funds market. This shifts the demand from Demand1 to Demand2, and pushes the interest rate, which represents the cost of borrowing, up. Now private business has to borrow at a higher interest rate, and as a result they borrow less. This reduction in business demand for investment, shown on the graph as the difference between Q1 and Q3, is the amount of crowding out. Now that government is borrowing, they have crowded out private business by increasing the interest rate from i1 to i2, and reduced the quantity that business will be willing to borrow from Q1 to Q3. In the classical model, the loanable funds market, if left to itself, would balance out savings and investment, thereby keeping the economy at or close to full employment. There would be no need for government deficit spending, and such spending would be counterproductive because the crowding out effect means that the effect of deficit spending would be to shift funds from investment to government consumption. For this reason, classically-oriented economists generally oppose government deficit spending. Keynesian Theory of Deficits Keynesian economists see the issue differently. In his celebrated work "The General Theory," John Maynard Keynes acknowledged the potential impact of crowding out. However, he did not believe that an economy would experience full crowding out if there were slack in the economy. Keynes argued that the economy would experience only partial crowding out, with practically no crowding out at times of deep recession. There are several facets to this argument. The first is that the savings and investment decisions are not only dependent on the rate of interest. Keynes argued that the investment decision is a function of not only interest rates, but primarily expectations of future profit. Expectations of future profit, which are calculated by business people, are based on a number of factors, including what Keynes called "animal spirits," or the state of mind or emotional psychology of the investor. In good economic times or on the upswing in a business cycle, businesses purchase capital goods because their profits are high and their attitude toward the future is also positive. At the bottom of a business cycle, businesspeople are negative about economic prospects and their profit margins are low, so they do not invest. This is the opposite of how businesses would invest if businesses only cared about the cost of borrowing (interest rate), and ignored future expectations. At the peak of a business cycle, interest rates are generally high because people would rather invest in stocks or more lucrative savings options, rather than bonds which generally yield less, so sellers of bonds must offer a higher rate of return. At the bottom of a business cycle interest rates are often low because people become risk averse and want safe U.S. treasury bonds, enabling the government to sell bonds with low rates of return. In other 10 words, the interest rate is not the only variable driving investment. Even if government spending increased interest rates, this would not necessarily decrease investment if businesses had a positive view of economic prospects. A second argument relates to the multiplier. If there is slack in the economy, and if government spending has positive multiplier effects, then the total impact of spending can outweigh any loss of investment due to the higher interest rates. This means that government spending can increase total output, which can have positive effects on investment because of profit expectations. When government spending creates more investment, this is called crowding in. During the Great Depression, economists at the time believed that as the economy got worse and as investment and consumption fell, people would buy treasury bonds to be safe, pushing yields down. This fall in interest rates would then increase investment, bringing the economic system back to full-employment equilibrium (as in the classical model shown in Figure 7). Keynes argued that this might not happen for two reasons. First, as described above, investment is not just a function of interest rates but a function of how future profit opportunities are perceived. Second, people have the option to hoard money, finding other places to put it (such as under the mattress), instead of investing in productive activities, which are perceived as risky. Banks can also hoard money simply by not investing it. Because of this Keynes argued that the economy could be stuck in a potentially permanent low level equilibrium, with no adjustment mechanism, and would need governments to run deficits, spend money, and replace the lost investment spending with government spending until investor and consumer confidence returned. A third argument is also related to positive multiplier effects. A multiplier effect larger than 1.0 means that if government spending increases by $1 billion dollars, the total effect on the economy will be larger, say $2 billion dollars (indicating a multiplier of 2). This can be explained with a story: Suppose government increases spending by building new roads. The construction workers are now paid an income, and they spend this income at Target. Since Target now has an increase in demand, they hire more workers, and those workers, with their new income, spend their money at Seven Eleven. This process continues until the government spending of $1 billion dollars has increased GDP by $2 billion dollars. With the spending multiplier increasing income, in a Keynesian world the effective money supply would also increase, as more investors seek loans and banks provide them. This is called endogenous money. If the money supply increases as income increases, then there will be no crowding out effects, because a new supply of money has been created endogenously by the banking system to support the increase in demand for borrowing. 11 Since crowding out depends on a shortage of money (loanable funds), in a Keynesian endogenous money world, there can be no crowding out. You can think of this as an investor going to a bank and asking for a loan. The bank can use its cash reserves to grant the loan, or issue commercial paper (a short term corporate bond) to raise the funds to meet the demand for loans. Ultimately this is only constrained by 1) the world supply of savings, which is not really a constraint in a world where a "global savings glut" exists or 2) the ability of an economy to generate demand. In this system there is never a shortage of money or loanable funds, so crowding out is simply not an issue. For these reasons, Keynesian economists often support deficit spending, especially in times of recession. They argue that at such times the beneficial multiplier effects of increased spending far outweigh any concerns about crowding out. At times when the economy is in a boom, there is no need for deficit spending, and crowding out may become more of a factor. This leads Keynesians to advocate countercyclical policy, as described earlier. Discussion Questions 1) Summarize the differences between the neo-classical theory of deficits and the Keynesian theory of deficits. What are the policy implications of each theory? 2) Do you think that deficit spending can sometimes be a good thing? What would be the implications of never running a government deficit? III. HISTORY OF DEBT AND DEFICITS The Creation of the U.S. National Debt The creation of the national debt was crucial to the success of the newly formed United States after the Revolutionary War. Alexander Hamilton played perhaps the most important role in the creation of the national debt. Hamilton argued that the Federal Government should take on the war debt that states accrued during the revolutionary war. This was a hotly debated issue because many of the revolutionary debt holders were wealthy merchants in large cities, who had purchased the debt far below par value, some for as little as 10 percent of the face value of the bond. James Madison and others saw this as unfair speculation and tried to undercut the speculators by paying the current debt holders part of the debt and the original holders the rest. Alexander Hamilton, who was appointed the first secretary of the treasury in 1789, helped defeat Madison's plan, and sought to use government debt not just as a source of borrowing, but to create a liquid market with a more flexible money supply. Hamilton saw that not paying off the war debts would anger wealthy citizens of the newly formed 12 United States, while issuing new debt to pay off state debts would ensure a vested financial interest from the wealthy in the success of the new country. He created the first national debt based on tax revenue from the tariff law of 1789. A treasury bond became a promise to pay back with interest in the future, financed by tariffs, which were the primary source of income for the new government. Banks holding government bonds could issue bank notes backed by the bonds. These bonds could also serve as collateral for bank loans, which would improve the ability of farmers, industry, and banks to take out a loan and invest in their businesses. Hamilton anticipated that a strong, liquid, functioning debt market, made more liquid and supported by U.S. treasury bonds, would instill faith in foreign lenders and allow the U.S. government and businesses access to foreign lending. All this was dependent on their credit rating, which in turn was dependent on the U.S. repaying its promised debts. Hamilton's first sign of success came when European governments starting buying U.S. treasury bonds during the French revolution period (1792-1812) and the ensuing wars. By 1794 the U.S. had one of the highest credit ratings in the European world. Table 1: Founding Fathers Debt and Deficit Arguments Reasons for the National Debt (Hamilton) Allows new debts to fund projects Kept political stability in a country known for tax rebellions by spreading the debt payments over several generations and not increasing taxes on one Bonds served as a steady source of income for elderly who bought them Provided commercial banks and insurance companies with liquid secondary reserves, and an asset that businesses could use to secure loans Gave debt holders a vested interest in the United States succeeding Established a secondary market for bonds which accelerated the creation of other financial asset markets such as corporate equities (stocks) and corporate bonds Reasons Against the National Debt (Jefferson and Adams) A balanced budget amendment would restrain excessive spending Thought politicians would create bureaucracy that would be dependent on government money and debt Increase in debt is a tax on future citizens The ability to issue debt gives the Federal Government more power Debt favored the rich who owned government bonds Allowed excessive money creation, above the true value of gold and silver Hamilton's national debt plans were opposed by many, including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Jefferson argued that people in office were politicians, not 13 statesmen, and would create bureaucracy that would be dependent on government money and debt. Jefferson did not like the power that Hamilton's plan brought to the Federal government, and wanted a balanced budget amendment to prevent congress from borrowing. John Adams famously quipped that "every dollar of a bank bill that is issued beyond the quantity of gold and silver in the vaults represents nothing, and is therefore a cheat upon somebody." Despite these counterarguments, Hamilton's debt plan was successful and facilitated a highly functional financial system of borrowing, credit, and investment that helped to spur growth in the early years of the United States and continues to this day. Even Thomas Jefferson, who opposed the national debt, could not have made the Louisiana Purchase without it several years later. The Great Depression, Macroeconomics, and the Deficit Once the national debt had been established, it continued to play a significant role in financing government expenditures, including in times of war such as the Civil War. The role of budget deficits and government debt in the economy changed significantly after 1929, when the great stock market crash helped to push the United States and the rest of the world into a depression. Before 1930, the Federal government ran a surplus 92 times and a deficit 46 times. From 1931-2011, the federal government would run a deficit 73 years, and a surplus for 7 years. What caused this dramatic change in government behavior? First, the Great Depression brought a drastic drop in tax revenues. Efforts by the Hoover administration (1928-1932) to increase tax revenues by imposing a tariff on imported goods (Smoot-Hawley) and increasing income taxes only served to hurt the economy further. Franklin Roosevelt ran as a president who would balance the budget, but when he entered office in 1933, the pragmatic Roosevelt decided to run deliberate budget deficits in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Hoover administration. By 1933, unemployment was spiraling out of control at a rate of 25%, and Roosevelt had to do something about it both to fix the economy and avoid the fates of fascist Italy and Germany, as well as communist Russia, all of whose political revolutions were in large part caused by economic disaster. Roosevelt decided to institute the New Deal, an array of programs designed to get people back to work. These New Deal programs added structural deficits to the already existing cyclical deficits. These policies were further encouraged by a paradigm shift in economic thinking. In 1936, John Maynard Keynes published the “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money,” in which he argued that government should play an active role in helping the economy out of a recession. Keynes argued that it was possible to stay in a state of disequilibrium for decades, and that while an economy might adjust in the long run on its own, "in the long run we are all dead." By this he meant that simply waiting for the economy to recover would lead to unacceptable economic damage. 14 Keynes advocated deficit spending in the form of fiscal policy and monetary policy that would induce spending and economic activity. Governments should run deficits during bad economic times, and balance the budget during good times. In many ways the New Deal was exactly what Keynes was describing, although Keynes believed that to get the economy out of a depression, spending would have to increase well beyond the 5% of GDP that was spent during the 1930's. Many Keynesians argue that the New Deal was simply not enough spending to create the economic activity necessary to pull the U.S. out of the depression. When the U.S. entered WWII, the economy began to see the effect of the type of spending Keynes advocated. Wartime spending approached 30% of GDP in 1943 (considerably increasing aggregate demand) and created strong multiplier effects. Young men leaving for war overseas reduced the workforce and lowered the unemployment rate to almost zero. By 1946, the debt/GDP ratio would be 121%. The Modern Period From the end of WWII to the late 1970's, budget deficits averaged 0.8% of GDP, with the highest budget deficit in 1976 at 4.2% of GDP. Economic stagnation in the 1970's changed this pattern. The 1980's represented a turning point in the economy and especially in the budget. In 1982, Reagan introduced changes to Social Security due to the rising costs of the program. The result was a relatively large increase in taxes to cover the expected retirement of the baby boom generation. This is the reason for the increase in off budget revenues in the early 1980's (see Figure 4). On budget revenues were a different story. Reagan inherited a budget deficit of 2.7% of GDP in 1980, and by 1983 that deficit had risen to 6% of GDP, and only significantly fell to 3.2% in 1987. Budget deficits during the Reagan period averaged over 4%. The deficits were a combination of decreased revenues and increased expenditures. On the revenue side, the economic recovery act (ERA) of 1981 cut income and corporate taxes, which reduced revenues. On the expenditure side, military spending doubled from 1980 to 1988 to compete with Soviet spending with the intention of ending the Cold War. The emphasis of the 1981 ERA was cutting taxes for upper income earners. This tax cut and the theory behind it have been given several names, including "Reaganomics," "trickle-down economics", and "supply side economics." This theory has two basic tenets: one that draws from an old economic theory, and one that was relatively new. The first tenet follows the basic classical model of growth. The classical model of growth in its simplest form shows that as savings increase, investment increases, which leads to growth. An increase in savings lowers interest rates, which reduces the cost of investment, and spurs investment. Investment means the purchase of 15 capital goods, or the expansion of business. As business is expanded, jobs are created, which is how wealth is supposed to trickle down to the average worker. According to this theory, taxes should be cut for the people who have the highest marginal propensity to save. This is the opposite of the Keynesian position stated earlier. Keynesians argue that tax cuts for lower-income people would lead to economic stimulus due to their higher marginal propensity to consume. But the classical approach favors tax cuts for the wealthy, on the theory that they are likely to save more and thus promote productive investment. In addition, cutting taxes on higher incomes and on investment returns should increase the incentive to work and invest. This argument was connected to deficits using what is known as the "Laffer Curve," named after its inventor, economist Arthur Laffer. Figure 8 illustrates the Laffer Curve, which plots government revenue on the Y axis and the tax rate on the X axis. The idea is that there is an optimal tax rate that maximizes government revenue. To illustrate, let us begin with two extreme examples. Supposing that the tax rate is 100 percent of income, how much would you work? Probably not at all unless you were forced to, and as a result government would not receive any tax revenue. What if the tax rate was zero percent? You might work a lot, but government would not receive any revenue this way either. Figure 8. Laffer Curve Following Laffer’s theory, Reagan argued that the 70 percent top tax rate in 1981 was too high in that it discouraged people from working. He argued that if that rate were lowered, government revenue would not fall because of lower tax rates, but rather would 16 increase because workers would have an incentive to work more hours. The increase in productive work would, at least in theory, more than offset the revenue lost per dollar earned (in economic terms, they would be “revenue neutral” or “revenue positive”). In terms of the Laffer curve, this implied that the economy was on the right-hand side of the curve to start with, such that reducing the tax rate t would lead to an increase in overall government revenue. Politically, this was an effective argument because it allowed the traditional fiscal conservatives to agree to a tax cut, with theoretical support that this tax cut would not increase the budget deficit. In practice, the Reagan tax cuts were not revenue neutral but instead created the largest deficits since WWII. Revenue did not rise with tax cuts as Reagan predicted. Reagan's budget advisor David Stockman admitted in The Triumph of Politics, the Inside Story of the Reagan Revolution that the revenue projections showing tax cuts causing revenue increases were largely fabricated in order to push the bill through Congress. Despite this outcome, the same argument was used again during the George W. Bush administration in 2001. Once again, the administration suggested that tax cuts would create so much growth, and therefore taxable revenue, that they would not increase deficits. And once again, the actual effect of sweeping tax cuts was persistent deficits. This experience has led most economists to conclude that under most circumstances tax cuts lead to lower, not higher, revenues. Many economists and political scientists argue that deficits during the Reagan and Bush administration were actually intentional, and part of a broader political-economic strategy called "starve the beast." This concept is based on the premise that government is generally inefficient, and that private markets can take care of everything more efficiently than the government can. Thus fiscal and monetary policies should be designed to limit government’s role. The strategy proceeds as follows: A large tax cut is passed, supported by the argument that it will cause an increase in revenue. In fact the tax cut leads to higher deficits, so the president goes to the American people and gives the voters a choice: to raise taxes (which is never popular), or to cut spending. The hope is that faced with a deficit "crisis," the American voter is likely to vote for a cut in social spending rather than an increase in taxes. By creating a budget deficit, you intentionally "starve the beast," forcing government spending to fall. Policy Responses to Deficits Facing deficits inherited from the Reagan Administration, Congress passed a bill in 1990, signed by President George H.W. Bush, requiring all spending increases to be matched by spending decreases or tax increases. This system was called PAYGO, and 17 was intended to keep budget deficits from increasing. Despite PAYGO, the 1991 recession along with the first Iraq war pushed deficits to an average of 4% of GDP by 1992. The Clinton administration continued the PAYGO policy, and also pushed through a tax increase. Higher taxes, coupled with an economic boom and the accompanying increase in government revenue began to balance budgets. On the expenditure side, the end of the Cold War allowed the Federal government to lower military expenditures, often described as a "peace dividend." The last three years of the Clinton administration were surplus years, as was the first year of the G.W. Bush administration. Then deficits jumped to 3.5 percent by 2003. What series of events cause this to happen? There were four main reasons why the country's fiscal balance changed from surplus to deficit. 1) The stock market decline of 2000-2002, resulting from the bursting of the “dotcom bubble”. In what Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan called "irrational exuberance," stock investors and speculators had bid up the price of technology companies well beyond a sustainable value. When there was no one left willing to buy, prices started to fall drastically. The preceding five years had seen massive revenue boosts from the stock market boom. These revenues fell sharply after the dot-com bubble popped. 2) The bursting of the dot-com bubble pushed the U.S. into recession, causing revenue to fall even further. 3) The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 caused a further decline in revenue. 4) An increase in military spending occurred due to the Iraq war. 5) There was also an increase in non-defense spending on programs such as Medicare Part D, an expansion of Medicare to cover drug prescriptions. During the first Obama administration, deficits rose further. What caused the jump in deficit? These were primarily a result of the very severe recession of 2007-9. President Obama took office in January 2009, roughly 13 months after the start of the recession. The recession was caused by a financial crisis resulting from a bubble in the real estate market, which eventually translated through mortgage-backed securities and other housing related securities into a broader financial bubble and crisis. Tax revenue fell from 2.5 trillion dollars in 2008 to 2.1 trillion in 2009. As is normal in a recession, expenditures increased due to automatic stabilizers. In addition, discretionary policy took the form of significant expenses for bank bailouts, and a $787 billion fiscal policy package (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009). The combination of recession, higher automatic stabilizer expenses, expanded government spending to stimulate the economy, together with the existing Bush tax cuts and costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, led to the highest deficits since World War Two, about 10% of GDP. But as the economy began to recover, deficits fell again. The temporary government stimulus plan expired, automatic stabilizer expenses fell, and revenues 18 started to increase. In addition, some areas of government spending were subject to cutbacks, and some of the Bush tax cuts for higher-income groups were allowed to expire. By 2013, the deficit had fallen to about 4% of GDP. Table 2: Deficit Average for Post-Great Depression Presidents President Roosevelt I Roosevelt II Roosevelt III Roosevelt/Truman Truman Eisenhower I Eisenhower II Kennedy/Johnson Johnson Nixon Nixon/Ford Carter Reagan I Reagan II Bush Senior Clinton I Clinton II G.W. Bush I G.W. Bush II Obama (2009-2012 average) Deficit average -5% -2.2% -17.9% -5.6% +.15% -.47% -.57% -.9% -1.17% -1.02% -2.27% -2.4 -4.3% -4.1% -4% -2.6% +1.0 -1.7% -2.2% -8.7% Source: Whitehouse.gov Discussion Questions 1) Explain the importance of the creation of the U.S. national debt and briefly describe its role in U.S. history. Why have some political leaders favored, and others opposed, deficits and a national debt? 2) In recent decades deficits seem to have become standard practice in the U.S. What events led to this happening? What led to the brief period of surpluses around 1999-2000 (refer to Figure 6), and why did the budget then go back into deficit? 19