The US Budget Impasse: Dogma v. Economic Sense.
The US budget impasse: dogma v.
economic sense.
By
Dr.Michael Sakbani
Dr.Michael Sakbani
The US is facing a political divide in Washington the like of
which we have not known since the 1850’s. The Issue this time is not the Union
and slavery, rather the concept of government and the way to deal with the
economy. There is now in the US a significant part of the electorate, which
believes that the US government is too big and essentially irrelevant to their
lives. This segment wants to pay as little
tax as possible, for on the whole, it does not believes in the utility of
government spending. It is a tax revolt that appeared for the first time in
the 1980’s. At the time, Mr. Ronald Reagan who imparted impulse to this
perception was articulating the delayed reaction of the American public to the
Great Society programs of the second half of the 1960’s and the practical
disappearance of Federal programs delivering concrete service to the taxpayers. The pattern of Federal
expenditures is now overwhelmingly oriented towards social entitlements, national
defense and security and servicing the debt. The social entitlements
expenditure is geared towards the poor, a segment that pays little or no
federal tax. This revolt against the
public sector is epitomized by the tea party. Its views have a rural concept of
government fit for a simple society without foreign concerns or connections and
in which economic management functions do not exist. Looking at the components
of these views one harks back to the gold standard and the classical world of perfectly functioning markets
unfettered by regulations. This vocal
electorate is now the hardcore of the militants dominating the Republican
Party. In the last Congressional elections some 46 Congressmen, holding such views were elected to the House.
The
impasse in Washington on raising the debt ceiling is partially a product of
this new political reality. It is also in part, an artificial self-inflicted
problem, in as much as the US congress, with majorities from both parties had
authorized in the past spending without raising taxes. Only one country besides
the US- Denmark- has a debt ceiling. In fact, the US has raised the debt
ceiling 78 times since 1960. President Obama, an intellectual centrist, gifted in
reason rather than hard political negotiations, has been trying in vain to
reach an accommodation with a Republican leadership paralyzed by this militant
minority and incapable of statesmanship of any sort. Despite an offer of 4 to 1
spending- tax increase deal, the House Speaker has walked out twice on the
deal. The deadlocked negotiations have been a waste of time since The Republican side has no give and no willingness to compromise; the Republican
leadership is seized by fears of losing primaries to candidates on their right
before worrying about the right things to do for the country. In addition, the
economics implicit in reducing the budget through spending cuts only is
analytically senseless at the present cyclical juncture, and its justifications
do not stand the test of economics empirical experience.
The
amazing thing is the tolerance of the US public opinion in respect of the
underlying causes of deadlock and the reticence of the educated elites, the
Press and the political class to engage in debating the issues involved. There
are some economists who inveigh against the deficit for fear of crowding out in
an economy awash with liquidity and short on investments. It seems the economics profession has yet to demonstrate that it learned something from the
Financial Crisis of 2008: the Democrats have yet to articulate a position on
the concept of the modern state and its economic management under a market the system when it fails, and the Republicans have retreated to the concept of
minimal state essentially occupied with defense and public security. Above all,
the American public has yet to show receptivity to informed views.
To be
sure, the US current budget deficits are unsustainable and should be cut down
in the intermediate run. But cutting the deficit drastically in the short run,
in the midst of a slow recovery and very high unemployment, is fatal to
economic growth. It is economic growth that creates employment and employment
that creates aggregate demand, i.e.: consumers’ buying and business investing.
We know of no economy that has solved its debt and deficit problems without
growing its income. Moreover, reducing deficits by only reducing budgetary
expenditure is highly contractionary, since the size of the income multiplier
of expenditure is about a quarter higher than tax changes. The recommendations
of the bipartisan Group of Six and those of the Presidential Commission on
Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, known as the Bowels-Simpson Commission were
both ignored in the debate.
Today,
the US combined Federal tax take is about 18.3 % of the GDP, by far the lowest ratio in
the industrial countries. Half of the US population does not pay Federal income taxes,
and the upper-income brackets now pay less taxes than they did in the 1990’s.
It is equally true that the corporate tax rate is high by international
standards, in particular for small and intermediate enterprises. This means
that the US tax code is outdated and distorted. Thus, the entire Federal government
budget, on both the revenue and expenditures sides, should be put on the table.
In particular, the entitlements programs, the Defense budget and war-related
expenditures, the tax rates, all are to be revised. One simply cannot discuss
taxes and expenditures on the basis of the current budgetary structure; there
are some expenditures that should not be there and some taxes that ought to be
imposed. For the debate to be sensible there has to be first a determination of
what type of government we want and how much financing it needs. Thereafter, we
should map out how we can attain that at the prevailing phase of the business
cycle. Our vision of the US economy in the future should factor in expected
global competition, the prevailing deterioration in our infrastructure, the
decline in our educational standards and the need for new environmentally sound
technologies. Instead of that, our politics now are centered on uninformed
debates based on ideologies, unquestionable dogmas and electioneering
calculations. The US seems to lack the will to map out a long-run policy vision
and its politicians are incapable of making strategic state choices.
President
Obama does not need the Republicans to increase the debt ceiling. The
fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution provides a constitutional basis to
safeguard the trust and credit of the US so that its credibility remains
unquestioned. He should recall that Abraham Lincoln imposed income tax to
finance the war so that the credit and faith of the US government remain
unquestioned. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the hugely costly war on terror
(in addition to Bush’s tax cuts) are the causes of the US's current big deficits
thereby furnishing constitutional grounds for the executive act under war
conditions. This is a better choice than engaging in a patrician uninformed and
dogmatic debate.
Labels: Budget debate, debt ceiling, US deficit, US fiscal policy