Austerity vs. Stimulus: The U.S. Fiscal Policy Debate

Jeffrey FrankelHarpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth

REAI International Advisory BoardHarvard Faculty Club, May 2013

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

• 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.

Austerity vs. Stimulus, continued

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.

National debt/GDP is the highest since WWII spike.Source: CBO, March 2012

The long-term US debt problem..

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

• 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).

Long-term debt problem, continued

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.

The debt problem is also “long-term” in the sense that we have known about it a long time.

"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

Long-term debt problem, continued

E.g., when Ronald Reagan, took office:

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.

• (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.

It is not the right way to characterize the debate . [1]

Brief US fiscal history: The 1980s

• 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, Congressat 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 campaignedto 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

Concord Coalition. Data Source: CBO, Jan.2012

$6 b

$30 b

$17 b

$56 b

$35 b

$61 b $59 b

$86 b

$92 b

Total ≈ ½ deficit

3 biggest spending categories:Health, Social security, & Defense

Medicare & medicaid{

Concord Coalition. Data Source: CBO, Jan. 2012

Breakdown of federal spending

Concord Coalition. Data Source: CBO, Jan. 2012

Taxrevenue$2.5 tr.

Deficit$1.1 tr.

Budget deficit was $1.1 trillion in FY 2012

Even if one could somehow eliminate all domestic spending, it would not come close to eliminating the deficit

Outlays: $3.5 trillion

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.

• 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.

If there were no political constraints…

How to reduce the budget deficitThe only way to do this is The only way to do this is both both reduce spending reduce spending

& raise tax revenue, as we did in the 1990s.& raise tax revenue, as we did in the 1990s.

• Spending. Spending. Examples:Examples:– Eliminate agricultural subsidies.Eliminate agricultural subsidies.

– Cut manned space program.Cut manned space program.

– Trim National Guard & Reserves, Trim National Guard & Reserves, – Close unwanted military basesClose unwanted military bases– Cut unwanted weapons systems 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 The only way is both both reduce spending & raise tax revenuereduce spending & raise tax revenue, , continued.continued.

• Tax revenue optionsTax revenue options– We could have let G.W. Bush’s We could have let G.W. Bush’s

tax cuts expire in 2013.tax cuts expire in 2013.

– Can still curtail expensiveCan still curtail expensive && distortingdistorting “tax“tax expenditures”expenditures”• E.g., Tax-deductibility of mortgage interest, E.g., Tax-deductibility of mortgage interest, • & of health insurance& of health insurance• Subsidies to oil industry, low tax rate on carried interest, …Subsidies to oil industry, low tax rate on carried interest, …

– Or launch more ambitious tax reform:Or launch more ambitious tax reform:• Introduce a VAT, sales, or consumption taxIntroduce a VAT, sales, or consumption tax• or phase in an energy or carbon taxor phase in an energy or carbon tax

– or auctioning of tradable emission permitsor auctioning of tradable emission permits

Distortionary subsidies hiding as tax expenditures

Joint Committee of Taxation, Jan. 2012

$128 b

$93 b

$84 b

$305 billion

The long-term problem is entitlements

Concord Coalition. Data Source: CBO, Jan. 2012

35

• Social securitySocial security– Raise retirement age Raise retirement age – just a little,– just a little,

• perhaps exempting low-income workers.perhaps exempting low-income workers.

– IndexIndex benefit growth to chain measure of inflation. benefit growth to chain measure of inflation.

– Further options:Further options:• To please Democrats: Raise the cap on social security taxes.To please Democrats: Raise the cap on social security taxes.• To please Republicans: encourage private accountsTo please Republicans: encourage private accounts

– though they contribute nothing to closing the gap.though they contribute nothing to closing the gap.

36

• Health careHealth care– Encourage hospitals to standardize Encourage hospitals to standardize

around best-practice medicine. around best-practice medicine. • Pay health providers for “value,” not per medical procedure.Pay health providers for “value,” not per medical procedure.• Standardize around best-practice treatment:Standardize around best-practice treatment:

– evidence-based evidence-based (to be facilitated by electronic health records).(to be facilitated by electronic health records).

– E.g., pursue the checklist that minimizes patient infections, E.g., pursue the checklist that minimizes patient infections, – and avoid unnecessary medical tests & procedures.and avoid unnecessary medical tests & procedures.– That is not “death panels.”That is not “death panels.”

• Levers to get providers to follow best practices: Levers to get providers to follow best practices: – make Medicare payments conditional make Medicare payments conditional – or protection from malpractice litigation.or protection from malpractice litigation.

– Curtail corporate tax-deductibility of health insurance, Curtail corporate tax-deductibility of health insurance, – especially gold-plated.especially gold-plated.

Some US politicians have pursued pro-cyclical (i.e., destabilizing) fiscal policy

1st cycle:

• 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.”

Recession: austerity.

Some US politicians have sought pro-cyclical fiscal policy, continued

2nd cycle

• 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.”

Recession: austerity.

Some US politicians have sought pro-cyclical fiscal policy, continued

3rd cycle

• 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.

Recession: austerity.

Thus, through 3 cycles, Republican austerity efforts came during recessions,

followed by attempts at fiscal expansionwhen 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…

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/ Blog: http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/

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/