The Deficit Commission: Hubris or Pandering?

The President signed an executive order yesterday to establish a deficit reduction commission headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. Bowles was instrumental in the Clinton administration’s budget negotiations of the late 1990s, while Simpson helped ensure passage of the tax hikes in 1990 that torpedoed the first President Bush’s reelection.

Why do we think the commission is a display of hubris? Because there’s nothing in its mission about better understanding the nature of the problem, i.e., whether enlarged deficits and public debt ever make sense over a longer period of time, and if so, whether those conditions exist today. Instead, it seeks to cram macroeconomic orthodoxy down our throats, presumably in order to fatten up the livers of U.S. taxpayers by the arbitrarily imposed year of 2015.  But we predict that even in five years the fiscal foie gras will still be pretty lean.  According to the Washington Examiner:  

Here are the kinds of steps the panel is likely to consider as it seeks to tackle deficits that never dip below $700 billion under Obama’s budget:

_Raise the retirement age for full Social Security benefits to more than 67 years old and have benefits grow at a less generous inflation rate. Expose more income to Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.

_Require seniors to pay more Medicare costs out of their own pockets and curb payments to health care providers.

_Raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 a year, requiring Obama to break a signature campaign pledge.

“You’re going to have to do all of the above,” said [Sen. Kent] Conrad. “You’re going to have to do all of the things that people don’t want to do.”

The first one isn’t a terrible idea, though its second part might constitute an overall tax hike on anyone earning over ~$100K per year, depending on how it is accounted for in income taxes.

The second one, although it’s a pressing issue given demographic projections, would have harsh consequences on seniors, not only in terms of out of pocket costs, but also in the availability of Medicare providers; it also renders the economics of a medical education far more difficult (if not impossible) for those who would be willing to administer primarily to the poor and the elderly.

The third one, depending on how big a hike is involved and how far down the income ladder it extends, could have negative economic consequences and profound political implications.

The long term structural issues do present a fiscal challenge. However, policymakers may be getting too far ahead of the problem, and if they are, the consequences could actually worsen the longer term fiscal outlook. And yet the president has charged the commission with lowering public deficits, period, without any consideration of what it could mean to the economy, or whether there’s any truth to his arguments that the government could “run out of money,” or that it’s subject to the same kinds of budget constraints as a household or business.

Obviously, given our take on the role of the federal budget, we would be relieved if the commission turns out to be little more than election year pandering. And the fact that it aims for budget normalization rather than budget balance, and shoots for it in five years rather than one or two, is a good sign. But based on U.S. demographic composition, we think 2018 to 2020 would make far more sense.

If the commission produces hawkish recommendations that are pursued vigorously in the coming years,  our strong dollar call will become stronger yet, and our willingness to wager on a double dip or ‘recession within a depression’ type of event would increase (2012-2013 could be interesting, and not in a good way).

URLs: