Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: debt

the Congress...16856_3.16_000012166514XSmall

Today’s sequester is not the first.

Just like now, in 1985, cutting the deficit was popular…in theory. The question, though, was how to get legislators to do it. The answer was Gramm-Rudman (aka the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985). One of its authors, Warren Rudman, called the act, “a bad idea whose time has come.”

The goal of Gramm-Rudman was to intimidate lawmakers into acting by making the alternative much worse. Yes, it is all about BATNA, Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. Targeting 1993 as the year that the budget had to be balanced, a rewritten Gramm Rudman listed annual automatic cuts that would kick in if the Congress did not pare spending down gradually.

Did it work? If we rewind to 1990, we could say, “Yes.” Most analysts say that the first President Bush and the Congress agreed on a 1990 deficit reduction package because of it. Basically, the 1990 deal said “paygo.” Any tax cuts or spending increases? They have to be paid for before they happen. Soon after, Alice Rivlin, President Clinton’s OMB head said, “it isn’t that no one ever thought of adding prescription drugs to Medicare. We just couldn’t find a way to pay for it. There was very real restraint.”

Paygo expired in 2002.

Now, do we have Gramm-Rudman Part 2?

And, just a bit more history:

1. A deficit summary:

Federal Deficits and Surpluses

2. The following CR, Continuing Resolution, from the Congress suspended the 1991 sequester:

NECESSITY TO SUSPEND SEQUESTRATION
Currently, the economy is weakening. The country is sustaining an economic shock made worse by oil price increases. The cost of Operation Desert Shield in Saudi Arabia is putting additional pressure on the deficit. The Congress and the Administration are working to address these problems, but the actions needed to work out this situation have not yet been implemented.

The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act recognizes that when the economy is weak, special circumstances regarding sequestration are required. Provisions included in that Act establish a procedure for the suspension of sequestration in these circumstances. Clearly, the economy has been weakening in the last several quarters. Examples indicative of this weakness are rising unemployment, fewer construction starts, a drop in retail sales, declines in industrial production, and increases in the consumer price index. Reports in the press indicate some regions of the country are already in recession.

The effect of the pending sequestration on domestic programs is massive. It would result in needless impact on a weak economy, if it were implemented, not to mention the impact on the Department of Defense during Operation Desert Shield.

Section 113 of the 1991 CR was what suspended the sequester:

SEC 113. (a) Any order on sequestration for fiscal year 1991 issued before, on, or after the date of enactment of this joint resolution pursuant to section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is suspended and no action shall be taken to implement any such order.

Sources and Resources: Here, here and here are articles about Gramm Rudman and the Budget Control Act of 2011. For more on the current sequester, we presented a summary yesterday and here is my source for the Congressional suspension of the 1991 sequester. And for the federal debt, here is an excellent overview.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16698_6.16_000006078784XSmall

Thinking about our fiscal woes, I keep returning to the fallacy of composition.

Here it is:

When one farmer harvests a huge crop and sells it, her profits soar. But if every farmer grows more and sells more, then the price drops. Similarly, if one person races out of a theater, she easily exits. When many do, it is tough to get out.

The point? Sometimes what is good for a single person becomes a problem when everyone does the same thing. Economists call it the fallacy of composition. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s fiscal plight reminds me of the fallacy of composition.

The Harrisburg story begins when they decide to retrofit their trash incinerator with borrowed money. If every garbage truck pays a fee, the incinerator business can be exceedingly profitable. At first though, the mechanics do not work and then the EPA says the facility does not meet federal standards. Each time, the community borrowed and upgraded. The result? The incinerator cost $326 million. A city with 50,000 people owes $326 million. And then the recession hits. The result? A debt crisis.

With local officials resisting, the governor of Pennsylvania mandates austerity. His representative says sell municipal parking garages, cut fire and police wages and pensions, sell the incinerator. But, the Harrisburg city council, a 4-3 vote, says no.

Responding to individual incentives, law makers reject the austerity policies that are best for their community. Individual law makers are each doing what is best for them. Anyone who supports tax hikes, wage freezes and pension cuts might not get re-elected. And then ultimately, as with a farmer’s bumper harvest or a fire in a theater, when enough law makers act similarly, everyone suffers. Sounds like the fallacy of composition.

My Bottom Line? For controlling Medicare and Social Security spending, do we have a fallacy of composition problem?

This article tells the whole Harrisburg incinerator story while NPR’s Planet Money tells the sad tale of the receiver who was sent to Harrisburg to solve their fiscal problems. As for Greek legislators, as this article tells us, the bribes that flowed to legislators will evaporate if they support austerity.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16891_Mercedes.1.27_000018506803XSmall

Maybe sell some islands and an ancient ruin or two?

In Boomerang, Blind Side author Michael Lewis repeats what German politicians were suggesting in 2009 when they heard that the Greek debt was much larger than previous estimates. How much bigger? No one was really sure.

In a wonderful podcast, NPR’s This American Life explains that once Greece joined the European Monetary Union, it enjoyed a new world of credit. With fellow euro zone member Germany perceived as “the rich uncle” to (theoretically) back all loans, Greece’s interest rates plunged. Borrowing more cheaply meant the Greek government could borrow much more. Consumers who never had car loans or home mortgages suddenly found bankers welcoming them with rates that declined from 18% to 4%.

Lewis explains that Greek statisticians had to eliminate the high-priced tomatoes from their CPI to take their inflation rate within euro zone parameters. NPR’s reporters tell how Germany, hoping to expand the market for their goods, initially supported Greece’s euro zone entry. Getting what they wished for, more Greeks were buying Mercedes.

Our bottom line? Incentives. Isn’t everyone responding predictably? You might want to read This Times It’s Different for an academic explanation.

The Economic Lesson

In his America and the New Global Economy Teaching Company course, Professor Timothy Taylor explains why the Europeans wanted a common market. Assume for a moment that you own a factory and start exporting goods to a nearby country. You have to wait at the border and have your trucks approved by customs. You have to be sure that you comply with their product safety laws. You need to use their currency. 

Dr. Taylor says that with a common market you could enjoy the benefits of the 4 freedoms: 1) People, 2) Goods and services, 3) Labor, 4) Capital. The benefits of a European common market included one set of regulations instead of 15, labor that could move more freely, and capital that was more accessible.

An Econmic Question: How does the United States enjoy the common market benefits  listed by Dr. Taylor?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16889_sheep

By Mira Korber, guest blogger.

Just the other day, I walked outside to find all six of my horses facing the exact same direction, muscles tensed, ears pricked, nostrils flared…Clearly their horsey intuition was picking up on some obscure, equine-eating bogeyman undoubtedly lurking just on the other side of the pasture fence.

I’ve seen it more times than not. One horse is startled, the others follow suit. Pretty soon, you have a stampeding herd of animals feeding off the fear of one.

So what does this have to do with economics, anyway? It turns out that people aren’t so different from our four-legged friends.

The very same behavior can describe the housing bubble at the heart of the most recent economic crisis. Prominent economist Robert Schiller discusses how the influence of the herd contributed to the real-estate bubble’s burst.

Here’s the Scenario: Jack decided a truly low value house was a good investment because he individually misinterpreted its market value. So he decided to buy the house. Jill sees the transaction. She then assumes that buying a house is a good idea just because Jack did, not realizing that Jack overvalued his new home.

And the cycle continues. The rational expectations hypothesis — that people make decisions considering all known economic conditions — has instead given way to irrational exuberance.

Herd behavior could also factor in to the euro-zone crisis and Greece. According to The Economist, Europeans want to avoid making any decisions that might lead to a mass (herd-mentality) panic. Widespread concern abounds that if the recent debt swap deals fall through, the euro-zone would be at risk for collapse.

In these two situations, you can see how an optimistic or pessimistic groupthink mentality affects mass behavior. In the housing situation, blind confidence in the upward surging (and likewise imaginary) home values ultimately lead to disaster. In Greece, private creditors and legislators alike are tiptoeing around negative expectations to avoid financial ruin.

The Economic Lesson

Herd behavior leads to what is known as information cascades. Such cascades are behavioral imitation of a certain activity, whether it be buying a home, selling stocks, or even choosing a restaurant for dinner. In other words, people base their decisions on the judgments of others, and mimicry ensues. This shows how we often turn to our social instincts in times of economic uncertainty.

For a comical take on the behavior, check out this video of a herd of horses. Then, look at this satire of humans exhibiting herd mentality.

An Economic Question: When and where have you experienced herd behavior? Have you ever decided to do something just because a friend or neighbor has? 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

The US is again hitting its debt ceiling.

This simulation from Pew is a great way to understand what the supercommittee is trying to do. Called “the Pew Budget Challenge,” it presents close to 100 revenue and expenditure alternatives for bringing the debt down to 60% of GDP by 2021. You make the decisions and see where the debt goes.

If you want more of an academic approach, this Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report explains budget controlling alternatives. I’ve noted below the CBO’s candidates for cuts and revenue boosts. Within each category, items are listed in descending size order.

SPENDING CUTS

Mandatory:

  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Other
  • Medicaid and other Health Programs
  • Unemployment Compensation

Defense Discretionary:

  • Operation and Maintenance
  • Military Personnel
  • Procurement
  • Other

Nondefense Discretionary:

  • Other
  • Education, Training, Employment, Social Services
  • Transportation
  • Income Security
  • Health
  • Veterans
  • Justice
  • International Affairs

REVENUE BOOSTS

(The CBO cites 35 ways to raise revenue in their report.)

  • Individual Income Taxes (42%)
  • Social Insurance Taxes (40%)
  • Other Revenue Sources (10%)
  • Corporate Income Taxes (9%)

Called “Fiscal Commission Deja Vu,” this past econlife post looks at proposals from presidential budget commissions. The 2 commissions had similar proposals but the Congress and President never proceeded. And now, we await the supercommittee.

The Economic Lesson

Specifically defined, federal fiscal policy refers to taxing, spending, and borrowing. It involves the federal deficit which is the shortfall between annual spending and revenue. The federal debt is the total amount that the U.S. government owes.

An Economic Question: In the Pew simulation, how much could you cut the growth of the debt?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment