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

Tag Archives: federal deficit

The Congress and the Deficit

All the talk about Big Bird and federal funding is really about 2 much bigger issues.

1. Discretionary Spending

With proposed spending in the Obama 2013 budget at 3.7 trillion dollars, a tiny proportion–between 1 and 2 percent, goes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In fact, add to CPB money, the EPA, the entire judicial brach of government, homeland security, education, transportation, agriculture, foreign policy, NASA, and other discretionary categories (except defense) and you approach 15 percent of all federal spending.

The other 85%?

  • Social Security
  • Health and Human Services (primarily Medicare and Medicaid)
  • the Interest on the Debt
  • Defense

 

You can see that for real deficit reduction, we need to focus on 3 mandatory (required by law) budget components and defense–not Big Bird and not discretionary spending.

2. Lighthouses

Would Big Bird pass the lighthouse test? Economists like to point out that when we try to decide what government should pay for, we can start with a lighthouse. Used by anyone, depleted by no one, and a necessity, a lighthouse would be tough to fund privately. So government should step in.

The lighthouse test is a handy start for deciding what should be covered by federal funds.

Sources and Resources: This NY Times interactive graphic is a superb shortcut for illustrating and understanding the federal budget. Also very well done, the NPR Planet Money podcast on public goods was fascinating.

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

railroad...trains...15842_6.17_000006782680XSmall

Should government subsidize a railroad?

Our story starts during the 1970s when you could fly from New York to Washington, D.C. on the Eastern shuttle. Eastern left hourly (!) and guaranteed a seat to everyone who showed up for the flight. Imagine, coffee cup in hand, business people rushing to the gate at the last minute knowing they would be in Washington D.C. soon. A full plane meant that Eastern had to use its back-up, even for just one seat.

The Eastern shuttle couldn’t exist after airline deregulation in 1978. Not only had the government given Eastern a monopoly but also it ensured its profits by coordinating fare hikes and cost increases. Labor was well-paid, passengers were coddled, and interstate routes were mandated by the federal government. Frequently almost empty, the direct nonstop flight between Peoria, Illinois and LaGuardia in NYC was ideal for me to visit my husband’s family. The downside? Passengers paid a lot more and land, labor and capital were inefficiently used.

Fast forward to 2012.

Moving along the Northeast Corridor between NY and Washington, D.C., travelers look for value and speed. Before 2001, Delta and US Air were favored. Afterwards though, with minimal security delays, Amtrak’s trains became preferable. As one person said, “It’s easier. I don’t have to take my shoes off…” and travel time equalizes between the train and the plane after airport security, wait times and delays.  Finally, we shouldn’t forget the bargain buses with fares ranging from $1 to $40 a ticket that are making the market even more interesting.

So yes, Amtrak is a formidable competitor in the Northeast Corridor. However, even with a $1.3 billion subsidy from government, Amtrak loses money. With the airlines and bus companies privately owned, should Amtrak get this boost from government? As an Economist blogger suggests, shouldn’t we be debating “the right balance of public- and private-sector involvement in these sorts of enterprises?”

Thanks to the NY Times for many of my facts in its article on the competition among planes, trains and buses.For anyone who want to engage in a funding Amtrak debate, this lengthy Freakonomics post is ideal for facts and ideas. And additional facts about Amtrak are here.

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

safety net..16712_5.28_000006090065XSmall

When you combine better health care with generous pensions you get (choose one):

  • happy retirees
  • happy politicians
  • insufficiently funded national pension programs
  • the eurozone
  • the United States
  • other

 

To select an answer let’s begin with 1935. Just passed, the Social Security Act will start giving benefits to people 65 and older in several years. With 41.9 workers for every retiree in 1945 and 16.5 in 1950, the revenue source was more than sufficient. Moreover, life expectancy was 58 for men and 62 for women. (Adults who reached 21 did have a 50-60 percent chance of reaching 65 and beyond.)

Fast forward to 2012. The average man lives until approximately 76 and the average woman, 81. The worker retiree ratio for 2012 is 2.8. And as more baby boomers retire, it will get worse.

The Social Security Trustees just announced that because current workers’ checks could not cover retirees’ obligations, the system had a deficit during 2010, 2011 and probably for 2012. The good news is that they have a Trust Fund to cover deficits. The bad new is that the Trust Fund will probably be empty in 2033. That means benefits will have to plunge or taxes soar or the age of eligibility change. Or maybe the unexpected will occur and all will remain okay.

More daunting, in Europe, by age 55, more than one third of the population of all countries has retired except for Sweden, Denmark and Finland. You know the eurozone situation– huge pension obligations, free access to health care, retirement length averaging 13-20 years, and unemployment averaging 10.8 percent in February.

Returning to the quiz, what might you fill in for “other?”

You might want to look at this historical chart of worker beneficiary ratios since 1945, pp. 52-53 in Trustees 2012 report and at the chart of life expectancy for Social Security in one of their historical documents. For Europe, I got my statistics from this article which uses Eurostats as its source.

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

15804_8.4_000009109495XSmall

The average social security check received by a retired grandma is $1169. Multiply that by 35 million recipients, add to it other social security obligations, and this year, you have more money leaving than entering the social security “bank account”.

Next year everything should be okay but not for long. The crisis starts in 2016 when the system will be swamped by baby boomers. What should be done? The Congressional Budget Office has suggested 5 categories of solutions: 1) Change taxes. 2) Change benefits. 3) Pay more to low income earners. 4) Raise the retirement age further. 5) Reduce cost-of-living adjustments.

The Economic Lesson

Hoping to give “ownership” to all of us, the creators of Social Security designed a universal pay-as-you-go program in 1935. When we “pay-as-you-go”, we are giving today’s workers payroll tax dollars to today’s social security recipients.

Looking at the potential problems, should social security remain a universal program with common “ownership?”

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

I recommend looking at the 2005 American Enterprise Institute paper on homeland security spending at:
http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/jmueller/DERUGY.PDF

Providing insight about where, how, and why approximately $44 billion is being spent, the report expresses concern about homeland security spending decisions. In this excerpt from page six, they discuss how decisions are made.

“Imagine that after September 11th, all the players involved in airline security were in a room trying to figure out what to do. Some members of the public are scared to fly, others aren

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