1
U.S.
California Asks: Should Doctors Face Drug Tests?
A battle over a proposal, packed away in a broader initiative meant to raise the financial cap on medical malpractice awards, is being closely watched across the country.The Upshot
Kansas Democrats Turn to Data in Governor's Race
The state party has been increasing its use of modeling, which takes voter registration and history information to target likely supporters.World
Britain Fails to Find Riches It Expected in Swiss Accounts
When the British tax authorities struck a landmark deal with the Swiss to crack down on tax evasion, they sat back and waited for the cash to flow in. Almost three years later, they are still waiting.Opinion
America’s Hidden Credit Card Bill
The federal government should have to report all its liabilities, like Social Security — not just the official debts."Quadrillions and Quadrillions
I figured that I could count on Dean Baker to debunk Larry Kotlikoff’s “Eeek! Debt!” column. But Dean doesn’t go far enough.
What Kotlikoff does is
calculate the present discounted value of predicted funding gaps in
federal programs, point out that they are really, really big numbers,
and declare America bankrupt. As Dean says, this is silly, disingenuous,
or both. The US economy is expected to grow a lot in the future;
meanwhile, real interest rates are expected to be only slightly above
growth rates. So any persistent gap between spending and revenues as a
percentage of GDP will be a huge number if converted to present values.
However, the present value of expected future GDP is also immense — at
least a couple of quadrillion dollars. So is the gap big compared with
the resources available to cover it? Kotlikoff gives us no way to judge.
The questions you
should ask are how the fiscal path is likely to play out in reality, and
what if anything we should be doing now to make the story better.
It’s true that if
current policies are continued with no change, we’re highly likely to
face an unsustainable fiscal gap — a gap that can’t go on forever — if
we look far enough away. Stein’s Law therefore applies: if something
can’t go on forever, it will stop. Sooner or later, we will have some
combination of benefits cuts and/or revenue increases.
Saying that this means
that the United States is bankrupt is hyperbole; more important, it’s
not helpful. What, exactly, should we be doing right now?
The answer all the
deficit-panic types offer is basically that we must cut future benefits.
But why, exactly, is that something that must be done immediately? If
you state the supposed logic, it seems to be that to avoid future
benefit cuts, we must cut future benefits. I’ve asked for further
clarification many times, and never gotten it.
You can argue that
it’s better to avoid abrupt changes — to put things on a glide path to
sustainability. But that’s a much weaker point than you might expect
given all the cries of bankruptcy and crisis.
And Dr. Evil-type invocations of two hundred trillion dollars serve no purpose at all, unless your real goal is to scare people into preemptively dismantling the welfare state.
No comments:
Post a Comment