Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The Real US Debt


For those who think that the current proposals to "solve" the debt crisis will do so, read the following article. If you cannot sleep tonight, don't blame us, blame those who put us in this position--all previous Representatives, Senators and Presidents.  They ALL are to blame!  

Our suggestion that since we know who caused the problem, they should be forced to give us all the benefits they gave themselves starting with retirement pay,  health insurance, special parking perks, Secret Service protection etc. etc.

Agree? Disagree? Let us know.

Conservative Tom


Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt

A decade and a half ago, both of us served on President Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, the forerunner to President Obama's recent National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. In 1994 we predicted that, unless something was done to control runaway entitlement spending, Medicare and Social Security would eventually go bankrupt or confront severe benefit cuts.
Eighteen years later, nothing has been done. Why? The usual reason is that entitlement reform is the third rail of American politics. That explanation presupposes voter demand for entitlements at any cost, even if it means bankrupting the nation.
A better explanation is that the full extent of the problem has remained hidden from policy makers and the public because of less than transparent government financial statements. How else could responsible officials claim that Medicare and Social Security have the resources they need to fulfill their commitments for years to come?
As Washington wrestles with the roughly $600 billion "fiscal cliff" and the 2013 budget, the far greater fiscal challenge of the U.S. government's unfunded pension and health-care liabilitBuies remains offstage. The truly important figures would appear on the federal balance sheet—if the government prepared an accurate one.
But it hasn't. For years, the government has gotten by without having to produce the kind of financial statements that are required of most significant for-profit and nonprofit enterprises. The U.S. Treasury "balance sheet" does list liabilities such as Treasury debt issued to the public, federal employee pensions, and post-retirement health benefits. But it does not include the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security and other outsized and very real obligations.
As a result, fiscal policy discussions generally focus on current-year budget deficits, the accumulated national debt, and the relationships between these two items and gross domestic product. We most often hear about the alarming $15.96 trillion national debt (more than 100% of GDP), and the 2012 budget deficit of $1.1 trillion (6.97% of GDP). As dangerous as those numbers are, they do not begin to tell the story of the federal government's true liabilities.
The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.
Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet. But it is possible to discover them. Included in the annual Medicare Trustees' report are separate actuarial estimates of the unfunded liability for Medicare Part A (the hospital portion), Part B (medical insurance) and Part D (prescription drug coverage).
As of the most recent Trustees' report in April, the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion.
Were American policy makers to have the benefit of transparent financial statements prepared the way public companies must report their pension liabilities, they would see clearly the magnitude of the future borrowing that these liabilities imply. Borrowing on this scale could eclipse the capacity of global capital markets—and bankrupt not only the programs themselves but the entire federal government.
These real-world impacts will be felt when currently unfunded liabilities need to be paid. In theory, the Medicare and Social Security trust funds have at least some money to pay a portion of the bills that are coming due. In actuality, the cupboard is bare: 100% of the payroll taxes for these programs were spent in the same year they were collected.
In exchange for the payroll taxes that aren't paid out in benefits to current retirees in any given year, the trust funds got nonmarketable Treasury debt. Now, as the baby boomers' promised benefits swamp the payroll-tax collections from today's workers, the government has to swap the trust funds' nonmarketable securities for marketable Treasury debt. The Treasury will then have to sell not only this debt, but far more, in order to pay the benefits as they come due.
When combined with funding the general cash deficits, these multitrillion-dollar Treasury operations will dominate the capital markets in the years ahead, particularly given China's de-emphasis of new investment in U.S. Treasurys in favor of increasing foreign direct investment, and Japan's and Europe's own sovereign-debt challenges.
When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.
Nothing like that $8 trillion amount is available for the IRS to target. According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion. In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion. That comes to $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws.
In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities. Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners, or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Only by addressing these unsustainable spending commitments can the nation's debt and deficit problems be solved.
Neither the public nor policy makers will be able to fully understand and deal with these issues unless the government publishes financial statements that present the government's largest financial liabilities in accordance with well-established norms in the private sector. When the new Congress convenes in January, making the numbers clear—and establishing policies that finally address them before it is too late—should be a top order of business.
Mr. Cox, a former chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and the Securities and Exchange Commission, is president of Bingham Consulting LLC. Mr. Archer, a former chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, is a senior policy adviser at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

19 comments:

  1. Great article from Bruce Bartlett on his conversion…

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/

    -- David (Keynesian)

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems that it's in no politician's best interest to come clean with the truth on the national debt. If the American people understood this topic better, one wonders if they would continue to vote themselves wealth by electing Democrats?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This guy is misleading in his terminology. What he calls "liabilities" should be called "future obligations to pay." A Treasury bond is a "liability" -- a debt already incurred that the government must pay to the bond holder. Under current entitlement laws, the government is obliged to pay future recipients money, but this is not truly a "liability", because Congress can simply eliminate it by legislation. Ergo, it should not be called "debt" and lumped into some huge mythical number along with real debt in order to scare people. That is not to say fiscal changes are not required, but concepts need to be made clear, not confused in terminology such as "unfunded liability."

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  4. Social Security and Medicare may be a "contingent liability" however, I would love to see the government try to get out of them? It would be like greece!!

    The government in the name of the IRS requires all businesses to declare on the income statements, all contingent liabilities like pension plans and mark them as current liabilities. So why should the government do the same.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  5. The business does not have the legal authority to unilaterally invalidate a pension plan. Congress does have the legal authority modify Social Security and Medicare. That is the difference.

    For example, about $400 billion can be saved on Medicare just by controlling increases in premiums by health insurance companies under Obamacare and by changing the way doctors, drug companies, and hospitals are paid. That is in the current proposal. Social Security can be make solvent for the next 75 years just by eliminating the cap of payroll taxes, etc. Congress has the power to do these things.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  6. What are you talking about. A company CAN terminate its pension plan. That has occurred in thousands of companies around the country. Less than 10% of the plans that existed in the 1980's still exist, the rest have been terminated.

    Your thinking is convoluted, saving $400 billion with lower premiums? That does not cut costs to Medicare? Premiums are paid by the individual, that does not cut any costs!

    Cutting the cap on Social Security will not move the solvency out 50 years for two reasons. First that impacts people under the $250k cap, an increase on those Obama has said he would not impact (Of course he lies.) Secondly there are not enough people to extend the fund for 50 years. That does not even compute. It makes no sense at all.

    The ONLY way to extend Social Security is to transfer all IRAs, 401ks, 457s, 403bs to social security. That can be done. It will be done. Congress has had hearing in 2008 and 2010 on this very issue.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What I said is that a company cannot UNILATERALLY terminate a pension plan and its associated financial liabilities, whereas Congress can modify or eliminate its obligation to pay so-called "unfunded liabilities" simply by changing the law. A company can terminate its pension plan only by providing to pay off the pensioners in full, unless they can convince PBGC or a bankruptcy court that they can't remain in business without ending the plan.

    You're right on premiums. That relates to general costs of health care, but there are indirect benefits to the government by making health insurance affordable to more citizens. The $400 billion comes from the other things I mentioned through cutting payments to service providers, Medicare Advantage, efficiencies,etc.

    On Social Security, here is the conclusion from Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress in 2010: "If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years." I am not saying that is the best or only way to handle it, but your idea is not the only thing that would work financially.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  8. Social Security will face tremendous changes in the next few years. Look into Argentina and see how it will be done. We are following the disaster there so closely, it is unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Social Security is easily fixed just by eliminating the cap. The other way is to means test the benefits received in combination with keeping the cap but raising it. Rich pay more, receive less. That fixes the problem without screwing poor people who literally depend on Social Security for their survival. Blankfein makes me sick with his proposal (is it like Argentina?). His personal income from Goldman Sachs criminal operations last year was around $16 million. He can afford to pony up more money for SS.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  10. I disagree with you. There are so many leeches on the Social Security program (disability recipients who have reached the end of their 99 weeks as well as illegal and legal immigrants who contributed only minimum amounts to Social Security) that any fix has to be big. Tinkering with the age of eligibility, taxing the 2% will not doing the job.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Check this out:

    http://blog.ourfuture.org/20121120/wall-street-funded-poll-and-wall-street-bailout-king-both-say-cut-social-security

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am just telling you that the Congressional Research Service has done the analysis and said that ending the cap would make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years. Where is your research to disprove their conclusion? Ending the cap would hit a lot lower down the income ladder than the 2%.

    HIs proposal to increase the eligibility age to 67 would only save about $130 billion over 10 years. That is totally insufficient, but Blankfein doesn't care, because he is not depending on SS in his old age.
    The scum sucker should be rotting in prison with the other investment bank CEOs who engineered the financial collapse of 2008!

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  13. Raising cap is the best way to fix Social Security combined with means testing benefits on the high end. You may disagree for political reasons, but it nonetheless DOES work from an actuarial standpoint.

    Here is another good economist who has crunched the numbers, if you still don't believe it….

    http://www.epi.org/publication/raising_cap_on_social_security_tax_best_way_to_fix_shortfall/

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually he says that raising the cap and eliminating the cap on employer contributions would solve only 75% of the 75 year problem. I doubt his numbers as disability claims have jumped tremendously since he wrote the article.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Here is the link documenting the rise in social security disability claims.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/13/AR2010091306556_2.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ending the cap generates much more revenue than setting it at 90%, because, as he says, the 90% level only hits the top 6%. Since this is a 75 year forecast, I am sure he factored in the rise of disability claims, as it is quite predictable that there will a rise in disability claims from baby boomers until we all die off. That is (unfortunately for us) a self-limiting problem, since we will all be dead long before the 75 years is reached. Also, a major demographic cause of the recent increase is composition of the labor force. More women than ever are working and meeting the criteria for DI (number of years worked, etc.).

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  17. Your article was written before the crisis and the big increase in disability claims. It no longer works.

    ReplyDelete
  18. From CBO report….

    Option 4: Eliminate the Taxable Maximum

    Social Security’s total revenues would increase by 0.9 per
    centage points of GDP in 2040, or by 19 percent relative
    to current law, and outlays would increase by 0.3 percent
    age points of GDP, with further increases in subsequent
    years. This option would improve the 75 year actuarial
    balance by 0.6 percentage points of GDP and extend the
    trust fund exhaustion date to 2083.

    ---------
    It works, Tom. I could probably dig up more studies for you, but this comes straight from Congressional Budget Office (2010). They analyzed every conceived "fix" for SS. You can download it yourself.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  19. From CBO report….

    Option 4: Eliminate the Taxable Maximum

    Social Security’s total revenues would increase by 0.9 per
    centage points of GDP in 2040, or by 19 percent relative
    to current law, and outlays would increase by 0.3 percent
    age points of GDP, with further increases in subsequent
    years. This option would improve the 75 year actuarial
    balance by 0.6 percentage points of GDP and extend the
    trust fund exhaustion date to 2083.

    -------
    CBO analyzed every conceivable "fix" to SS in this report. You can download it yourself and see.

    --David

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.