deficit | Normative Narratives

Original Article:

At its winter meeting in Washington, the RNC approved by voice vote a resolution in favor of abolishing the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), set to take effect in July, marking the party’s first explicit attack on the law.

FATCA will require most foreign banks and investment funds to report to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service information about U.S. customers’ accounts worth $50,000 or more. The law was enacted after a scandal involving Americans hiding assets in Swiss bank accounts to dodge U.S. taxes.

Critics have blasted the law as an unfair government overreach and invasion of financial privacy.

“The Republican National Committee … urges the U.S. Congress to repeal FATCA,” said the measure, staking out a campaign position ahead of 2014’s mid-term elections.

Tax watchdog groups that support FATCA slammed the Republican vote. “It is mind-boggling that a major political party would even consider endorsing a resolution to facilitate tax evasion,” said Heather Lowe, director of government affairs at anti-graft watchdog group Global Financial Integrity.

“Repealing the law would cripple the U.S. and global efforts to fight offshore tax evasion,” she said in a statement.

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a group that advocates for lower taxes and financial privacy, praised the RNC vote. “The GOP’s adoption of FATCA repeal to its platform is a major victory for taxpayer privacy rights,” said the center’s Director of Government Affairs Brian Garst.

Repeal is unlikely and the issue was not expected to resonate with average U.S. voters, said lobbyists on both ends of the political spectrum. But they said Republican opposition to the law could help the party raise campaign funds.

—

It is certainly mind-boggling that a major political party would endorse such a view. And even if a repeal is unlikely, this issue should “resonate with the average U.S. voter”. In an era of constant budget-battling and debt-ceiling standoffs (the next one is right around the corner), where stimulus spending is unthinkable and welfare programs are constantly coming under attack (even though both are extremely important during an economic recovery), it is important for Americans to understand the main drivers of U.S. government debt. Once you understand these main drivers, it is obvious why this G.O.P. position on FATCA is unconscionable.

A quick simplified lesson: There are two sides to government debt, receipts (tax revenue) and outlays (spending). While there are certain drivers of long-term spending which must be reformed (social security, and medicaid, and defense spending specifically), these long term issues have little to do with economic recovery fiscal policies (government stimulus spending and “automatic stabilizers“).

A few historic graphs from the White House Office of Management and Budget (full tables from 1938-2012 can be downloaded: reciepts_endpenditure_history, reciepts_by_source) tell the story of U.S. government debt.

RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, SURPLUS/DEFICIT(–)% GDP | PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION——————————————————————| OF RECEIPTS BY SOURCE

Year	GDP (in billions of dollars)	Total			Individual Income Taxes	Corporation Income Taxes
Year	GDP (in billions of dollars)	Receipts	Outlays	Surplus or Deficit (-)	Individual Income Taxes	Corporation Income Taxes
1992	6,242.0	17.5	22.1	-4.7	43.6	9.2
1993	6,587.3	17.5	21.4	-3.9	44.2	10.2
1994	6,976.6	18.0	21.0	-2.9	43.1	11.2
1995	7,341.1	18.4	20.6	-2.2	43.7	11.6
1996	7,718.3	18.8	20.2	-1.4	45.2	11.8
1997	8,211.7	19.2	19.5	-0.3	46.7	11.5
1998	8,663.0	19.9	19.1	0.8	48.1	11.0
1999	9,208.4	19.8	18.5	1.4	48.1	10.1
2000	9,821.0	20.6	18.2	2.4	49.6	10.2
2001	10,225.3	19.5	18.2	1.3	49.9	7.6
2002	10,543.9	17.6	19.1	-1.5	46.3	8.0
2003	10,980.2	16.2	19.7	-3.4	44.5	7.4
2004	11,676.0	16.1	19.6	-3.5	43.0	10.1
2005	12,428.6	17.3	19.9	-2.6	43.1	12.9
2006	13,206.5	18.2	20.1	-1.9	43.4	14.7
2007	13,861.4	18.5	19.7	-1.2	45.3	14.4
2008	14,334.4	17.6	20.8	-3.2	45.4	12.1
2009	13,960.7	15.1	25.2	-10.1	43.5	6.6
2010	14,348.4	15.1	24.1	-9.0	41.5	8.9
2011	14,929.4	15.4	24.1	-8.7	47.4	7.9
2012	15,547.4	15.8	22.8	-7.0	46.2	9.9
2013 estimate	16,202.7	16.7	22.7	-6.0	45.5	10.6

Government expenditures will go down when we experience full economic recovery (and not just a recovery for the top 1%)–that’s why welfare programs are known as “automatic stabilizers”. What will not automatically change are tax receipts, which are at their lowest levels since 1950. The American public has been paying a fairly constant portion of total federal taxes over the past 6 decades through income taxes–between 40-50%. Corporate taxes have fluctuated wildly; between 1940 and 1967 they made up 20-30% of federal tax revenue, since 1980 they have hovered around 10%.

The American public continues to pay its fair share, while corporations get a pass (and actually get huge bailouts and subsidies). America, in reality, has a regressive tax system. This low effective corporate tax rate stems largely from tax loopholes; a difficult problem to address rooted in corporate lobbying (money buys influence buys loopholes). Overcoming this problem will take an overhaul of the government tax code and a change in the current lobbying system, neither of which is an easy task.

Much less contentious should be targeting offshore cash holdings. While loopholes at least (allegedly) contribute to job creation, offshore tax evasion is a crime which robs the U.S. of vital tax revenues with no benefit to society. But even this “slam-dunk” reform is being challenged by the G.O.P.

—

Privacy Narrative:

I thought it was interesting that the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a conservative think-tank, used the privacy narrative to justify the G.O.P. stance on FACTA. This reminded me how Matt Taibbi, in his book “Griftopia”, explains how the wealthy sell financial sector deregulation to the lay-man.

According to Taibbi, financial regulation is equated to local / state level government regulation–the average person, who experiences government overreach in their day-to-day lives, feels for the “poor banker trying to earn a buck”. Of course this equation is false; however, many people do not know enough about our political system to understand this fallacy, especially when their favorite news outlets are driving this false narrative home.

It seems that something similar is being attempted with this privacy narrative. One of the main issues of the day is NSA “spying”. Perhaps conservatives are trying to latch onto this privacy narrative to drum up popular support for repealing FACTA. I think this is a tougher sell, although financial deregulation sounded like an impossible sell until pundits begin selling it. It is therefore important to expose this fallacy to the general public before the narrative hits the newsroom.

—

Next time you hear an argument about “fiscal responsibility”, remember the G.O.P is the party of offshore tax evasion. Social spending programs and the tax code need to be overhauled; these issues will take time to remedy and must be addressed with care, they cannot be attached to short term issues like economic recovery or the debt ceiling.

Enabling offshore tax evasion by repealing FACTA benefits nobody except those who engage in offshore tax evasion–this should not be a contentious issue. Those who engage in such activities do not deserve our understanding or support, regardless of your stance on NSA surveillance.

I have, like many an economist, been preoccupied by the possibility of a U.S. debt default. How could our politicians willingly do something that is so obviously detrimental to American and global economic interests? Is there any precedent or historical clue which may shed some light on this phenomenon? It is possible, I would argue, that such a default is the current (and most heinous) manifestation of “starve the beast” political theory:

“Starving the beast” is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending^[1]^[2]^[3] by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending. The short and medium term effect of the strategy has dramatically increased the United States public debt rather than reduce spending

On July 14, 1978, economist Alan Greenspan gave testimony to the U.S. Finance Committee: “Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today’s environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending.”^[5]

The earliest use of the actual term “starving the beast” to refer to the political-fiscal strategy (as opposed to its conceptual premise) was in a Wall Street Journal article in 1985 where the reporter quoted an unnamed Reagan staffer.^[7]

Since 2000

The tax cuts and deficit spending of former US President George W. Bush‘s administration were attempts to “starve the beast.” Bush said in 2001 “so we have the tax relief plan […] that now provides a new kind—a fiscal straightjacket [sic] for Congress. And that’s good for the taxpayers, and it’s incredibly positive news if you’re worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been.”^[8]

Historian [Economist] Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, has called Starve the Beast “the most pernicious fiscal doctrine in history”, and blames it for the increase in US government debt since the 1980s.^[18]

—

For a historical look at government revenue and expenditure, please see here. The most useful number (IMO), is the % GDP comparisons.

—

But what is the connection between “starve the beast” and the “debt limit”? The answer lies in a simple analysis of Modern Monetary Theory:

A pivotal issue in our discussion turns out to be whether the central bank can or should hold the nominal rate of interest on government debt, R, below the rate of growth of nominal GDP, G. (We could frame the discussion in real terms instead by subtracting the rate of inflation, ΔP, from both sides; it makes no difference.) If R is held below G, then essentially any level of the government’s budget deficit is “mathematically sustainable,” a term we have been using to mean that the debt-to-GDP ratio does not grow without limit over time. On the other hand, if R exceeds G, the budget balance must show a primary surplus, on average over the business cycle, to achieve mathematical sustainability of the debt. (See the first of the posts referenced above for a detailed discussion of the conditions for mathematical sustainability.)

The essential argument of MMT is that if growth rates are greater than interest rates, debt is sustainable and a government can run a budget deficit indefinitely (governments, unlike households, do not die). Japan, with its Debt/GDP ratio almost twice as high as the U.S., is a primary example the difference between debt sustainability versus total debt. Many of Europe’s “trouble countries” have trouble with much lower debt / GDP ratios (than Japan); without control of printing money, they are at the mercy of markets to borrow. These markets have been charging troubled countries a higher “risk premium”, pushing these countries into damaging austerity policies in the face of depressed demand. It is not the level of debt, but the interest that needs to be paid on it, that determines debt sustainability in a MMT model.

—

In order to truly starve the beast, it is not enough to deny the U.S. government of tax revenue; the obstructionist must also increase the governments borrowing cost. This is exactly what a debt default would do, lead to higher borrowing costs. In fact, one of the main arguments by liberal economists for stimulus spending–other than the social and economic benefits of employing a substantial portion an idle workers and stimulating demand–is that the cost for doing so is for all intents and purposes the same as if we were running a government surplus! True the Fed can set the interest rate it pays by expanding it’s balance sheet, but this is an extraordinary role for the Fed to use only the most dire liquidity trap, not a viable long-term policy (due to inflationary effects of increasing the money supply when the economy is near or at full capacity).

There is certainly no proof that this is specifically anyone’s agenda. However, the same ideologies are behind “starve the beast” policies are behind holding the debt-limit hostage for fiscal concessions. We have to at least question the motives of these politicians; they are “rational” people, and until now I have heard no rational reason for such an unprecedented default. If the goal is to convince their opponents, who are likely to have Post-Keynesian if not MMT views of political economy, that certain policies are unsustainable, a default is–an irreversible way–to achieve such goals.

As the self-proclaimed party of fiscal responsibility, the GOP is leading America down the road of ballooning interest payments. Interest payments already make up a substantial portion of total expenditure (8% and growing, twice as much as the federal government spends on education). A default would cause these payments to be substantially bigger, further constricting fiscal space for important social programs. We wouldn’t be getting more for less, or even the same for the same amount, we would receive less services for the same levels of expenditure. It is not fiscally responsible, but then again “starve the beast” and their contemporary “Tea Party” advocates were never really about fiscal responsibility.

Furthermore, follow a debt default the ensuing global recession would greatly raise the unemployment rate, driving up the spending on “automatic stabilizer” welfare programs that would otherwise be trending downwards in tandem with a growing economy.

You may say that no elected official would ever act so heinously and against the interests of the government and the American people; I would say read up on the history of the “starve the beast” political philosophy. It should also be noted that a default does not actually need to pass in order to result in higher borrowing costs / lower growth (making borrowing unsustainable based on a MMT framework); the specter of a default is enough to achieve these goals (the next debt-limit debate is set for February 2014).