Thursday, November 1, 2018

Simpson-Bowles - History

Simpson-Bowles Plan Summary, History, and Whether It Would Work

Why Is Congress Afraid of This Six-Step Plan to Reduce the Debt?

Simpson Bowles
•••
The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan is a 2010 bi-partisan report on the best way to fix the U.S. national debt.  It offered six steps to lower the budget deficit to 2.3 percent of gross domestic product by 2015. It would have reduced the debt by $3.8 trillion by 2020. As a result, the debt-to-GDP ratio would have dropped to a healthy 60 percent by 2023 and 40 percent by 2035. Congress never adopted it. Instead, Congress chose sequestration and the 2013 fiscal cliff crisis.
Opponents wouldn't cut Social Security and Medicare benefits or defense. Others wouldn't touch the mortgage interest tax deduction. Why were such painful cuts necessary? Because the U.S. government must borrow $0.37 for every dollar it spends. The debt is more than the entire output of the U.S. economy in a year.
Most of the budget goes to $1 trillion in Social Security benefits, $886 billion on the military, and $625 billion on Medicare. The interest on the debt is $363 billion. It leaves little for investments in the country's future. These include education, NASA, and infrastructure.

Summary

The plan recommended the following six steps:
  1. Cap government spending at 21 percent of GDP.
  2. Reduce mandatory spending.
  3. Reduce federal health care spending.
  4. Make Social Security sustainable.
  5. End $1.1 trillion in tax loopholes, thus increasing government revenue to 21 percent of GDP while lowering tax rates.
  6. Various process reforms.
The Committee suggested waiting for two years before cutting spending or raising taxes. It wanted to make sure the economy had fully recovered from the Great Recession.

Details

The Simpson Bowles Report made clear, specific, and realistic recommendations to achieve deficit reduction. Most of its ideas are well-regarded policies that economists have advocated for years. Congress hasn't adopted them because they are politically difficult. 
1. Cap government spending at 21 percent of GDP. All agencies must reduce discretionary spendingto 2008 levels, adjusted for inflation, by 2013. After that, cap spending increases at half the rate of inflation. This includes military spending. It also includes a separate limit for spending on wars, as needed. Budget emergency and disaster spending at recent annual averages. Pay for the Transportation Trust Fund with a $0.15/gallon gas tax. Cut the White House budget by 15 percent. Freeze all government worker pay, including defense.
Cut the federal workforce by 10 percent through attrition.
2. Reduce mandatory spending. Reduce federal retirement benefits (including military) by $70 billion over 10 years. Reduce farm subsidies, school loans, and the State Abandoned Mine Fund. Allow the Post Office to run as a profitable business. Permit the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation to raise premiums.  Let the Tennessee Valley Authority charge market rates for its electricity. No changes to SSI, food stamps, or unemployment benefits. 
3. Reduce federal health care spending. Focus Medicare payments to physicians on quality of care instead of quantity. Freeze physician payments through 2013. Institute a one percent cut in 2014. Increase funding to reduce Medicare fraud. Reduce excess Medicare payments. Coordinate Medicaid and Medicare benefits. Reduce medical malpractice costs. The Affordable Care Act incorporated many of the these suggestions.
4. Make Social Security sustainable. Lower the benefits for higher income earners. Increase the normal retirement age to 69 by 2075.  All workers must pay Social Security taxes on the first 90 percent of income up to $190,000 by 2020. (It was $168,000 when the report was written). Workers who have paid into the system for at least 25 years are guaranteed a minimum payout of 125 percent of the poverty level. Cover newly hired state and local workers after 2020.
5. End $1.1 trillion in tax loopholes, thus increasing government revenue to 21 percent of GDP while lowering tax rates.  Lower the income tax rates to 12 percent, 22 percent and 28 percent, and lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent. To achieve these rates, tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. End the Alternative Minimum Tax and itemized deductions. Tax state and municipal bonds. Tax the following exclusions at higher income levels: health insurance benefits, retirement accounts, charitable giving, and mortgage interest.
Use chained-CPI to measure cost-of-living increases for recipients. The report eliminated 150 other income tax loopholes, corporate tax subsidies and deductions. 
6. Various Process Reforms. Use the chain-weighted consumer price index for all government cost-of-living payments. The president's budget must show no deficit by 2015, unless there is a recession. Calibrate extended unemployment benefits to a general unemployment rate. 

The Plan Would Have Worked

The Simpson-Bowles plan would have reduced the deficit and debt with a carefully considered list of detailed recommendations. Although many critics worried about the tax hikes, this would not deter economic growth once GDP reached a healthy 2-3 percent rate. Why? Tax cuts only spur growth when rates are above the 50 percent level according to the  Laffer Curve. It's the theoretical underpinning of supply-side economics, the policy that supports tax cuts.
The plan also protects those who are most vulnerable, the very poor and elderly. They are most likely to spend any income they receive. It emphasizes automatic benefit increases for the unemployed. The Congressional Budget Office found it's one of the best ways to stimulate demand and increase jobs.
Simpson-Bowles recommends that all agencies reduce spending the same percent. It forces agency heads, who are best qualified, to find savings in their departments. The plan also ended spending on outdated programs, like the Abandoned Mine Fund. All in all, it is a workable plan from an economics perspective.

History

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform submitted the final report on December 1, 2010. The co-chairmen were former Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles, President Bill Clinton's chief of staff.
President Barack Obama formed the Commission on February 18, 2010. His goal was to find a bipartisan way to lower the annual federal budget deficit to 3 percent of GDP. Obama asked for a balanced budget by 2015 (not counting interest payments). He also required a solution to the long-term Social Security and Medicare deficit. The goal of a bi-partisan Commission was to solve the U.S. debt crisis in a way acceptable to both parties.
On November 10, 2010, Simpson and Bowles pre-released their proposal to much controversy. It proposed a mix of spending cuts (supported by Republicans) and tax increases (favored by Democrats.) It would have reduced the budget deficit to 2.2 percent of GDP, slightly lower than the final report.

Moment of Truth

On December 1, 2010, the Commission released "The Moment of Truth," its final report. But it failed even to gain the support of enough of its Commission members to pass. It needed 14 Commission members to approve it and only received 11 votes. The divisiveness within the Commission itself meant that Congress wouldn't touch it. Many Republicans had signed a "no new taxes" oath, which left them no room to compromise. 
In 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act. It said that Congress must come up with a deficit-reduction plan. Otherwise, it would face sequestration. That would cut 10 percent from all discretionary spending programs, including the military. That still didn't force it to agree on a plan, and sequestration went into effect.
In 2012, Congress still had no other bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit. It faced mandated spending cuts and tax increases. They threatened to throw the economy off a fiscal cliff in 2013. Congress began to reconsider the Simpson-Bowles plan. But no one was willing to risk their re-election year to support the painful steps required. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Additional S-B Background



Ten Bits of Very, Very Good News


   Ten Bits of Very, Very Good News
  
Good News , from Joel Ross, Principal, Citadel Realty Advisors,15 West 36th Street, NYC, NY.  Ross publishes the Ross Rant, a $300 per year subscription newsletter, which makes predictions based upon economic data.  He is a graduate of the Wharton School and served two tours in Vietnam with the US Navy.      

~1     Trump and China  To understand the trade war with China, you need to understand that China at the moment is having a major slowdown economically. The stock market is down 25%.  Many banks are being bailed out by the government.


Everything and everyone in China is way over levered, and the economy is therefore in a high risk position which the government was trying to fix.  The trade war got in the way, forcing the government to subsidize the smaller banks. China is loaning tens of billions to countries like Pakistan to build ports and railroads and infrastructure. Problem is, these countries have zero possible way to ever repay these loans.  So now they are faced with stopping the projects or asking the IMF to bail them out.

It is a mess for China and the countries who took the loans.  There is starting to be push back against China for this. So, Trump’s timing to go after China is exactly right. 

  They are in a weakened position right now. Ignore all the hype about how they could sell their $1.4 trillion of US Treasuries —to who???  Not going to happen.  The whole world agrees China violates every rule on trade and steals IP.  Trump is just the only one who is willing to take them on, with the rest of the world cheering him on from the sidelines.  Now it appears the EU is willing to cooperate with Trump and revise the WTO and to push China on IP and other trade violations.  Something they were never willing to do before.

~2     U.S. GDP     Can 4% GDP growth continue?  Maybe. But 3.5% would be great.  Remember the left, and the press saying in 2016 and early 2017,  2% was the new normal maximum, and the US was at its peak and we faced stagflation, economic decline, etc. 2% was the accepted number as what good growth would be.  Larry Summers was right out there saying 4% was impossible.  Some in the mainstream media and Wall St said getting above 2% was pure fantasy, and Trump was dreaming.

So, as I have said often, ignore the talking heads, and the mainstream media.  They all have an agenda.  Almost none are objective.  The tax bill and deregulation was a huge boost.  The left just can’t admit it.  There are even stories now in the press that 4% is really a bad thing???  4% is great, it may not be 4% next quarter, but 3.5% would be terrific.   If Trump really does a deal with the EU, Mexico and Canada, and then Japan, 3.5%, or better, is very realistic.
 
  ~3   Capex   Capital expenditures will ramp up further once the tariff issues subside and that uncertainty goes away.  They say exports were hyped due to pending tariffs, but to do that, inventories were drawn down, so this quarter inventories will be rebuilt, pushing up GDP growth upward.  The press does not want you to believe it because it means the Republicans win in November, so they will try to convince you otherwise.  Even my very liberal economist friends admit privately to me that the economy is going to be booming for at least 6 more quarters.  The key is to reelect Republicans to control Congress.

Keep in mind, if the Dems get control, Maxine Waters is chair of the finance committee and Nancy is speaker.  Think about that combo, and the ability to get budgets and more tax reform done.  It should drive you to the polls and to take all your friends with you to vote.  What a trade: Trump, and 4% GDP, or Maxine Waters.

~4     Russia     If you want to understand Russia, and the whole gas pipeline issue--- gas and oil is 52% of Russia’s GDP.  The GDP of Russia is slightly smaller than NY State, around $1.5 trillion. GDP per capita is only $8,748 in 2017.  Far lower than in 2013.  We heard this first hand when I was in Russia, but now the stats show it to be true.  The standard of living in Russia is declining. 20% of the Russian budget goes to weapons and the army.
So Trump is right - how can Germany build a new gas pipeline with Russia which will fund more weapons spending, when they are supposedly having sanctions because of weapons and Crimea.  It's nuts.  The gas line will provide Russia billions of new cash flow for weapons, which are aimed at ----Germany.  But Merkel also thought letting in over 1 million Muslims was also a great idea until the voters rebelled, and the rest of the EU voted right wing in response.

Reality is Russia is now in economic decline due to lower oil prices and corruption.  Defense spending was reduced this year.  So what does Merkel want to do – build the pipeline to pay them more badly needed money.  Trump is not out of line for his comments.  The pipeline is the same as Obama paying Iran $150 billion just as their economy was tanking.   

~5    NATO   Truth is Russia cannot afford to wage a real war in Europe now that Trump has forced NATO to materially up spending and readiness.  If Obama was still in power Putin could take over Baltic states and have only a few sanctions because under Obama NATO was militarily unable to react.  That was why Putin felt he could go into Crimea with no big problem.  Putin also knew he could continue his cyber war with no real consequences under Obama.  Don’t believe the crap about Trump favors Putin, or they have something on him.  It is more lefty nonsense.  The US pays 71% of NATO costs.  Germany pays less than 1.2% of their GDP for their own defense.  We pay far more for Germany’s defense than Germany does, and they can afford to pay. 

Trump is right for making this a major issue.  So in 2018, NATO and the US are upping spending on defense and Russia cannot keep up.  Russia is forced to reduce spending because oil prices did not rise as much as Putin needed. 

~6     Defense Spending      Under Obama, US defense spending went down from 2013 on, and Russia went up a lot, and China even more.  Obama left us in very bad and weak shape vs. our main adversaries.  It was massive US defense spending by Reagan vs, Russia, that won the cold war.  The story now is very similar vs. Russia and Iran.  The best way to win a war is to far out spend the bad guys until they fold with no shots being fired.  A strong offensive capability and willingness to use it (missiles fired at Syria) is the best defense.  Putin and Xi got the message.  Putin blew it by favoring Trump.  The last thing he wanted was a much stronger US military and stronger, capable NATO. 

~7     Iran      Iran’s GDP is $439 billion, less than that of 14 states.  And now it is tanking. Obama gave them $150 billion in cash - 34% of their GDP.  Iran cannot compete with US and Israel.  Israel is much smaller by population and has a GDP of $320 billion.  With sanctions Trump is imposing, Iran is in real economic trouble, and cannot afford a war with us, the Sunnis and Israel.  The Obama nuke deal just empowered Iran to go on an expansion into Syria, Iraq, Yemen  and Lebanon.  Now Israel and the US are pushing back with the help of the Sunnis.  Reimposing sanctions will severely cripple Iran and they will likely try to attack shipping in the straits and the Red Sea.  It will end very badly for them now that the Sunnis, Israel and the US are teamed up, the US military is being rebuilt, Sadr is pushing back on Iran trying to control Iraq, and the Iranian people are protesting and ready to revolt.

~8     The Middle East     The entire Mideast situation is going to change by year end when sanctions go back into effect.  Iran will run out of money to continue their expansion.  What is astonishing is Merkel and the EU prefer to try to get around the US sanctions and trade with Iran instead of cooperating with us and destroying the regime.  And the press thinks Trump acts badly with the EU???  The EU doesn’t pay for their own defense and they favor Iran.
 

~9     U.S. Economy  The US economy is on a roll.  It will be strong well into 2019 and maybe into 2020.  The stock market will go up. Just be patient.  Bond prices will decline further.  All equities will continue to work.  They will resolve trade in the next 90 days.  NAFTA will get revised. WTO will get revised.  Putin is in no economic shape to invade anyone, or do another Syria.  He is now motivated to try to work with Trump.  If oil prices stay around where they are, Russia is hurting. Q3 GDP will be over 3%.  This is like under Reagan.  Trump will bury Putin in military spending and Putin will have to concede on some issues.  It will just take time.  It took Reagan three years.  If the result is no pipeline, Russia is in more trouble.  Farm products in the EU will still be a big problem.  Macron cannot give in on this and stay in office.  From here on it is all about China, and how Xi can give in and not lose face. 

~10     Bottom Line   A very strong US economy and big defense spending will overwhelm Russia and Iran. A strong economy, allowing big defense spending, matters a lot in terms of geopolitics. The price of oil is strategic, not just economic.  Nicky Haley will be elected president in 2024   She will be the first woman president. Mark it down. 


The Blessings & Curses of the Beatitudes

The Blessings & Curses of the Beatitudes | Mark Brumley | IgnaitusInsight.com 

 Print-friendly version 

The Beatitudes strike some people more as poetry than theology. Tell them the Beatitudes are more than pleasant thoughts or good wishes, and you'll often lose them. Pious ideals or kind sentiments are fine, but please don't bring theology into it.

But the Beatitudes are about God's Kingdom, which means we can't avoid theology. The first word of each Beatitude–"blessed"–teems with theological significance, if only we attend to it. Yet familiarity doesn't breed contempt as much as indifference when it comes to the Beatitudes. Pastors and catechists, no less than Catholics in the pew, may treat the Beatitudes as beautiful, inspirational words, and ignore their nitty-gritty meaning for Christian living.

The Woes Have It

One way to avoid complacency is to start with Luke's version of the Beatitudes (Lk 6:20-26), which includes "woes" as well as "blesseds." The "woes" should grab you by the throat. If they don't, you're not reading carefully enough: "Woe to you rich, for you have your consolation; woe to you who are full, for you will be hungry; woe to you who laugh, for you will grieve; woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so their ancestors treated the false prophets." Most people want to be rich, to be full, to laugh and to have others speak well of them. What can Jesus mean?

The "woes" are, as the scholars say, "covenant curses" –curses due to not living according to God's reign. The Beatitudes are the charter, so to speak, for "Kingdom living." You want to be a disciple? Well, then, here are the values you must incarnate in your daily life, says Jesus. If you don't live those values, then a curse is upon you.

What values are those? Here's where the "blesseds" come in: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God; blessed are you who are hungry, for you will be filled; blessed are you who weep, for you will laugh; blessed are you when men hate, insult and attack your name for the Son of Man's sake."

Again, the careful reader will sit up and take notice. How can it be blessed to be poor, hungry, weeping and hated? Things commonly valued, Jesus calls cursed. Things commonly despised, he calls blessed. We said a few moments ago that the word "blessed" teems with theological meaning. What can Jesus mean by it here, in this seeming upside-down value system?

Blessed or Happy?

Thirty years ago, the Jerusalem Bible created a stir by rendering the traditional "blessed" of the Beatitudes as "happy": "Happy the man . . ." Happy? But the Beatitudes are about blessedness, not happiness, right? Isn't happiness an emotional state; blessedness, a spiritual one?

The objection is half-right. People today often associate happiness with "having a good time"–with pleasure and comfort, the antithesis of suffering and want. But contemporary usage is flawed. True happiness is spiritual and moral, not merely emotional or pleasurable. The saints in heaven are supremelyhappy, because they're with God, the source of all happiness. We call their happiness beatitude, and we speak of the beatific vision of God, which the saints enjoy.

Saints-in-the-making on earth can be only relatively happy. Even so, whatever helps them grow closer to God, they consider "blessed." Poverty, hunger, sorrow and human rejection can, in a sense, bring happiness or beatitude, because such things can bring us closer to God. Hence Jesus calls those who experience such things "blessed" or "happy."

Similarly, wealth, full stomachs, contentment and human respect, though good in themselves, can be spiritual dangers. They can lead us to forget God and His Kingdom. In that sense, they can be curses. More so, if we have acquired them by unjust means–to which our sinful hearts incline us.

Matthew and Luke

Fine enough for what Jesus means by "blessed." But the careful reader will notice important differences between the Beatitudes in Matthew and Luke. Jesus gives only four Beatitudes in Luke to His eight in Matthew. And, as we have seen, in Luke, Jesus includes four "woes" to match the corresponding Beatitudes. Finally, even some of the Beatitudes common to the two Gospels differ somewhat between. More on that in a moment.

That there are two versions of the Beatitudes shouldn't concern us. Pacecertain critics, both are authentic. Why shouldn't Jesus have occasionally modified His teaching to suit different audiences or to stress different points, as most teachers do? Nor should it surprise us that the early Church would preserve different versions of Jesus' Beatitudes or that the Evangelists would include the version best suited to their respective purposes in writing.

Matthew, as we said, has four extra Beatitudes. But even those also included in Luke are differently worded. "Blessed are they who mourn" (Matt 5:4) and "Blessed are you when they insult you . . ." (Matt 5:11-12) differ only slightly from Luke. But where Luke has "Blessed are you who are the poor" (Luke 6:20), Matthew has "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matt 5:3). Where Luke has "Blessed are you who are hungry" (Luke 6:21), Matthew has "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness" (Matt 5:6). To these Jesus, in Matthew, adds, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the land" (Matt 5:5); "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy" (Matt 5:7); "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God" (Matt 5:8); and "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt 5:10).

What to make of this? First, the two somewhat different Beatitudes in Matthew seem to be "spiritualized" versions of Luke. In Matthew, Jesus refers to being "poor in spirit," not to "the poor"; and to "those who hunger and thirst for righteousness," not merely to those who hunger. Second, whereas in Luke Jesus counts as blessings things widely regarded as curses–poverty, hunger, sorrow and being hated–in Matthew, His additional Beatitudes include what aren't usually regarded as curses: meekness, mercifulness, purity of heart, and peacemaking. The dog-eat-dog corporate world may think little of those qualities, but they aren't in the same category as poverty, hunger, sorrow and being hated or rejected.

Still How a Blessing?

Still, how can such things be blessings? The "spiritualized" version of the Beatitudes can help us understand. Consider "Blessed are the poor in spirit." What does that mean? Opinions vary, somewhat, but a common view is that poverty of spirit involves recognizing one's dependence upon God. Poverty is lack. The poor lack what they need; they must depend on others for sustenance. Being "poor in spirit" means recognizing one's dependence on God for everything, the spiritual as well as the physical. The "poor in spirit" are blessed because they recognize their need for God and, accordingly, they trust and rely on him. This is why "the kingdom of heaven is theirs." An essential element of belonging to God's kingdom is acknowledging His sovereignty. The "poor in spirit" are humble. They rely on God, and thus acknowledge His sovereignty over them.