thefiscaltimes--2020-01-21--Holy $#!& Quote of the Day: Mnuchin’s Wild Tax Cut Claim

`` I ’ ll stay on the record that I think tax cuts will pay for themselves . ''
– @ @ @ @ @ the World Economic Forum at Davos , as reported by Heather Long of The Washington @ @ @ @ @ that deficit growth of nearly 50 % over the last two years has been “ @ @ @ @ @ projections and that revenues are likely to grow .
Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell responded @ @ @ @ @ “ Literally no independent forecaster agrees with this.
” And Ian Shepherdson , chief economist @ @ @ @ @ about Mnuchin ’ s motivation for making such an extraordinary claim : “ He can @ @ @ @ @ that it 's first order garbage , because there will be no adverse consequences for @ @ @ @ @ not to be true .
Whereas if he says the opposite , he 's out @ @ @ @ @

"I’ll stay on the record that I think tax cuts will pay for themselves."
– Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin at the World Economic Forum at Davos, as reported by Heather Long of The Washington Post. Mnuchin reportedly said that deficit growth of nearly 50% over the last two years has been “right in line” with projections and that revenues are likely to grow.
Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell responded with a useful reminder: “Literally no independent forecaster agrees with this.” And Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, speculated about Mnuchin’s motivation for making such an extraordinary claim: “He can say this, presumably knowing that it's first order garbage, because there will be no adverse consequences for him when it is proved not to be true. Whereas if he says the opposite, he's out of a job.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-21--Trump Says He’ll Soon Unveil a Middle-Class Tax Cut

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal , President Trump said Tuesday that his administration is working on a @ @ @ @ @ would take effect if he is re-elected and Republicans win total control of Congress .
@ @ @ @ @ a fairly substantial…middle-class tax cut that ’ ll be subject to taking back the House @ @ @ @ @ and keeping the White House , ” he said .
Trump declined to offer any @ @ @ @ @ will be unveiled in 90 days .
Trump floated a similar promise of a 10 @ @ @ @ @ before the 2018 midterm elections , but it was clear those cuts were never going @ @ @ @ @ them died out quickly .

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, President Trump said Tuesday that his administration is working on a middle-class tax cut proposal that would take effect if he is re-elected and Republicans win total control of Congress.
“We’re talking a fairly substantial…middle-class tax cut that’ll be subject to taking back the House and obviously keeping the Senate and keeping the White House,” he said.
Trump declined to offer any details but said the plan will be unveiled in 90 days.
Trump floated a similar promise of a 10% middle-class tax cut shortly before the 2018 midterm elections, but it was clear those cuts were never going to happen and talk of them died out quickly.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-21--Where the Democratic Candidates Stand on Social Security

With Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden clashing over their plans for the program , Social Security has become a flashpoint for the Democratic presidential candidates as we head toward the Iowa caucuses .
Here 's where they currently stand on the issue : Joe Biden : Reversing a long-held belief that Social Security requires adjustments that include possible reductions in benefits , the former vice president now says that he opposes cuts to the program .
In a recent campaign statement , Biden said he would improve Social Security ’ s finances by increasing taxes on high earners ; oppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ older beneficiaries ; implement a new minimum benefit equal to 125 % of the poverty line for workers with 30 years of experience ; change the rules to provide surviving spouses with higher payments ; and eliminate penalties on teachers and other public workers who have multiple retirement benefits .
Bernie Sanders : The independent senator from Vermont has long supported the expansion of Social Security .
Sanders ’ plan calls for applying the payroll tax to all income over $ 250,000 , which he says will fully fund the Social Security trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by $ 1,300 annually for seniors with incomes below $ 16,000 a year ; increase the minimum benefit ; and boost cost-of-living adjustments by using a more favorable inflation price index .
Elizabeth Warren : Sanders ’ main rival on the left also supports the expansion of Social Security .
Her plan calls for a $ 200 monthly increase for all beneficiaries , with the roughly $ 150 billion cost in the first year to be paid for by higher taxes on the rich .
The taxes include a 14.8 % payroll tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14.8 % tax on investment income for the top 2 % of earners .
The taxes would reduce the deficit by $ 1 trillion over 10 years and extend the life of the Social Security trust fund by nearly 20 years , according to an analysis by Moody ’ s Analytics .
Warren also wants to use a more generous inflation measure for annual cost-of-living adjustments .
Amy Klobuchar : The Midwestern centrist wants to apply the payroll tax to incomes over $ 250,000 to shore up the Social Security trust fund .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ accounts for workers , to be funded by a 50-cents-per-hour tax paid by employers .
Pete Buttigieg : Buttigieg has proposed raising the current payroll income cap from the current $ 137,700 to $ 250,000 .
The former mayor has also called for raising benefit levels and counting hours spent caring for family members as employment .
Beyond Social Security , Buttigieg has proposed new types of accounts to help workers build up their own retirement savings .
Andrew Yang : The tech entrepreneur ’ s signature “ freedom dividend ” would pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for those over 65 the payments would come on top of existing Social Security payments – “ making it the largest increase seniors will receive in history , ” Yang said .
The cost of the program would be covered by a new value-added tax of 10 % .
Tom Steyer : The former hedge fund manager wants to replace the Social Security system with a Personal Security Account System in which workers put 10 % of their income into a global investment fund run at no cost by a computer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on behalf of the poor , the disabled and the unemployed , ” Steyer said last fall .
Upon retirement , shares would be sold with the proceeds used to purchase government bonds .
“ The income and principal from these bonds would pay you and all others your age an inflation-indexed pension that is proportional to what you accumulated and that continues until you die , ” Steyer said .

With Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden clashing over their plans for the program, Social Security has become a flashpoint for the Democratic presidential candidates as we head toward the Iowa caucuses. Here's where they currently stand on the issue:
Joe Biden: Reversing a long-held belief that Social Security requires adjustments that include possible reductions in benefits, the former vice president now says that he opposes cuts to the program. In a recent campaign statement, Biden said he would improve Social Security’s finances by increasing taxes on high earners; oppose privatization and means-testing; increase benefits for older beneficiaries; implement a new minimum benefit equal to 125% of the poverty line for workers with 30 years of experience; change the rules to provide surviving spouses with higher payments; and eliminate penalties on teachers and other public workers who have multiple retirement benefits.
Bernie Sanders: The independent senator from Vermont has long supported the expansion of Social Security. Sanders’ plan calls for applying the payroll tax to all income over $250,000, which he says will fully fund the Social Security trust fund for 52 years; boost benefits by $1,300 annually for seniors with incomes below $16,000 a year; increase the minimum benefit; and boost cost-of-living adjustments by using a more favorable inflation price index.
Elizabeth Warren: Sanders’ main rival on the left also supports the expansion of Social Security. Her plan calls for a $200 monthly increase for all beneficiaries, with the roughly $150 billion cost in the first year to be paid for by higher taxes on the rich. The taxes include a 14.8% payroll tax on incomes over $250,000 and a 14.8% tax on investment income for the top 2% of earners. The taxes would reduce the deficit by $1 trillion over 10 years and extend the life of the Social Security trust fund by nearly 20 years, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. Warren also wants to use a more generous inflation measure for annual cost-of-living adjustments.
Amy Klobuchar: The Midwestern centrist wants to apply the payroll tax to incomes over $250,000 to shore up the Social Security trust fund. Klobuchar has also proposed new retirement savings accounts for workers, to be funded by a 50-cents-per-hour tax paid by employers.
Pete Buttigieg: Buttigieg has proposed raising the current payroll income cap from the current $137,700 to $250,000. The former mayor has also called for raising benefit levels and counting hours spent caring for family members as employment. Beyond Social Security, Buttigieg has proposed new types of accounts to help workers build up their own retirement savings.
Andrew Yang: The tech entrepreneur’s signature “freedom dividend” would pay all Americans $1,000 a month, and for those over 65 the payments would come on top of existing Social Security payments – “making it the largest increase seniors will receive in history,” Yang said. The cost of the program would be covered by a new value-added tax of 10%.
Tom Steyer: The former hedge fund manager wants to replace the Social Security system with a Personal Security Account System in which workers put 10% of their income into a global investment fund run at no cost by a computer. The government would pay the contributions “on behalf of the poor, the disabled and the unemployed,” Steyer said last fall. Upon retirement, shares would be sold with the proceeds used to purchase government bonds. “The income and principal from these bonds would pay you and all others your age an inflation-indexed pension that is proportional to what you accumulated and that continues until you die,” Steyer said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-24--Patient Groups Often Fail to Disclose Industry Funding: Study

Non-profit patient groups often aren ’ t transparent about the funding they receive from the pharmaceutical and health care industries , raising concerns about conflicts of interest , according to a new study in The BMJ , formerly known as the British Medical Journal .
The systematic review of patient groups looked at data from a limited set of 26 studies .
It found that anywhere from 20 % to more than 80 % of patient groups had some industry funding .
The analysis also found that only a fraction of patient groups disclose their funding on their websites .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ depth of relationships between patient groups and pharmaceutical and medical device companies .
The issue is likely even more widespread than portrayed , as included studies only examined relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies , excluding connections with the food industry , health insurers , and other companies in the wellness sphere , ” say the authors of an editorial accompanying the new study .
“ More importantly , these results suggest that financial relationships pose real , not potential , conflicts of interest—with alignment between organizational positions and industry interests even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is of particular concern given the power of patient groups internationally .
When pharmaceutical and medical device companies lobby political leaders , the financial motivation is readily apparent , but when patient groups or individual patients engage in similar efforts , government and society assume they are acting independently in the interests of patients .
”

Non-profit patient groups often aren’t transparent about the funding they receive from the pharmaceutical and health care industries, raising concerns about conflicts of interest, according to a new study in The BMJ, formerly known as the British Medical Journal.
The systematic review of patient groups looked at data from a limited set of 26 studies. It found that anywhere from 20% to more than 80% of patient groups had some industry funding. The analysis also found that only a fraction of patient groups disclose their funding on their websites.
“These findings reveal the breadth and depth of relationships between patient groups and pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The issue is likely even more widespread than portrayed, as included studies only examined relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, excluding connections with the food industry, health insurers, and other companies in the wellness sphere,” say the authors of an editorial accompanying the new study.
“More importantly, these results suggest that financial relationships pose real, not potential, conflicts of interest—with alignment between organizational positions and industry interests even when contrary to patient welfare. This is of particular concern given the power of patient groups internationally. When pharmaceutical and medical device companies lobby political leaders, the financial motivation is readily apparent, but when patient groups or individual patients engage in similar efforts, government and society assume they are acting independently in the interests of patients.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-23--Sanders, Biden Tax Plans Would Raise Far Less Revenue Than They Project: Study

Tax proposals put forth by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders won ’ t generate as much revenue as their campaigns project , and in some cases would fall significantly short of estimates , according to new analyses by the Penn Wharton Budget Model , a non-partisan policy research initiative at the University of Pennsylvania .
The Biden plan : Biden calls for higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations , along with other reforms .
His campaign says the proposals would raise $ 3.2 trillion over 10 years to fund investments in health care , climate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis projects that his plan would raise $ 600 million to $ 900 million less that that , or between $ 2.3 trillion ( after economic feedback effects are factored in ) and $ 2.6 trillion ( without those macroeconomic effects ) .
Most of the tax increases under the Biden plan would fall on the top 0.1 % of income earners , raising their annual taxes by more than $ 1 million each and lowering their after-tax income by 14 % .
Biden ’ s plan would have little impact on GDP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden proposal has two opposing effects on the macroeconomy , ” the new study explains .
“ On one hand , reducing federal deficits increases investment , leading to greater capital accumulation and , therefore , increasing GDP .
On the other hand , the increase in marginal tax rates discourage labor and savings .
We project that these two effects are largely offsetting over time.
” The Sanders plan : Sanders has proposed a 1 % tax on net worth above $ 32 million for a married couple , with the tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealth over $ 10 billion .
He also calls for higher estate taxes and the introduction of a financial transactions tax .
The Sanders campaign estimates that his wealth tax would raise $ 4.35 trillion over a decade , but Penn Wharton projects it would fall more than $ 1 trillion short of that mark , raising between $ 2.8 trillion and $ 3.3 trillion over 10 years .
Projecting out to 2050 , Penn Wharton says the Sanders wealth tax would reduce GDP by 1.1 % and average hourly wages would fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduction in private capital formation.
” Penn Wharton also estimates that Sanders ’ plan to expand the estate tax , which would raise rates and reduce the federal exemption from its current level of about $ 11 million ( $ 22 million for married couples ) to $ 3.5 million for singles ( and $ 7 million for couples ) .
Sanders ’ staff reportedly estimated that the tax would raise $ 315 billion over a decade .
Penn Wharton estimates that plan by itself would raise $ 267 billion in additional revenues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for economic effects ) and would increase the percentage of estates subject to taxation — though it would still only apply to less than 0.5 % of people who died in any given year .
What it all means : The results aren ’ t necessarily surprising .
The Penn Wharton Budget Model ’ s earlier analysis of Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’ s wealth tax found that it would raise as much as $ 2.7 trillion in revenue over 10 years — well shy of the $ 3.8 trillion Warren ’ s camp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , critics of the Penn Wharton model question some of its assumptions about how higher taxes affect the economy .
There are other issues with the model , as well : The latest analyses follow the Congressional Budget Office ’ s standard in applying revenues raised by higher taxes toward deficit reduction — even in cases where a candidate has laid out other uses for the money .
Penn Wharton reportedly plans to follow up with additional analysis considering the effects of the tax plans if the revenue raised were used to fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead : Still , Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have faced repeated questions about how they would pay for policy proposals such as Medicare for All and the new analyses may revive those questions , for Sanders in particular .
Biden may face some challenges , too .
“ Economists , including the ones who would do official analyses of any tax legislation , assume that workers ultimately pay part of the corporate income tax in the form of lower wages , ” The Wall Street Journal ’ s Richard Rubin explains .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate taxes do show some higher taxes—under $ 200 for many households in Mr. Biden ’ s case—for the middle class.
” In addition , the gap between the campaigns ’ estimates and Penn Wharton ’ s nonpartisan analysis demonstrates the challenges candidates face in generating new tax revenue to fund ambitious proposals , writes Bloomberg News reporter Laura Davison : “ Overly rosy figures are fine for the campaign trail , but they wouldn ’ t pass muster in Congress , where any plan would be subject to an estimate from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That tally would determine how much money Democrats have to work with to implement one of their priorities , such as expanding health care coverage or infrastructure investment .
… [ T ] o fill the gaps between their estimates and what congressional scorekeepers project , lawmakers may have to look to other , potentially less popular , sources of revenue .
”

Tax proposals put forth by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders won’t generate as much revenue as their campaigns project, and in some cases would fall significantly short of estimates, according to new analyses by the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a non-partisan policy research initiative at the University of Pennsylvania.
The Biden plan: Biden calls for higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, along with other reforms. His campaign says the proposals would raise $3.2 trillion over 10 years to fund investments in health care, climate, infrastructure and education. The Penn Wharton analysis projects that his plan would raise $600 million to $900 million less that that, or between $2.3 trillion (after economic feedback effects are factored in) and $2.6 trillion (without those macroeconomic effects). Most of the tax increases under the Biden plan would fall on the top 0.1% of income earners, raising their annual taxes by more than $1 million each and lowering their after-tax income by 14%.
Biden’s plan would have little impact on GDP, Penn Wharton finds. “The Biden proposal has two opposing effects on the macroeconomy,” the new study explains. “On one hand, reducing federal deficits increases investment, leading to greater capital accumulation and, therefore, increasing GDP. On the other hand, the increase in marginal tax rates discourage labor and savings. We project that these two effects are largely offsetting over time.”
The Sanders plan: Sanders has proposed a 1% tax on net worth above $32 million for a married couple, with the tax rising until it reaches 8% on wealth over $10 billion. He also calls for higher estate taxes and the introduction of a financial transactions tax. The Sanders campaign estimates that his wealth tax would raise $4.35 trillion over a decade, but Penn Wharton projects it would fall more than $1 trillion short of that mark, raising between $2.8 trillion and $3.3 trillion over 10 years.
Projecting out to 2050, Penn Wharton says the Sanders wealth tax would reduce GDP by 1.1% and average hourly wages would fall by 1% “due to the reduction in private capital formation.”
Penn Wharton also estimates that Sanders’ plan to expand the estate tax, which would raise rates and reduce the federal exemption from its current level of about $11 million ($22 million for married couples) to $3.5 million for singles (and $7 million for couples). Sanders’ staff reportedly estimated that the tax would raise $315 billion over a decade.
Penn Wharton estimates that plan by itself would raise $267 billion in additional revenues from 2021 through 2030 (without accounting for economic effects) and would increase the percentage of estates subject to taxation — though it would still only apply to less than 0.5% of people who died in any given year.
What it all means: The results aren’t necessarily surprising. The Penn Wharton Budget Model’s earlier analysis of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax found that it would raise as much as $2.7 trillion in revenue over 10 years — well shy of the $3.8 trillion Warren’s camp estimated. And as we noted then, critics of the Penn Wharton model question some of its assumptions about how higher taxes affect the economy.
There are other issues with the model, as well: The latest analyses follow the Congressional Budget Office’s standard in applying revenues raised by higher taxes toward deficit reduction — even in cases where a candidate has laid out other uses for the money. Penn Wharton reportedly plans to follow up with additional analysis considering the effects of the tax plans if the revenue raised were used to fund investments that boost productivity.
More questions ahead: Still, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have faced repeated questions about how they would pay for policy proposals such as Medicare for All and the new analyses may revive those questions, for Sanders in particular.
Biden may face some challenges, too. “Economists, including the ones who would do official analyses of any tax legislation, assume that workers ultimately pay part of the corporate income tax in the form of lower wages,” The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin explains. “That means studies of proposals to raise corporate taxes do show some higher taxes—under $200 for many households in Mr. Biden’s case—for the middle class.”
In addition, the gap between the campaigns’ estimates and Penn Wharton’s nonpartisan analysis demonstrates the challenges candidates face in generating new tax revenue to fund ambitious proposals, writes Bloomberg News reporter Laura Davison:
“Overly rosy figures are fine for the campaign trail, but they wouldn’t pass muster in Congress, where any plan would be subject to an estimate from the non-partisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. That tally would determine how much money Democrats have to work with to implement one of their priorities, such as expanding health care coverage or infrastructure investment. … [T]o fill the gaps between their estimates and what congressional scorekeepers project, lawmakers may have to look to other, potentially less popular, sources of revenue.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-22--Trump Says He’s Open to Entitlement Cuts

As some of the leading Democratic presidential candidates continue to clash over Social Security , President Trump said Wednesday that he would consider making adjustments to social safety net programs such as Medicare if he were to win a second term .
In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland , CNBC ’ s Joe Kernen asked Trump if entitlements would “ ever be on your plate ?
” “ At some point they will be , ” Trump said .
“ And at the right time , we will take a look at that.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times noted that while Trump pledged during the 2016 campaign to protect entitlements , his most recent budget proposed substantial cuts in Medicare , Medicaid and Social Security : “ The president has already proposed cuts for some safety-net programs .
His last budget proposal called for a total of $ 1.9 trillion in cost savings from mandatory safety-net programs , like Medicaid and Medicare .
It also called for spending $ 26 billion less on Social Security programs , the federal retirement program , including a $ 10 billion cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which provides benefits to disabled workers.
” Most of Trump ’ s rambling response to Kernen , though , was focused on what he called “ the hottest economy in the world , ” and the president provided no details on future budget plans .
James Freeman of The Wall Street Journal pointed out that Trump did not actually mention cutting entitlement spending ( much to Freeman ’ s disappointment ) , and that all he really said was that he would consider it in his second term .
Trump did say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut taxes again .
Asked if he needs to raise taxes or lower spending to address the growing deficit , Trump said , “ We ’ re actually probably going to lower taxes , if you want to know the truth .
”

As some of the leading Democratic presidential candidates continue to clash over Social Security, President Trump said Wednesday that he would consider making adjustments to social safety net programs such as Medicare if he were to win a second term.
In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, CNBC’s Joe Kernen asked Trump if entitlements would “ever be on your plate?”
“At some point they will be,” Trump said. “And at the right time, we will take a look at that.”
Alan Rappeport and Maggie Haberman of The New York Times noted that while Trump pledged during the 2016 campaign to protect entitlements, his most recent budget proposed substantial cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security:
“The president has already proposed cuts for some safety-net programs. His last budget proposal called for a total of $1.9 trillion in cost savings from mandatory safety-net programs, like Medicaid and Medicare. It also called for spending $26 billion less on Social Security programs, the federal retirement program, including a $10 billion cut to the Social Security Disability Insurance program, which provides benefits to disabled workers.”
Most of Trump’s rambling response to Kernen, though, was focused on what he called “the hottest economy in the world,” and the president provided no details on future budget plans. James Freeman of The Wall Street Journal pointed out that Trump did not actually mention cutting entitlement spending (much to Freeman’s disappointment), and that all he really said was that he would consider it in his second term.
Trump did say, however, that he wants to cut taxes again. Asked if he needs to raise taxes or lower spending to address the growing deficit, Trump said, “We’re actually probably going to lower taxes, if you want to know the truth.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-24--Number of the Week: $120 Million

Number of the Week: $120 Million

The 34 member companies of PhRMA , the pharmaceutical industry trade group , spent more than $ 120 million lobbying @ @ @ @ @ to STAT , which cited the companies recently released federal disclosures .
Those millions helped @ @ @ @ @ lobbyists , “ who helped the drug makers and their trade group vehemently oppose the @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration put forth in their efforts to lower prescription drug prices , ” STAT @ @ @ @ @ .
PhRMA spent $ 28.9 million on lobbying in 2019 , surpassing the record it @ @ @ @ @ 27.5 million .
“ Drug makers are also likely spending far more than the amounts @ @ @ @ @ , ” Florko writes .
“ Organizations are only required to report the money they @ @ @ @ @ They do not have to report how much they spend on advertising campaigns or the @ @ @ @ @ to influence legislation but who do not directly try to influence lawmakers .
”

The 34 member companies of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry trade group, spent more than $120 million lobbying Congress in 2019, according to STAT, which cited the companies recently released federal disclosures.
Those millions helped pay for more than 450 lobbyists, “who helped the drug makers and their trade group vehemently oppose the sweeping proposals lawmakers and the Trump administration put forth in their efforts to lower prescription drug prices,” STAT’s Nicholas Florko reports.
PhRMA spent $28.9 million on lobbying in 2019, surpassing the record it set last year of $27.5 million.
“Drug makers are also likely spending far more than the amounts listed in the public disclosures,” Florko writes. “Organizations are only required to report the money they spend directly lobbying Congress. They do not have to report how much they spend on advertising campaigns or the consultants and lawyers they employ to influence legislation but who do not directly try to influence lawmakers.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-23--The Pentagon’s $35 Trillion Accounting Black Hole

While it shouldn ’ t come as a surprise for an organization that has famously failed to ever pass an audit , the Pentagon was nevertheless able to shock some observers this week with a new batch of financial numbers .
According to Bloomberg ’ s Anthony Carpaccio , the Department of Defense made $ 35 trillion in “ accounting adjustments ” in 2019 , easily surpassing the $ 30.7 trillion in such adjustments recorded in 2018 .
Carpaccio notes that the number “ dwarfs the $ 738 billion of defense-related funding in the latest U.S. budget , a spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems in the world including the F-35 jet as well as new aircraft carriers , destroyers and submarines.
” It ’ s also “ larger than the entire U.S. economy and underscores the Defense Department ’ s continuing difficulty in balancing its books.
” So what are these accounting adjustments ?
Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says they represent “ a lot of double , triple , and quadruple counting of the same money as it got moved between accounts ” within the Pentagon .
“ A lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to government data , there were 562,568 adjustments made in the Pentagon ’ s books in 2018 .
Why it matters : More broadly , the number highlights the persistent lack of internal financial controls at the Pentagon , which makes it extremely difficult to account properly for spending in the largest government budget .
“ Although it gets scant public attention compared with airstrikes , troop deployments , sexual assault statistics or major weapons programs , the reliability of the Pentagon ’ s financial statement is an indication of how effectively the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receives over half of discretionary domestic spending , ” Carpaccio says .
Rep. Jackie Speier ( D-CA ) , who asked the Government Accountability Office to look into the issue , said the “ combined errors , shorthand , and sloppy record-keeping by DoD accountants do add up to a number nearly 1.5 times the size of the U.S. economy , ” and charged that the Pentagon “ employs accounting adjustments like a contractor paints over mold .
Their priority is making the situation look manageable , not solving the underlying problem .
@

While it shouldn’t come as a surprise for an organization that has famously failed to ever pass an audit, the Pentagon was nevertheless able to shock some observers this week with a new batch of financial numbers.
According to Bloomberg’s Anthony Carpaccio, the Department of Defense made $35 trillion in “accounting adjustments” in 2019, easily surpassing the $30.7 trillion in such adjustments recorded in 2018.
Carpaccio notes that the number “dwarfs the $738 billion of defense-related funding in the latest U.S. budget, a spending plan that includes the most expensive weapons systems in the world including the F-35 jet as well as new aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines.” It’s also “larger than the entire U.S. economy and underscores the Defense Department’s continuing difficulty in balancing its books.”
So what are these accounting adjustments? Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says they represent “a lot of double, triple, and quadruple counting of the same money as it got moved between accounts” within the Pentagon. “A lot” may be an understatement: According to government data, there were 562,568 adjustments made in the Pentagon’s books in 2018.
Why it matters: More broadly, the number highlights the persistent lack of internal financial controls at the Pentagon, which makes it extremely difficult to account properly for spending in the largest government budget. “Although it gets scant public attention compared with airstrikes, troop deployments, sexual assault statistics or major weapons programs, the reliability of the Pentagon’s financial statement is an indication of how effectively the military manages its resources considering that it receives over half of discretionary domestic spending,” Carpaccio says.
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), who asked the Government Accountability Office to look into the issue, said the “combined errors, shorthand, and sloppy record-keeping by DoD accountants do add up to a number nearly 1.5 times the size of the U.S. economy,” and charged that the Pentagon “employs accounting adjustments like a contractor paints over mold. Their priority is making the situation look manageable, not solving the underlying problem.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-22--Biden and Sanders Trade More Shots Over Social Security

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders continue to trade shots over Social Security .
On Tuesday night , Sanders tweeted out an ad featuring an audio clip from a 1995 Biden Senate speech in which the future vice president touts his efforts to balance the federal budget : “ When I argued that we should freeze federal spending , I meant Social Security as well .
I meant Medicare and Medicaid .
I meant veterans benefits .
I meant every single solitary thing in the government .
And I not only tried it once , I tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third time , and I tried it a fourth time.
” The Sanders spot then cuts to the Vermont senator promising at a campaign rally to expand Social Security benefits .
“ Let 's be honest , Joe .
One of us fought for decades to cut Social Security , and one of us did n't .
But do n't take it from me .
Take it from you , '' Sanders said in his tweet .
Biden on Wednesday was asked on MSNBC ’ s “ Morning Joe ” whether he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
“ No , no , no , no , ” he said .
“ And we weren ’ t talking about cutting them either then.
” He went on to accuse the Sanders camp of taking his past statements about Social Security out of context .
`` My support for Social Security has been solid my entire career , '' Biden said .
`` I did join with a lot of other Democrats to make sure we ‘ fix Social Security , ’ made it solvent during the Reagan years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden ’ s team had accused Sanders of unleashing false negative attacks — in particular , a Sanders campaign charge that alleged Biden had supported Paul Ryan ’ s proposed cuts to Social Security .
`` As Democrats , we ca n't launch dishonest attacks against fellow Democrats , '' the ad said .
`` Bernie 's campaign is not telling the truth . ''
Biden ’ s ad points out that the former vice president fought attempts to privatize Social Security and proposes to expand the program and increase benefits if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I 've been fighting to protect — and expand — Social Security for my whole career , ” Biden said in a tweet .
“ Any suggestion otherwise is just flat-out wrong.
” In response , Sanders ’ campaign manager , Faiz Shakir , said in a statement : “ Joe Biden just released the first negative ad of the 2020 Democratic primary , and let ’ s be clear about why : he ’ s trying to distort his decades-long record of proposing and voting for cuts to Social Security benefits for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no defender of Social Security , and a negative ad won ’ t help him outrun his record.
” Why it matters : “ The disagreement touches on one of the core questions of the Democratic primary : whether voters support a candidate like Sanders who wants a vast expansion of the social safety net , or a candidate like Biden who warns about moving too quickly to boost benefits and about ballooning budget deficits , ” CNBC ’ s Jacob Pramuk writes .
It 's worth noting , though , that on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t proudly defending his record or his past willingness to consider cuts as part of efforts to forge difficult compromises for the sake of what he in the past likely would have called fiscal responsibility .
“ For the vast majority of his career , Biden has been a deficit hawk who ’ s willing to sacrifice Social Security and Medicare benefits for the sake of achieving smaller budget gaps.
, ” Vox ’ s Matthew Yglesias writes .
“ He ’ s even bragged about it to establish a rhetorical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlike some Biden-related controversies , this isn ’ t ancient history .
It ’ s a position Biden maintained as Barack Obama ’ s vice president — and that Sanders and Warren fought against.
” Biden may be running , in large part , on a ( questionable ) promise of being able to restore some sense of bipartisanship to a country that ’ s as polarized as it ’ s ever been in recent history .
But he has responded to the attacks from Sanders by insisting he ’ d protect and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he ’ d be the best person to tackle a looming Social Security crisis by hammering out another bipartisan grand bargain .
That ’ s an indication of how far the debates over Social Security and the federal budget deficit have shifted , even as the Social Security trust funds are projected to be depleted by 2035 and the deficit is rising above $ 1 trillion — and it ’ s a sign that Biden ’ s previous positions now represent a political vulnerability .
As Slate ’ s Jordan Weissmann writes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put popular entitlements on the table could be a serious political liability in a race against Donald Trump , who has repeatedly promised not to cut Social Security benefits for the elderly.
” On the other hand , Trump has expressed an openness to making entitlement cuts in his second term , which could change the poilitical calculus .

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders continue to trade shots over Social Security.
On Tuesday night, Sanders tweeted out an ad featuring an audio clip from a 1995 Biden Senate speech in which the future vice president touts his efforts to balance the federal budget: “When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.”
The Sanders spot then cuts to the Vermont senator promising at a campaign rally to expand Social Security benefits.
“Let's be honest, Joe. One of us fought for decades to cut Social Security, and one of us didn't. But don't take it from me. Take it from you," Sanders said in his tweet.
Biden on Wednesday was asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” whether he would cut Social Security benefits if he becomes president.
“No, no, no, no,” he said. “And we weren’t talking about cutting them either then.”
He went on to accuse the Sanders camp of taking his past statements about Social Security out of context. "My support for Social Security has been solid my entire career," Biden said. "I did join with a lot of other Democrats to make sure we ‘fix Social Security,’ made it solvent during the Reagan years."
In an ad released Tuesday night, Biden’s team had accused Sanders of unleashing false negative attacks — in particular, a Sanders campaign charge that alleged Biden had supported Paul Ryan’s proposed cuts to Social Security. "As Democrats, we can't launch dishonest attacks against fellow Democrats," the ad said. "Bernie's campaign is not telling the truth."
Biden’s ad points out that the former vice president fought attempts to privatize Social Security and proposes to expand the program and increase benefits if he wins the White House. “I've been fighting to protect — and expand — Social Security for my whole career,” Biden said in a tweet. “Any suggestion otherwise is just flat-out wrong.”
In response, Sanders’ campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, said in a statement: “Joe Biden just released the first negative ad of the 2020 Democratic primary, and let’s be clear about why: he’s trying to distort his decades-long record of proposing and voting for cuts to Social Security benefits for millions of people. Joe Biden is no defender of Social Security, and a negative ad won’t help him outrun his record.”
Why it matters: “The disagreement touches on one of the core questions of the Democratic primary: whether voters support a candidate like Sanders who wants a vast expansion of the social safety net, or a candidate like Biden who warns about moving too quickly to boost benefits and about ballooning budget deficits,” CNBC’s Jacob Pramuk writes.
It's worth noting, though, that on the issue of Social Security, Biden isn’t proudly defending his record or his past willingness to consider cuts as part of efforts to forge difficult compromises for the sake of what he in the past likely would have called fiscal responsibility.
“For the vast majority of his career, Biden has been a deficit hawk who’s willing to sacrifice Social Security and Medicare benefits for the sake of achieving smaller budget gaps.,” Vox’s Matthew Yglesias writes. “He’s even bragged about it to establish a rhetorical contrast with Republican fiscal irresponsibility. And unlike some Biden-related controversies, this isn’t ancient history. It’s a position Biden maintained as Barack Obama’s vice president — and that Sanders and Warren fought against.”
Biden may be running, in large part, on a (questionable) promise of being able to restore some sense of bipartisanship to a country that’s as polarized as it’s ever been in recent history. But he has responded to the attacks from Sanders by insisting he’d protect and expand Social Security — not by saying that he’d be the best person to tackle a looming Social Security crisis by hammering out another bipartisan grand bargain.
That’s an indication of how far the debates over Social Security and the federal budget deficit have shifted, even as the Social Security trust funds are projected to be depleted by 2035 and the deficit is rising above $1 trillion — and it’s a sign that Biden’s previous positions now represent a political vulnerability. As Slate’s Jordan Weissmann writes, “Biden’s past willingness to put popular entitlements on the table could be a serious political liability in a race against Donald Trump, who has repeatedly promised not to cut Social Security benefits for the elderly.”
On the other hand, Trump has expressed an openness to making entitlement cuts in his second term, which could change the poilitical calculus.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-27--Trump Team Scrambling to Finish Drug Pricing Rule: Report

Frustrated by polling data showing that voters trust Democrats more on the issue of health care , President Trump reportedly lashed out earlier this month at Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar .
That has led Azar to scramble to pull together details of a plan tying U.S. drug prices to a benchmark of prices in other developed countries , Politico ’ s Sarah Karlin-Smith and Adam Cancryn reported late Friday : “ There had been internal disagreement among Azar and other key health officials like White House Domestic Policy Council Director Joe Grogan over whether to release the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted , or keep it for leverage as Congress keeps working on drug pricing , as Grogan has argued .
Trump ’ s insistence on an imminent win helped bring the dueling parties together around issuing the rule .
… But the administration has little ability to speed up the pace of federal rulemaking .
That means even under the most favorable circumstances , the administration won ’ t be able to demonstrate any real change to consumers for years.
” The pharmaceutical industry strongly opposes the idea of an international price index @ @ @ @ @ @ @ object to what they see as government price controls .
Republicans have also been wary of backing bipartisan legislation from Sens .
Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) and Ron Wyden ( D-OR ) , which the White House supports .
Working on a plan to cut insulin costs for seniors : On a related note , Axios ’ s Caitlin Owens and Jonathan Swan report that the Trump administration is working on a plan to lower out-of-pocket costs for seniors who require insulin , though the details thus far “ are unclear or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 588 out-of-pocket for insulin in 2016 , or almost double what they paid in 2007 , according to Axios .
But Owens and Swan add that , “ Lowering patients ' out-of-pocket spending probably would n't lower the actual cost of the drug , meaning that it 'd get shifted onto taxpayers .
”

Frustrated by polling data showing that voters trust Democrats more on the issue of health care, President Trump reportedly lashed out earlier this month at Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. That has led Azar to scramble to pull together details of a plan tying U.S. drug prices to a benchmark of prices in other developed countries, Politico’s Sarah Karlin-Smith and Adam Cancryn reported late Friday:
“There had been internal disagreement among Azar and other key health officials like White House Domestic Policy Council Director Joe Grogan over whether to release the rule on international benchmarking, as Azar wanted, or keep it for leverage as Congress keeps working on drug pricing, as Grogan has argued. Trump’s insistence on an imminent win helped bring the dueling parties together around issuing the rule. … But the administration has little ability to speed up the pace of federal rulemaking. That means even under the most favorable circumstances, the administration won’t be able to demonstrate any real change to consumers for years.”
The pharmaceutical industry strongly opposes the idea of an international price index, as do many Republicans, who object to what they see as government price controls. Republicans have also been wary of backing bipartisan legislation from Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), which the White House supports.
Working on a plan to cut insulin costs for seniors: On a related note, Axios’s Caitlin Owens and Jonathan Swan report that the Trump administration is working on a plan to lower out-of-pocket costs for seniors who require insulin, though the details thus far “are unclear or undecided.”
Seniors spent an average of $588 out-of-pocket for insulin in 2016, or almost double what they paid in 2007, according to Axios. But Owens and Swan add that, “Lowering patients' out-of-pocket spending probably wouldn't lower the actual cost of the drug, meaning that it'd get shifted onto taxpayers.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-27--How 6 States Achieved Near Universal Health Coverage

A half-dozen states and the District of Columbia have health care insurance rates of over 95 % , achieving near-universal coverage .
Three researchers at the University of Pennsylvania — including Ezekiel Emanuel , a key architect of Obamacare — said Monday that the Affordable Care Act has everything to do with those results .
Here ’ s how the states achieved such high insurance rates , according to the authors : • Expanding Medicaid : States that expanded their Medicaid programs as allowed under the ACA had about half the uninsured rate ( 6.6 % ) in 2018 as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12.4 % ) .
“ Nearly 5 million people would gain health insurance if the remaining 14 states expanded Medicaid , ” they write .
• Extending enrollment periods : High-coverage states countered the Trump administration ’ s efforts to shorten enrollment periods and reduce informational assistance .
• Lowering premiums : States enacted additional subsidies and reinsurance programs to keep premiums low , a crucial factor in maintaining insurance coverage from year to year .
• Simplifying options : Some states limited the number of options available to counteract “ choice overload @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumer paralysis .
• Maintaining individual mandates : Five low uninsured states maintain some kind of individual and employer mandates , which may help persuade healthy people to sign up .
The lesson , the authors say , is that near-universal health coverage can be achieved without national legislation .
“ While it is easy to dismiss the ACA and focus on the promise of Medicare for All , there is a more straightforward path to universal coverage , ” they write , “ adopting a handful of relatively simple policies and programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance coverage for nearly all Americans.
” Read the full analysis of “ Obamacare ’ s Secret Success ” at Politico .

A half-dozen states and the District of Columbia have health care insurance rates of over 95%, achieving near-universal coverage. Three researchers at the University of Pennsylvania — including Ezekiel Emanuel, a key architect of Obamacare — said Monday that the Affordable Care Act has everything to do with those results.
Here’s how the states achieved such high insurance rates, according to the authors:
Expanding Medicaid: States that expanded their Medicaid programs as allowed under the ACA had about half the uninsured rate (6.6%) in 2018 as states that did not do so (12.4%). “Nearly 5 million people would gain health insurance if the remaining 14 states expanded Medicaid,” they write.
States that expanded their Medicaid programs as allowed under the ACA had about half the uninsured rate (6.6%) in 2018 as states that did not do so (12.4%). “Nearly 5 million people would gain health insurance if the remaining 14 states expanded Medicaid,” they write. Extending enrollment periods: High-coverage states countered the Trump administration’s efforts to shorten enrollment periods and reduce informational assistance.
High-coverage states countered the Trump administration’s efforts to shorten enrollment periods and reduce informational assistance. Lowering premiums: States enacted additional subsidies and reinsurance programs to keep premiums low, a crucial factor in maintaining insurance coverage from year to year.
States enacted additional subsidies and reinsurance programs to keep premiums low, a crucial factor in maintaining insurance coverage from year to year. Simplifying options: Some states limited the number of options available to counteract “choice overload,” which can reduce signups through consumer paralysis.
Some states limited the number of options available to counteract “choice overload,” which can reduce signups through consumer paralysis. Maintaining individual mandates: Five low uninsured states maintain some kind of individual and employer mandates, which may help persuade healthy people to sign up.
The lesson, the authors say, is that near-universal health coverage can be achieved without national legislation. “While it is easy to dismiss the ACA and focus on the promise of Medicare for All, there is a more straightforward path to universal coverage,” they write, “adopting a handful of relatively simple policies and programs at the state level can ensure health insurance coverage for nearly all Americans.”
Read the full analysis of “Obamacare’s Secret Success” at Politico.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-24--The Trouble Ahead for Federal Trust Funds

The aggregate balance of the hundreds of federal trust funds and other dedicated funds will start declining in two years , according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office .
Republican Senators Mike Enzi ( WY ) and Mike Braun ( IN ) asked the GAO to review the status of the funds that support Social Security , Medicare , flood insurance , and many other programs , and the results were published this week .
It ’ s a large and complex topic , as this passage from the GAO report makes clear : “ Hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in whole or in part by a trust fund or other dedicated fund .
Our analysis of OMB ’ s budget data shows 398 active federal trust funds and other dedicated funds in fiscal year 2018 .
Non-revolving trust funds and special funds make up the greatest number of these types of accounts and also hold the greatest total balances.
” Overall , the balances in the trust funds increased between 2014 and 2018 , the GAO found , but the aggregate balance will begin to fall in 2022 , with decreases in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Insurance funds leading the way ( see the chart below ) .
The overall balance is particularly sensitive to Social Security , which has the largest trust funds by far , totaling $ 2.9 trillion in fiscal year 2018 .
The report calculated depletion dates for some trust funds , including : • By 2022 , the Highway Trust Fund will be depleted .
Projected revenues will fall short of obligations .
• By 2025 , the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation multiemployer trust fund will be depleted .
Projected revenues will fall short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted .
Projected revenues will cover 89 % of scheduled benefits .
• By 2034 , the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted .
Projected revenues will cover 77 % of scheduled benefits .
• By 2052 , the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted .
Projected revenues will cover 91 % of scheduled benefits .
Lawmakers have several options available when trust funds run out , though each may have different legal requirements to enact .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ revenues to cover any shortfalls , though this may involve additional borrowing ; they can reduce outlays ; they can transfer dedicated funds from other programs ; or they can generate new revenues through taxes and levies .
“ Program sustainability is ultimately determined by whether the government as a whole has the economic capacity to finance the claims on the trust funds at the cost of other competing priorities , ” GAO said .
In a statement accompanying the release of the report , Enzi called on lawmakers to address the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a bipartisan manner to safeguard these programs to ensure they are able to provide for those who need them now , and in the future .
”

The aggregate balance of the hundreds of federal trust funds and other dedicated funds will start declining in two years, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.
Republican Senators Mike Enzi (WY) and Mike Braun (IN) asked the GAO to review the status of the funds that support Social Security, Medicare, flood insurance, and many other programs, and the results were published this week.
It’s a large and complex topic, as this passage from the GAO report makes clear:
“Hundreds of programs across the federal government are supported in whole or in part by a trust fund or other dedicated fund. Our analysis of OMB’s budget data shows 398 active federal trust funds and other dedicated funds in fiscal year 2018. Non-revolving trust funds and special funds make up the greatest number of these types of accounts and also hold the greatest total balances.”
Overall, the balances in the trust funds increased between 2014 and 2018, the GAO found, but the aggregate balance will begin to fall in 2022, with decreases in the Social Security and the Medicare Hospital Insurance funds leading the way (see the chart below). The overall balance is particularly sensitive to Social Security, which has the largest trust funds by far, totaling $2.9 trillion in fiscal year 2018.
The report calculated depletion dates for some trust funds, including:
By 2022, the Highway Trust Fund will be depleted. Projected revenues will fall short of obligations.
will be depleted. Projected revenues will fall short of obligations. By 2025, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation multiemployer trust fund will be depleted. Projected revenues will fall short of obligations.
will be depleted. Projected revenues will fall short of obligations. By 2026, the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted. Projected revenues will cover 89% of scheduled benefits.
will be depleted. Projected revenues will cover 89% of scheduled benefits. By 2034, the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted. Projected revenues will cover 77% of scheduled benefits.
will be depleted. Projected revenues will cover 77% of scheduled benefits. By 2052, the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted. Projected revenues will cover 91% of scheduled benefits.
Lawmakers have several options available when trust funds run out, though each may have different legal requirements to enact. In general, they can use general revenues to cover any shortfalls, though this may involve additional borrowing; they can reduce outlays; they can transfer dedicated funds from other programs; or they can generate new revenues through taxes and levies.
“Program sustainability is ultimately determined by whether the government as a whole has the economic capacity to finance the claims on the trust funds at the cost of other competing priorities,” GAO said.
In a statement accompanying the release of the report, Enzi called on lawmakers to address the issue: “Congress will need to work in a bipartisan manner to safeguard these programs to ensure they are able to provide for those who need them now, and in the future.”
Read the full GAO report here.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-24--One Democrat's Health Plan Will Save the Government Money: Report

What would the health care proposals of the Democratic presidential contenders mean for the federal budget ?
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is out with an in-depth analysis of the plans from four leading candidates : Joe Biden , Pete Buttigieg , Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren .
The analysis provides a reminder that health care is the single largest part of the federal budget and a key driver of the national debt .
As such , the budget watchdog group focuses on the potential fiscal impacts of the candidates ’ plans more than on the coverage gains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total national health care spending — and it finds that the plans from three of the four could balloon the federal deficit by hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars .
“ To the extent that any of these plans are deficit-financed or the offsets are not fully specified , they impose a hidden burden that would not be captured in a traditional distributional analysis , ” the report notes .
But , as you ’ ll see , the analysis also provides a reminder that health care is complicated — who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible outcomes for the federal budget is extremely broad .
Sanders ’ Medicare-for-All proposal carries the highest cost to the federal budget , while Buttigieg ’ s `` Medicare for All Who Want It '' proposal might save $ 450 billion over 10 years , based on CRFB ’ s midpoint estimates .
But the potential budgetary effects vary considerably depending on the assumptions made .
Sanders ’ plan , for example , could add anywhere from $ 8.8 trillion to $ 19.5 trillion to federal deficits over 10 years , CRFB estimates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , might decrease deficits by $ 1.2 trillion — or increase them by $ 11.2 trillion .
“ Overall , we expect some households in every income group to be better off and some to be worse off under each of the plans we analyzed , ” the analysis says .
“ On net , however , each plan would significantly increase the progressivity of federal fiscal policy .
This is especially true of the two Medicare for All plans , since they will nearly eliminate premiums and out-of-pocket health spending in favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The new analysis doesn ’ t ignore the other implications of the candidates plans , including how many more people would be covered .
Sanders ’ and Warren ’ s Medicare-for-All proposals would deliver the greatest increases in coverage : And on the critical question of total national health expenditures — the total amount spent by individuals , groups , governments and private and public organizations — CRFB notes that the potential effects of all of the plans are rather uncertain , especially for the Biden and Buttigieg proposals .
Again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumptions made .
Warren ’ s plan , for example , might cut total spending by 4 % or raise it by 11 % .
“ For Medicare for All plans especially , higher federal costs would be largely offset by lower household costs , leading total health costs to rise much less than federal spending , ” the report notes .
“ Even so , scholars at the Urban Institute has estimated that the version of Medicare for All they analyzed would increase national health expenditures by about 13 percent.
” Read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on each plan .

What would the health care proposals of the Democratic presidential contenders mean for the federal budget?
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is out with an in-depth analysis of the plans from four leading candidates: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
The analysis provides a reminder that health care is the single largest part of the federal budget and a key driver of the national debt. As such, the budget watchdog group focuses on the potential fiscal impacts of the candidates’ plans more than on the coverage gains they might provide or their effects on total national health care spending — and it finds that the plans from three of the four could balloon the federal deficit by hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars.
“To the extent that any of these plans are deficit-financed or the offsets are not fully specified, they impose a hidden burden that would not be captured in a traditional distributional analysis,” the report notes.
But, as you’ll see, the analysis also provides a reminder that health care is complicated — who knew? — and the range of possible outcomes for the federal budget is extremely broad.
The Cost Projections
Sanders’ Medicare-for-All proposal carries the highest cost to the federal budget, while Buttigieg’s "Medicare for All Who Want It" proposal might save $450 billion over 10 years, based on CRFB’s midpoint estimates.
But the potential budgetary effects vary considerably depending on the assumptions made. Sanders’ plan, for example, could add anywhere from $8.8 trillion to $19.5 trillion to federal deficits over 10 years, CRFB estimates. Warren’s plan, meanwhile, might decrease deficits by $1.2 trillion — or increase them by $11.2 trillion.
“Overall, we expect some households in every income group to be better off and some to be worse off under each of the plans we analyzed,” the analysis says. “On net, however, each plan would significantly increase the progressivity of federal fiscal policy. This is especially true of the two Medicare for All plans, since they will nearly eliminate premiums and out-of-pocket health spending in favor of a much more progressive tax regime.”
Other Plan Effects
The new analysis doesn’t ignore the other implications of the candidates plans, including how many more people would be covered. Sanders’ and Warren’s Medicare-for-All proposals would deliver the greatest increases in coverage:
And on the critical question of total national health expenditures — the total amount spent by individuals, groups, governments and private and public organizations — CRFB notes that the potential effects of all of the plans are rather uncertain, especially for the Biden and Buttigieg proposals. Again, the results very widely depending on the assumptions made. Warren’s plan, for example, might cut total spending by 4% or raise it by 11%.
“For Medicare for All plans especially, higher federal costs would be largely offset by lower household costs, leading total health costs to rise much less than federal spending,” the report notes. “Even so, scholars at the Urban Institute has estimated that the version of Medicare for All they analyzed would increase national health expenditures by about 13 percent.”
Read the full CRFB report for more details on each plan.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-28--California Reopens the Single-Payer Debate

The Democrat campaigned hard for the creation of one public insurance program for all Californians .
And within hours of taking office last year , he called on the federal government to allow California and other states to create single-payer programs .
On Monday , some of the biggest names in California health care policy are convening in Sacramento to fulfill that promise .
Those who hope this meeting could lead to the end of private insurance and the creation of a state-based “ Medicare for All ” -type system should probably temper their expectations .
“ The goal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ momentum without making any firm policy commitments , ” said Thad Kousser , chair of the political science department at the University of California-San Diego .
Newsom ’ s Healthy California for All Commission , which will gather near the Capitol for its inaugural meeting , is made up of 13 people from universities , nonprofit organizations , hospitals and advocacy groups .
The commission will discuss how to get every Californian covered — with an emphasis on single-payer , a system in which health care is paid for by a single public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single-payer is unlikely to materialize anytime soon , given the Trump administration ’ s opposition to the concept and the exorbitant cost of completely overhauling the health care system .
Perhaps most important , members of the commission don ’ t agree on what the commission should accomplish .
Single-payer “ is one of the key places to look , but not the only place , ” said California Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly .
Newsom ’ s office , which declined to comment on the commission , directed questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panel .
But there will be powerful voices on the commission that are firmly committed to creating a single-payer system for the state .
Stephanie Roberson , the government relations director for the California Nurses Association , won ’ t be on the commission herself , but her union will have a representative on the panel .
The union is a loud and insistent advocate for single-payer .
“ There is absolutely universal concern across this organization that this commission could be used to slow-walk single-payer , ” Roberson said .
“ More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a study or a commission and no one ever hears about it again.
” The commission plans to issue two public reports , one in July 2020 and the other in February 2021 .
The first will detail the current state of health care coverage in California and the second will explain the nuts and bolts of how to get a single-payer system up and running .
For the single-payer advocates on the commission , these questions have already been asked and answered .
A 2017 special legislative committee investigated single-payer in California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s uninsured population that outlined several options for covering them , such as how to implement and pay for single-payer .
Much of that work is now being repeated .
The state of California awarded a $ 2.5 million contract to a group from the University of California to conduct research and analysis for the new commission and draft its reports .
These are the same people who wrote the last report for the legislative committee .
But Deborah Kelch , executive director of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Insure the Uninsured Project , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today ’ s reality .
“ Those all predate our current coverage landscape , so it ’ s a good time for policymakers and a commission like this one to really take a look at what ’ s true now , ” she said .
No one thinks single-payer would be cheap or easy to implement , and estimates vary on how much it would cost .
A 2017 legislative estimate put the price tag for California at around $ 400 billion annually .
A newer analysis released in mid-January focused instead on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems would outweigh the costs .
Whatever the commission decides to do , one huge hurdle to get single-payer up and running in the state remains : President Donald Trump .
Seema Verma , head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services , said she would reject any state plans to use federal dollars to implement a single-payer system .
But the hostility from the federal government doesn ’ t mean the commission ’ s work is meaningless , said Scott Graves , director of research for the California Budget & Policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the commission time to get a single-payer plan ready for a different president , he said .
“ If we decide as a state that we really want to move towards a single-payer health care financing system , we will have done our homework , ” Graves said .
Dr. Robert Ross , president and CEO of the California Endowment , a foundation that focuses on expanding health care access among Californians , sees a path forward whether Trump wins or loses in November .
Ross , a member of the commission , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all options to get the remaining 7.2 % of uninsured Californians covered , not just single-payer .
For instance , California has expanded Medi-Cal eligibility to people who are in the country illegally , and created state-based subsidies to help people buy private insurance .
“ I ’ m sure there are others on the commission resolutely focused on single-payer , ” he said .
“ That ’ s fine .
We should have that conversation and that debate within the boundaries of the commission ’ s work.
” Jennifer Kent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Care Services , said it ’ s vital to continue the process of debates , research and public meetings .
They will bring in more people to work out the thorny details of what could be a massive overhaul of the health care system , she said .
“ Democracy is messy , ” said Kent , who is now a health care consultant .
“ The people who say we already know what the answer is — if we knew what the answer is , it would have been done already @ @

California Gov. Gavin Newsom was a single-payer candidate.
The Democrat campaigned hard for the creation of one public insurance program for all Californians. And within hours of taking office last year, he called on the federal government to allow California and other states to create single-payer programs.
On Monday, some of the biggest names in California health care policy are convening in Sacramento to fulfill that promise.
Or not.
Those who hope this meeting could lead to the end of private insurance and the creation of a state-based “Medicare for All”-type system should probably temper their expectations.
“The goal of this commission is likely to demonstrate political momentum without making any firm policy commitments,” said Thad Kousser, chair of the political science department at the University of California-San Diego.
Newsom’s Healthy California for All Commission, which will gather near the Capitol for its inaugural meeting, is made up of 13 people from universities, nonprofit organizations, hospitals and advocacy groups.
The commission will discuss how to get every Californian covered — with an emphasis on single-payer, a system in which health care is paid for by a single public authority.
But the reality is that single-payer is unlikely to materialize anytime soon, given the Trump administration’s opposition to the concept and the exorbitant cost of completely overhauling the health care system.
Perhaps most important, members of the commission don’t agree on what the commission should accomplish.
Single-payer “is one of the key places to look, but not the only place,” said California Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly. Newsom’s office, which declined to comment on the commission, directed questions to Ghaly, who will chair the panel.
But there will be powerful voices on the commission that are firmly committed to creating a single-payer system for the state.
Stephanie Roberson, the government relations director for the California Nurses Association, won’t be on the commission herself, but her union will have a representative on the panel. The union is a loud and insistent advocate for single-payer.
“There is absolutely universal concern across this organization that this commission could be used to slow-walk single-payer,” Roberson said. “More often than not, a bill becomes a study or a commission and no one ever hears about it again.”
The commission plans to issue two public reports, one in July 2020 and the other in February 2021. The first will detail the current state of health care coverage in California and the second will explain the nuts and bolts of how to get a single-payer system up and running.
For the single-payer advocates on the commission, these questions have already been asked and answered.
A 2017 special legislative committee investigated single-payer in California and issued a report on California’s uninsured population that outlined several options for covering them, such as how to implement and pay for single-payer.
Much of that work is now being repeated. The state of California awarded a $2.5 million contract to a group from the University of California to conduct research and analysis for the new commission and draft its reports. These are the same people who wrote the last report for the legislative committee.
But Deborah Kelch, executive director of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Insure the Uninsured Project, said the older findings might not reflect today’s reality.
“Those all predate our current coverage landscape, so it’s a good time for policymakers and a commission like this one to really take a look at what’s true now,” she said.
No one thinks single-payer would be cheap or easy to implement, and estimates vary on how much it would cost. A 2017 legislative estimate put the price tag for California at around $400 billion annually. A newer analysis released in mid-January focused instead on savings and concluded that savings from single-payer systems would outweigh the costs.
Whatever the commission decides to do, one huge hurdle to get single-payer up and running in the state remains: President Donald Trump.
Seema Verma, head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said she would reject any state plans to use federal dollars to implement a single-payer system.
But the hostility from the federal government doesn’t mean the commission’s work is meaningless, said Scott Graves, director of research for the California Budget & Policy Center. Instead, it could give the commission time to get a single-payer plan ready for a different president, he said.
“If we decide as a state that we really want to move towards a single-payer health care financing system, we will have done our homework,” Graves said.
Dr. Robert Ross, president and CEO of the California Endowment, a foundation that focuses on expanding health care access among Californians, sees a path forward whether Trump wins or loses in November.
Ross, a member of the commission, said he’s willing to look at all options to get the remaining 7.2% of uninsured Californians covered, not just single-payer. For instance, California has expanded Medi-Cal eligibility to people who are in the country illegally, and created state-based subsidies to help people buy private insurance.
“I’m sure there are others on the commission resolutely focused on single-payer,” he said. “That’s fine. We should have that conversation and that debate within the boundaries of the commission’s work.”
Jennifer Kent, former director of the state Department of Health Care Services, said it’s vital to continue the process of debates, research and public meetings. They will bring in more people to work out the thorny details of what could be a massive overhaul of the health care system, she said.
“Democracy is messy,” said Kent, who is now a health care consultant. “The people who say we already know what the answer is — if we knew what the answer is, it would have been done already.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-27--Supreme Court Backs Trump’s Wealth Test for Immigrants

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 Monday to allow the Trump administration to start enforcing a new rule designed to screen out immigrants at risk of becoming “ public charges.
” The rule , which was scheduled to take effect last October before being halted by a federal judge , will make it more difficult for immigrants to obtain citizenship or residency if they have used food stamps , housing assistance , Medicaid or other public benefits — or if , in the judgment of immigration officials , they are likely to do so in the future .
Any immigrant who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 12 months in a 36-month period would be ineligible for residency or entry into the country .
Immigrants will have to demonstrate that they have sufficient financial resources to keep them from using such benefits in the future .
In evaluating immigrants ’ financial status , Department of Homeland Security officials will consider a variety of factors , including wealth , age , health , education , language skills and even credit scores .
A more stringent standard : While restrictive rules about “ public charges ” date to the 19th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residency or citizenship only when they have relied on cash benefits from the government as their primary source of income .
Critics say the new standard is too severe , and a federal judge in New York described it as “ repugnant to the American dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility.
” But the Supreme Court appeared to agree with the administration ’ s claim that the rule “ represents a reasonable and lawful exercise of the substantial discretion Congress has long vested in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” What ’ s next : The ruling reverses a lower court injunction halting enforcement of the new standard ( except in Illinois , which is involved in separate litigation ) , but challenges to the legality of the rule continue , and the case could again land before the Supreme Court in the coming months .

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 Monday to allow the Trump administration to start enforcing a new rule designed to screen out immigrants at risk of becoming “public charges.”
The rule, which was scheduled to take effect last October before being halted by a federal judge, will make it more difficult for immigrants to obtain citizenship or residency if they have used food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid or other public benefits — or if, in the judgment of immigration officials, they are likely to do so in the future.
Any immigrant who has used one or more benefits for more than 12 months in a 36-month period would be ineligible for residency or entry into the country. Immigrants will have to demonstrate that they have sufficient financial resources to keep them from using such benefits in the future. In evaluating immigrants’ financial status, Department of Homeland Security officials will consider a variety of factors, including wealth, age, health, education, language skills and even credit scores.
A more stringent standard: While restrictive rules about “public charges” date to the 19th century, immigrants have typically been denied residency or citizenship only when they have relied on cash benefits from the government as their primary source of income. Critics say the new standard is too severe, and a federal judge in New York described it as “repugnant to the American dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility.” But the Supreme Court appeared to agree with the administration’s claim that the rule “represents a reasonable and lawful exercise of the substantial discretion Congress has long vested in the executive branch to make public-charge admissibility determinations.”
What’s next: The ruling reverses a lower court injunction halting enforcement of the new standard (except in Illinois, which is involved in separate litigation), but challenges to the legality of the rule continue, and the case could again land before the Supreme Court in the coming months.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-29--House Democrats Roll Out 5-Year, $760 Billion Infrastructure Plan

House Democratic leaders on Wednesday unveiled the framework for a $ 760 billion , five-year package that aims to rebuild U.S. infrastructure and cut carbon pollution but does not yet provide specifics about how to pay for the proposed spending .
The plan calls for investments in roads , bridges , rail and transit systems , airports , ports and harbors , water infrastructure , electric grids , broadband internet access and “ brownfields , ” or land that may have been contaminated by previous industrial use .
“ It ’ s past time to for transformational investments to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resilient to climate change , or else we will keep throwing money at an antiquated system that is only holding us and our economy back , ” Rep. Peter DeFazio ( D-OR ) , chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee , said .
• $ 329 billion on surface transportation to modernize the nation ’ s highways , including an emphasis on fixing the 47,000 structurally deficient U.S. bridges ; • $ 105 billion on public transit improvement and expansion and $ 55 billion on railways ; • $ 50.5 billion on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25.4 billion to protect drinking water ; The plan differs significantly from the Trump administration ’ s proposed infrastructure plan , both in its emphasis on climate change and in its overall structure .
The Trump plan , announced nearly two years ago , called for spending $ 200 billion in federal money over a decade as a way to encourage infrastructure spending at other levels of government and in the private sector .
But the Trump plan failed to gain any traction on Capitol Hill as the administration focused first on tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Reviving negotiations with the White House : “ The proposal is intended to get U.S. President Donald Trump to return to the bargaining table , ” Reuters ’ David Shepardson says .
Last year , Trump and Democratic leaders agreed in principle to spend $ 2 trillion in infrastructure , but they did not work out how to pay for it , and talks broke down after Trump lashed out about investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 elections .
The funding question still looms large : `` This is a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' House Speaker Pelosi said .
`` We have to find the funding for it . ''
But the question of funding has always been a point of contention when it comes to infrastructure .
“ Paying for any massive infrastructure initiative is always a tricky issue , especially considering that the simplest option — a hike to the gasoline tax , which has n't been raised since 1993 — has been a political non-starter for most lawmakers in both parties , ” Wolfe writes .
Democrats will look to reach a deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay for their plan .
Not happening any time soon : Pelosi did not lay out any timeframe for a House vote on legislation built on this framework .
`` We 'll go to the floor when we 're ready , '' she reportedly said .
“ We 're not talking about next week.
” Lawmakers face a September 30 deadline to reauthorize a five-year highway spending bill .

House Democratic leaders on Wednesday unveiled the framework for a $760 billion, five-year package that aims to rebuild U.S. infrastructure and cut carbon pollution but does not yet provide specifics about how to pay for the proposed spending.
The plan calls for investments in roads, bridges, rail and transit systems, airports, ports and harbors, water infrastructure, electric grids, broadband internet access and “brownfields,” or land that may have been contaminated by previous industrial use.
“It’s past time to for transformational investments to make our infrastructure smarter, safer, and resilient to climate change, or else we will keep throwing money at an antiquated system that is only holding us and our economy back,” Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said.
The Democratic plan proposes to spend:
$329 billion on surface transportation to modernize the nation’s highways, including an emphasis on fixing the 47,000 structurally deficient U.S. bridges;
$105 billion on public transit improvement and expansion and $55 billion on railways;
$86 billion to expand broadband access;
$50.5 billion on clean water and wastewater infrastructure and $25.4 billion to protect drinking water;
$30 billion on airports and air travel modernization.
The plan differs significantly from the Trump administration’s proposed infrastructure plan, both in its emphasis on climate change and in its overall structure. The Trump plan, announced nearly two years ago, called for spending $200 billion in federal money over a decade as a way to encourage infrastructure spending at other levels of government and in the private sector. But the Trump plan failed to gain any traction on Capitol Hill as the administration focused first on tax cuts and an attempt to repeal Obamacare.
Reviving negotiations with the White House: “The proposal is intended to get U.S. President Donald Trump to return to the bargaining table,” Reuters’ David Shepardson says. Last year, Trump and Democratic leaders agreed in principle to spend $2 trillion in infrastructure, but they did not work out how to pay for it, and talks broke down after Trump lashed out about investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
The funding question still looms large: "This is a big step, and a major expense," House Speaker Pelosi said. "We have to find the funding for it." But the question of funding has always been a point of contention when it comes to infrastructure. “Paying for any massive infrastructure initiative is always a tricky issue, especially considering that the simplest option — a hike to the gasoline tax, which hasn't been raised since 1993 — has been a political non-starter for most lawmakers in both parties,” Wolfe writes. Democrats will look to reach a deal with the White House before discussing how to pay for their plan.
Not happening any time soon: Pelosi did not lay out any timeframe for a House vote on legislation built on this framework. "We'll go to the floor when we're ready," she reportedly said. “We're not talking about next week.” Lawmakers face a September 30 deadline to reauthorize a five-year highway spending bill.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-28--Budget Deficit to Top $1 Trillion a Year for Next Decade: CBO

The U.S. budget deficit is expected to top $ 1 trillion in fiscal year 2020 and remain above that level indefinitely , lifting the national debt over the next decade to its highest level since World War II , the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday in its annual report on the nation ’ s fiscal and economic outlook .
CBO expects the deficit will rise from just over $ 1 trillion this year to more than $ 1.7 trillion in 10 years , averaging $ 1.3 trillion from 2021 through 2030 .
As a share of gross domestic product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 4.3 % next year to 5.4 % in 2030 .
“ Not since World War II has the country seen deficits during times of low unemployment that are as large as those that we project—nor , in the past century , has it experienced large deficits for as long as we project , ” CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel said in a statement accompanying the report .
Swagel called the budget outlook “ challenging ” and “ worrisome.
” As a result of the continuing deficits , the debt held by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today , or 80 % of GDP , to $ 31.4 trillion , or 98 % of GDP , by 2030 .
“ The long-term projections for the debt are higher than they were last year because the federal government 's revenues are expected to decrease and spending is expected to increase due to legislation enacted by Congress in 2019 , ” the Washington Examiner ’ s Nihal Krishan explains .
The deficit is rising despite healthy economic growth : The economy is in its 11th year of expansion , and CBO expects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % this year , up 0.1 percentage point from its August estimate ( but shy of the Trump administration ’ s 3 % annual target ) .
While deficits typically shrink during periods of prolonged economic growth , the budget shortfall has surged as the result of the 2017 Republican tax law and a series of spending increases passed by Congress and signed by President Trump .
And CBO expects economic growth to slow to an average annual rate of 1.7 % from 2021 through 2030 .
What ’ s widening the budget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deficit is due to recent tax cuts and spending increases .
Revenues are weaker than they would be without the 2017 tax overhaul , and federal spending is projected to grow faster than tax receipts , driven by increased spending for mandatory programs and interest payments on the debt , which CBO expects to rise as the government continues to borrow and interest rates eventually move higher .
Spending for Medicare is expected to rise from $ 835 billion this year to more than $ 1.7 trillion by 2030 , while outlays for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just under $ 1.1 trillion to more than $ 1.9 trillion .
Brian Riedl , a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute , points out that the annual shortfall for Social Security and Medicare benefits payments will rise from $ 440 billion to nearly $ 1.9 trillion .
“ That 's the ballgame , ” he tweeted .
And deficits could be higher than CBO forecasts : The projections assume Congress will allow some of the 2017 tax cuts to expire as scheduled after 2025 .
If Congress extends the individual tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do , the deficits and debt would be larger than CBO projects .
Low interest rates buy the government some time : Lower-than-expected rates have thus far served to provide some fiscal breathing room , as interest cost come in lower than projected .
“ Since CBO ’ s last budget forecast in August 2019 , projected interest costs have declined by $ 441 billion over a decade , reflecting rates that are 0.3 percentage point below the previous estimate , ” The Wall Street Journal ’ s Richard Rubin writes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ gains , he explains : “ loss of revenue from tax cuts enacted in December 2019 exceeded those savings , and CBO now projects budget deficits to be 1.3 % larger than it did in August.
” Still , low rates may make addressing the short-term deficit picture less urgent .
“ To be sure , interest rates remain low today , suggesting that there is time to address our fiscal challenges and that fiscal policy could be used as a tool to address other challenges facing the nation , if the Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says in his statement .
“ But our projections also suggest that over the long term , changes in fiscal policy must be made to address the budget situation , because our debt is growing on an unsustainable path.
” But the deficits aren ’ t being used to invest in the future : “ Trump is wasting these deficits , ” Robert C. Hockett , a Cornell University professor who has advised Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on economic policy , told The Washington Post .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Trump has used them to give tax cuts to billionaires , which does nothing to increase the well-being of the vast majority of Americans or improve the nation ’ s productivity .
”

The U.S. budget deficit is expected to top $1 trillion in fiscal year 2020 and remain above that level indefinitely, lifting the national debt over the next decade to its highest level since World War II, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday in its annual report on the nation’s fiscal and economic outlook.
CBO expects the deficit will rise from just over $1 trillion this year to more than $1.7 trillion in 10 years, averaging $1.3 trillion from 2021 through 2030.
As a share of gross domestic product, the deficit is projected to rise from 4.3% next year to 5.4% in 2030.
“Not since World War II has the country seen deficits during times of low unemployment that are as large as those that we project—nor, in the past century, has it experienced large deficits for as long as we project,” CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel said in a statement accompanying the report. Swagel called the budget outlook “challenging” and “worrisome.”
As a result of the continuing deficits, the debt held by the public will rise from $17.2 trillion today, or 80% of GDP, to $31.4 trillion, or 98% of GDP, by 2030. “The long-term projections for the debt are higher than they were last year because the federal government's revenues are expected to decrease and spending is expected to increase due to legislation enacted by Congress in 2019,” the Washington Examiner’s Nihal Krishan explains.
The deficit is rising despite healthy economic growth: The economy is in its 11th year of expansion, and CBO expects gross domestic product to grow by 2.2% this year, up 0.1 percentage point from its August estimate (but shy of the Trump administration’s 3% annual target). While deficits typically shrink during periods of prolonged economic growth, the budget shortfall has surged as the result of the 2017 Republican tax law and a series of spending increases passed by Congress and signed by President Trump. And CBO expects economic growth to slow to an average annual rate of 1.7% from 2021 through 2030.
What’s widening the budget gap: More than half the current deficit is due to recent tax cuts and spending increases. Revenues are weaker than they would be without the 2017 tax overhaul, and federal spending is projected to grow faster than tax receipts, driven by increased spending for mandatory programs and interest payments on the debt, which CBO expects to rise as the government continues to borrow and interest rates eventually move higher.
Spending for Medicare is expected to rise from $835 billion this year to more than $1.7 trillion by 2030, while outlays for Social Security are forecast to climb from just under $1.1 trillion to more than $1.9 trillion. Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, points out that the annual shortfall for Social Security and Medicare benefits payments will rise from $440 billion to nearly $1.9 trillion. “That's the ballgame,” he tweeted.
And deficits could be higher than CBO forecasts: The projections assume Congress will allow some of the 2017 tax cuts to expire as scheduled after 2025. If Congress extends the individual tax cuts, as it may be likely to do, the deficits and debt would be larger than CBO projects.
Low interest rates buy the government some time: Lower-than-expected rates have thus far served to provide some fiscal breathing room, as interest cost come in lower than projected. “Since CBO’s last budget forecast in August 2019, projected interest costs have declined by $441 billion over a decade, reflecting rates that are 0.3 percentage point below the previous estimate,” The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin writes. But lawmakers have more than offset those gains, he explains: “loss of revenue from tax cuts enacted in December 2019 exceeded those savings, and CBO now projects budget deficits to be 1.3% larger than it did in August.”
Still, low rates may make addressing the short-term deficit picture less urgent. “To be sure, interest rates remain low today, suggesting that there is time to address our fiscal challenges and that fiscal policy could be used as a tool to address other challenges facing the nation, if the Congress chose to do so,” Swagel says in his statement. “But our projections also suggest that over the long term, changes in fiscal policy must be made to address the budget situation, because our debt is growing on an unsustainable path.”
But the deficits aren’t being used to invest in the future: “Trump is wasting these deficits,” Robert C. Hockett, a Cornell University professor who has advised Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on economic policy, told The Washington Post. “It’s fine to engage in deficit spending, but Trump has used them to give tax cuts to billionaires, which does nothing to increase the well-being of the vast majority of Americans or improve the nation’s productivity.”