How Bureaucrats and Politicians Conspire to Rip Off Taxpayers | International Liberty

Dan Mitchell discusses a new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper entitled “Shrouded Costs of Government: The Political Economy of State and Local Public Pensions.”

….The politicians give the bureaucrats excessive compensation. But they make it difficult for taxpayers to figure out how they’re getting robbed by concentrating a big share of the excess in harder-to-measure fringe benefits.

Another advantage of that approach, by the way, is that the bill for all the retiree benefits doesn’t come due until some point in the future, by which time the politicians who put taxpayers on the hook often have retired or moved on to some other position.

Generous benefits for government employees are a neat way for politicians to avoid accountability. They do not appear in the budget and are a hidden liability of the government. For a start we need to prevent politicians from creating unfunded future liabilities not just for government employee benefits, but for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid funding. At present these are a hidden iceberg as they do not appear on the government balance sheet. It is too easy for politicians to kick the can down the road, failing to address any future funding shortfall. These unfunded future liabilities should be reflected on the balance sheet in order to improve accountability. If the actual liability is uncertain, then actuarial estimates can be used — in much the same way as used by insurance companies.

Read more at How Bureaucrats and Politicians Conspire to Rip Off Taxpayers | International Liberty.

Unintended consequences: Rewarding failure

Robert Shiller summarizes the arguments for raising taxes and increasing government spending at Project Syndicate:

……while that [austerity] approach to debt works well for a single household in trouble, it does not work well for an entire economy, for the spending cuts only worsen the problem. This is the paradox of thrift: belt-tightening causes people to lose their jobs, because other people are not buying what they produce, so their debt burden rises rather than falls.

There is a way out of this trap, but only if we tilt the discussion about how to lower the debt/GDP ratio away from austerity – higher taxes and lower spending – toward debt-friendly stimulus: increasing taxes even more and raising government expenditure in the same proportion. That way, the debt/GDP ratio declines because the denominator (economic output) increases, not because the numerator (the total the government has borrowed) declines.

What he does not consider, however, is the message we are sending to government. In much the same way as bailouts increase moral hazard — with too-big-to-fail institutions taking on bigger risks secure in the knowledge that the taxpayer will bail them out if the bets don’t pay off — we encourage bad behavior from politicians if we allow them to raise taxes and increase government spending every time they screw up the economy. Federal government spending in the US economy has grown from 12.5% of GDP in 1950 to nearly 25% of GDP today. Seems like they are getting the wrong message.

Federal Spending as % of GDP

That is like giving someone a promotion or a raise every time they mess up. When politicians fail, they need to get the right message — and not only at the next election. Cutting budgets when the economy is in recession is the right response, but how can we achieve this while saving the economy from a deflationary spiral?

The only way I can think of is to cut taxes and government expenditure, but encourage private investment in productive infrastructure through Treasury-backed low-interest or even interest-free development loans. These could be administered by an independently-elected infrastructure body with representatives from all parties. There are dangers, and the process would have to be closely monitored, but the risks are minor compared to rewarding failure.

Read more at Debt-Friendly Stimulus by Robert J. Shiller – Project Syndicate.

Clinton’s Spending Cuts—Not His Tax Hikes—Worked

EDWARD MORRISSEY writes about Clinton-era nostalgia:

In his eight years as President, Clinton reduced federal spending to 18.2 percent of GDP from 22.1 percent, thanks in large part to a Republican-controlled Congress that forced the issue……. Barack Obama managed to hike it 3.5 points in just one term, with 3.2 points going to non-defense spending. Under Obama, federal spending now exceeds 25 percent of GDP, and his has been the biggest increase of any of his predecessors over the last 60 years – even for two-term Presidents.The real debate over deficits isn’t over whether to go back to Clinton-era tax rates. It’s how to get back to Clinton-era spending levels, and then create a tax system that will adequately fund it. The 18.2 percent level of federal spending is one piece of Clinton-era nostalgia worth recalling – as well as the bipartisanship that eventually produced it.

Nostalgists should also remember that the housing bubble started in this era — as did the internet boom — followed by the dot-com bust just as Clinton left office. This article is definitely worth reading.

via Clinton’s Spending Cuts—Not His Tax Hikes—Worked.

Fiscal Cliff Is Just a Speed Bump on the Road to a Real Crisis | International Liberty

Dan Mitchell writes in the New York Post:

A lot of people get upset about the national debt, which is somewhere between $11 trillion and $16 trillion, depending on whether you include money the government owes itself. Those are big numbers — but if you add up the amount of money that the government is promising to spend for entitlement programs in the future and compare that figure to the amount of revenue that the government projects it will collect for those programs, the cumulative shortfall is more than $100 trillion. And that’s after adjusting for inflation. Some politicians claim this huge, baked-into-the-cake expansion of government isn’t a problem, because we can raise taxes. But that’s exactly what Europe’s welfare states tried — and it didn’t work. Simply stated, even huge tax hikes won’t stem the flow of red ink in the long run if government keeps growing faster than the private economy. This is the fiscal problem that demands attention. Absent real entitlement reform, such as block-granting Medicaid to the states, the burden of government spending will consume ever-larger shares of our economic output with each passing year.

via Explaining in the New York Post that the Fiscal Cliff Is Just a Speed Bump on the Road to a Real Crisis « International Liberty.

Polish Economy Defies Europe’s Woes – WSJ.com

Poland’s economy expanded robustly in the second quarter despite slowing growth in the euro zone, outpacing Central European peers more dependent on exports to Germany.

……Much of the strength in Poland’s domestic demand was the result of government spending on infrastructure, supported with European Union subsidies, which more than offset a slight slowdown in the rate of growth in private consumption.

via Polish Economy Defies Europe’s Woes – WSJ.com.