The Growth of Dependency on Government Threatens the Future of American Democracy
Author: Bill Beach
From virtually the first day of his presidency, Barack Obama and his top deputies have advanced programs and initiatives that deepen and expand American citizens’ dependency on government. From new federal programs designed to boost economic activity to health care reform that could place the U.S. government at the center of the nation’s health care system, the central thrust of policy since January 2009 has been to increase Americans’ daily dependency on Washington.
However, the rapid expansion of dependency-creating programs did not begin with Barack Obama’s inauguration. Indeed, President Obama inherited substantial momentum toward greater dependency on government from the George W. Bush Administration and prior governments. President Bush’s years saw growth in all dependency creating categories, but particularly in programs aimed at health, education, and working-age income support.
Even more disturbing is the confluence of growth in the index with increases in the percentage of taxpayers who pay no taxes and Congress’s control over spending. The percentage who pay no taxes jumped from 21.3 percent in 1980 to 34 percent in 2008. In 1980, 20 million tax filers paid nothing; in 2008, 48 million paid nothing. This number will growth dramatically next year when the Index counts for the first time taxpayers who took advantage of Obama era credits, such as Making Work Pay and the first-time homebuyers credits.
Combine these two indexes with the Steuerle-Roeper Fiscal Democracy Index, and you have a perfect storm for the future of our republican form of government. The Fiscal Democracy Index measures the percent of revenues not allocated by previous Congresses to mandatory spending. In short, it measure the control that Congress has over outlays. This Index nearly hit zero in 2009 and is forecasted to be steadily below zero in 10 years.
The steady growth of dependency creating program, particularly the so-called entitlement programs, and the equally steady shrinking number of taxpayers who have any financial stake in the government threaten rapid growth in mandatory, dependency programs and our very democracy. Are Americans closing in on a tipping point that endangers the workings of their form of government? If citizens can vote ever greater outlays for their income, health, housing, education, and food support; will the growth of government overwhelm the delicate political balances between those citizens who provide the means for helping other citizens in need?
President Obama says he wants to reduce America’s record trillion-dollar deficits. Too bad he hasn’t even correctly diagnosed their cause.
During his State of the Union Address, the president asserted: “At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription-drug program.”
In other words, it’s President George W. Bush’s fault.
This can’t be true. Mr. Bush implemented the three policies mentioned by Mr. Obama in the early 2000s. Yet by 2007 — the last year before the recession — the budget deficit stood at only $161 billion. So how could those policies cause trillion-dollar deficits from 2009 through 2020?
Let’s unpack Mr. Obama’s claim.
His methodology measures the combined cost of the three policies against a “budget baseline” — a snapshot of what the budget would look like for the next decade if today’s tax and spending policies are maintained. Think of the budget baseline as the do-nothing default option.
The first problem is the president’s baseline deficit of “$8 trillion over the next decade.” This likely refers to the 10-year, $8.9 trillion deficit in the White House’s budget baseline last year.
Yet this baseline contained numerous questionable assumptions. It assumed that spending in Iraq and Afghanistan would continue growing forever, while spending on regular discretionary programs (which has doubled over the past decade) would slow to approximately 2 percent annual growth for most of the decade.
The baseline also incorporated provisions of Mr. Obama’s own stimulus bill that had already been enacted — deficit spending that he obviously didn’t inherit from his predecessor. Thus, the $8 trillion baseline deficit figure is not credible.
And that’s not all. By writing a baseline that assumes spending in Iraq and Afghanistan would continue growing forever (which was never U.S. policy), the president overstates the “inherited cost” of these wars over the next decade by $1 trillion. In reality, troop pullouts will drastically reduce the impact of Iraq and Afghanistan on future budget deficits.
Overall, the president’s data contains too many dubious assumptions to be useful.
So how much of the deficit is really caused by the tax cuts, war spending and Medicare prescription-drug entitlement?
One easy method is to begin with a more realistic budget baseline, using data from the more neutral Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Maintaining today’s tax and spending policies (and assuming a gradual troop drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan) would, using CBO data, bring $13 trillion in deficits over the next decade.
Compare that to the 10-year cost of the tax cuts ($3 trillion), Medicare prescription-drug entitlement ($1 trillion) and Iraq and Afghanistan spending (approximately $600 billion, again assuming a gradual troop drawdown). This adds up to $4.6 trillion, or just over one-third of the $13 trillion in baseline deficits.
This contradicts the president’s claim that most of the deficits result from those three policies.
Even this methodology does not tell the whole story. After all, if Washington collects $3 trillion in taxes and spends $4 trillion, who’s to say which of the spending programs “caused” the resulting $1 trillion deficit? One could pinpoint any $1 trillion group of spending programs and blame them for the budget deficit.
A better way to diagnose the cause of long-term deficits is to measure taxes and spending against their historical averages. This more comprehensive methodology shows that long-term deficits are overwhelmingly driven by runaway entitlement spending.
By 2020, the CBO-based budget baseline projects that federal spending will reach 26.0 percent of the economy (5.3 percent of the economy above the 40-year spending average). Revenues will settle at 17.7 percent of the economy (just 0.6 percent of the economy below the revenue average) — and even that assumes all tax cuts are extended.
So as deficits expand by 5.9 percent of the economy, nearly 90 percent of the growth will come from higher-than-average spending, and just over 10 percent from lower-than-average revenues.
Virtually all of this new spending will come from surging Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs (driven primarily by 77 million retiring baby boomers), as well as net interest on the national debt. These four expenditures will cost $26 trillion over the next decade — surging from $1.6 trillion this year to $3.6 trillion in 2020. That is causing the massive budget deficits over the next decade — and must be the focus of any serious effort to reduce the budget deficit.
Finally, there is some hypocrisy at work. Mr. Obama criticizes Mr. Bush for “not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription-drug program.” Yet he would extend $3.9 trillion of these policies (while repealing $700 billion in tax cuts) without paying for them, either. By his own logic, he’s almost as irresponsible as Mr. Bush.