A few minutes before 10 a.m. on Wednesday, former President Donald Trump dropped a plan to completely overhaul the relationship between millions of older Americans and the federal government.

"SENIORS SHOULD NOT PAY TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY," Trump shouted from his Truth Social account.

If implemented, that would be a hugely expensive policy change. According to one quick estimate by a former White House chief economist, it would reduce federal revenue by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and would add $1.8 trillion to the national debt. (The extra cost is the result of interest on the new debt that would be racked up in the absence of that revenue.) It would also accelerate Social Security's slide into insolvency. And, obviously, it would be a big tax break for Americans who collect Social Security checks—but not a tax break that would be particularly good at fostering economic growth.

Despite all that, the most notable thing about Trump's announcement was what it didn't include. There was no attempt to reckon with those figures, for example. No surrogates were dispatched to explain why this change is necessary or good for the economy or country. No press releases went out. There was, of course, no attempt to explain what government programs would be cut to offset the drop in revenue. For that matter, there had been no discussion of this idea at the Republican National Convention. It was not mentioned in Trump's (long) acceptance speech and was not included in the party's platform.

Like so much else in the Trump era, this looks like an idea that went from the former president's head to his social media account with very few stops in between.

There is something to be said for that degree of—let's say—transparency. If nothing else, it is quintessentially Trumpian: hastily conceived and not deeply considered, more of a marketing slogan than substance. Let's just call this what it is: a nakedly political play to win the votes of Social Security–collecting Americans.

Coming as it did on Wednesday morning, the "no taxes on Social Security" plan stood in stark contrast to the news the Trump campaign had made just one day earlier. On Tuesday, Trump's campaign had officially (and gleefully) sunk the Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025"—a 900-page document in which the conservative think tank had outlined an extensive policy plan for Trump's prospective second term. The project had been headed by Paul Dans, who had served in the Trump administration, and was central to the institutional-wide pivot toward populism that Kevin Roberts, Heritage's president, had executed in recent years.

In a statement, two of Trump's top campaign officials didn't merely bury Project 2025 but also issued a threat.

"Reports of Project 2025's demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign—it will not end well for you," said Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita.

Translation: How dare anyone try to substitute actual policy substance for whatever random thought might fall out of the former president's head on a Wednesday morning?

Roberts' mistake "was thinking that Mr. Trump cares about anyone's ideas other than his own. He governs on feral instinct, tactical opportunism, and what seems popular at a given moment," wrote the Wall Street Journal's editorial board in a scathing response to the news of Project 2025 being scuttled and that Dans had resigned from Heritage. "The lesson for Heritage, and other think tanks, is that it's better to stick to your principles rather than court the political flavor of the day."

Amen to that.

Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris has launched her campaign by veering hard into an almost Trump-like policy nihilism of her own. Having already tried to memory-hole her track record as the Biden administration's so-called "border czar"—read Reason's Liz Wolfe if you need to catch up on that controversy—Harris is now seemingly rewriting her positions on a bunch of other things too.

For example, Harris was a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal when she was a member of the U.S. Senate in 2019. She voiced her support for the progressive environmental package while campaigning for president that same year.

Now, she's backing away from it. This week, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign told the Washington Examiner that Harris no longer supports the federal job guarantee—a promise that the federal government would provide jobs with "family-sustaining wages" to anyone who wanted one—that was a key feature of the Green New Deal.

As the Examiner notes, Harris has also "backed away from her endorsement of eliminating private healthcare plans as part of a Medicare for All proposal. Her campaign also told The Hill that she will not seek to ban fracking if she is elected. That was after previously telling CNN while running for president 'There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.'"

Maybe this is Harris embracing her philosophy of being "unburdened by what has been." Maybe she's simply taking a page from Trump's book—after all, the former president has never paid much of a price for making it up as he goes along.

For both Trump and Harris, simply telling voters what you think they want to hear is possibly the most direct route to winning an election. But such a cynical approach to campaigning sidelines any discussion of policy—and means the election is likely to be decided on far stupider grounds.

The post Trump and Harris Are Just Making It Up as They Go appeared first on Reason.com.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections provide valuable insights into how a big chunk of your income is being spent and reveal the long-term consequences of our government's current fiscal policies—you may endure them, and your children most certainly will. Yet, like most other projections looking into our future, these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. So should claims that CBO projections validate anyone's fiscal track record.

So much can and likely will happen to make projections moot and our fiscal outlook much grimmer. Unforeseen events, economic changes, and policy decisions render them less accurate over time. The CBO knows this and recently released alternative scenarios based on different sets of assumptions, and it doesn't look good. It remains a wonder that more politicians, now given a more realistic range of possibilities, aren't behaving like it.

First, let's recap what the situation looks like under the usual rosy growth, inflation, and interest rate assumptions. Due to continued overspending, this year's deficit will be at least $1.6 trillion, rising to $2.6 trillion by 2034. Debt held by the public equals roughly 99 percent of our economy—measured by gross domestic product (GDP)—annually, heading to 116 percent in 2034.

The only reason these numbers won't be as high as projected last year is that a few House Republicans fought hard to impose some spending caps during the debt ceiling debate. The long-term outlook is even scarier, with public debt reaching 166 percent of GDP in 30 years and all federal debt reaching 180 percent.

No one should be surprised. To be sure, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Great Recession made things worse, but we've been on this path for decades.

Unfortunately, if any of the assumptions underlying these projections change again, things will get a lot worse. That's where the CBO's alternative paths help. Policymakers and the public can better see the potential risks and opportunities associated with various fiscal policy choices, enabling them to make more informed decisions.

For instance, the CBO highlights that if the labor force grows annually by just 0.1 fewer percentage points than originally projected—even if the unemployment rate stays the same—slower economic growth will lead to a deficit $142 billion larger than baseline projections between 2025 and 2034. A similarly small slowdown in the productivity rate would lead to an added deficit of $304 billion over that period.

Back in 2020, the prevalent theory among those who claimed we shouldn't worry about debt was that interest rates were remarkably low and would stay low forever. As if. These guys have since learned what many of us have known for years: that interest rates can and will go up when the situation gets bad enough. So, what happens if rates continue to rise above and beyond those CBO used in its projections? Even a minuscule 0.1-point rise above the baseline would produce an additional $324 billion on the deficit over the 2025-2034 period.

The same is true with inflation, which, as every shopper can see, has yet to be defeated. If inflation, as I fear, doesn't go away as fast as predicted by CBO—largely because debt accumulation is continuing unabated—it will slow growth, increase interest rates, and massively expand the deficit. To be precise, an increase in overall prices of just 0.1 points over the CBO baseline would result in higher interest rates and a deficit of $263 billion more than projected.

Now, imagine all these variations from the current projections happening simultaneously. It's a real possibility. The deficit hike would be enormous, which could then trigger even more inflation and higher interest rates. The question that remains is: Why aren't politicians on both sides more worried than they seem to be?

What needs to happen before they finally decide to treat our fiscal situation as a real threat? President Joe Biden doesn't want to tackle the debt issue. In fact, he's actively adding to the debt with student loan forgiveness, subsidies to big businesses, and other nonsense. Meanwhile, some Republicans pay lip service to our financial crisis, but few are willing to tackle the real problem of entitlement spending.

The time for political posturing is over. The longer we wait to address these issues, the more severe the consequences will be for future generations. It's time for our leaders to prioritize the nation's long-term economic health over short-term political gains and take bold steps toward fiscal responsibility. Only then can we hope to secure a stable and prosperous future for all Americans.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM.

The post The Congressional Budget Office's Alternative Scenarios Forecast a Dire Economic Picture appeared first on Reason.com.

President Joe Biden did not dwell long on the question of how to solve the serious entitlement crisis facing America during Thursday's State of the Union address before pivoting to discuss obviously more serious problems like the size of snack food packages.

Still, one point he made is worthy of deeper analysis.

In trying to draw a contrast between his own plans and what he claimed Republicans are aiming to do, Biden claimed that "working people who built this country pay more into Social Security than millionaires and billionaires do. It's not fair."

Moments later, he promised to "protect and strengthen Social Security and make the wealthy pay their fair share."

Though he did not spell it all out in Thursday night's speech, those two comments seem to be pointed toward the same aspect of how Social Security is funded. Under current law, the payroll tax that funds Social Security is capped so that, for this year, only the first $168,600 in earnings are subject to it.

Raising that cap—or eliminating it—is frequently discussed as one possible solution to Social Security's approaching insolvency. That seems to be the idea that Biden was gesturing towards in his speech.

On its face, this isn't necessarily the worst idea. The cap is completely arbitrary, so there's no principled reason why all earnings shouldn't be treated equally. And there's no doubt that raising the cap would generate more revenue to help keep Social Security afloat. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that applying payroll taxes to higher income levels could raise $1 trillion in revenues over a 10-year period (though the amount of revenue would depend on how the cap was altered, and whether benefits increased as well).

But there are also serious trade-offs. For one, this would be a tax increase on working Americans to fund a transfer of wealth to retirees. That's not great. A significant portion of that tax increase would fall on people making less than $400,000 annually—remember, the cap is currently set around $168,000—a cohort that Biden promised again in Thursday's speech would not face tax increases.

Perhaps most importantly, raising or eliminating the payroll tax gap doesn't come close to solving the long-term Social Security shortfall. It might generate $1 trillion over 10 years, which is a lot of money, but it doesn't come close to the $2.8 trillion deficit the program is expected to run over the next decade.

"Eliminating the tax cap would either raise benefits as well (reducing the proposals' savings), or—if the accompanying benefits are canceled—turn Social Security into a true welfare program by delinking contributions and benefits," writes Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and former Senate budget staffer, in a recent piece debunking some common myths about Social Security reform. "Moreover, eliminating the cap would not bring permanent solvency or avert the need for benefit changes….The system would return to deficits by 2029. Lawmakers would still need to reform benefit levels and the eligibility age."

Ah, but Biden also used Thursday's speech to kneecap any discussion of making those other changes.

"If anyone here tries to cut Social Security or Medicare or raise the retirement age," he vowed, "I will stop them."

It's nice to see the president at least acknowledge one of the difficult choices that lie ahead for policymakers grappling with the coming insolvency of America's entitlement programs. On that count, he's at least marginally ahead of his prospective electoral opponent, former President Donald Trump, who maintains that Social Security needs no reforms.

Still, Biden's a long, long way from anything that sounds like a workable proposal—and the lack of details in Thursday's speech suggests the White House would prefer to stay away from this topic during an election year.

The post Biden Says He'll Make the Wealthy Pay More To Fix Social Security. Here's Why That Won't Work. appeared first on Reason.com.

The Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee made news recently by announcing that if his party is serious about changing the fiscal path we are on, they'll have to consider raising taxes. Politics is about compromise, so the chairman is right. Every side must give a little. However, "putting taxes on the table" is not as simple a fix to our debt problems as some think.

Looking at recent Congressional Budget Office reports, one can have no doubts about the fiscal mess. Annual deficits of $2 trillion will soon be the norm. Interest payments on the debt will exceed both defense and Medicare spending this year and become the government's largest budget item. With no extra revenue available, the Treasury will have to borrow money to cover these expenses. Meanwhile, we're speeding toward a Social-Security-and-Medicare fiscal cliff that we've known of for decades, and we'll reach it in only a few years.

Talking about the need for a fiscal commission to address Washington's mountain of debt, the committee chair, Rep. Jodey Arrington (R–Texas), told Semafor, "The last time there was a fix to Social Security that addressed the solvency for 75 years, it was Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, and it was bipartisan. It had revenue measures and it had program reforms. That's just the reality." He made these comments after some people warned that a fiscal commission is a gateway only to raising taxes.

I understand the worry. That's what the most recent deficit reduction commission tried to do. And while I don't believe this is what Arrington is planning, I offer a warning to the chair and to the future commission: If the goal is truly to improve our fiscal situation, as defined by reducing the ratio of debt to gross domestic product (GDP) or reducing projected gaps between revenue and spending, increasing tax revenue should be limited to the minimum politically possible.

For one thing, our deficits are the result of excessive promises made to special interests—mostly seniors in the form of entitlement spending—without any real plans to pay. The problem is constantly growing spending, not the lack of revenue and taxes. The common talking point from the left that rich people don't pay their fair share of taxes is a distraction. Not only is our tax system remarkably progressive, but there are not enough rich people to fleece to significantly reduce our future deficits.

Furthermore, the work of the late Harvard economist Alberto Alesina has established that the best way to successfully reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio is to implement a fiscal-adjustment package based mostly on spending reforms. A reform mostly geared toward tax increases will backfire as the move will slow the economy in the short and longer terms, causing it to ultimately fail to raise enough revenue to reduce the debt relative to GDP. Legislators, unfortunately, have made this mistake many times without learning any lesson—at least until the deal that was cut in 1997.

As a 2011 New York Times column by Catherine Rampell reminded us, until then, all deficit-reduction deals were very tax-heavy. What the article didn't mention is that they failed to reduce the deficit. What distinguishes the 1997 deal is that it cut both spending and taxes. The result was the first budget surplus in decades helped by a fast-growing economy. Now, this lesson doesn't mean that a fiscal commission must cut taxes, but it does caution against attempting to reduce the debt largely by raising taxes.

Another risk looms in the idea of a tax-and-spending compromise; that the tax increases will be implemented while the spending cuts won't. We have many examples of this pattern, but I'll recount just one: In 1982, President Ronald Reagan made a deal with Congress (the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) which would have raised $1 in revenue for every $3 in spending cuts.

There were tax hikes, indeed. But instead of spending cuts, Reagan got lots of spending increases. Remembering the story years later in Commentary magazine, Steven Hayward wrote, "By one calculation, the 1982 budget deal actually resulted in $1.14 of new spending for each extra tax dollar."

The moral of this story is that putting revenue on the table to reduce the debt has a bad track record. As such, the chairman, who I believe is serious about putting the U.S. on a better fiscal path, will have to be careful about whatever deal is made.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM.

The post A Bipartisan Tax Hike Won't Fix This Deficit appeared first on Reason.com.