« A Short Citizen's Guide to Kooks, Demagogues, and Right-Wingers On Tax Day | Robert Reich's Blog | A Report Card on Obamanomics, Approaching One Hundred Days »
Where Government Spending Should be Trimmed -- And Why It's Necessary to Fast-Track Universal Health Care
It's no accident that as Congress returns this week from its two-week recess and begins debate on the $3.5 trillion budget plans for the fiscal year starting in October -- which may or may not include a provision that fast-tracks Obama's health care proposal by allowing it to pass the Senate with a mere majority -- the President has summoned his cabinet for a first meeting, at which he'll call for more cuts in domestic spending.
Symbolism counts in Washington, and Obama's request that his cabinet officers come up with $100 million in spending cuts will be played up by the White House as the beginning of a major effort to trim unnecessary government spending. It's part of the President's effort to calm the nerves of "blue-dog" Democrats, Republicans, and some members of the public who are worried about all the money the Administration has spent and still wants to spend -- $787 billion on the stimulus, $700 billion committed to the bank and auto bailouts, and, most importantly, $3.5 trillion for the next ten years, including universal health care. Throw in the cost of a cap-and-trade system to control climate change and you're talking big money.
But Obama would be mistaken to take more than symbolic steps at this point. The economy is still in a depression because consumers and businesses won't or can't spend, and exports are dead because the rest of the world is in even worse shape. Government spending on a large scale is necessary now, and will be next year as well.
Over the longer term, Obama must be careful not to put entitlement programs on the chopping block as part of a "grand bargain" to elicit Republican support for health care and cap-and-trade. Social Security is not in dire straights; it can be made flush for the next 75 years by ever-so-slightly lifting the ceiling on the portion of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes (and if Democrats are reluctant to do that on incomes over $100,000, then they could do so on incomes over $250,000).
Medicaid and Medicare are in trouble because health care costs are rising so fast, which argues for health-care reform rather than cuts in these important programs. Yet if health-care reform has any prayer of controlling the rising tide of health care costs, the plan must allow beneficiaries to opt into a public insurance plan -- something Republicans and the health-care establishment are determined to fight. So it's critically important that the Senate wrap health care into a reconciliation bill that can be enacted by a majority vote in the Senate.
Obama should fast-track health care and stop trying to court Republicans. Every House Republican and all but three Senate Republicans voted against the stimulus; all Republicans in both houses voted against the budget. During the recess they hosted "tea parties" claiming that Americans are over-taxed. Over the weekend, House minority leader John Boehner called the idea of carbon-induced climate change "almost comical." Republicans are already off and running toward the midterm elections of 2010, even starting to run ads against House Democrats in close districts. They seem hell bent on on becoming a tiny, whacky minority -- the party that denies evolution, denies global warming, denies Americans need a major overhaul of health care, and denies the economy needs anything more than a major tax cut to get it moving again. The less Obama caters to them the better.
Symbolism counts in Washington, and Obama's request that his cabinet officers come up with $100 million in spending cuts will be played up by the White House as the beginning of a major effort to trim unnecessary government spending. It's part of the President's effort to calm the nerves of "blue-dog" Democrats, Republicans, and some members of the public who are worried about all the money the Administration has spent and still wants to spend -- $787 billion on the stimulus, $700 billion committed to the bank and auto bailouts, and, most importantly, $3.5 trillion for the next ten years, including universal health care. Throw in the cost of a cap-and-trade system to control climate change and you're talking big money.
But Obama would be mistaken to take more than symbolic steps at this point. The economy is still in a depression because consumers and businesses won't or can't spend, and exports are dead because the rest of the world is in even worse shape. Government spending on a large scale is necessary now, and will be next year as well.
Over the longer term, Obama must be careful not to put entitlement programs on the chopping block as part of a "grand bargain" to elicit Republican support for health care and cap-and-trade. Social Security is not in dire straights; it can be made flush for the next 75 years by ever-so-slightly lifting the ceiling on the portion of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes (and if Democrats are reluctant to do that on incomes over $100,000, then they could do so on incomes over $250,000).
Medicaid and Medicare are in trouble because health care costs are rising so fast, which argues for health-care reform rather than cuts in these important programs. Yet if health-care reform has any prayer of controlling the rising tide of health care costs, the plan must allow beneficiaries to opt into a public insurance plan -- something Republicans and the health-care establishment are determined to fight. So it's critically important that the Senate wrap health care into a reconciliation bill that can be enacted by a majority vote in the Senate.
Obama should fast-track health care and stop trying to court Republicans. Every House Republican and all but three Senate Republicans voted against the stimulus; all Republicans in both houses voted against the budget. During the recess they hosted "tea parties" claiming that Americans are over-taxed. Over the weekend, House minority leader John Boehner called the idea of carbon-induced climate change "almost comical." Republicans are already off and running toward the midterm elections of 2010, even starting to run ads against House Democrats in close districts. They seem hell bent on on becoming a tiny, whacky minority -- the party that denies evolution, denies global warming, denies Americans need a major overhaul of health care, and denies the economy needs anything more than a major tax cut to get it moving again. The less Obama caters to them the better.
Advertisement
















I agree with everything you're saying professor.
There's only one problem. Obama has already been absorbed by The Borg of insiderdom and the status quo as can be seen by a number of his recent moves to protect and maintain the status quo and the corrupt insiders of DC.
If either the President or any of those who claim to represent the people were serious about cutting the federal budget and NOT cutting a grand deal that features putting medicare and social security on the chopping block they would be talking about drastically cutting back on the obscene, immoral, unbelievably wasteful and unproductive military spending budget.
April 20, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, so far (including on the Sunday talkers) the talking point was that the ony "entitlement reform" we need is universal health care.
If that talking point changes, you outrage may be justified. But for now, give them credit on this issue; they are framing this exactly right.
April 20, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has repeatedly said as candidate and as President that he believes we need "entitlement reform" and he has made it clear he believes social security needs a major overhaul which it does not. I am not terribly surprised or outraged by it, I am digusted and disappionted at how quickly the President has doublecrossed the country and I don't believe it is terribly difficult, based on his performance thus far, to predict he will put social security and medicare on the chopping block.
April 20, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"he has made it clear he believes social security needs a major overhaul"
This is not accurate. He referred to a "Social Security crisis" early in the primaries, and quickly walked back from that and never used the term "crisis" again.
The only specific fix he has proposed for SS is to raise the amount of pay subject to the withholding. Hardly an attempt to put it on "the chopping block."
I'm not saying you shouldn't criticize him, but please, don't misrepresent the facts about his policies and stated intentions.
These attempts to portray him as George Bush, execpt with deceitful center-left rhetoric, are innacurate and unfair.
April 20, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but I'm not misrepresenting him in the slightest. Josh even pointed out the problematic nature of Obama's statements about "entitlement reform" during the campaign.
April 20, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you should be sorry but misrepresenting what Obama has said is *exactly* what you are doing. He has not, repeat not put SS on the chopping block. To imply otherwise to buy into the ignorant Republican talking points. So stop it. Now. Unless of course you are one of those Republicans.
April 20, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree dswx. Obama can be critized on a number of issues, but dumping on SS isn't one of them. Oleeb is being inaccurate and hyperbolic. Please, Oleeb, save your rounds for something real.
April 20, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you state on one hand that Obama repeatedly stated that he wanted to "reform" entitlements during the campaign and as President, and then claim he is double-crossing the American people? That doesn't make any since at all. How can you claim it to be a double-cross if he tells it to your face? You can disagree with the specific policy choice, but you can't claim he misrepresented his position, which is what you are doing.
April 20, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, when you put it that way...
You also forgot to mention, "approves torture." They do. (As long as it's librul terrorists, right wing terrorists need to be given a pass, apparently.)
It's about time we started hearing harsh rhetoric like this. Thanks, Mr. Reich. I don't understand catering to a small group of whackos, the president isn't going to convince the permanently deluded. Why are we allowing them to drive our policy? They were wrong last year and they are wrong now. They are wrong for America.
THEY need to evolve.
April 20, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is not limited to "wacky" Republicans, unfortunately. As long as we have a significant minority of the Democratic establishment and the MSM arguing for austerity in a deflationary economy, Obama still has his rhetorical work cut out for him.
I'm hoping that the Republican brand is still so toxic in 2010 that we can start targeting some of these Blue Dogs. They are our chief political enemies right now.
April 20, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your continuing excellent posts here!
April 20, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with TheraP, Professor Reich. Thanks much for your posts. Good that you share your thinking with us.
April 20, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"which may or may not include a provision that fast-tracks Obama's health care proposal by allowing it to pass the Senate with a mere majority"
If that's just going to fast track another Federal Government mandated bill to the underemployed--as did the most recent incarnation of Hillarycare-- he can keep it.
April 20, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that insightful comment. I'll treasure it always.
April 20, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Secretary, why is the public option non-negotiable? The Wyden plan is more ambitious than both the Obama and Clinton plans of last year, and doesn't have a public option. Also, couldn't allowing all Americans to buy into the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) work fine as a fallback/public option?
April 20, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without a public option, any plan forcibly requires Americans to give money to insurance companies with no real limit on what those insurance companies can charge. This means that Americans wind up paying a lot more and we don't solve the cost containment problem.
April 20, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So competition among private insurers will raise prices? As someone who has taken micro and macroeconomics at the intermediate level, labor economics, public finance, and econometrics, and has a father who is a health economist, I've never heard a professor say that competition raises prices.
April 20, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You apparently suffer from the delusion that medical care is subject to the rules of the classic market that you learned in Econ 101, jimbomoron. Sick people don't have the luxury of choice which is what makes the classical market work the way its gee whiz enthusiasts imagine it does. People can choose not to buy a new Ford. They can't choose NOT to go to the doctor or have health insurance. The more you need to a drug to survive, the more you have to fork over. The costs of research and production are largely irrelevant. Let them keep their monopoly on the health insurance market and they will work in unofficial collusion to squeeze every possible penny from the public. You want competition fine, then let them compete with the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. Surely as a fan of the wonderful benefits of competition, you wouldn't object to that.
April 20, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without a public option, any plan forcibly requires Americans to give money to insurance companies with no real limit on what those insurance companies can charge.
But if the public option is government-subsidized (rather than merely cost-controlled), as I assume it would be, how do we prevent the government by unfairly competing with private insurers by operating at a loss?
The only problem with the government as a competitor in the private market is that the government has the power to make peopel who are not customers of the government plan pay for it anyway with their taxes, and the private insurers do not. So how do we allow private insurance to stay competitive when it can only rely on voluntary customers for revenue?
April 20, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glaivester, if the private insurers are as hot damn efficient as they are touted, they shouldn't have any problem with competing with a government program. Their real complaint is that they can no longer gouge the people they insure in the manner to which they have been accustomed. We have already seen the consequences of kow-towing to the great god of free enterprise in the banking industry. Oh sure, leave the investment banks alone, they will regulate themselves in their own interest. Right. So leave them alone, the private insurers will give their customers the lowest possible price. Right.
April 20, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: So how do we allow private insurance to stay competitive when it can only rely on voluntary customers for revenue?
I'm not sure there's a problem here. FedEx does well despite competition from the Post Office. Private schools stay in business despite competition from public schools. And certainly government subsidized public transportation has not destroyed the viability of the auto industry (yes, GM et al are in trouble, but does anyone think the local city buses are a cause of that?)
We have public/private mixes throughout the economy. The results differ depending on many factors, but no where does public option drive the private option out of business.
April 20, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Professor, but there are some good budget cuts. There are programs that are just moribund and now would be a good time politically to trim them. WE wouldd be hurting only a few of the lobbyists and hangers on that have kept them going. I am thinking of some of the promotional programs in agriculture and certainly some of the subsidies there. Good political capital at little cost to the public.
April 20, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another excellent budget cut comes from making the government itself the lender on student loans, rather than the guarantor of profit-making third parties. With the same reserve factor, you get a lot more bang for the buck.
The one thing I didn't understand about Reich's piece was the notion that cap and trade would count as another expenditure. Surely the auctions would add revenue, not add to the deficit?
April 20, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
not a single word about cutting the defense budget?
sorry but i have a hard time taking anyone serious who doesnt see that defense spending must be the first place to cut if you want to free up enough money for other programs.
April 20, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent question, JadeZ! The answer seems to be that there is some kind of primal psychic need to worship soldiers. If we jettison our delusions of national grandeur that marked the neoconservative imagination, why on earth do we need such a huge defense establishment? The likely answer is because the Pentagon is a source of huge profits. The people who make those profits buy public law by paying the tab to get people elected to Congress. The Europeans don't have armies anywhere near the size of ours. Why should they screw their citizens by paying for excessively large armies? Do it, cut the military big time. Why isn't it on the list of things to cut?
April 20, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, Mr. Reich, but your title includes the phrase:
"Where Government Spending Should be Trimmed"
Could you please explain where exactly you think that spending should be trimmed? You do not appear to have explained that issue anywhere in your article.
April 20, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, Glaivester. What should be cut? Let's have it. Of course, nobody wants to be specific. That's when the yowling begins. We have a Congress of whores. They'll spread their legs for whatever special interest has the bucks. If ever there was a time for members of Congress to honor their oath of office and serve the larger interests of their constituents, now is it.
April 20, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
First we can reduce our overseas commitments and foreign aid.
Second we will need to start eliminating a lot of useless and counterproductive government agencies. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (whoe main interest is figuring out how it can de facto impose quotas without imposing them de jure) immediately springs to mind.
Third we will need to start finding ways to trim Medicare spending. Some of it will involve cutting the yearly spending increases - ultimately there will be a need to reduce some Medicare coverage (for the time being we can restroct it for the wealthiest) and to make sure that the regulations allow supplemental insurance to complement any areas where spending is cut.
That's for a start.
Having said that, though, I should point out that I am not under an obligation to figure out where spending should be cut - because I am not criticizing Robert Reich for not explaining where he wants spening cuts per se. I am criticizing him for not explaining where he wants spending cuts in an article where the first half of the title is Where Government Spending Should Be Cut.
Even if he thinks that the answer is "nowhere," or "I have no idea," he should at least address the issue if it is going to be the title of his piece.
April 21, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was not clear, Glaivester. Bad writing. My challenge to name cuts was directed at Robert Reich, not you. My complaint was with his title, same as you. Overseas commitments and the Equal Opportunity Employment Opportunity Commission should also be whacked for precisely the reason you state.
April 21, 2009 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Im a freshman in college writing a speech on the Health Care system and I wanted to pursuade my audience in getting involved in politics and persuading those already in politics to try to change our system. Unfourtunatley im a little lost on whom I should be appointing their attention to. Is there someone among the Obama administration that they should write to? Or should I just tell them to stick with our elected officials in our community?
April 27, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink