Tag Archives: spending

Institutions matter, state legislative committee edition

Last week, Mercatus published a new working paper that I coauthored with Pavel Yakovlev of Duquesne University. It addresses an understudied institutional difference between states. Some state legislative chambers allow one committee to write both spending and taxing bills while others separate these functions into two separate committees.

This institutional difference first caught my eye a few years ago when Nick Tuszynski and I reviewed the literature on institutions and state spending. Among 16 different institutions that we looked at—from strict balanced budget requirements to term limits to “item reduction vetoes”—one stood out. Previous research by Mark Crain and Timothy Muris had found that states in which separate committees craft taxing and spending bills spend significantly less per capita than states in which a single committee was responsible for both kinds of bills. As you can see from the figure below (click to enlarge), the effect was estimated to be many times larger than that found for almost any other institution:

InstitutionsBut as large as this effect seems to be, the phenomenon has largely been ignored. To our knowledge, Crain and Muris are the only ones to have studied it. Their paper was now two decades old and was based on a relatively small sample of years from the 1980s.

As I wrote in yesterday’s Economics Intelligence column for US News:

To get a fresh look at the phenomenon, my colleagues and I consulted state statutes, legislative rules, committee websites and members’ offices. We created a unique data set that for some states spans 40 years. We took a cautious approach, coding taxing and spending functions as not separate in any chambers in which it was possible for a tax bill to come out of a spending committee and vice versa. We found that in 25 states, these functions are separate in both chambers, in 7 states they are separate in one chamber, and in the rest, these functions are separate in neither chamber.

To control for other confounding factors, we also gathered data on economic, demographic, and institutional differences between the states. Controlling for these factors, we found that separate taxing and spending committees are, indeed, associated with less spending. To be precise:

Other factors being equal, we find that those states with separate taxing and spending committees spend between $300 and $450 less per capita (between $790 and $1,200 less per household) than other states.

Our full paper is here, a summary is here, and my post at US News is here. Comments welcome.

State and local spending growth vs. GDP growth.

A few years ago, I produced a figure which showed inflation-adjusted state and local expenditures alongside inflation-adjusted private GDP.

It’s been some time since I made that chart and so I thought I might revisit the question. This time around, I compared state and local expenditures with overall GDP, not just private GDP.

The results are below (click to enlarge).

State and Local expenditures vs. GDPAfter adjusting for inflation, the economy is about 5.79 times its 1950 size. This is a good thing. It means more is being produced and more is available for consumption. And since the population has only doubled over this period, it means that per capita production is way up.

Over the same time period, however, state and local government expenditures have not just gone up 5 or 6 or even 8 times. Instead, after adjusting for inflation, state and local governments are spending about 12.79 times as much as they spent in 1950.

State and local governments, of course, depend entirely on the economy for their resources. As I put it when I produced the original chart, this is like a household whose income has grown about 6-fold but whose spending habits have grown nearly 13-fold.

Corporate welfare spending is not transparent

Over a century ago, the Italian political economist Amilcare Puviani suggested that policy makers have a strong incentive to obscure the cost of government. Known as “fiscal illusion,” the idea is that voters will be willing to spend more money on government if they think its costs is lower than it actually is. Fiscal illusion explains a great deal of public choices, including the popularity of deficit spending.

It also explains why the public knows the least about some of the most controversial items in the public budget such as corporate welfare. But some would like to change this. Here are Jess Fields and Tom “Smitty” Smith, writing in the (subscription required) Austin-American Statesman:

Texans believe in government transparency and accountability. For this reason, we have some of the most advanced open-government initiatives in the nation. Yet one policy area remains outside the view of the general public: economic development.

When local governments cut deals that result in millions in incentives, they can do it behind closed doors in “executive session” — legally — thanks to exceptions to the Open Meetings and Public Information Acts for “economic development negotiations.”

Fields is a senior policy analyst at the free enterprise Texas Public Policy Foundation, while Smith is the director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, a progressive consumer advocacy group started by Ralph Nader in the ‘70s.

Texans aren’t the only ones interested in making corporate welfare more transparent. The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is considering rules that would require governments to report the tax privileges that they hand out to businesses. Here is Liz Farmer, writing in Governing Magazine:

Specifically, GASB is proposing that state and local governments disclose information about property and other tax abatement agreements in their annual financial statements. If approved, the new disclosures could shed light on an area of government finance and provide hard data on information that is assembled sporadically, if at all. Scores of public and private groups support the proposal and it has proven to be one of GASB’s most debated topic yet, as nearly 300 groups or individuals submitted comment letters to the board. But many still say the requirements don’t go far enough.

She notes that the proposal misses a number of tax privileges including:

  • Tax increment financing (TIF),
  • Agreements to discount personal income taxes,
  • “[P]rograms that reduce the tax liabilities of businesses or similar classes of taxpayers.”

Because of these omissions the new GASB rules may only capture about one-third of all tax expenditures.

Puviani would have predicted that.

Paving over pension liabilities, again

Public sector pensions are subject to a variety of accounting and actuarial manipulations. A lot of the reason for the lack of funding discipline, I’ve argued, is in part due to the mal-incentives in the public sector to fully fund employee pensions. Discount rate assumptions, asset smoothing, and altering amortization schedules are three of the most common kinds of maneuvers used to make pension payments easier on the sponsor. Short-sighted politicians don’t always want to pay the full bill when they can use revenues for other things. The problem with these tactics is they can also lead to underfunding, basically kicking the can down the road.

Private sector plans are not immune to government-sanctioned accounting subterfuges. Last week’s Wall Street Journal reported on just one such technique.

President Obama recently signed a $10.8 billion transportation bill that also included a provision to allow companies to continue “pension smoothing” for 10 more months. The result is to lower the companies’ contribution to employee pension plans. It’s also a federal revenue device. Since pension payments are tax-deductible these companies will have slightly higher tax bills this year. Those taxes go to help fund federal transportation per the recently signed legislation.

A little bit less is put into private-sector pension plans and a little bit more is put into the government’s coffers.

The WSJ notes that the top 100 private pension plans could see their $44 billion required pension contribution reduced by 30 percent, adding an estimated $2.3 billion deficit to private pension plans. It’s poor discipline considering the variable condition of a lot of private plans which are backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

My colleague Jason Fichtner and I drew attention to these subtle accounting dodges triggered by last year’s transportation bill. In “Paving over Pension Liabilities,” we call out discount rate manipulation used by corporations and encouraged by Congress that basically has the same effect: redirecting a portion of the companies’ reduced pension payments to the federal government in order to finance transportation spending. The small reduction in corporate plans’ discount rate translates into an extra $8.8 billion for the federal government over 10 years.

The AFL-CIO isn’t worried about these gimmicks. They argue that pension smoothing makes life easier for the sponsor, and thus makes offering a defined benefit plan, “less daunting.” But such, “politically-opportunistic accounting,” (a term defined by economist Odd Stalebrink) is basically a means of covering up reality, like only paying a portion of your credit card bill or mortgage. Do it long enough and you’ll eventually forget how much those shopping sprees and your house actually cost.

What would a business-cycle balanced budget rule look like in Illinois?

A few years ago, I testified before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. I’d been invited to talk about the design of a federal balanced budget amendment and much of my testimony drew on the lessons offered from state experience. Since 49 of the 50 states have such requirements, and since these requirements vary from state to state, I noted that federal lawmakers could learn from the state laboratory.

The best requirement, I argued, would have the following characteristics:

  1. Require balance over some period longer than a year. This effectively disarms the strongest argument against a balanced budget amendment: namely, that it would force belt-tightening in the middle of a recession. In contrast, if budgets need to balance over a longer time period, then Congress is free to run deficits in particular years as long as they are countered by surpluses in others.
  2. Allow Congress some time to come into compliance. You don’t have to be a Keynesian to worry that a 45 percent reduction in the deficit overnight might be a shock to the system.
  3. Minimize the gamesmanship associated with revenue estimation: Across the country, states with balanced budget requirements have to estimate revenue throughout the year (I’m a member of Virginia’s Joint Advisory Board of Economists and our responsibility is to pass judgment on the validity of these estimates). But this invites all sorts of questions: what model to use for the economy, should revenue be scored dynamically or statically, etc. One way to sidestep all of these questions is to make the requirement retrospective: require that spending this year not exceed revenue from years past.

Michigan Republican Justin Amash has proposed an amendment along these lines. It would be phased-in over 9 years and from there on out would stipulate that outlays “not exceed the average annual revenue collected in the three prior years, adjusting in proportion to changes in population and inflation.” Because it requires balance over three years rather than one, Amash calls it the “business cycle balanced budget amendment.”

Writing in Time, GMU’s Alex Tabarrok points to Sweden’s positive experience with a similar rule. And economists Glenn Hubbard and Tim Kane also endorse such a rule in their book, Balance.

Now, some Illinois state lawmakers have put together a proposal for a state rule that appears to be largely based on this model. It requires:

Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed the average annual revenue collected for the 3 prior years, adjusting in proportion to changes in population and inflation.

(Unlike the Amash plan, however, the Illinois plan is not phased in over a number of years. Rather, it takes effect immediately upon passage of the bill.)

To see how it might work in a state, I decided to take the Amash Amendment for a test drive, using Illinois data. The solid blue line in the figure below charts Illinois’s actual general revenue from 1990 to 2012 in billions of current dollars. The dashed blue line phases in an Amash-type “business cycle” balanced budget rule. Once fully phased-in, it would limit spending to the average revenue of the three previous years, with an adjustment for inflation and population growth.

BCBBA

Notice three things:

  1. From 1990 to 2002, and from 2004 to 2007, the rule would have kept Illinois spending in line with Illinois revenue, and would have even allowed the state to run surpluses.
  2. In lean years (like 2008) when revenue levels off, the limit actually continues to rise. That’s because it is based on a longer time trend. This means that it wouldn’t require the sort of draconian budget cuts that balanced budget critics often fear. The accumulated surpluses from previous years could also be used to soften the blow.
  3. Lastly, note the (9 percent) revenue uptick from 2011 to 2012. The amendment would prudently make legislators wait a few years before they can go out and spend that money.

Does statehood trigger Leviathan? A case study of New Mexico and Arizona

I was recently asked to review, “The Fiscal Case Against Statehood: Accounting for Statehood in New Mexico and Arizona, by Dr. Stephanie Moussalli for EH.net (the Economic History Association).

I highly recommend the book for scholars of public choice, economic history and accounting/public finance.

As one who spends lots of time reading  state and local financial reports in the context of public choice, I was very impressed with Moussalli’s insights and tenacity. In her research she dives into the historical accounts of territorial New Mexico and Arizona to answer two questions.  Firstly, did statehood (which arrived in 1912) lead to a “Leviathan effect” causing government spending to grow. And secondly, as a result of statehood, did accounting improve?

The answer to these questions is yes. Statehood did trigger a Leviathan effect for these Southwestern states –  findings that have implications for current policy – in particular the sovereignty debates surrounding Puerto Rico and Quebec. And the accounts did improve as a result of statehood, an outcome that controls for the fact that this occurred during the height of the Progressive era and its drive for public accountability.

A provocative implication of her findings that cuts against the received wisdom:  Are the improved accounting techniques that come with statehood a necessary tool for more ambitious spending programs? Does accounting transparency come with a price?

What makes this an engaging study is Moussalli’s persistence and creativity in bringing light to a literature void. She stakes out new research territory, and brings a public choice-infused approach to what might otherwise be bland accounting records. She rightly sees in the historical ledgers the traces of the political and social choices of individuals; and the inescapable record of their decisions. In her words, “people say one thing and do another.” The accounts speak in a way that historical narrative does not.

For more read the review.

 

Does an income tax make people work less?

Harry Truman famously asked for a one-handed economist since all of his seemed reluctant to decisively answer anything: “on the one hand,” they’d tell him, but “on the other…”

When asked whether an income tax makes people work more or less, the typical economist gives the sort of answer that would have grated on Truman like a bad music critic.

If, however, we change the question slightly and make it more realistic, it’s possible to give a decisive answer to the question. Income taxes do reduce overall labor supply. This is something that economists James Gwartney and Richard Stroup explained in the pages of the American Economic Review some 30 years ago. And last week, the CBO’s much-discussed report on the ACA and labor-force participation illustrated their point nicely.

Continue reading

9 Farm Bill Figures

In my last post, I made the case that the farm bill (which has now emerged from conference committee and just passed the House) makes an excellent teaching tool.

Many students, of course, are visual learners. So I thought I might suggest a few farm bill figures.

Let’s begin with farm subsidy outlays. These are the most conspicuous privileges afforded farmers. As Veronique de Rugy’s figure below shows, these were around $13 billion per year in the late ‘90s, then surged up to $28 billion in 2000, then settled into annual levels that were about twice their pre-surge levels after that (readers of Robert Higgs will recognize this as a “ratchet” pattern in government growth).

farm-subsidies-chart-original (Click on any image in this post to enlarge it)

The last bar in Vero’s chart shows projected subsidies of about $29 billion in 2014. Another of Vero’s charts, however, suggests that this figure may be optimistic. The chart below shows projected and actual farm bill spending for the last couple farm bills (note: these figures include the entire bill not just subsidies, which is why the numbers are so much larger than those in the previous chart). 

farm-bills-cbo-score-chart-1000

Though subsidies are the most conspicuous privilege afforded to farmers they are by no means the only or even the most important. In addition to cash outlays, farmers also benefit from an assortment of trade barriers (some of which have gotten us into trouble with the WTO), various marketing programs, and artificial price supports. My chart from last week shows how active farm assistance programs have grown over the years (along with farmer incomes):

The chart below by Vero shows how one of these price support programs drives up the price of sugar:

sugar-subsidies-original

As I write in my Mercatus on Policy piece: 

This might seem trivial, but sugar isn’t the only item that is more expensive because of agricultural price supports. The House version of the farm bill imposes artificial price floors on wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, long and medium grain rice, soybeans, oilseeds, peanuts, dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, sugar, and dairy products.

Farm privileges are often justified on the common assumption that farming is unprofitable. But this isn’t so. The figure below, taken from Vincent Smith’s paper on the 2013 bill, shows that both median and mean farm household income has exceeded median and mean US household income for more than a decade. Today, the average farm household makes 53 percent more than the average US household:

Farm income

Farm supports are also often justified on the basis that farming is uniquely risky. As Smith explains, though, the business failure rate of the typical American business is 14 times greater than the failure rate of the typical farm. Moreover, as the figure below from his report demonstrates, the agriculture sector’s debt-to-asset ratio is lower than that of other sectors and has been falling for two decades:

Though the average farm has done quite well, it is not the average farm that receives privileges. As demonstrated by Smith’s chart below, since 1995, 83 percent of subsidy payments have flowed to the largest 15 percent of farms:

As I put it in my piece, “Given that these subsidies and price supports distort free market signals and transfer wealth from the relatively poor to the relatively wealthy, one would think they would face bipartisan opposition.” Why, then, do they persist?

This chart by Vero, showing annual lobbying expenditures by the sugar industry is one explanation:

Finally, this chart from my piece shows that political donations tend to be concentrated on those who actually write the bill:

Birth control, keg stands, and moral hazard

A Colorado organization managed to produce ads promoting health insurance under the Affordable Care Act that are so goofy that some supporters thought they were a parody produced by over-caffeinated tea partiers. But the ads are more than just an unwitting parody. Some of them also unwittingly illustrate an economic principle that is crucial for understanding the cost of health insurance: moral hazard.

Two of the best examples are reproduced below.

lets get physical

keg stand

Source: www.doyougotinsurance.com

Contrary to what you might think after reading the ads, “moral hazard” does not mean health insurance is hazardous to your morals. (For some commentary on what these ads say about morality, look here.)

Moral hazard refers to an insured party’s incentive to take greater risk because the insurer will pay the costs if there is a loss. The two ads above pretty clearly say, “Go ahead and engage in risky behavior, because if there’s a cost, your health insurance will take care of it.”

In the health care context, moral hazard can also involve excessive use of health care services because the insurer is paying the bill. “Excessive,” in this context, means that the patient uses a service even though its cost exceeds the value to the patient.  For example, my Mercatus colleague Maurice McTigue tells me that before New Zealand reformed its health service, a lot of elderly people used to schedule monthly visits to the doctor’s office because it was free and provided a good opportunity to socialize with friends and neighbors. Visits dropped significantly after New Zealand’s health service instituted a $5 copay for doctor visits — which suggests that some of these visits were pretty unnecessary even from the patient’s perspective!

Moral hazard can have a big influence on the affordability of health insurance. Moral hazard losses in private insurance plans can equal about 10 percent of spending. Moral hazard losses in Medicare and Medicaid are much higher, equal to 28-41 percent of spending. (References for these figures are on page 8 of this paper.)

Duke University health care economist Christopher Conover and I examined the eight major regulations rushed into place in 2010 to implement the first wave of Affordable Care Act mandates. The government’s analysis accompanying these regulations failed to take moral hazard into account. In other words, federal regulators extended insurance coverage to new classes of people (such as “children” aged 21-26) and required insurance plans to offer new benefits (such as a long list of preventive services), without bothering to figure out how much of the resulting new health care expenditures would be wasted due to moral hazard.

Is it any wonder that health insurance under the Affordable Care Act has turned out to be less affordable for many people? Makes me want to do a keg stand to forget about it. After all, if I fall down and get hurt, I’m covered!

Maryland’s “severe financial management issues”

Budgetary balance continues to evade Maryland. In FY 2015 the state anticipates a deficit of $400 million. A fact that is being blaming on entitlements, mandated spending, and fiscal mismanagement in the Developmental Disabilities Administration. The agency has been cited by the HHS Inspector General as over billing the Federal government by $20.6 billion for Medicaid expenses.

For over a decade the state has struggled with structural deficits, or,  spending exceeding revenues. The state’s method of controlling spending – the Spending Affordability Commission – has overseen 30 years of spending increases, and its Debt Affordability Commission has compounded the problem by increasing the state’s debt limits in order to expand spending.

For the details, visit my blog post for the Maryland Public Policy Institute. Of related interest is the Tax Foundation’s recent ranking of government spending the states. Maryland ranks 19, and has increased spending by 30.5% since 2011  2001.