feedzy-rss-feeds
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/bestlifeschedule/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121soledad
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/bestlifeschedule/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121Chris Edwards<\/a>\n<\/p>\n The federal government is hurtling toward a fiscal crisis. Accumulated debt is reaching historic highs, borrowing rates are rising, and spiking inflation is a major risk. President Trump and Congress must focus on control of spending and deficits.<\/p>\n Given their plans for tax cuts and defense spending increases, Republicans need large budget cuts to prevent the government\u2019s $2 trillion deficits from spiraling higher. Many Republicans want to cut spending, and Trump\u2019s DOGE team talks about annual cuts of $1 trillion or more. But as the Wall Street Journal<\/em> discusses today<\/a>, other Republicans are nervous nellies, who need more convincing that cuts are both good economics and good politics.<\/p>\n Republican tensions are currently coming to a head with party leaders assembling a budget resolution that sets overall fiscal parameters for the year. What is a realistic spending cut goal for Republican reformers?<\/p>\n History can be a guide. Let\u2019s look at three charts showing real-world experience in our federal government and Canada\u2019s. Trump is hostile toward Canada these days, but there are fiscal lessons to be learned from our northern neighbor. Canada faced a debt crisis in the 1990s similar to ours today, and its politicians had the backbone to pursue large and sustained spending cuts.<\/p>\n Figure 1 shows federal government spending in the two countries as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).<\/p>\n Figure 2 shows spending without interest costs.<\/p>\n Figure 3 shows spending without interest or defense spending.<\/p>\n Both countries have shown that substantial spending cuts are possible. In Canada, the parliament cut a range of programs by about 5 percentage points of GDP. In the US, Congress cut almost 3 points of GDP, mainly defense spending, and that was despite the lobbying power of the \u201cmilitary industrial complex.\u201d<\/p>\n Congress can cut any program any time it wants, and 3 percentage points of GDP or more in a decade is entirely doable. It turns out that 3 percentage points is about what we need to stabilize federal debt and hold off a spiraling budget crisis.<\/p>\n The Congressional Budget Office baseline<\/a> shows budget deficits of about 6 percentage points of GDP over the next decade. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says<\/a> that we should aim for a 3 percentage point deficit, and the Committee for a Responsible Budget calculates<\/a> that reforms of about that size would stabilize federal debt held by the public at about 100 percent of GDP.<\/p>\n A 3 percent of GDP cut would amount to a 13 percent, or $1.3 trillion, spending cut in 2035. Such a cut can be achieved with reforms Cato has proposed here<\/a> and here<\/a>. These cuts are from the CBO baseline, and so with tax cuts and defense spending increases, we will need more cuts. Canada shows that sustained cuts of more than 3 points of GDP are possible.<\/p>\n One final point. Stronger GDP growth will shrink the relative burden of debt, so microeconomic reforms such as deregulation should accompany budget reforms. Alternatively, trade wars would shrink GDP and exacerbate the debt crisis. In the 1990s, Canada\u2019s economy grew strongly after adopting large spending cuts, privatization, and free trade.<\/p>\n # # #<\/p>\n Canada\u2019s fiscal data is\u00a0<\/em>here<\/em><\/a> and the story of its reforms are\u00a0<\/em>here<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>here<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>here<\/em><\/a>, and\u00a0<\/em>here<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n US fiscal data is\u00a0<\/em>here<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n A fiscal agenda for Congress is <\/em>here<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n A discussion of how spending cuts boost growth is <\/em>here<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n