×
  • ×

    Four Spending Myths That Could Wreck Our World


    This post originally appeared on TomDispatch

    We’re at the
    edge of the cliff of deficit disaster! National security spending is being, or
    will soon be, slashed to the bone! Obamacare will sink the ship of state!

    Each of these
    claims has grabbed national attention in a big way, sucking up years’ worth of
    precious airtime. That’s a serious bummer, since each of them is a spending
    myth of the first order. Let’s pop them, one by one, and move on to the truly
    urgent business of a nation that is indeed on the edge.

    Spending Myth 1:Today’s deficits have taken us to a historically
    unprecedented, economically catastrophic place
    .

    This myth has
    had the effect of binding the hands of elected officials and policymakers at
    every level of government. It has also emboldened those who claim that we must
    cut government spending as quickly, as radically, as deeply as possible.

    In fact, we’ve
    been here before. In 2009, the federal budget deficit was a whopping 10.1% of
    the American economy and back in 1943, in the midst of World War II, it was
    three times that — 30.3%. This fiscal year the deficit will total around 7.6%.
    Yes, that is big. But in the Congressional Budget Office’s grimmest projections, that figure will fall to 6.3% next
    year, and 5.8% in fiscal 2014. In 1983, under President Reagan, the deficit hit
    6% of the economy, and by 1998, that had turned into a
    surplus. So, while projected deficits remain large, they’re neither
    historically unprecedented, nor insurmountable.

    More important
    still, the size of the deficit is no sign that lawmakers should make immediate
    deep cuts in spending. In fact, history tells us that such reductions are
    guaranteed to harm, if not cripple, an economy still teetering at the edge of
    recession.

    A number of
    leading economists are now busy explaining why the deficit this year actually ought to be a
    lot larger, not smaller; why there should be more government spending,
    including aid to state and local governments, which would create new jobs and
    prevent layoffs in areas like education and law enforcement. Such efforts,
    working in tandem with slow but positive job growth in the private sector,
    might indeed mean genuine recovery. Government budget cuts, on the other hand,
    offset private-sector gains with the huge and depressing effect of public-sector layoffs, and have
    damaging ripple effects on the rest of the economy as well.

    When the economy is healthier, a host of promising options are at hand for
    lawmakers who want to narrow the gap between spending and tax revenue. For
    example, loopholes and deductions in the tax code that hand enormous subsidies
    to wealthy Americans and corporations will cost the Treasury around $1.3 trillion in lost revenue this year alone — more, that
    is, than the entire budget deficit. Closing some of them would make great
    strides toward significant deficit reductions.

    Alarmingly, the
    deficit-reduction fever that’s resulted from this first spending myth has led
    many Americans to throw their support behind de-investment in domestic
    priorities like education, research, and infrastructure — cuts that threaten to undo
    generations of progress. This is in part the result of myth number two.

    Spending
    Myth 2:
    Military and other national security spending have already taken their
    lumps and future budget-cutting efforts will have to take aim at domestic
    programs
    instead.

    The very idea
    that military spending has already been deeply cut in service to deficit reduction is not only
    false, but in the realm of fantasy. The real story: despite headlines about
    “slashed” Pentagon spending and “doomsday” plans for more, no actual cuts to
    the defense budget have yet taken place. In fact, since 2001, to quote former Defense
    Secretary Robert M. Gates, defense spending has grown like a “gusher.” The
    Department of Defense base budget nearly
    doubled
    in the space of a decade. Now, the Pentagon is likely to face an
    exceedingly modest 2.5% budget cut in fiscal 2013, “paring” its budget down to
    a mere $525 billion — with possible additional cuts shaving off
    another $55 billion next year if Congress allows the Budget
    Control Act
    , a.k.a. “sequestration,” to take effect.

    But don’t hold
    your breath waiting for that to happen. It’s likely that lawmakers will, at the
    last moment, come to an agreement to cancel those extra cuts. In other words,
    the notion that our military, which has been experiencing financial boom times
    even in tough times, has felt significant deficit-slashing pain — or has even
    been cut at all — is the Pentagon equivalent of a unicorn.

    What this does
    mean, however, is that lawmakers heading down the budget-cutting path can find
    plenty of savings in the enormous defense and national security budgets. Moreover,
    cuts there would be less harmful to the economy than reductions in domestic
    spending.

    A group of
    military budget experts, for example, found
    that cutting many costly and obsolete weapons programs could save billions of
    dollars each year, and investing that money in domestic priorities like
    education and health care would spur the economy. That’s because those sectors
    create more jobs per dollar than military programs do. And that
    leads us to myth three.

    Spending
    Myth 3:
    Government health-insurance programs are more costly than private
    insurance.

    False claims
    about the higher cost of government health programs have led many people to
    demand that health-care solutions come from the private sector. Advocates of
    this have been much aided by the complexity of sorting out health costs, which
    has provided the necessary smoke and mirrors to camouflage this whopping lie.

    Health spending
    is indeed growing faster than any other part of the federal budget.
    It’s gone from a measly 7% in 1976 to nearly a quarter today — and that’s
    truly a cause for concern. But health care costs, public and private, have been
    on the rise across the developed world for decades. And cost growth in
    government programs like Medicare has actually been slower than in private health insurance. That’s because the
    federal government has important advantages over private insurance companies
    when it comes to health care. For example, as a huge player in the health-care
    market, the federal government has been successful at negotiating lower prices
    than small private insurers can. And that helps us de-bunk myth number four.

    Spending
    Myth 4:
    The Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — will bankrupt the federal
    government while levying the biggest tax in U.S. history
    .

    Wrong again.
    According to the Congressional Budget Office, this health-reform legislation
    will reduce budget deficits by $119 billion between now and 2019. And only around 1% of American households will end up paying a penalty for
    lacking health insurance.

    While the
    Affordable Care Act is hardly a panacea for the many problems in U.S. health
    care, it does at least start to address the pressing issue of rising costs —
    and it incorporates some of the best wisdom on how to do so. Health-policy
    experts have explored phasing out the fee-for-service payment system — in
    which doctors are paid for each test and procedure they perform — in favor of
    something akin to pay-for-performance. This transition would reward medical
    professionals for delivering more effective, coordinated, and efficient care —
    and save a lot of money by reducing waste.

    The Affordable
    Care Act begins implementing
    such changes in the Medicare program, and it explores other important
    cost-containment measures. In other words, it lays the groundwork for
    potentially far deeper budgetary savings
    down the road.

    Having cleared
    the landscape of four stubborn spending myths, it should be easier to see
    straight to the stuff that really matters. Financial hardship facing millions
    of Americans ought to be our top concern. Between 2007 and 2010, the median
    family lost nearly 40% of its net worth. Neither steep deficits, nor
    disagreement over military spending and health reform should eclipse this as
    our most pressing challenge.

    If lawmakers
    skipped the myth-making and began putting America’s resources into a series
    of domestic investments that would spur the economy now, their acts would yield
    dividends for years to come. That means pushing education and job training,
    plus a host of job-creation measures, to the top of the priority list, and
    setting aside initiatives based on fear and fantasy.

    Mattea
    Kramer, a
    TomDispatch regular, is senior research
    analyst at the
    National
    Priorities Project
    and lead author of the new book A People’s Guide to the Federal Budget.

    Follow
    TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook, and
    check out the latest TD book, Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare,
    2001-2050
    .

    Copyright 2012
    Mattea Kramer

    Image by Brendan C,
    licensed under Creative
    Commons
    .

    Published on Jul 17, 2012

    UTNE

    In-depth coverage of eye-opening issues that affect your life.