Jeffrey Frankel Harpel Professor of Capital Formation & Growth

1. Economic & Fiscal Outlook Jeffrey FrankelHarpel Professor of Capital Formation & Growth Senior Executive Fellows March 6, 2012

2. GDP growth forecasts for 2012–13 IMF World Economic Outlook, Jan 2012 2010 2011 2012 2013 World Output 5.2 3.8 3.3 3.9 Advanced Economies 3.2 1.6 1.2 1.9 USA 3.0 1.8 1.8 2.2 Euro Area 1.9 1.6 –0.5 0.8 Germany 3.6 3.0 0.3 1.5 France 1.4 1.6 0.2 1.0 Italy 1.5 0.4 –2.2 –0.6 Spain –0.1 0.7 –1.7 –0.3 Japan 4.4 –0.9 1.7 1.6 UK 2.1 0.9 0.6 2.0 Newly Industrial Asian Economies 8.4 4.2 3.3 4.1 Emerging & Developing Economies 7.3 6.2 5.4 5.9 European recessionpulls down global growth Developing Asia 9.5 7.9 7.3 7.8 China 10.4 9.2 8.2 8.8 India 9.9 7.4 7.0 7.3 ASEAN-5 6.9 4.8 5.2 5.6

3. U.S. economic news so far in 2012 has been better 3 • Recent statistics: • Unemployment has declined to 8.3% • Growth in Q4 2011 revised up to 3.0% (2/29/12) • from 2.8 % • Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey (February)consensus forecast for 2012 GDP growth:Q1 = 2.1 %, Q2 = 2.2 %, Q3 = 2.4 % , Q4 = 2.6 %.

4. Obama Inauguration End of recession Jan. 2007 – Dec. 2011, monthly, estimated by Macroeconomic Advisers Source: Macroeconomic Advisers www.macroadvisers.comMon

5. Private sector job creation (by quarter) End of recession Obama Inauguration Average rate of private job creation between the two recessions (Nov. 2001-Dec.2007) Average rate of private job creation throughout 8 Bushyears(Jan. 2001-Jan.2009) Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

6. Possible risks to the recovery in 2012 • Euroland: Worsening of sovereign debt crisis? • and contagion to other high Debt/GDP countries. • Political breakdown in Washington? • like the debt ceiling standoff of August 2011 • which led S&P to downgrade US from AAA to AA • for the 1st time in history. • Emerging markets: hard landing? • particularly in China. • Major oil crisis? • from military confrontation with Iran.

7. Sovereign debt worries... • Who is vulnerable to contagion? • The emerging market countries are in much better shape than past decades, • in an amazing & historic role reversal.

8. A remarkable role-reversal: • Debt/GDP of the top 20 rich countries (> 80%) is already more than twice that of the top 20 emerging markets; • and rising rapidly. • Nor are the Emerging Markets necessarily less “debt tolerant” for a given debt/GDP • as Reinhart & Rogoff thought not long ago.

9. Country creditworthiness is now inter-shuffled “Advanced” countries (Formerly) “Developing” countries AAA Germany, UK Singapore AA+ US, France AA Belgium Chile AA- Japan China A+ Korea A Spain Malaysia, South Africa A- Brazil, Thailand, Botswana BBB+ Italy Colombia BBB- Iceland, Ireland India BB+ Indonesia, Philippines BB Portugal Costa Rica, Jordan B Burkina Faso CC Greece S&P ratings, Feb.2012 domestic currency

10. WhatDetermines CountryVulnerability? Fundamentally: Quality of institutions. This does not mean “tough” rules that lack enforceability like Stability & Growth Pact, debt ceiling or Balanced Budget Amendment. Better would be structural budget targets (Swiss) with forecasts from independent experts (Chile). The smartest commodity producers in boom yearssave export earnings in a Sovereign Wealth Fund (Botswana) One third of developing countries have graduated from pro-cyclical spending to countercyclical since 2000. The US, UK & euro countries could learn from them.

11. Correlations between Govt. Spending & GDP 1960-1999 } Adapted from Kaminsky, Reinhart & Vegh, 2004,“When It Rains It Pours” procyclical Pro-cyclical spending countercyclical Counter-cyclical spending G always used to be pro-cyclical for most developing countries.

12. Correlations between Govt. Spending & GDP 2000-2009 procyclical Frankel, Vegh & Vuletin (2011) In the last decade, about 1/3 developing countries switched to countercyclical fiscal policy:Negative correlation of G & GDP. countercyclical

13. The US budget What changes in American fiscal policy would be desirableif politics were not an obstacle? On the one hand, the economy is still weak. On the other hand, the U.S. can’t wait until the recovery is complete to tackle the long run fiscal problem. A two-part strategy is required: Current steps to extend the fiscal stimulus, designed to maximize bang for the buck. Simultaneous legislated measures to lock in future progress back toward fiscal discipline in the long run. Not vague speeches, but specific & firm legislative commitments.

14. While fiscal stimulus should not be withdrawn now, serious steps should be taken to lock in a return to fiscal discipline in the long run. All politically very difficult, needless to say. Any solution must begin with: Honest budgeting (e.g., Afghan war on-budget, etc…) Regime of Shared Sacrifice Wise up to politicians who insist the budget can be balanced entirely through cuts in domestic spending (while cutting taxes), but who raise spending when they get the chance. 14

15. Short fiscal history: The 1980s In 1981, the newly elected Ronald Reagan complained he had inherited (almost) $1 trillion of national debt: As $1,000 bills stacked up, the debt would reach 67 miles high. Reagan’s policy: sharp tax cuts(& rise in defense spending) The claim: budget surpluses would result. The reality: record deficits that added to the national debt a 2nd trillion in his 1st term a 3rd trillion in his 2nd term a 4th trillion when G.H.W. Bush initially continued the policies(“Read my lips, no new taxes.”)

16. Fiscal history,continued: The 1990s The deficits were gradually cut, and then converted to surpluses by the end of the 1990s. How was this accomplished? Regime of “Shared Sacrifice” --3 key policy steps. 1990: GHW Bush agreed spending caps, taxes, & PAYGO 1993: Clinton extended the policy. 1998: As surpluses emerged, “SaveSocialSecurity 1st.” Strong growth in late 1990s.

17. Fiscal history,continued: The 2000s The Shared Sacrifice regime ended the day G. W. Bush took office in 2001. He returned to the Reagan policies: Large tax cuts together with rapid increase in spending(triple Clinton’s) Not just in military spending (e.g., Iraq & Afghanistan), but also domestic spending: discretionary + Medicare drugs benefit. Just like Reagan, he claimed budget surpluses would result. Just like Reagan, the result was record deficits: The national debt doubled. I.e., GWB left more debt than his father + Reagan + 39 predecessors

18. On what basis do some fiscal conservatives claim that tax cuts lead to budget surpluses? (1) Tea Party logic: Claim: We can do it by cutting Head Start & foreign aid. I.e., repeal the Laws of Arithmetic. (2) The Laffer Hypothesis: Claim: Tax rate cuts raise income so much that tax revenue goes up. (3) “Starve the Beast” Claim: Tax revenue decline will force spending cuts. “Congress can’t spend money that it doesn’t have.”

19. How far can we get by cutting spending? Totalfederalspending = $3½ trillionin round numbers. That spending minus tax revenue leaves a budget deficit of $1.1 trillion in FY 2012 down from $1.4 trillion in 2009. Most Republican congressmen want to exempt defense & senior-related spending(Soc.Security & Medicare), to cut only non-defense discretionary spending.  That was their official platform in 2010 election. How much would we have to trim non-defense discretionary spending to balance the budget?

20. How far can we get by cutting spending?continued Start by eliminating all foreign aid.  = 1 ½ % of total outlays, not 25% as Americans think.  Next, veteran’s benefits. The same. We are now up to a total of 3 % of outlays. Next imagine zeroing out all federal spending on agr., science & environment, education & transportation,   which includes programs so popular that congressmen voting for them would lose re-election.  But some of the freshmen say they are willing to pay that price.   That is a total of $364 b = 1/3 of the 2012 deficit.  Conclusion: Domestic discretionary spending is not where the big bucks are. Would also need to eliminate either all of defense, or all of medicare or all of social security while still collecting the social security taxes that are supposed to pay for it!

21. 3 biggest spending categories:Health, Social security, & Defense { Medicare & medicaid Concord Coalition. Data Source: CBO, Jan. 2012

22. Eliminating all non-defense discretionary spending(including also parks, weather service, food safety, SEC, FBI, border patrol, politicians’ salaries… everything !)would not come close to eliminating the budget deficit $92 b $86 b $61 b $59 b $56 b } $35 b $30 b $17 b $6 b Concord Coalition. Data Source: CBO, Jan.2012

23. Breakdown of federal spending Even if one could somehow eliminate all domestic spending, it would not come close to eliminating the deficit in FY 2012,from $1.4 trillion in FY 2009 Deficit $1.1 tr. Tax revenue $2.5 tr. Concord Coalition. Data Source: CBO, Jan. 2012

24. Ten years ago, if the country thought it important enough to protect any single category against belt-tightening in the long run - say military or social security or taxes – it would have been arithmetically possible, by making the cuts elsewhere. But we no longer have the luxury of such choices after the legacy of the last decade — after the effects of mammoth tax cuts (2001 & 2003), two wars (2001, 2003), the Medicare prescription drug benefit (2003), and the severe financial crisis & recession (2008). Starting from our current position, each of the 5 components must play a role, along with taxes.

25. The US public discussion is framed as a battle between conservatives who philosophically believe in strong budgets & small government, and liberals who do not.Democrats, Republicans,” & the media all use this language.Not the right way to characterize the debate. [1] (1) The right goal should be budgets that allow surpluses in booms and deficits in recession. (2) The correlation between how loudly an American politician proclaims a belief in fiscal conservatism and how likely he is to take genuine policy steps < 0. [1] Never mind that small government is classically supposed to be the aim of “liberals,” in the 19th century definition, not “conservatives.” My point is different: those who call themselves conservatives in practice tend to adopt policies that are the opposite of fiscal conservatism. I call them “illiberal.” “Republican & Democratic Presidents Have Switched Economic Policies”Milken Inst.Rev.2003.

26. U.S. fiscal policy in 2012-2013, continued How does one take steps today to lock in future fiscal consolidation? Not by raising taxes or cutting spending today(new recession); nor by promising to do so in a year or two(not credible). There are lots of economically sensible proposals for spending to eliminate, more efficient taxes to switch to, and “tax expenditures” to cut.

27. How to reduce the budget deficit The only way to do this is both reduce spending & raise tax revenue, as we did in the 1990s. • Spending. Examples: • Cuts in farm subsidies for agribusiness & farmers • Cut unwanted weapons systems • a rare success: the F22 fighter • Cut manned space program

28. How to reduce the budget deficit The only way is both reduce spending & raise tax revenue, continued. • Tax revenue options • Let President Bush’s tax cuts for the rich expire in 2013 • Curtail expensive and distorting tax expenditures • E.g., Tax-deductibility of mortgage interest, • & health insurance • Subsidies to oil industry… • Or more ambitious tax reform • Introduce a VAT or consumption tax • Or phase in auctioning of tradable emission permits

29. Doing nothing is an option CBPP, May 2011

30. Distortionary subsidies hiding as tax expenditures $128 b $305 billion $93 b $84 b Joint Committee of Taxation, Jan. 2012

31. The long-term problem is entitlements Concord Coalition. Data Source: CBO, Jan. 2012

32. Social security Raise retirement age – just a little Progressively index future benefit growth to inflation Optional options: To please Democrats: Raise the cap on social security taxes. To please Republicans: encourage private accounts though that contributes nothing to closing the gap. 32

33. Health care Encourage hospitals to standardize around best-practice medicine. Standardize around best-practice treatment e.g., to pursue the checklist that minimizes patient infections, and avoid unnecessary medical tests & procedures. That is not “death panels.” Lever: make Medicare payments conditional on these best practices To please Republicans: rein in malpractice litigation. Curtail corporate tax-deductibility of health insurance, especially gold-plated. 33

34. For background writings, you can Google “Jeffrey Frankel Harvard” Or go to my webpage: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/jfrankel/index.htm Or my blog: http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/ . Including “Did Obama Turn Around the Economy?” Project Syndicate, Feb. 17, 2012. "Small Countries, Big Ideas," forthcoming, Business Economics (National Association of Business Economists), April 2012. “A Lesson From the South for Fiscal Policy in the US and Other Advanced Countries,” Comparative Economic Studies, 2011. “Snake-Oil Tax Cuts,” Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper 221, 2008.

35. Appendix I: 3 pieces of evidence to support the claim that “fiscal conservatives” are not: (i) The voting pattern among the 258 Congressmen who signed an unconditional pledge not to raise taxes: As of 2004, they had voted for more spending than those who did not sign the pledge. [2] (ii) The pattern of spending under different presidents.[3] (iii) The pattern of states whose Senators win pork & other federal spending.[4] [2]William Gale & Brennan Kelly, 2004, “The ‘No New Taxes’ Pledge,” Tax Notes, July. [3] JF “Snake-Oil Tax Cuts,” EPI, Briefing Paper 221. 2008.  [4] JF Red States, Blue States and the Distribution of Federal Spending, 3/31/2010.

36. Vs. the 1990s: The Shared Sacrifice approach succeeded in eliminating budget deficits, importantly by slowing spending. (ii) Spending & deficts both rose sharply when Presidents Reagan, Bush I, & Bush II took office.

37. (iii) States ranked by federal spending receivedper tax dollar paid in 2005 versus party vote ratio in preceding election “red”states Republican states take home significantly more federal $ (relative to taxes paid)than Democratic states big inflow of US $ “blue”states low inflow of US $

38. Appendix II: The Long-term debt problem • (1) From where did the debt come? • (2) What will drive debt in the future? • The problem is not budget deficits in the next few years, which are coming down. • The problem is the far larger increases in entitlement programs based on current promises • Social security • Medicare and other health programs

39. (1) How did we get here?$13 trillion in 2011 debt,relative to 2001 official projection } Wars in Iraq &Afghanistan (so far) } Bush tax cuts (which were supposed to expire in 2011) } Over-optimistic economic assumptions in 2001, e.g., growth rate Source: The Great Debt Shift: Drivers of Federal Debt Since 2001, Pew Charitable Trust,

40. 2009-11 fiscal stimulus in response to the recession accounts for less than 1/3 of recent deficitsand is rapidly disappearing. CBPP, May 2011

41. (2) The long-term problem

46. Appendix III U.S. fiscal policy in 2012-2013 • If we opt for short-term fiscal stimulus • or at least on counteracting the current fiscal contraction, • what form should it take?

47. U.S. fiscal policy in 2012-2013,cont. Maximizing bang for the buck ≡ fiscal stimulus that gives the most demand per $ added to long-term debt. Example that would minimize bang for the buck: proposal to make permanent the 2010 estate tax abolition . Almost as poorly targeted: proposal to prevent the Bush tax cuts from expiring in 2013 for those households > $250,000. .

48. U.S. fiscal policy in 2012-2013,cont. • If the stimulus has to take the form of tax cuts, then the best options are: • extending President Obama’s payroll tax cuts, • fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax, and • extending the Bush tax cuts for those households < $250,000. • Some business tax cuts can also give bang for the buck. • such as temporary credits for investment or hiring

49. But spending boosts demand more than tax cuts do, because the latter are partly saved. Extend elements of the Obama stimulus such as infrastructure investment and giving money to the states so that they don’t have to lay off teachers, policemen, firemen, subway drivers & construction workers. U.S. fiscal policy in 2012-2013,cont.