Topic: Tax and Budget Policy

Cruz and Paul’s VAT Mistake

Presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have proposed value-added taxes (VATs) as part of their tax reform plans.

I critique these taxes in National Review today, arguing that they could become engines of big government growth.

Cruz and Paul are champions of small government, and so their embrace of VATs is unfortunate, and also potentially dangerous.

Dangerous because VATs are probably the only way that liberals would be able to fund the huge projected growth in unreformed entitlement programs in coming years.

In a worse-case scenario under the current tax system, liberals would succeed in hiking income taxes, but they wouldn’t be able to seize much more money because the income tax base is so mobile in today’s global economy. The corporate income tax, for example, is a complex and damaging tax, but it is not capable of raising the government any more revenue than it already does.

Zombie Corporate Welfare

Perhaps in anticipation of Halloween, two components of corporate welfare have been doing their best impression of a Hollywood monster that refuses to die.

The Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) seems poised to come back from the grave, and promises have already been made to reverse the minor cuts to the crop insurance subsidy program agreed to in this week’s budget deal. These cases give some insight into just how difficult it is to actually get rid of corporate welfare.

Cato has long criticized both corporate welfare and crony capitalism, which benefit the few, the powerful, and the politically connected at the expense of everyone else. These policies introduce distortions into the market and limit competition, all at taxpayer expense. Despite their many harmful effects, the nature of these programs, with concentrated benefits and dispersed costs makes it hard to root out corporate welfare from the budget. The groups and companies that benefit are highly motivated to make sure they continue, while ordinary people who all bear a smaller share of the cost are more focused on other things like the practical concerns of providing for their families. This can explain part of why it’s so hard to end any of the many programs that make up the web of corporate welfare.

Ex-Im provides financing and loan guarantees for foreign customers of certain U.S. companies. While proponents argue that Ex-Im is critical to exports and helps American businesses, the vast majority of these benefits flow to a handful of major corporations, and roughly 98 percent of U.S. exports do not get any kind of Ex-Im assistance at all. As Cato’s Dan Ikenson has shown, these subsidies also harm “competing U.S. firms in the same industry, who do not get Ex-Im backing, and U.S. firms in downstream industries, whose foreign competition is now benefiting from reduced capital costs courtesy of U.S. government subsidies.” Given these inefficiencies and distortions, opponents of Ex-Im cheered when the bank’s charter lapsed this summer, but unfortunately that was not the last chapter in this saga. Earlier this week, the House, in a discouraging instance of bipartisanship, voted to reopen Ex-Im by a 331-118 margin. While it still has to get past the Senate, a similar bill passed that chamber earlier this year, and the measure will likely be included in the coming highway bill. So after a prolonged battle to shut down this one small component of corporate welfare, the hard-fought victory for Ex-Im opponents will probably be short-lived.

Tucked into this week’s very disappointing budget deal was one minor positive aspect: modest cost savings from making changes to the subsidized crop insurance program. In this program, farmers can purchase insurance from approved private insurance companies, and the federal government reimburses these insurance companies for administrative and operating costs in addition to reinsuring their losses. The tweak in the budget deal wouldn’t even achieve savings by increasing the insurance premiums paid by farmers, but by merely lowering the rate of return for the insurance companies from 14.5 percent of premiums to 8.9 percent.  It’s worth noting that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that this change would save about $3 billion through 2025, and that these savings would not really start to materialize until 2019. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Roll Call reports that “[f]arm-state lawmakers have been assured by leaders that a provision in the bipartisan budget deal that would trim the federal crop insurance subsidy program will be replaced down the road.” This modest change was years away from even taking effect and the savings were extremely modest over a decade, but there have already been promises to reverse them, citing the potential for “dramatic” consequences.

Past Cato research has analyzed the amount of corporate welfare in the federal budget, estimating that it consistently accounts for more than $100 billion (in inflation-adjusted dollars) each year.

Sources: Author’s calculations using Office of Management and Budget, “Public Budget Database, Outlays,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/outlays.xls and Office of Management and Budget, “The Appendix, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix; Tad DeHaven, “Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 703, July 25, 2012; Stephen Slivinski, “The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 592, May 14, 2007.

The developments with Ex-Im and crop insurance subsidies are just the two most recent examples of why corporate welfare keeps coming back like a Hollywood monster, costing taxpayers and introducing economic distortions, year after year. Even so, opponents of corporate welfare need to continue to expose the flaws, costs and harmful effects of these programs, otherwise they will always be with us.

About Those Social Security ‘Promises’

In the Republican debate last night, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas criticized calls for Social Security reform, saying “people paid their money. They expect to have it,” and that the country needs to honor its promises to seniors. There are problems with this line of argument: the Social Security payroll taxes a person pays are not tied to the benefits they receive in a legal sense, and the ‘promises’ made by Social Security are, and always have been, subject to change.

Congress has had the authority to alter Social Security since its inception. Section 1104 of The Social Security Act of 1935 explicitly says: “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.”

Not only does Congress have the right to make changes, it has done so multiple times in the past. Sometimes these changes are smaller things, like a technical correction to the indexation formula, but there were also larger reforms that were part of attempts to address the programs solvency issues.

The Supreme Court revisited the issue of Social Security’s promises in Flemming v. Nestor, in which Nestor, who had paid into Social Security for 19 years and begun to receive benefits, was then deported for previous ties to the Communist Party. Nestor tried to appeal the termination of his benefits, citing his previous contributions, but the Supreme Court upheld it, saying:

To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands… It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.

The other aspect Huckabee touches on is the link between the taxes paid in and the benefits a person ultimately receives, implying that a worker’s contributions are kept in some kind of silo to be paid out to them at a later date. As another Supreme Court case found, this is not true.

In Helvering v. Davis (1937)the Court held that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program in the sense that  “[t]he proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.” Despite how Huckabee and his fellow defenders of the status quo describe the program, the payroll tax payments a person pays into Social Security have no direct link to the benefits that they receive in a legal sense: they  are subject to future changes made by Congress and dependent on the program having sufficient revenue.

Huckabee doesn’t need to familiarize himself with these decades-old Supreme Court cases or the Social Security Act to be able to understand the problems with his invocation of the program’s ‘promises’. Anyone, including Huckabee, can see this for themselves in the Social Security Statement that the Social Security Administration periodically sends to workers:

Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time.

The ‘promises’ with Social Security always came with an asterisk, and beneficiaries are not entitled to a certain amount because they have contributed payroll taxes. In the past the law has been altered to change the deal facing beneficiaries, and there will undoubtedly have to be more changes in the future if Social Security is to remain viable. If we maintain the status quo and do nothing, benefits will have to cut by 23 percent across the board when the combined trust fund is exhausted in 2034. There can be disagreements about the best way to reform Social Security, but when it is facing trillions in unfunded obligations and the certainty of drastic cuts in the future absent reform, doing nothing is not a feasible option.

The Ted Cruz Tax Plan: A Pro-Growth Restructuring of the Internal Revenue Code, but with One Worrisome Feature

The tax-reform landscape is getting crowded.

Adding to the proposals put forth by other candidates (I’ve previously reviewed the plans offered by Rand Paul, Marco RubioJeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, and Donald Trump), we now have a reform blueprint from Ted Cruz.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, the Texas Senator unveiled his rewrite of the tax code.

…tax reform is a powerful lever for spurring economic expansion. Along with reducing red tape on business and restoring sound money, it can make the U.S. economy boom again. That’s why I’m proposing the Simple Flat Tax as the cornerstone of my economic agenda.

Here are the core features of his proposal.

…my Simple Flat Tax plan features the following: • For a family of four, no taxes whatsoever (income or payroll) on the first $36,000 of income. • Above that level, a 10% flat tax on all individual income from wages and investment. • No death tax, alternative minimum tax or ObamaCare taxes. • Elimination of the payroll tax and the corporate income tax… • A Universal Savings Account, which would allow every American to save up to $25,000 annually on a tax-deferred basis for any purpose.

From an economic perspective, there’s a lot to like. Thanks to the low tax rate, the government no longer would be imposing harsh penalties on productive behavior. Major forms of double taxation such as the death tax would be abolished, creating a much better environment for wage-boosting capital formation.

Budget Deal Undermines Tax Reform

The budget agreement between congressional leaders and the Obama administration would break prior budget caps and increase spending over the next two years by $80 billion. The Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2015 would theoretically offset that cost with savings down the road, but promises of future savings are worth little given that GOP leaders have shown they will break agreed-to restraints whenever the time comes. The Heritage Foundation is right that the deal is a “colossal step” in the wrong direction and “does nothing to reduce the size and scope of government.”

If passed, the deal would undermine a crucial GOP policy plank going into 2016. The issue that unifies all the Republican presidential candidates is the promise of major tax cuts for individuals and businesses. It has been heartening to see so many candidates proposing pro-growth cuts. The Tax Foundation has run the numbers on the plans, and nearly all of them would generate revenue losses for the government and savings for the people.

I’m all for a large tax cut, but how do Republicans plan on passing such a cut if they keep increasing spending? The next president will be confronted with very ugly budget numbers looking forward, thanks partly to the bipartisan profligacy of recent years. Coming into office in 2017, the new president will see deficits exploding to more than $1 trillion by the early 2020s, and $8 trillion more in debt projected to be piled up over the coming decade.   

The best pro-growth tax cuts should be enacted regardless of the deficit situation. In particular, a permanent corporate tax rate cut would generate strong economic growth and would not increase the long-term deficit because the corporate tax base is so dynamic. But to cut taxes, the next president will have to convince enough members of Congress to go along, and the higher are spending and deficits, the harder it will be to get moderates on board.

Budget Deal Is as Bad as You Think

In Washington, the word “bipartisan” usually means “watch your wallet.”  If anyone needs any further proof, just look to the bipartisan budget agreement announced yesterday. 

Hailed in the name of “coming together” and “compromise” to “get things done,” the proposed deal is a dog’s breakfast of every bad budgetary idea to land on the table in recent months. 

It’s a deal so bad that even incoming House Speaker Paul Ryan says it “stinks” (although, it appears, he will still be voting for it). Still, current speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who hammered out the deal behind closed doors, can probably put together enough votes to push it through, with a united Democratic caucus and just enough pro-defense spending Republicans.  

The deal essentially guts the spending limits in place under the 2011 Budget Control Act which brought about sequestration. It would increase spending by at least $80 billion over the next two years above current spending limits, split equally between domestic and defense spending. It would also increase funding for the military’s Overseas Contingency Operation slush fund by $32 billion, meaning the total spending hike would top $112 billion. More domestic spending for Democrats. More defense spending for Republicans.  Everyone wins except the taxpayers. 

But the deal is much worse than just the particular spending increases it contains. Sequestration may have been a blunt instrument but it has been one of the few successful restraints on federal spending in recent years. Without it and the caps in the Budget Control Act, federal spending would have been at least $200 billion higher since 2011.  

This really would mark the second consecutive budget deal in which Congress agreed to ignore the caps. That’s a pretty clear signal that Congress plans to return to its wide open tax and spend past.