Will America Become Detroit, Part 3: Paul Ryan, Rambo, and J. Alfred Prufrock

"We fail far more often by timidity than by over-daring."
- Ray Stannard Baker

"Do I dare eat a peach?"
- From "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" by T. S. Eliot

The most controversial deficit reduction plan was put forward by Wisconsin Representative and Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan. In 2008, he introduced H. R. 6110, entitled "Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2008", as a plan to balance the budget and create jobs. This proposal has garnered both high praise and scathing condemnation.

• Democratic co-chair of President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform called the Ryan plan “sensible, serious . . , and honest”.
• In April at an Associated Press Luncheon, President Obama denounced Ryan's plan as "nothing but thinly-veiled Social Darwinism."
• New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote "Today, Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, is scheduled to release the most comprehensive and most courageous budget reform proposal any of us have seen in our lifetimes"
• Even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have blasted the Ryan plan, writing that it fails to meet a basic moral test.

As is often the case, the truth lies between the extremes. Paul Ryan's plan would not produce a future ripped from the pages of Oliver Twist. On the other hand, the plan would also not succeed in its primary mission of eliminating the deficit. The reason why the Ryan proposal would fail is that, contrary to what both his supporters and critics contend, this plan is actually too timid to be effective. Contrary to popular rhetoric, the senator who is likened to Rambo is much closer to J. Alfred Prufrock. 

Bill Clinton, Social Darwinist?

One of the more popular attacks on the Ryan plan is that it would cut spending much too quickly, threatening our fragile economic recovery. President Obama even went so far as to call the plan a "prescription for decline". Everyone agrees that spending cuts are inevitable, but Obama asserts that these cuts must be done more gradually to preserve both the safety net for the poor and this nation's greatness.

This argument focuses its line of attack on the notion that Ryan's plan spends considerably less than recent federal budgets, a major talking point for the plan's proponents. So how does the Ryan plan compare to federal spending levels, or for that matter, how does it compare to Obama's proposal? An analysis of the numbers shows how Washington's definition of a cut differs from the rest of the nation: the only sense in which Ryan's budget for the next 10 years can be considered a "cut" is in the sense that spending will not increase a fast as politicians originally planned:

• Even after adjusting for inflation, Ryan's plan for the each of the next ten years would be 46% higher than Bill Clinton's last budget; and
• In this 10 year period Ryan plan spends only 5% less than Obama's proposed budget.

If Paul Ryan is a Social Darwinist, wouldn't that make Bill Clinton one as well? And if we are to believe that the Ryan plan would put us on the path to decline, why should we have any confidence in a plan that only differs from the Ryan by only 5%?

Voting for the Party That Will Throw Granny Off a Cliff

The most contentious issue with the Ryan Plan is the entitlement program reforms. As an alternative to the current defined benefit program, Ryan proposed block granting the program, and an opt-out for younger people who wish to vest in private retirement plans instead of Social Security and Medicare.

The imminent debt crisis has finally forced a senator to touch the "third rail" of American politics. And predictably, his opponents have played upon the public's fear of changes in these popular programs. The Agenda Project produced an infamous ad depicting Paul Ryan throwing an old woman off a cliff. The Romney campaign responded by producing its own ad, attacking Obama's plans to divert Medicare "savings" to pay for Obamacare. So which party will really preserve Medicare as we know it?

The honest answer is neither party: no matter who wins the elections here and in the next few decades, our entitlement programs as we know them will come to an end, period. These programs are completely and utterly unsustainable. As early as 2008, the trustees reports for Social Security and Medicare place their unfunded liability (that is, what they are obligated to pay out minus anticipated revenue) at $101 trillion. Given that our annual GDP is around $14 trillion, this is a hole that even a 100% tax rate cannot fill. A health care economist put the Medicare situation in far stronger language (warning: possibly NSFW) here.

Ryan's plan is probably insufficient to fix the entitlement crisis, but it is better than the current administrations' non-plan. In reality, the most likely outcome for the entitlement programs is that they will become means tested. But saying that is not politically popular (ask Ron Paul and Gary Johnson), so the two major party candidates will continue to argue over which one will push granny off the cliff.

Watching the Glaciers Speed By

For all the hoopla about the rapidity of the Paul Ryan's cuts, what is amazing is how agonizingly slow this plan is in terms of solving the debt crisis. CBO projections show that the plan won't even produce a balanced budget until 2040. Even this is based on optimistic assumptions, such as that no other national crises will arise in the next 28 years, and that congress will remain committed to this plan for nearly three decades. Part of the problem is that Senator Ryan has his own sacred cows: he leaves the budgets for defense and the war on terror untouched. Given the severity of the debt problem, everything should be on the table. The Pentagon and the Office of Homeland Security both have a lot of waste that could be eliminated.

To really fix the debt crisis, what is needed is a plan far more bold than the Ryan plan. But since Washington views this plan as reckless, what will actually be implemented is something weaker, and therefore even more inadequate, than the Ryan plan. This is the strongest evidence yet that no serious remedy will be attempted until it is too late, i.e. in financial terms, America will become Detroit.

What we are facing is nothing short of default of our nation. Granted, the consequences of this will be terrible: treasury bonds are frequently purchased because of their reputation for stability. Many who are depending on these bonds, including some who were dependent on them for their retirement, will be devastated. But there will be a few upsides to this crisis, as will be detailed in the next installments.

Will America Become Detroit?

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be"
- Hamlet Act 1, scene 3

"You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store"
- From "Sixteen Tons" by Merle Travis

Detroit News editorial writer Shikha Dalmia has written a sobering op-ed about my former home town's financial crisis. Detroit's leaders seem to be in a state of denial about the severity of the problem. This Op-Ed argues that bankruptcy may be the best option for Detroit, since it would force the changes needed to get the city's debt under control.

It is sad to see what has happened to this once great city, but it is hardly surprising. The city has been spending far beyond either current or projected revenue for many years now. Bowing to political pressure, the city council has been kicking the can down the road for as long as possible. But now, they have run out of road.

But those from other American cities should neither scorn nor pity the city of Detroit. The nation as a whole are following the same trajectory that Detroit followed years ago. So what prevents our country from meeting the same fate as this tragic city? Neither party has offered a serious plan for getting government debt under control. We hear a lot about climate change denialism, but this nation's undoing may well turn out to be deficit denialism.

Wait a Minute! Didn't We Fix This in the 90's?

As late as the last years of the Clinton administration, our government was not running up the deficit. Today, a third of all federal spending is borrowed. How did this our nation go so far wrong in the last 12 years? To answer this question, let us compare the year 2000 budget to this year's budget. Adjusting for inflation (2012 dollars) and population growth,

• In 2000, the government took in $2.5 trillion dollars and spent $2.0 trillion; and
• In 2012, our nation will take in $2.4 trillion dollars and spend $3.8 trillion. 

Revenue is down from 2000, but given how much weaker the economy is now, what is really surprising is that the revenue is not down even further. Spending, on the other hand, has gone out of control. Even after adjusting for population and inflation, spending has nearly doubled. If our government spent at year 2000 levels, we would still have a budget surplus.

In short, the problem is spending, not revenue. But spending cuts are more popular in the abstract than they are in practice, hence neither major party has put out serious proposals for reigning in the red ink.

Is Our Situation That Bad? No, It's Even Worse!

As the national debt clock so vividly displays, the U.S. federal deficit is rapidly approaching $16 trillion. But as stunning as that figure is, it is only a small part of our shared indebtedness. This figure does not include the unfunded liabilities of entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The unfunded liabilities of these two programs dwarf the $16 trillion figure. The 2012 Medicare trustees report estimates a shortfall of $27 trillion, and the 2012 Social Security trustees report places its unfunded liability at $8.6 trillion. And these trustees reports estimates are on the conservative side!

Another debt problem that U.S. governments, at all levels, have woefully underfunded their pension plans.We have seen the trouble this creates in California, Wisconsin, New Jersey, as well as Detroit. As the baby boom start retiring in droves, this problem will trigger more municipal bankruptcies. And the feds will not have the money to bail them out.

The Lighter Side of Default

We have general agreement that our current spending is unsustainable. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to identify the debt crisis as the greatest threat to our nation's future. My next post will look at both party's (wholly inadequate) proposed solutions. But at this point, it is safe to say that, irrespective of who wins in November, this crisis will be dealt with the same way it was in Detroit: at the very last minute, using desperate measures. But cheer up: the impending U.S. default may be very painful in the short run, but it will force some very positive changes in our governance. Follow up posts will explain why the coming storm will be followed by brighter days. Watch this space.

When Will We See War Declared the Right Way?

"The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
- Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution

"Then it’s war!
Freedonia’s going to war!
Each native son will grab a gun.
And run away to war!"
- From "The Country's Goin' to War" by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby;

Pundits have criticized the U.S. bombing of Libya for its ill timing, its lack of planning, and for the fuzzy end goals. As serious as these issues are, there is an even bigger problem with this military action: is it constitutional? According to section 8 of the constitution, the power to declare war resides with congress. The decision to set up a no-fly zone was made without a vote in the house or the senate, or even consulting with most Senators and Representatives for that matter.

Does the President have the constitutional power to do this? Voices as disparate as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) agree that this action is clearly a violation of Obama's oath to uphold the constitution. In fact, some feel that this is an impeachable offense. One former Senator and presidential candidate said in 2007, that if then President George Bush unilaterally took military action against Iran, he would move to impeach him. That candidate was Sen. Joe Biden, our current Vice President.

In December 2007, the Boston Globe asked the Presidential candidates

"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"

Candidate Barack Obama's response started with

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Absolutely correct, candidate Obama! Now can you please impart this constitutional expertise to President Obama?

To be fair, section 8 of the constitution has been ignored for many administrations. The last American war officially declared by congress was before the Korean war! The U.S. has not fought a war as proscribe by the constitution in my lifetime, and I fear that I might not live to see a constitutionally declared war. But previous presidents have at least had some sort of congressional vote to approve wars that did not involve a threat to the nation. Obama has crossed a new threshold with the Libyan no-fly zone.

Instead of waiting for congressional approval, our President acted on the approval of two other bodies: the United Nation and the Arab League. This is troubling for reasons other than the fact that these bodies have zero congressional authority: neither of these bodies are elected by U.S. citizens. War can impact U.S. foreign relations for generations. The cost of American wars is born by U.S. taxpayers. Our wars also kill many of the our best young people. Given the burden on U.S. citizens, shouldn't war decisions be made by a body elected by these citizens?

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being fought, in part, to bring democracy to those countries. But who's fighting to bring democracy to America?