A Fine Fiscal Balance
Skip to content
Policy Finance & Accounting Jul 7, 2014

A Fine Fis­cal Balance

A con­ver­sa­tion with Jan Eber­ly on sus­tain­able fis­cal policy.

Yevgenia Nayberg​

Jan Eber­ly served as Assis­tant Sec­re­tary for Eco­nom­ic Pol­i­cy at the Trea­sury Depart­ment from 2011 – 2013, for a Demo­c­ra­t­ic admin­is­tra­tion. Her col­lab­o­ra­tor on a recent arti­cle, Phillip Swagel, held the same posi­tion in the pre­vi­ous Repub­li­can admin­is­tra­tion. The pair recent­ly gen­er­at­ed a series of fis­cal pol­i­cy rec­om­men­da­tions in a recent arti­cle for the Peter G. Peter­son Foun­da­tion. Eber­ly was kind enough to speak to us about those recommendations.

Add Insight
to your inbox.

We’ll send you one email a week with content you actually want to read, curated by the Insight team.

Kel­logg Insight: What made the two of you sit down togeth­er to do this?

Eber­ly: There’s a per­cep­tion, as peo­ple watch pol­i­cy being made in the polit­i­cal are­na, that there’s a broad gap between dif­fer­ent points of view — espe­cial­ly on fis­cal issues, where con­tro­ver­sy has result­ed in the gov­ern­ment shut­down and the debt-ceil­ing debate.

But among econ­o­mists who work on fis­cal pol­i­cy, there’s actu­al­ly quite a lot of con­sen­sus on big issues. Of course, there’s dis­agree­ment on exact­ly what should be done and how, but Phill and I actu­al­ly have very sim­i­lar points of view on what the broad strokes of fis­cal pol­i­cy need to be going forward.

KI: Thanks to seques­tra­tion cuts and oth­er pol­i­cy changes, low bor­row­ing rates, and our emerg­ing recov­ery, the bud­get is actu­al­ly in a pret­ty okay place right now. Is that right?

There’s a lot of con­tro­ver­sy about whether there’s some thresh­old num­ber after which the debt-to-GDP ratio real­ly becomes a problem.

Eber­ly: It has improved sub­stan­tial­ly. In the depths of the finan­cial cri­sis and the reces­sion, the bud­get deficit was around 10% of GDP. As the econ­o­my has recov­ered, rev­enue has got­ten stronger. Sup­port for reces­sion-dri­ven pro­grams has been pulled back, and so the bud­get deficit has nat­u­ral­ly tend­ed to close. Then on top of that, explic­it pol­i­cy mea­sures have been put in place and have also helped.

The bud­get deficit in the most recent data is run­ning a lit­tle under 3% of GDP — below the long-run aver­age. That takes off the imme­di­ate pres­sure. But we have long-term chal­lenges, and these will be eas­i­er to address if we do so at a time like now, when we’re not in a reac­tive sit­u­a­tion, and can make delib­er­ate and thought­ful pol­i­cy decisions.

KI: So we have about a decade, you esti­mate, before our debt will start to become unmanageable?

Eber­ly: There’s a lot of con­tro­ver­sy about whether there’s some thresh­old num­ber after which the debt-to-GDP ratio real­ly becomes a prob­lem. I think the con­sen­sus among econ­o­mists is that the debt-to-GDP ratio can’t be looked at in iso­la­tion. There’s also a country’s abil­i­ty to col­lect tax­es, its cred­it pol­i­cy, whether cred­it is grow­ing quick­ly, and the strength of its polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions. So it’s not as if there’s a moment we can point to in the future and say, That&rsqursquo;s the deadline.”

We do know that, with cur­rent poli­cies in place, the debt-to-GDP ratio is pro­ject­ed to even­tu­al­ly grow unsus­tain­ably. We know that action needs to be tak­en, and the soon­er we do it, the less dra­mat­ic it will have to be.

At the same time, the econ­o­my is still get­ting back on its feet. The data last week showed that GDP shrank in the first quar­ter. There were some one-off fac­tors, like the weath­er, that help explain why the num­bers look so grim, but it’s a reminder that the econ­o­my is still recov­er­ing. On the oth­er hand, employ­ment has been improv­ing. So, we want to be cau­tious about what addi­tion­al shocks we inter­ject into the economy.

KI: You rec­om­mend two fronts for long-term fis­cal action. What are these?

Eber­ly: The first is to expand the focus of our bud­get delib­er­a­tions. Fis­cal adjust­ment, large­ly through the sequester, has thus far focused on the dis­cre­tionary spend­ing part of the bud­get. But this is just one part of the bud­get, and a nar­row one at that. Even with­in spend­ing, it excludes all of the manda­to­ry pro­grams” fund­ed by the gov­ern­ment and Con­gress: leg­is­la­tion sets the retire­ment age for Medicare, or the eli­gi­bil­i­ty and ben­e­fit lev­els for Social Secu­ri­ty, for exam­ple. As peo­ple apply for and qual­i­fy for those pro­grams, their par­tic­i­pa­tion deter­mines the lev­el of spending.

Evi­dence shows that fis­cal mea­sures can have a sig­nif­i­cant impact both in rais­ing incomes and in reduc­ing unemployment.

So the dis­cre­tionary side — which includes things like edu­ca­tion and research that gen­er­al­ly pro­mote eco­nom­ic growth — has been squeezed much more than the manda­to­ry side. In fact we might think about expan­sions in this area to pro­mote growth and eco­nom­ic mobil­i­ty. But if you look at where the spend­ing growth comes from in the long run, it’s from the health and age-relat­ed pro­grams on the manda­to­ry side. And, the rev­enue side can also be made more effi­cient. I don’t think any­one is sat­is­fied with the cur­rent tax code.

KI: The ele­phant in the room being the fact that we as a nation are aging?

Eber­ly: Exact­ly. With no changes to Social Secu­ri­ty and Medicare, spend­ing goes up, because the num­ber of peo­ple who qual­i­fy for those pro­grams goes up over time, and so does the cost of health care.

KI: And what’s the sec­ond front for fis­cal action?

Eber­ly: There are always unex­pect­ed things hap­pen­ing in the econ­o­my. You want to make sure that you have some arrows in your quiver to be able to respond.

Right now mon­e­tary pol­i­cy — imple­ment­ed by the Fed­er­al Reserve — is still expan­sion­ary. Basi­cal­ly, the pol­i­cy inter­est rate is already as low as it can go. If fis­cal pol­i­cy — which is decid­ed by Con­gress and the exec­u­tive branch — were to pull back, and there was an unex­pect­ed shock to the econ­o­my (from Europe, say, or the Mid­dle East, or ener­gy prices) there is very lit­tle addi­tion­al room for mon­e­tary pol­i­cy to sup­port the economy. 

While fis­cal adjust­ment is need­ed to sta­bi­lize the debt-to-GDP ratio, the adjust­ments should not start while mon­e­tary pol­i­cy is still accom­moda­tive. You want the econ­o­my to gain suf­fi­cient strength for mon­e­tary pol­i­cy to pull back and renor­mal­ize. Then fis­cal pol­i­cy can pull back. That also leaves pol­i­cy mak­ers room to move in response to a shock to the glob­al econ­o­my. Even­tu­al­ly, we will want to rebuild fis­cal capac­i­ty, so that fis­cal pol­i­cy can also respond to future eco­nom­ic down­turns, just as we had to do dur­ing the finan­cial crisis.

KI: So what can pol­i­cy mak­ers do to build in more flex­i­bil­i­ty for deal­ing with eco­nom­ic shocks?

Eber­ly: Evi­dence shows that fis­cal mea­sures, such as those in the Amer­i­can Recov­ery and Rein­vest­ment Act (also known as the stim­u­lus pro­gram) can have a sig­nif­i­cant impact both in rais­ing incomes and in reduc­ing unem­ploy­ment. The les­son here is that fis­cal pol­i­cy can be pow­er­ful, espe­cial­ly in a severe down­turn where there’s under­uti­lized resources in the economy.

But in order to be able to use it when the econ­o­my is weak — in order to have the capac­i­ty to increase spend­ing and decrease tax­es and run a bud­get deficit — you have to know when to pull back. Peo­ple remem­ber the expan­sion when the econ­o­my is weak; they for­get about the adjust­ment when it is strong.

KI: That’s why you argue that pol­i­cy mak­ers should con­sid­er more auto­mat­ic stabilizers.

Eber­ly: Right. A big part of fis­cal pol­i­cy is auto­mat­ic sta­bi­liz­ers, which include things like unem­ploy­ment ben­e­fits, or Sup­ple­men­tal Nutri­tion and Assis­tance Pro­gram (SNAP) ben­e­fits. When the econ­o­my weak­ens and unem­ploy­ment ris­es, more peo­ple qual­i­fy. So spend­ing goes up in a reces­sion: a nat­u­ral­ly coun­ter­cycli­cal fis­cal measure.

Those things tend to stim­u­late the econ­o­my with­out any leg­is­la­tion being passed. They’re just auto­mat­i­cal­ly in place. They’re pre­dictable, they’re expect­ed and that also makes them more effec­tive because peo­ple know that, for exam­ple, if they become unem­ployed dur­ing a reces­sion, they can claim unem­ploy­ment ben­e­fits and that pro­vides them some insurance.

We pro­pose expand­ing the use of auto­mat­ic sta­bi­liz­ers both for eco­nom­ic rea­sons and also for prac­ti­cal rea­sons. For eco­nom­ic rea­sons, you’d like to see fis­cal pol­i­cy be coun­ter­cycli­cal so that fis­cal pol­i­cy comes in when the pri­vate econ­o­my is suf­fer­ing a down­turn and rolls off when the econ­o­my strength­ens. The prac­ti­cal val­ue is that it can be very hard to get poli­cies passed and imple­ment­ed in a time­ly way. And then, once pro­grams are in place, it can be hard to pull them back.

KI: Are you opti­mistic that we will make the changes we need to for improved fis­cal health over the next few years, or the next decade?

Eber­ly: We’ve seen move­ment already. We know that pol­i­cy is dif­fi­cult. There are many pres­sures, in addi­tion to good eco­nom­ic judg­ment, on the pol­i­cy process. I think there’s a lot of aware­ness of what needs to be done. The most opti­mistic path for­ward is for the econ­o­my to strength­en, and imme­di­ate pres­sures to abate, leav­ing space for longer-term deci­sion making.

But we need to pre­serve pro­grams – like ear­ly child­hood edu­ca­tion and research – that pro­mote growth. If there’s any sin­gle thing that will help the long run bud­get sit­u­a­tion, it’s strong growth. That goes a lot fur­ther than even the hard­est fought bud­get deals.

Featured Faculty

Janice C. Eberly

John L. and Helen D. Russell Professor of Finance and Faculty Director, Kellogg Public-Private Initiative

About the Writer

Jessica Love is a science writer and editor for Kellogg Insight.

About the Research

Eberly, Janice and Phillip Swagel. Fiscal Balancing Act. June 2014. (Prepared for the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.)

Read the original

Suggested For You

Most Popular

Organizations

How Are Black – White Bira­cial Peo­ple Per­ceived in Terms of Race?

Under­stand­ing the answer — and why black and white Amer­i­cans’ respons­es may dif­fer — is increas­ing­ly impor­tant in a mul­tira­cial society.

Careers

Pod­cast: Our Most Pop­u­lar Advice on Advanc­ing Your Career

Here’s how to con­nect with head­hunters, deliv­er with data, and ensure you don’t plateau professionally.

Most Popular Podcasts

Careers

Pod­cast: Our Most Pop­u­lar Advice on Improv­ing Rela­tion­ships with Colleagues

Cowork­ers can make us crazy. Here’s how to han­dle tough situations.

Social Impact

Pod­cast: How You and Your Com­pa­ny Can Lend Exper­tise to a Non­prof­it in Need

Plus: Four ques­tions to con­sid­er before becom­ing a social-impact entrepreneur.

Careers

Pod­cast: Attract Rock­star Employ­ees — or Devel­op Your Own

Find­ing and nur­tur­ing high per­form­ers isn’t easy, but it pays off.

Marketing

Pod­cast: How Music Can Change Our Mood

A Broad­way song­writer and a mar­ket­ing pro­fes­sor dis­cuss the con­nec­tion between our favorite tunes and how they make us feel.