Contributing Editors

Jerome Lyle Rappaport

Jerome Lyle Rappaport
Founder and Board Member
Read Bio

Edward Glaeser

Edward Glaeser
Professor of Economics at Harvard University
Read Bio

Stephen P. Johnson

Stephen P. Johnson
Executive Director of Phyllis and Jerome Lyle Rappaport Foundation
Read Bio

Greg Massing

Greg Massing
Executive Director for the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service
Read Bio

Alasdair Roberts

Alasdair Roberts
Professor of Law and Public Policy at Suffolk University Law School
Read Bio

Joseph Curtatone

Joseph Curtatone
Mayor, City of Somerville
Read Bio

Tim H. Davis

Tim H. Davis
Independent Research Consultant
Read Bio

Scott Harshbarger

Scott Harshbarger
Senior Counsel, Proskauer Rose LLP
Read Bio

Vivien Li

Vivien Li
Executive Director of The Boston Harbor Association
Read Bio

Guest contributors

Monika Bandyopadhyay
Suffolk University Law Student

David Barron
Harvard Law School and former Deputy Counsel for the Office of Legal Counsel in the US Department of Justice

Linda Bilmes
Senior lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. Assistant Secretary of Commerce during the Clinton Administration.

Brandy H.M. Brooks
Director, Rudy Bruner Award for Urban Excellence, Bruner Foundation

Felicia Cote
Rappaport Fellow, Harvard Law School/Harvard Kennedy School.

Amanda Eden
Suffolk University Law School student

Sara Farnum
Student, Suffolk Univ. Law School

Kristin Faucette
Student at Suffolk University Law School

Benjamin Forman
Research Director, MassINC

Arthur Hardy-Doubleday
JD/MBA student at Suffolk University Law School and the Sawyer School of Business

Theodore Kalivas
Boston Green Blog, Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy

David Linhart
Student, Boston University School of Law

Antoniya Owens
Research Analyst, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Susan Prosnitz
Senior Advisor, TSA, Washington, DC

Ben Thomas
Boston Green Blog, Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy

Matthew Todaro
Student at Boston College Law School

Alexander von Hoffman
Senior Researcher, Joint Center for Housing Studies

Brett Walker
Student, Boston College Law School

Margarita Warren
Student at Suffolk University Law School

Costly Inheritance - How to tackle the triple root of US debt that has been passed to us

Wednesday, April 27th, 2011
By Linda Bilmes

Originally published in the Boston Globe

With deficit-reduction fever gripping Washington, it is easy to forget that the stunning turnaround in America’s finances — from budget surpluses in the late 1990s to today’s sea of red ink — is largely the byproduct of successive presidents trying to fix yesterday’s crises.

President Bush launched the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in response to 9/11, enacted Medicare Part D to help seniors cope with the rising prices of medicines, and cut taxes across the board in an effort to lower tax burdens. President Obama bailed out the banks to save the financial system, rescued the auto industry, and extended tax breaks to pull the economy out of recession.

Some of these efforts, particularly the Iraq debacle, have turned out to be costly mistakes. But the main legacy of good intentions gone awry is a trio of new challenges: too much debt, rising inequality, and military spending that has spun out of control. History has not been kind to nations that suffer growing inequality, overextended armies, and enormous debts.

Our leaders are seemingly fixated on the debt. But we cannot restore the country to solvency without also facing up to the unpleasant siblings of income inequality and military overstretch. The tax cuts of the past decade have resulted in the most unequal distribution of income and wealth since the 1920s. At the same time, military spending — not including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — has increased by a trillion dollars — reaching the highest level since World War II.

So far the only choice people have been given is between big spending cuts (the Ryan “plan’’) and not-quite-so-big spending cuts coupled with tax increases on the wealthy (the Obama “approach’’). The problem is that voters have little confidence in the ability of either Democrats or Republicans to solve the underlying troubles. The recent budget spat only reinforced public cynicism, with squabbling over what amounts to loose change taking us to the brink of a government shutdown. More of the same is looming in coming weeks over the extension to the debt ceiling.

There is no way to pay off a $14 trillion debt without raising revenues. But voters just do not believe their extra tax dollars will go toward cutting the deficit. Rather they suspect it will end up funding duplicative government programs or foreign military adventures.

Before the public will embrace higher taxes, Congress needs to demonstrate that it is serious about controlling spending — and not by biting into core programs like Medicare or axing things that are unpopular with the Republican base but cost very little.

Any serious deficit reduction plan must include an overhaul of military programs, starting with putting in place a management accounting system at the Pentagon that shows what activities are being paid for and how much they cost. Even the Pentagon admits that it has “lost visibility’’ on spending. We spend $600 billion per year on the “base’’ military budget — but anything we ask it to do — like fighting wars or distributing humanitarian aid — costs extra. It’s like having a fire department that charges extra if your house catches on fire.

Interestingly, those speaking out most forcibly on this issue include former military officers, analysts at the congressional armed services committees, and the US Government Accountability Office. There is a growing belief that the military-industrial complex has become bloated, wasteful, and is harming rather than helping the nation’s military readiness. For example: Despite the trillion dollars added to the Pentagon’s budget since 9/11, the Navy and Air Force fleets are much smaller than they were 10 years ago. Moreover, if we chip away at spending on diplomacy, foreign language training, and foreign aid, we will sacrifice our “soft power’’ — whereas cutting obsolete heavy weapons programs from the Pentagon and spending a fraction of the money saved on such instruments of “soft’’ influence would strengthen our country while still saving money.

Second, in order to garner support, the president must shift the talk away from tax increases and move to tax reform. Much of the recent debate has centered on repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest earners. But there is plenty of evidence (including in the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission report) that we can have lower tax rates overall and still have higher tax revenues by closing loopholes and cutting out tax breaks for special interests that are of little benefit to the economy as a whole (example: the $5 billion-a-year subsidy for ethanol production). In order to make it explicit that any additional tax revenues would go to debt reduction, the president could propose they be paid into a segregated debt-reduction fund that would devote the money to pay down debt at the end of each fiscal year.

Third, tax reforms need to promote a more balanced distribution of income. Over the past 25 years, the top 1 percent of Americans has grown much wealthier while the middle class has seen its real income fall, and the poor have gotten poorer. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that two-thirds of the Ryan plan budget cuts would affect low-income Americans. This misguided effort to fix the budget deficit problem would worsen income inequality and create severe difficulties for America down the road.

The deficit debate is, to use one of Obama’s favorite phrases, a “false choice’’ because this dilemma cannot be addressed in a vacuum. Voters are weary of the partisan battles that focus on the trees rather than the woods. They aren’t ready to buy into the harsh spending cuts proposed by the Republicans. At the same time they rightly have little faith in an approach that relies on tax hikes to paper over the underlying problems. It’s time to think about true tax reform and military reform and tackling the consequences of past mistakes: excessive debt, out-of-control military spending, and a widening gap between the haves and have-nots.


No comments have been added.

(required, but never shown publicly)

» Show all posts

HKS Professor Jeffrey Liebman (left) spoke about new ways to spur policy innovation at a State House briefing sponsored by State Representative (and former Rappaport Urban Scholar) Charles Murphy (right).
Former Lt. Governor Kerry Healey speaks about political parity at the Rappaport Center
Arianna Huffington and Alan Khazei speaking at the Rappaport Center
 MA Attorney General Martha Coakley Hearing on Sexual Exploitation Online
Gov. Deval Patrick speaking at the Rappaport Center's Gubernatorial Speakers Series
Triumph of the City: Ed Glaeser talks about his new book on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Statnet panel of current and former heads of local performance management programs including Stephanie Hirsch (far right), former head of SomerStat and Devin Lyons-Quirk, third from right.
U.S. Representative Barney Frank speaking at the Harvard Kennedy School, cosponsored by the Rappaport Institute.
Mayor Menino attends Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Course for high school students

News and Events

Add your Event

Word Cloud