|
E-mail this page to a friend!
Senior Citizen Politics
Fed Chief Continues Greenspan Warnings of Financial
Disaster from Entitlement Programs
Medical costs growing faster than wages, booming
elderly population spell trouble
January 19, 2007 – It was not exactly news, but
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a senate committee yesterday
that spending on entitlement programs – Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid – will climb quickly in the next decade. This warning of the
disastrous effect of entitlement spending on the nation as Americans
live longer and medical costs climb faster than personal incomes was a
common warning from his predecessor, Alan Greenspan.
Note: The entire speech by
Bernanke is below news report. Challenge to his including Social
Security in the problem is in side bar.
| |
Related Stories |
|
| |
Greenspan Again Warns Baby Boomers of Retirement
Threats
Calls for action now by Washington to reduce deficit
By
Tucker Sutherland, editor
Dec. 2, 2005 – Once again baby boomers are being
warned that unless something is done about the soaring federal deficit
their retirement years may fall far short of expectations. It has become
a consistent theme of Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Alan Greenspan, who
spoke again today expressing his fear "that we may have already
committed more physical resources to the baby-boom generation in its
retirement years than our economy has the capacity to deliver."
Read more...
Read more
on
Politics for Senior Citizens |
|
He pointed out that today people 65 years and older
make up about 12% of the U.S. population, while there are about five
people between the ages of 20 and 64 for providing the government money
to help support each person 65 and older.
By 2030, however, the Social Security Trustees
project the ratio of those between the ages of 20 and 64 to those 65 and
older will have fallen to about 3. In 2030 Americans 65 and older will
constitute about 19% of the U.S. population, he told the Committee on
the Budget.
This boom in older Americans was just part of the
problem he sees.
The second cause of rising entitlement spending is
the expected continued increase in medical costs per beneficiary covered
by Medicare and Medicaid.
"Projections of future medical costs are fraught
with uncertainty, but history suggests that--without significant changes
in policy--these costs are likely to continue to rise more quickly than
incomes, at least for the foreseeable future. Together with the aging of
the population, ongoing increases in medical costs will lead to a rapid
expansion of Medicare and Medicaid expenditures," he said.
| |
Bernanke Latest Top Worry-Wart on Social
Security |
|
| |
"Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke is the latest top worry-wart on
Social Security when the program is sound with no real deficit or
'crisis'," says congressional expert Robert Weiner, former Chief of
Staff of the House Aging Committee under Cong. Claude Pepper.
Weiner continues, "Bernanke is right to worry about
Medicare and Medicaid, as opposed to Social Security, but the
Administration is blocking real solutions including price negotiating
and imports to allow competition in the profit-laden and
Republican-contributing pharmaceutical and medical supplies market."
"The Administration has trial-ballooned Social
Security "reform" before and gotten burned each time -- the American
people have properly rejected it. This time will be no different."
Bernanke testified today before the Joint Economic
Committee. Weiner, who has written recent Social Security, health care,
and pension pieces in the Miami Herald, Tallahassee Democrat and other
papers and been a Democratic National Committee radio respondent on the
issue, points out that the overall Social Security Trust Fund surplus
has absorbed eleven individual shortfall years since the 1960's -- this
is not a new phenomenon.
"Unfounded fear is the basis of the proposals for
so-called reform. The Claude Pepper Foundation, headquartered in
Tallahassee, recently found that 54 percent of Americans think they will
not even get as much as they paid in, and most think Social Security
can't pay more than 20 years of current benefits.
"The reality, according to the Congressional Budget
Office, is that the Social Security Trust Fund covers the program fully
through 2052. Reformers, including Bernanke, actually want to spend the
annual surpluses for other programs and to cover up the deficit for all
other federal programs -- some $400 billion annually including Iraq war
costs.
"Moreover, there will be no Social Security
bankruptcy in 2040 or even in 2052. The 2040 figure is based on the
Social Security Trustees' estimate that the Trust Fund will be able to
cover 73 percent of benefits in that year -- NOT a "bankruptcy" but a
partial deficit easily solvable by Congress. The Congressional Budget
Office, reflecting somewhat more current economic improvements, states
that 80 percent will be covered in 2052. Further economic improvements
could stop any shortfall.
"Regardless, even if the CBO or SSA predictions
were to become accurate in 40-50 years, Congress could easily then cover
all or part of the difference or make any changes to the program at that
time to deal with any potential shortfall. It would not be the big deal
Bernanke and Bush are making it out to be.
"In addition, the baby boomer factor so often cited
by Bernanke and others including the White House is a short transitional
matter. The boomers aren't booming with babies themselves. Their own
parenting rate of 2.1 per woman (1970-2000) is the lowest rate in
history, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. This
low birth rate will also then represent the lowest drain on the Social
Security Trust Fund ever. The system will go back into a huge surplus
because of the need to pay fewer beneficiaries. What we really have is a
solvable 'blip' followed by a totally secure system. The system actually
corrects itself," Weiner concluded.
|
|
In fiscal 2006, federal spending for Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid together totaled about 40 percent of
federal expenditures, or roughly 8-1/2% of GDP. In the most recent
long-term projections prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
these outlays are projected to increase to 10-1/2% of GDP by 2015, an
increase of about 2 percentage points of GDP in less than a decade.
By 2030, according to the CBO, they will reach
about 15% of GDP.
"These rising entitlement obligations will put
enormous pressure on the federal budget in coming years," Bernanke said.
"Addressing the country's fiscal problems will take
persistence and a willingness to make difficult choices," he said.
He said the "fundamental decision" the government
and people must make is "how large a share of the nation's economic
resources to devote to federal government programs, including transfer
programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."
Whatever size of government is chosen, he said, tax
rates must ultimately be set at a level sufficient to achieve an
appropriate balance of spending and revenues.
Members of the Congress who put special emphasis on
keeping tax rates low must accept that low tax rates can be sustained
only if outlays, including those on entitlements, are kept low as well,
according to the Chairman.
"Likewise, members who favor a more expansive role
of the government, including relatively more-generous benefits payments,
must recognize the burden imposed by the additional taxes needed to pay
for the higher spending, a burden that includes not only the resources
transferred from the private sector but also any adverse economic
incentives associated with higher tax rates," he said.
Bernanke concluded by saying, "…because of
demographic changes and rising medical costs, federal expenditures for
entitlement programs are projected to rise sharply over the next few
decades. Dealing with the resulting fiscal strains will pose difficult
choices for the Congress, the Administration, and the American people.
"However, if early and meaningful action is not
taken, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future
generations bearing much of the cost.
"The decisions the Congress will face will not be
easy or simple, but the benefits of placing the budget on a path that is
both sustainable and meets the nation's long-run needs would be
substantial."
Bernanke, 53, was sworn in on February 1, 2006, as
Chairman and a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.
>>
More about the
Federal Reserve Bank
>>
Tips for Consumers from Federal Reserve Board
Testimony of Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
Long-term fiscal challenges facing the United States
Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate - January 18, 2007
Chairman Conrad, Senator Gregg, and other members
of the Committee, I am pleased to be here to offer my views on the
federal budget and related issues. At the outset, I should underscore
that I speak only for myself and not necessarily for my colleagues at
the Federal Reserve.
As you know, the deficit in the unified federal
budget declined for a second year in fiscal year 2006, falling to $248
billion from $319 billion in fiscal 2005. As was the case in the
preceding year, the improvement in 2006 was primarily the result of
solid growth in tax receipts, especially in collections of personal and
corporate income taxes.
Federal government outlays in fiscal 2006 were 20.3
percent of nominal gross domestic product (GDP), receipts were 18.4
percent of GDP, and the deficit (equal to the difference of the two) was
1.9 percent of GDP. These percentages are close to their averages since
1960.
The on-budget deficit, which differs from the
unified budget deficit primarily in excluding receipts and payments of
the Social Security system, was $434 billion, or 3.3 percent of GDP, in
fiscal 2006.1
As of the end of fiscal 2006, federal government debt held by the
public, which includes holdings by the Federal Reserve but excludes
those by the Social Security and other trust funds, amounted to about 37
percent of one year's GDP.
Official projections suggest that the unified
budget deficit may stabilize or moderate further over the next few
years. Unfortunately, we are experiencing what seems likely to be the
calm before the storm. In particular, spending on entitlement programs
will begin to climb quickly during the next decade.
In fiscal 2006, federal spending for Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid together totaled about 40 percent of
federal expenditures, or roughly 8-1/2 percent of GDP.2
In the most recent long-term projections prepared by the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO), these outlays are projected to increase to 10-1/2
percent of GDP by 2015, an increase of about 2 percentage points of GDP
in less than a decade. By 2030, according to the CBO, they will reach
about 15 percent of GDP.3
As I will discuss, these rising entitlement obligations will put
enormous pressure on the federal budget in coming years.
The large projected increases in future entitlement
spending have two principal sources.
First, like many other industrial countries, the
United States has entered what is likely to be a long period of
demographic transition, the result both of the reduction in fertility
that followed the post-World War II baby boom and of ongoing increases
in life expectancy.
Longer life expectancies are certainly to be
welcomed. But they are likely to lead to longer periods of retirement in
the future, even as the growth rate of the workforce declines.
As a consequence of the demographic trends, the
number of people of retirement age will grow relative both to the
population as a whole and to the number of potential workers.
Currently, people 65 years and older make up about
12 percent of the U.S. population, and there are about five people
between the ages of 20 and 64 for each person 65 and older. According to
the intermediate projections of the Social Security Trustees, in 2030
Americans 65 and older will constitute about 19 percent of the U.S.
population, and the ratio of those between the ages of 20 and 64 to
those 65 and older will have fallen to about 3.
Although the retirement of the baby boomers will be
an important milestone in the demographic transition--the oldest baby
boomers will be eligible for Social Security benefits starting next
year--the change in the nation's demographic structure is not just a
temporary phenomenon related to the large relative size of the baby-boom
generation. Rather, if the U.S. fertility rate remains close to current
levels and life expectancies continue to rise, as demographers generally
expect, the U.S. population will continue to grow older, even after the
baby-boom generation has passed from the scene. If current law is
maintained, that aging of the U.S. population will lead to sustained
increases in federal entitlement spending on programs that benefit older
Americans, such as Social Security and Medicare.
The second cause of rising entitlement spending is
the expected continued increase in medical costs per beneficiary.
Projections of future medical costs are fraught with uncertainty, but
history suggests that--without significant changes in policy--these
costs are likely to continue to rise more quickly than incomes, at least
for the foreseeable future. Together with the aging of the population,
ongoing increases in medical costs will lead to a rapid expansion of
Medicare and Medicaid expenditures.
Long-range projections prepared by the CBO vividly
portray the potential effects on the budget of an aging population and
rapidly rising health care costs. The CBO has developed projections for
a variety of alternative scenarios, based on different assumptions about
the evolution of spending and taxes. The scenarios produce a wide range
of possible budget outcomes, reflecting the substantial uncertainty that
attends long-range budget projections.4
However, the outcomes that appear most likely, in the absence of policy
changes, involve rising budget deficits and increases in the amount of
federal debt outstanding to unprecedented levels. For example, one
plausible scenario is based on the assumptions that (1) federal
retirement and health spending will follow the CBO's intermediate
projection; (2) defense spending will drift down over time as a
percentage of GDP; (3) other non-interest spending will grow roughly in
line with GDP; and (4) federal revenues will remain close to their
historical share of GDP--that is, about where they are today.5
Under these assumptions, the CBO calculates that, by 2030, the federal
budget deficit will approach 9 percent of GDP--more than four times
greater as a share of GDP than the deficit in fiscal year 2006.
A particularly worrisome aspect of this projection
and similar ones is the implied evolution of the national debt and the
associated interest payments to government bondholders. Minor details
aside, the federal debt held by the public increases each year by the
amount of that year's unified deficit. Consequently, scenarios that
project large deficits also project rapid growth in the outstanding
government debt. The higher levels of debt in turn imply increased
expenditures on interest payments to bondholders, which exacerbate the
deficit problem still further. Thus, a vicious cycle may develop in
which large deficits lead to rapid growth in debt and interest payments,
which in turn adds to subsequent deficits. According to the CBO
projection that I have been discussing, interest payments on the
government's debt will reach 4-1/2 percent of GDP in 2030, nearly three
times their current size relative to national output. Under this
scenario, the ratio of federal debt held by the public to GDP would
climb from 37 percent currently to roughly 100 percent in 2030 and would
continue to grow exponentially after that. The only time in U.S. history
that the debt-to-GDP ratio has been in the neighborhood of 100 percent
was during World War II. People at that time understood the situation to
be temporary and expected deficits and the debt-to-GDP ratio to fall
rapidly after the war, as in fact they did. In contrast, under the
scenario I have been discussing, the debt-to-GDP ratio would rise far
into the future at an accelerating rate. Ultimately, this expansion of
debt would spark a fiscal crisis, which could be addressed only by very
sharp spending cuts or tax increases, or both.6
The CBO projections, by design, ignore the adverse
effects that such high deficits would likely have on economic growth.
But if government debt and deficits were actually to grow at the pace
envisioned by the CBO's scenario, the effects on the U.S. economy would
be severe. High rates of government borrowing would drain funds away
from private capital formation and thus slow the growth of real incomes
and living standards over time. Some fraction of the additional debt
would likely be financed abroad, which would lessen the negative
influence on domestic investment; however, the necessity of paying
interest on the foreign-held debt would leave a smaller portion of our
nation's future output available for domestic consumption. Moreover,
uncertainty about the ultimate resolution of the fiscal imbalances would
reduce the confidence of consumers, businesses, and investors in the
U.S. economy, with adverse implications for investment and growth.
To some extent, strong economic growth can help to
mitigate budgetary pressures, and all else being equal, fiscal policies
that are supportive of growth would be beneficial. Unfortunately,
economic growth alone is unlikely to solve the nation's impending fiscal
problems. Economic growth leads to higher wages and profits and thus
increases tax receipts, but higher wages also imply increased Social
Security benefits, as those benefits are tied to wages. Higher incomes
also tend to increase the demand for medical services so that,
indirectly, higher incomes may also increase federal health
expenditures. Increased rates of immigration could raise growth by
raising the growth rate of the labor force. However, economists who have
looked at the issue have found that even a doubling in the rate of
immigration to the United States, from about 1 million to 2 million
immigrants per year, would not significantly reduce the federal
government's fiscal imbalance.7
The prospect of growing fiscal imbalances and their
economic consequences also raises essential questions of
intergenerational fairness.8
As I have noted, because of increasing life expectancy and the decline
in fertility, the number of retirees that each worker will have to
support in the future--either directly or indirectly through taxes paid
to support government programs--will rise significantly. To the extent
that federal budgetary policies inhibit capital formation and increase
our net liabilities to foreigners, future generations of Americans will
bear a growing burden of the debt and experience slower growth in
per-capita incomes than would otherwise have been the case.
An important element in ensuring that we leave
behind a stronger economy than we inherited, as did virtually all
previous generations in this country, will be to move over time toward
fiscal policies that are sustainable, efficient, and equitable across
generations. Policies that promote private as well as public saving
would also help us leave a more productive economy to our children and
grandchildren. In addition, we should explore ways to make the labor
market as accommodating as possible to older people who wish to continue
working, as many will as longevity increases and health improves.
Addressing the country's fiscal problems will take
persistence and a willingness to make difficult choices. In the end, the
fundamental decision that the Congress, the Administration, and the
American people must confront is how large a share of the nation's
economic resources to devote to federal government programs, including
transfer programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Crucially, whatever size of government is chosen, tax rates must
ultimately be set at a level sufficient to achieve an appropriate
balance of spending and revenues in the long run. Thus, members of the
Congress who put special emphasis on keeping tax rates low must accept
that low tax rates can be sustained only if outlays, including those on
entitlements, are kept low as well. Likewise, members who favor a more
expansive role of the government, including relatively more-generous
benefits payments, must recognize the burden imposed by the additional
taxes needed to pay for the higher spending, a burden that includes not
only the resources transferred from the private sector but also any
adverse economic incentives associated with higher tax rates.
Achieving fiscal sustainability will require
sustained efforts and attention over many years. As an aid in charting
the way forward, the Congress may find it useful to set some benchmarks
against which to gauge progress toward key budgetary objectives. Because
no single statistic fully describes the fiscal situation, the most
effective approach would likely involve monitoring a number of fiscal
indicators, each of which captures a different aspect of the budget and
its economic impact. The unified budget deficit, projected forward a
certain number of years, is an important measure that is already
included in the congressional budgeting process. However, the unified
budget deficit does not fully capture the fiscal situation and its
effect on the economy, for at least two reasons.
First, the budget deficit by itself does not
measure the quantity of resources that the government is taking from the
private sector. An economy in which the government budget is balanced
but in which government spending equals 20 percent of GDP is very
different from one in which the government's budget is balanced but its
spending is 40 percent of GDP, as the latter economy has both higher tax
rates and a greater role for the government. Monitoring current and
prospective levels of total government outlays relative to GDP or a
similar indicator would help the Congress ensure that the overall size
of the government relative to the economy is consistent with members'
views and preferences.
Second, the annual budget deficit reflects only
near-term financing needs and does not capture long-term fiscal
imbalances. As the most difficult long-term budgetary issues are
associated with the growth of entitlement spending, a comprehensive
approach to budgeting would include close attention to measures of the
long-term solvency of entitlement programs, such as long-horizon present
values of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare.
To summarize, because of demographic changes and
rising medical costs, federal expenditures for entitlement programs are
projected to rise sharply over the next few decades. Dealing with the
resulting fiscal strains will pose difficult choices for the Congress,
the Administration, and the American people. However, if early and
meaningful action is not taken, the U.S. economy could be seriously
weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost. The
decisions the Congress will face will not be easy or simple, but the
benefits of placing the budget on a path that is both sustainable and
meets the nation's long-run needs would be substantial.
Thank you again for allowing me to comment on these
important issues. I would be glad to take your questions.
Footnotes
1. Excluding the operations of
both Social Security and Medicare Part A, the budget deficit in fiscal
year 2006 was $459 billion, or 3.5 percent of GDP. Like Social Security,
Medicare Part A pays benefits out of, and receives a dedicated stream of
revenues into, a trust fund.
2. Net of Medicare premiums paid
by beneficiaries and amounts paid by states from savings on Medicaid
prescription drug costs, these outlays were equal to 8 percent of GDP.
3. These projections are for the
CBO's intermediate spending path. Consistent with the assumptions used
by the Medicare trustees, this path is based on the assumption that,
over the long run, per beneficiary health expenditures will increase at
a rate that is 1 percentage point per year greater than the growth rate
of per capita GDP. Over the past twenty-five years, however, per
beneficiary Medicare spending has actually exceeded per capita GDP
growth by about 2-1/2 percentage points per year. Thus, a significant
slowing in the growth of medical costs per beneficiary will be needed to
keep expenditures close to those projected in the CBO's
intermediate-spending scenario. See Congressional Budget Office (2005),
The Long-Term Budget Outlook, December,
www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6982/12-15-LongTermOutlook.pdf (1.0 MB PDF). Return
to text
4. For example, in 2030, five of
the six scenarios imply deficits ranging from 1-1/2 percent of GDP to
nearly 14 percent of GDP; a sixth scenario is capable of producing a
surplus, but it relies on the confluence of a very favorable set of
assumptions. Return
to text
5. CBO (2005), The Long-Term
Budget Outlook, pp. 5-13 and 48-49. Return
to text
6. To give a sense of the
magnitudes involved, suppose--for the sake of illustration only--that
the deficit projected for 2030 in the CBO scenario were to be eliminated
entirely in that year, half through reductions in discretionary spending
and half through increases in non-payroll taxes. (Of course, in reality
the fiscal adjustment would likely not occur in one year, but this
hypothetical example is useful for showing the magnitude of the
problem.) This fiscal adjustment would involve a cut in discretionary
spending (including defense) of nearly 80 percent (relative to its
baseline level) and a rise in non-payroll taxes of more than 35 percent.
The need for such painful measures could be diminished by beginning the
process of fiscal adjustment much earlier, thereby avoiding some of the
buildup in outstanding debt and the associated interest burden. Return
to text
7. CBO (2005), The Long-Term
Budget Outlook, p. 3. Return
to text
8. I discussed this issue in Ben
S. Bernanke (2006), "The Coming Demographic Transition: Will We Treat
Future Generations Fairly?", speech delivered before the Washington
Economic Club, Washington, October 4,
www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2006/20061004/default.htm. Return
to text
Click to More Senior News on the
Front Page
Copyright: SeniorJournal.com |