Maya MacGuineas: All Publications, Events and Press

Towards Fiscal Responsibility

Communications — Tue, 20 May 2008 08:00:00 -0400

A New America Event
05/20/2008 - 9:00am

In spite of large and growing budget deficits, a national debt increasingly funded by foreign investors, an aging population, and rapidly rising health care costs -- which together have left the United States on an unsustainable fiscal path -- the presidential campaigns are not yet focused on these critical issues.

On May 20, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget will launch U.S. Budget Watch, a new project to increase awareness of these issues.

This kick-off event will feature a remarkable bipartisan gathering of many of the nation’s preeminent budget experts where they will release U.S. Budget Watch’s 12-Step Program for Fiscal Responsibility. Please join us for this breakfast meeting and a rich discussion of the issues and the campaign.

Committe for a Responsible Federal Budget Event Covered By the Wall Street Journal | 'Vital Signs in Health-Care Debate'

Communications — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:45:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s April 29 event that highlighted the presidential candidates' domestic policy plans appeared in David Wessel’s column in The Wall Street Journal (5/1/08). New America's Health Policy Program Director is quoted in the article.

. . Mr. Nichols says that Sen. McCain's plan to allow people in one state to buy individual insurance in another -- essentially deregulating this part of the insurance market -- amounts to "ideology trumping policy." Rational insurers will attract the healthy with low premiums and boost premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. "Fifty to 75 million Americans will discover what 'actuarially fair' really means," he says. (Sharply higher premiums.) The result, he predicts, will be a rush to Medicare-for-all that Republicans will hate. . .

Maya MacGuineas in Conde Nast Portfolio | 'The Problem with Paulson'

Communications — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:27:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . .Paulson did help promulgate reports about the nation’s fiscal woes and tried to revive interest in Bush’s moribund Social Security plan. “He worked with all the stakeholders,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “He talked to everyone.” . . .

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in USA Today | 'GI Benefits Stymie Funding Bill'

Communications — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:31:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . . Budget experts outside Congress were even more incensed. David Walker, the former U.S. comptroller general who has said the nation faces $53 trillion in unfunded federal liabilities over the coming century, called it "morally reprehensible." Criticism also came from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Concord Coalition deficit watchdog group. . .

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Town Hall | "Will Washington Heed the Wake-Up Call?"

Communications — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:36:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . . Traditionally, the Comptroller General (chief accountant) does not speak out about policy, but, given the severity of our fiscal climate, Walker felt compelled to do so. And so he has traveled the country on a “Fiscal Wake-Up Tour,” with the best minds of Washington’s leading conservative and liberal think tanks in tow, to sound the alarm. . . Beyond the leadership of the Government Accountability Office, other organizations on the Tour include the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution, the Committee for Economic Development, the Association for Government Accountants, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, AARP, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and multiple state treasurers and auditors. . .

Maya MacGuineas in CQ Politics | "A Softer Pay-as-You-Go Stance"

Communications — Sun, 04 May 2008 17:40:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . .Based on what McCain has outlined so far, “the policies have been more on the blow-a-hole-in-the-deficit side than the pay-as-you-go side,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. . . The one saving grace, MacGuineas said, is that Hassett describes McCain’s economic plan as a work in progress, with plans for deeper cuts in spending likely this summer. “The McCain people will say, ‘Don’t judge us yet,’ ” she said. . .

The Presidential Candidates' Domestic Policy Plans

Communications — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
04/29/2008 - 8:30am

On Tuesday the 29th of April, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in association with the New America Foundation, American University and the Tax Foundation, hosted an event concerning the major domestic policy issues facing the nation before the upcoming presidential election. Focusing on the candidates’ policy proposals, the event featured four panels of policy experts. The first three—on climate change, health care, and tax reform—featured independent experts from across the political spectrum, expressing varied and often contradictory views on their issues of expertise. The final panel featured economic advisors from the campaigns themselves, who gave the audience a glimpse of the candidates’ views on these important policy issues.

The first panel, moderated by David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal, concerned climate change policy. The panelists, William Pizer of Resources for the Future, Nikki Roy of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Robert McNally of the Tudor Investment Corporation agreed that all three candidates had promising positions on the issue from the perspective of an environmentalist. At the same time, all three expressed skepticism about the candidates’ commitment to the issue. Pizer pointed out that there are four major components to a national environmental policy—cost, competitiveness, allocation and treatment of preexisting state-level climate policies—that will make climate legislation difficult to design and equally difficult to move through congress. Roy complained that none of the candidates were campaigning on the issue, despite supporting it on their websites. Without putting it out front in the campaign, he suggested, the candidates would not have the political capital to push legislation through once they are elected. McNally added that whatever legislation eventually passed would take years to do so, and that eventual success might have to be driven by a small energy crisis, such as widespread brown-outs in major cities. In the end, the panelists agreed that the scientific community had reached a strong consensus, but disagreed about whether the American public would continue to support climate change policy as it drives up energy bills.

The second panel, also moderated by Wessel, featured a discussion on healthcare reform from John Sheils of the Lewin Group, Joe Antos of the American Enterprise Institute, and Len Nichols of the New America Foundation. Sheils spoke first, discussing the employer tax exclusion for health insurance and the problems associated with it. In addition to costing around $250 billion in forgone public revenue, he explained, the exclusion is regressive and leads to over-purchasing of health insurance. It could be improved, he suggested, by replacing the exclusion with a standard deduction or tax credit. Nichols and Antos spoke next, taking turns discussing the good and bad parts of the Presidential candidates’ proposals. Nichols spoke favorably of McCain’s willingness to propose supply-side delivery system reforms and his decision to use the existing employer tax exclusion funds to subsidize individuals through a tax credit, rather than a tax deduction. At the same time, Nichols expressed concerns that McCain’s proposal to allow insurance to be purchased across state lines would leave insurance inaccessible for some Americans, particularly the sick, and disappointment that McCain has not discussed covering all Americans as a goal. Antos liked that the Democrats focused on bringing down healthcare costs and included some elements of consumerism, and was also happy that neither was claiming universal coverage as a free lunch. At the same time, he felt their plans include promises which couldn’t be kept, such as universal coverage and insurance “as good as your Congressman’s,” while over-regulating, overspending, and providing a back-door to single-payer healthcare.

The third panel, on tax policy, was moderated by Rudy Penner of the Urban Institute. Penner gave opening remarks, and then handed the microphone over to Alex Brill of the American Enterprise Institute, Len Burman of the Tax Policy Center and Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation. All three agreed that tax policy is reaching a crucial point, with the Bush tax cuts expiring, the AMT reaching millions of new taxpayers every year, and the costs of government rising. Both Brill and Hodge supported McCain’s proposal to lower the corporate rate, citing its positive effect on growth and American competitiveness. Burman had few kind words for the current slate of policies the candidates have proposed, reserving particular disapproval for McCain’s gas-tax-holiday proposal, which Clinton has since supported. Following their opening remarks on the candidates’ plans, the panelists discussed the potential for a value added tax (VAT) to help solve some of these problems. All three agreed that it could be a useful tool, with Burman suggesting that it might help pay for health care, and Hodge saying that it could cover some of the cost of lowering the corporate tax rate.

The final panel, also moderated by Penner, featured a discussion between the economic advisors of the remaining presidential candidates, including Brian Deese, Dan Tarullo, and Kevin Hassett of the Clinton, Obama, and McCain campaigns, respectively. All three representatives believed his candidate would be best for the economy, but set out different economic goals. According to Tarullo, Obama’s policies will aim to foster a stable environment for economic growth, relief for the middle class, improved productivity, and a sustainable international economic environment. McCain, according to Hassett, would lower tax rates and improve the tax code to encourage economic growth and international competitiveness, while ensuring that lower taxes are accompanied by smaller government. Deese, finally, explained Clinton’s goals of addressing the “middle-class squeeze,” increasing the international attractiveness, restoring fiscal responsibility, and ensuring proactive and pragmatic executive leadership to address economic problems as they come.

-Marc Goldwein and Paul McLaughlin, Program Associates for the Fiscal Policy Program

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Christian Science Monitor | "U.S. Deficit at Record High and Rising"

Communications — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:13:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . .At an April 2 round table hosted by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin suggested that reducing the federal budget "is not an end in itself," according to a summary of the event published by CRFB. Rather than focusing on red ink, a president should talk about all the important issues related to the budget, including the need to protect US security and help American families, he said. . .

CRFB in U.S. Fed News | "Private Tax Collection, Safe Commission"

Communications — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:24:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

CRFB was included in Rep. Frank R. Wolf’s (R-Va.10th CD) newsletter:

. . .The Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission legislation has been endorsed by groups across a wide political spectrum - groups who usually disagree more than they agree on policy issues - the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation, the Concord Coalition, and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The Business Roundtable and National Federation of Independent Business are also on board. . .

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Resolutions

Fiscal Policy — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 06:06:00 -0400

This Budget Update looks at the budget resolutions passed by both the House (H. Con. Res. 312) and Senate (S. Con. Res. 70), compared to each other as well as to the CBO March baseline and the President’s budget as reestimated by CBO.

Major Points The House-passed budget should be commended for complying with pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules without exception. The budget plan assumes that all changes to revenues and mandatory spending would be offset so that deficits would not be increased over the six- and eleven-year time periods. Neither the House nor the Senate budget makes any attempt to control the unsustainable growth… more

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's Annual Dinner in Capital Gains | "The Only Thing Missing Was The Red Carpet"

Communications — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:56:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

If there is such a thing, much of the fiscal policy world's glitterari were in full display on Wednesday night when the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget hosted its annual dinner in Washington, D.C. There were current and former OMB, CBO, and GAO directors; the economic advisors to (in alphabetical order) presidential candidates Clinton, McCain, and Obama; current and former House and Senate Budget Committee chairmen; lots of other former and sitting members of Congress; a number of chief economists from federal budget and economic agencies; and congressional staffers galore. . . Maya MacGuineas, the president of the CRFB, and her team are to be congratulated . . . First, it reminded me of something that, I suspect like most people, I have to be continually reminded about: the budget and fiscal policy are political problems and can only be dealt with through political agreements. . .

Taking Back Our Fiscal Future

Fiscal Policy — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:57:00 -0400

The authors of this paper are longtime federal budget and policy experts who have been drawn together by a deep concern about the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook. Our group covers the ideological spectrum. We are affiliated with a diverse set of organizations. We have been meeting informally for over a year, under the auspices of The Brookings Institution and The Heritage Foundation, to define the dimensions and consequences of the looming federal budget problem, examine alternative solutions, and reach agreement on what should be done. Despite our diverse philosophies and political leanings, we have found solid common ground. We… more

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Annual Conference

Communications — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:00:00 -0400

A New America Event
04/02/2008 - 3:00pm

On April 2nd, The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget held its 2008 annual dinner at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill. Through a roundtable discussion, a cocktail reception, and a dinner panel, this event brought together many of the nation's foremost fiscal and financial policy experts from both parties. Video of the dinner panel discussion can be viewed at right. For video of the afternoon roundtable, please click here and for an in-depth summary of the roundtable, please click here.

At the roundtable discussion, led by Former Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Leon Panetta and Former Congressman Bill Frenzel (R-MN), the assembled experts discussed the relationship between fiscal policy and the current economic crisis. Participants included two current Members of Congress, the sitting Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and numerous representatives from both Wall Street and the economic policy community in Washington, D.C. The discussion covered a wide range of topics—including the credit crisis, the recent economic stimulus package, likely regulatory changes and the need for budgetary reforms.

Richard Berner of Morgan Stanley opened the discussion by providing a window into Wall Street’s perspective on the current mortgage and credit crisis. Calling the current crisis “very serious,” he noted that fiscal and monetary policy could cushion some of the impact of the erosion of the capital base, but that the downturn would still be painful. Over the next few hours, responses to these basic premises tended to support his analysis. Lawrence Meyer of Macroeconomic Advisors said his organization felt the stimulus was “very well timed” and would spur economic growth. CBO Director Peter Orszag pointed out that, despite being worth only about one percent of annual GDP, the stimulus would have a concentrated impact because it would be delivered over just three months. Without denying these analyses, however, many expressed doubt about the economy’s ability to rebound. Ed McKelvey of Goldman Sachs said that uncertainty in credit markets “tends to stick around,” and many expressed concerns about the level and type of government regulation that would result. Expressing the greatest skepticism of the group, Bill Niskanen of the Cato Institute questioned even the term “stimulus.” He suggested the rebate might deepen the downturn by taking money from investment and pushing it into consumption, though Meyer pointed out that such an assumption holds only in an economy at full capacity.

David Walker, CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and recent addition to the CRFB Board, began the discussion of long-term issues by suggesting the same forces that caused the credit crisis could eventually cause a crisis related to U.S. federal debt. He cited similarities such as a disconnect between the beneficiaries and the bearers of debt and a lack of transparency in accounting. During the discussion, many echoed Walker’s concerns, with former Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) questioning how one could compel a Congress always focused on the next election to address an issue that slowly creeps up over many decades. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) said he believed the next few years would present a unique opportunity to solve these problems, and Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) highlighted his own solution: a bill, co-sponsored by Jim Cooper (D-TN), to form a bipartisan commission that would propose a comprehensive solution to the entitlement shortfall. The general mood, however, was one of pessimism, with many expressing urgency that the issue be reframed or repackaged in such fashion as to capture the public mind and force Congress to act.

The roundtable discussion highlighted the complexity of both the short- and long-term economic issues facing the nation. More importantly, it brought together a group of highly influential officials in the private and public sectors who generally agreed that the long-term entitlement funding shortfall must be addressed sooner rather than later. Though thoughts on short-term issues were more wide-spread, there was clear concern about the nation’s economic health. Closing the discussion, Maya MacGuineas, CRFB President, said that despite the pervading pessimism among those in the room, the fact that so many intelligent people express such serious concern for these issues gave her hope in an eventual solution.

The next event of the evening was a cocktail reception. CRFB Co-chair Bill Frenzel welcomed the guests and introduced Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), Ranking Member on the Senate Budget Committee and co-sponsor of the Conrad-Gregg Commission proposal to create a bipartisan solution to the entitlement problem. Senator Gregg used a chart to show entitlements would crowd out all other spending if not addressed. Arguing forcefully that such change would be necessary, Gregg described his proposal, developed with Senator Conrad, to deal with the entitlements crisis. He suggested the plan had strong support in the Senate, and that the next President, whoever it is, will be likely to sign it. His only concern was a lack of support from the House, and he respectfully requested that those in the room do what they can to actively advocate for it.

OMB Director Jim Nussle followed Senator Gregg’s remarks with his own brief address. Humorous, as always, he made a special effort to thank everyone for all the hard work being done to try to improve budget policy. He praised CRFB as an excellent committee to work with, who has done a good job with the issues. He closed by expressing optimism that there could be real change on long-term issues, and hope that it would occur soon.

At the dinner, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas welcomed the guests and thanked the numerous Members of Congress and public officials who had attended the day’s events, including Congressmen Spratt, Cooper, Ryan and Wolf, as well as Senators Voinovich and Gregg and OMB Director Nussle. She also thanked the board members of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. She thanked Jim Slattery for his work on the board prior to leaving to run for Senate and, on a solemn note, lamented the sad passing of Richard Darman, who had been a leader on fiscal issues for decades prior to his death in January. Darman had given the key note address at the 2007 CRFB annual dinner, and will be missed. Lastly, on a happier note, MacGuineas welcomed David Walker, former Comptroller General of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, to the CRFB board, and asked him to give a few remarks to open the dinner portion of the evening.

Walker began with a rhetorical question: how could he say no to an offer to be a board member of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? He didn’t want to be considered irresponsible, so he accepted the offer. Saying he had Peter Peterson’s proxy for the evening, Walker took a few moments to outline the goals of the Peterson Foundation, of which he was the newly named President and CEO. The Foundation will focus on a few issues of key importance to the Committee: 1) the budget deficit, the savings deficit and the balance of payments deficit, which are interrelated; 2) entitlement reform; and 3) health care reform. He said the goals of the organization would be to activate grassroots support and engage the media in order to create a better future for America’s children.

MacGuineas followed Walker by announcing that CRFB would soon be launching a Fiscal Responsibility Initiative that will focus on the fiscal issues in the campaign. In describing this project, she posed this question: whether or not it is possible for elections to be fiscally responsible, given the low political payoff for speaking hard truths and speaking with nuance. To answer this question, she introduced a panel of experts. Moderated by Mark Halperin of Time Magazine, this panel included Leon Panetta, OMB Director under President Clinton, Jim Miller, OMB Director under President Reagan, as well as Gene Sperling, Jeff Liebman, and Doug Holtz-Eakin, economic advisers to Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain respectively.

At one point, panelists were asked about what they would like to see the next President say about the deficit in their first State of the Union Address. Holtz-Eakin suggested that reducing the deficit is not an end in and of itself, so rather than talking about deficit reduction, the President should talk about all the important issues related to the budget. Sperling agreed that deficit reduction was only a means to an end, but believed the President must set the tone for fiscal policy. Panetta suggested that because the next President is going to face a number of crises which cannot be dealt with unless the fiscal situation is under control, the President must talk about deficits. Liebman felt that, rather than talking about deficits, the President should talk about controlling healthcare costs, which would result in lower deficits. Miller, finally, suggested the President should suggest institutional changes to reduce pork and stop Congress from overspending.

The questions next turned to Social Security. Holtz-Eakin argued that the obstacles to Social Security reform are fundamentally political, and McCain would work with Congress to ensure reform was passed. Liebman explained Obama’s belief that we should act sooner rather than later and that he prefers using the tax cap, while recognizing the need for bi-partisan negotiation. Panetta explained that candor on Social Security was, politically, “a dead-end approach” so he didn’t expect candidates to talk about the finer details of tax or spending changes before coming to office. Once in office, he proposed the future President employ a bi-partisan negotiation which includes entitlements, discretionary spending and revenues.

Halperin then painted a scenario in which the five panelists would have to balance the budget, together, in five minutes. Panetta proposed instituting PAYGO and applying it to spending and tax cuts, enforceable caps on discretionary spending at an agreed upon level and a major reconciliation bill which deals with entitlements. Miller was skeptical that a bi-partisan group could really reduce the deficit, and didn’t agree with applying PAYGO to tax cuts since they can pay for themselves and increase economic growth. Liebman suggested withdrawing from Iraq would be a good starting point to save money. Sperling suggested that to deal with entitlements you need to start with a commitment to mutual sacrifice, and work together to create a universal pension to remove the private account debate from Social Security. Sperling also noted that, as we are seeking healthcare for everyone, we could use the opportunity to make some painful choices to lower healthcare costs. Holtz-Eakin, finally, suggested that the numbers show there is a spending, rather than a revenue, problem, and we need to undertake serious spending reform.

The question-and-answer portion of the dinner gave the many distinguished members of the audience an opportunity to ask specific questions of the panelists. Author and Political Commentator Bruce Bartlett asked the first question. Referencing an article he had written for The New York Times in the preceding week, he asked if anyone on the panel would support using the tax rebate promised in the stimulus package as a “down payment” on the considerable tax money that would be used to deal with the housing crisis over the coming months and years. The panel responded unanimously in the negative, though Sperling said he thought the stimulus should have dealt directly with the housing crisis. Miller said that, while he did not like Bartlett’s plan, he liked it better than the actual stimulus package. Focusing on a similar issue of future spending priorities, Robert Dugger of Tudor Investment Corporation, who had participated in the roundtable discussion, asked what rule each panelist would follow regarding spending. True to the focus of the evening, Panetta insisted that the question is not what the money will be spent on, but rather “are you going to pay for it?” Borrowing, not spending, is the problem.

Maya MacGuineas asked the next question: She asked the campaign advisors how they navigated the tension between taking a clear stand on issues important to voters and avoiding politically dangerous statements. To the former OMB Directors, she asked how one transitions from running on a dream agenda crated by a campaign team to governing on the nation’s agenda created by the exigencies of the moment. To the second question, Panetta said the key was assembling an economic team early and mapping out a tentative budget to plan your battles. To the first question, Liebman said Obama had approached the issue by illustrating the trade-offs rather than standing on one side or the other. Taking a different approach, Holtz-Eakin said it is important for voters to remember that campaigning is not governing, and requires different tactics. What matters in both, however, is character.

Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) then asked the panelists if any of their candidates had made an issue of the national debt on the campaign trail, to which they all replied in the affirmative. Each stated that his candidate had made fiscal responsibility and debt reduction a priority. Following up, David Walker asked if any of the campaigns would consider endorsing the Cooper-Wolf bill or the Conrad-Gregg bill to form bipartisan commissions to solve long-term funding issues. Sperling said that Clinton would consider a commission on Social Security, but not on Medicare and Medicaid. Holtz-Eakin took a broader view, saying that, while McCain had not taken a position on the legislation, he would not recommend that he support it because it is predicated on Congress being dysfunctional. He said he would rather restore the American people’s faith in their government and see the issue addressed through traditional means.

Peter Orszag followed Walker’s policy question with one of his own: “Give me three specific ideas that will restrain either the growth or the level of healthcare spending.” Liebman replied that Obama supported better disease management, increased insurance competition through reinsurance, information technology use and comparative effectiveness research. He said these measures may not lower cost, but would certainly improve outcomes and cost efficiency. Holtz-Eakin agreed with him about insurance competition, and added to the list an effort to balance the playing field so wealthy Americans aren’t receiving unnecessary subsidies. He would also like to change the Medicare payment system to focus on the beneficiary. Sperling added he would like to see reduced payments to HMOs and better use of information technology.

The final question of the evening came from Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute, who asked, “Where are the Democrats on major tax reform?” Sperling replied that tax reform must satisfy three criteria: it must be simpler than the current system, fiscally responsible and equally or more progressive than the current system. Saying he had yet to see such a proposal from conservatives, he asserted Clinton’s tax plan satisfied all three. Liebman said Obama believed in revenue neutral broad-based middle-class tax relief, as well as simplicity through a tax-return-free system for people with simple returns. Holtz-Eakin answered the question from McCain’s perspective, saying he had a pro-competition tax reform plan that represented real change from the status quo, as demonstrated by the attacks it had received from the Democratic side.

With that, MacGuineas thanked the panelists and the audience, and closed the evening’s activities.

For a complete summary of the roundtable discussion, please click here.

To learn more about the Committee and its work, please go to www.CRFB.org.

New America Foundation in Wall Street Journal | "Experts Call for Long-Term Budgets for Entitlements"

Communications — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:03:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

A broad coalition of federal budget experts, spanning the ideological spectrum of Washington think tanks from left to right, proposed Monday that Congress and the president set explicit, “sustainable” long-term budgets for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and create a mechanism that would force changes when projected spending exceeds budgeted amounts. . . Among the other participants are scholars from the American Enterprise Institute, Concord Coalition, New America Foundation, Progressive Policy Institute and Urban Institute. The work is supported by several foundations. . .

Maya MacGuineas in The Washington Times | Making Tax Day Less Painful

Communications — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:52:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Making Tax Day Less Painful (The Washington Times)

. . . Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says that these $800 billion a year in "tax expenditures are really spending programs designed to look like tax cuts." . . . more

Letter On the Budget Resolution And Taxes

Fiscal Policy — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:59:00 -0400

Thank you for your inquiry concerning whether the budget plan reported by the House Budget Committee increases taxes. The budget resolution does not raise taxes. Both tax rates and tax revenues as a share of GDP will increase under the budget resolution because tax increases are part of current law, not because of policies introduced as part of the budget resolutions currently under consideration.

Barring changes, taxes will increase beginning in 2011 due to the way in which the original 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed. In order to decrease the number of votes necessary for passage and to help… more

Maya MacGuineas in Reuters News | 'Simmering Domestic Issues Face Next U.S. President'

Communications — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:49:00 -0500

New America in the News:

Simmering Domestic Issues Face Next U.S. President (Reuters News)

. . . "It is an agenda waiting for the president, rather than an agenda the president gets to set," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group that advocates fiscal discipline. more

Maya MacGuineas on C-SPAN2 Book TV | Interviews 'Free Lunch' Author David Cay Johnston

Communications — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:51:00 -0500

New America in the News:

Maya MacGuineas on Book TV (C-SPAN2)

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston contends that government policies and spending benefit the few, wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle class and the poor. In his third book, "Free Lunch," Mr. Johnston presents examples to support his claims on topics including healthcare, education, business, and the tax system. David Cay Johnston discusses his book with Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Video of their conversation on Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You With the Bill) is available on Book TV's website, linked here.

The Next Era of American Politics

Communications — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:00:00 -0500

A New America Event
02/29/2008 - 11:00am

Phillip Longman began by framing the core question of the event: are we in a transformative political moment, and what would that mean? Even after a decade of debilitating partisanship, Rovian strategists and Netroots bloggers continue to exacerbate political polarization. Yet, with the likely nominations of John McCain and Barack Obama, observers of all political stripes have sensed the prospect of a political sea-change. Whether it is a government unified around a bold progressive majority, a resurgent and transmuted conservatism, or some kind of “post-partisanship,” the possibility of a new political era in America is very real. Nonetheless, the data show that partisan identification and ideological polarization are as prevalent as ever.

Longman attempted to unravel this knot by tracing the career of that unusual phrase, “post-partisan.” In the 1980s it described an effort to overhaul entitlements, in the 1990s it adopted a cool and detached air from political observers such as JFK, Jr., and in the 2000s it represented the desire of centrist politicians such as Michael Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger to pursue innovative policy ideas. Now, post-partisanship may reflect a new approach to politics by the “Millenial” generation, who value respect and comity even as they overwhelmingly identify as either liberal or conservative.

Next, Cliff Zukin, Professor of Public Policy and Political Science at the Rutgers University, presented his paper, “The American Public and the Next Social Contract: Public Opinion and Political Culture in 2007.” He stressed the distinction between public attitudes on current policy debates and enduring values that lie at the core of the American character. These values serve as a kind of passive restraint and guiding structure for policy discussion, and they include a commitment to equality of opportunity, independence and self-reliance, and a wary acceptance of the idea that the government can play a positive role in individuals’ lives. In turn, these values shape public opinion in important issue areas: on education, they believe that it is a democratic entitlement; on social security, they are skeptical of its solvency and open to finding an acceptable working solution; on health care, they are willing to entertain broad overhauls to address costs and coverage; in their jobs, they are satisfied but anxious about basic economic insecurity. Zukin concluded his remarks with a broad caveat for framing the next social contract. Only in moments of crisis does a window of opportunity for sweeping policy change occur, and an unprecedented shift in economic concerns might point to such a moment.

In the subsequent panel, Mark Schmitt, Julian Zelizer, Professor of History and Public Policy at Princeton University, and Susan Milligan, national political reporter for the Boston Globe, discussed the role of institutions on the next political era. Schmitt stressed that, while trends may point to a different political trajectory, it will not be a return to bipartisanship between liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Indeed, the last attempt at that kind of cooperation was the implosion of health care reform in 1993. Since then, the “great sorting out” has occurred, with Republicans to the left and Democrats to the right purged in 1994 and 2006, respectively. This development, and the recent Democratic turn in public opinion, may be a welcome change. Post-partisan sentiments may simply reflect “an opportunity for liberalism to engage with an honest version of conservatism.” The cooperation that could emerge from such a debate is of an unprecedented character: not simply reaching across the aisle to cherry pick like-minded senators, but taking seriously and working together with those who disagree.

Professor Zelizer expressed skepticism about any kind of sea-change in politics. First, he said that conservatism will remain entrenched in political institutions and lasting policy victories, even in the face of a possibly overwhelming electoral loss in 2008. Much the same as in the 1970s, when conservatives imagined that liberalism would simply vanish, it is a fantasy to think that conservative gains in media outlets, court appointments, and lowering tax rates will disappear. Second, polarization is unlikely to fade to the background, as it is fueled not only by public opinion, but also by key institutional features such as the committee system, the primary system, and the new 24-hour media cycle. Finally, any progressive or populist movement will face serious challenges: the Democratic party is no longer the party of the working class, it suffers from conflicting philosophies, and it may fall prey to impossibly high expectations.

Susan Milligan then argued that partisanship is less a matter of liberal and conservative ideology than it is a result of power struggles. Since 1994, the margin between legislative control and minority status has been slight, and Democrats and Republicans alike have not been inclined to throw any bones to the other side. Responding to these pitched battles, the public’s preference for candidates like Obama, McCain, and Huckabee shows that the electorate is taking the process back. “They are physically and emotionally exhausted from the red state/blue state divide,” and the growth of independent voters as a key plurality of voters supports this broad change in political attitudes.

Reid Cramer introduced the panel of David Gray, Maya MacGuineas, and Len Nichols, to explore what policies might be possible in a new political era. Cramer opened the discussion by outlining a number of challenges to basic economic security that assets policy might redress. Against the backdrop of increasing income volatility and rising health and energy costs, the burst of the housing bubble has eroded a key source of savings for Americans. In order for individuals to weather this and other economic storms, policymakers should look to the tradition of the Homestead Act and the G.I. Bill and broaden asset ownership. This kind of inclusive savings policy can transcend partisan debates, by embracing the principles of opportunity from the left and ownership from the right. In the short term, sensible solutions such as automatic saving attract support across the political spectrum, and in the long term, big ideas like a universal 401(k) are promising goals for the next political era.

Next, David Gray spoke about the possibilities for a new political era to coalesce around smaller, more manageable issues that “fly under the radar.” These policy areas, such as spending on children and work/family balance, enjoy robust public support from Democrats and Republicans alike. A number of trends point to the promise of policy innovation on this front. Work and family balance has been an important issue on the presidential campaign trail, and it has seen significant progress as an issue at the state level. As military families and entrepreneurial families struggle to maintain balance, work and family policy is growing increasingly salient. Finally, workplace flexibility will allow the elderly to work comfortably later into life, which will shore up their economic security and provide an important component to addressing the long-term fiscal challenges of entitlements.

Maya MacGuineas then described the challenges that tax and fiscal policy face, as well as some promising strategies that might elevate them to the crucial role they will have to play in the coming political era. These issues may lack the freshness of other innovative policy ideas, and “the size of the government is a cleavage issue between the two parties.” Even worse, there is lingering resentment on deficit reduction, because politicians who sacrificed political capital to see a surplus emerge in the 1990s only to rapidly vanish “fear they will get burned again.” Partisan trends continue, and they breed reluctance to face hard policy choices, even while “easy grabs” such as AMT reform and the stimulus package enjoy bipartisan success. The general lesson to draw is that incrementalism fails, and fundamental reform is needed. There are several approaches that might see such reform through. One is a commission that would construct a comprehensive proposal “with enough moving pieces to build a coalition” that could last. Other ideas include redefining budget concepts in favor of fiscal responsibility and building automatic changes, or triggers, into the budget. Perhaps the most important component of reform is a “grand bargain” that would help those who lose out in any fiscal restructuring.

Then, Len Nichols discussed the question of why now is the crucial moment to move forward on perennial issues of cost, access, and quality in health care. First, the cost of doing nothing is growing to staggering proportions. Support for national health care declined in the early 1990s as the economy eased out of recession; now, the current recession only adds to a more fundamental anxiety caused by skyrocketing health care costs. Second, employers are increasingly unable to compete internationally while providing health benefits. Because they cannot push insurance costs into higher prices or lower wages, employer-based health care is giving way. Finally, broad system stress from emergency care costs establishes the linkages between cost, access, and quality with crystal clarity. We see the results of these salient trends on both sides of the presidential campaign, and recent bipartisan success in the form of the Bennett-Wyden bill should offer hope for coming reform. For such cross-partisan cooperation to prevail, the “new math” tells us that a working proposal must enjoy not only 60, but 70 senators who find it acceptable. To make inroads into both parties and to repair our broken health care system, reform must create effective insurance markets, subsidize those who would otherwise lack coverage, and focus on the twin principles of personal and shared responsibility. The inescapable linkages connecting all these issues show that a grand bargain, laying out the next social contract, is critical.

For the final panel, Mark Schmitt introduced David Frum, fellow at AEI and author of Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, and Jonathan Chait, senior editor at The New Republic and author of The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, to discuss the new direction that the parties will take in the coming political era. Frum described Republican control that began to emerge in the 1990s as “the GOP cashing in on the Reagan revolution of the 1980s.” After a rare succession of elections failing to produce a clear majority for any candidate, George W. Bush sought in his Presidency to assemble a new coalition, turning the GOP into a lasting majority party. The events of September 11, 2001 disrupted this effort, and public opinion trends have begun to favor Democrats. The question remains how the Republican party will respond to this new era, and whether Democrats will overstretch in their victory in 2008.

Jonathan Chait then argued that the key source of this Democratic ascendance is “the disappearance of broadly shared prosperity” in the economy, propelled by the Bush tax cuts. Chait disputed that rising Democratic self-identification is a temporary fluctuation in partisanship, but rather a lasting ideological sea change. Yet, despite these favorable trends, a progressive agenda could encounter a number of obstacles in 2008, principally the filibuster in the senate. In order to meet these challenges, Democrats must develop institutions, such as nonprofits, to respond to ideas from the right. Furthermore, they must mobilize the public to counterbalance the influence of political inertia and self-interested insiders. He cited Barack Obama’s theory of change as one vision to accomplish this task. In response, David Frum argued that a President Obama, like Reagan and Clinton before him, would only be able to make this kind of direct appeal to the public once.

-David McNamee is a Program Associate for the Next Social Contract.

Maya MacGuineas in Sacramento Bee | 'Dems Intend to Spend, But With What?'

Communications — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:46:00 -0500

New America in the News:

Dems Intend to Spend, But With What? (The article appears in the Sacramento Bee, CA and the Youngstown Vindicator, OH)

"It is getting a little bit discouraging that promises that are on the wrong side of the ledger … are starting to add up. It gets more and more difficult to see how any of the candidates can meet the full portfolio of promises" they've made, said Maya Macguineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group that advocates balanced budgets. ...