Maya MacGuineas

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.

Maya MacGuineas in CQ | House Democrats Aim to bring Their War Supplemental

Communications — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:38:00 -0400

New America in the News:
. . . “The Blue Dogs are the heroes of this situation,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “I think the Blue Dogs are really flexing their muscles and showing they’re not going to vote for unpaid new spending programs.” . . . For the entire article, go to CQ.com.

CRFB in Chicago Tribune | "Republicans' Fight Against Tax Realities"

Communications — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:08:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . . [John McCain] rules out tax increases to cut the deficit, while vowing to get tough on spending. But the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says that while his proposals would slow the growth of spending, total outlays would still rise faster than inflation. Result: a larger deficit. . .

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

Communications — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:45:00 -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.” . . .

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in National Journal | "For McCain, a 20 Percent Solution"

Communications — Sat, 10 May 2008 07:00:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . . By Holtz-Eakin's estimate, growth in entitlement programs--primarily Medicare and Medicaid--will drive federal spending from today's 20 percent of GDP to almost 26 percent in 2030. Such a large public sector, Holtz-Eakin argues in the paper, would impair economic growth and flexibility, and endanger America's limited-government heritage. The challenge, then, is to stabilize the country's finances at around 20 percent of GDP in 2030. . .

. . . His reform proposals are all debatable, but what is significant about Holtz-Eakin's paper is that it gets the conceptual framework right. "The far more important goal is 2030 rather than five years from now," says Maya MacGuineas, who directs the fiscal policy program at the New America Foundation.

. . . If he made long-term solvency a predominant theme of his candidacy, instead of treating it as a footnote to tax cuts, McCain could touch all of those bases, a nice trick. "There's a chance here for a really dramatic next chapter," MacGuineas says, "a whole reframing of what the challenges are." . . .

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