Based on new 10-year fiscal estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, I wrote yesterday that balancing the budget actually is very simple with a modest bit of spending restraint.
If lawmakers simply limit annual spending increases to 1 percent annually, the budget is balanced by 2022. If spending is allowed to grow by 2 percent annually, the budget is balanced by 2025. And if the goal is balancing the budget by the end of the 10-year window, that simply requires that spending grow no more than 2.63 percent annually.
I also pointed out that this wouldn’t require unprecedented fiscal discipline. After all, we had a de facto spending freeze (zero percent spending growth) from 2009-2014.
And in another previous column, I shared many other examples of nations that achieved excellent fiscal results with multi-year periods of spending restraint (as defined by outlays growing by an average of less than 2 percent).
Today, we’re going to add tax cuts to our fiscal equation.
Some people seem to think it’s impossible to balance the budget if lawmakers are also reducing the amount of tax revenue that goes to Washington each year.
And they think big tax cuts, such as the Trump plan (which would reduce revenues over 10 years by $2.6 trillion-$3.9 trillion according to the Tax Foundation), are absurd and preposterous.
After all, if politicians tried to simultaneously enact a big tax cut and balance the budget, it would require deep and harsh spending cuts that would decimate the federal budget, right?
They just need to comply with my Golden Rule.
Let’s examine the fiscal implications of a $3 trillion tax cut. If you look at CBO’s baseline revenue forecast for the next 10 years, the federal government is projected to collect more than $43 trillion during that decade. If you reduce that baseline by an average of $300 billion each year, receipts will still grow. Indeed, they’ll rise from $3.4 trillion this year to $4.8 trillion in 2027.
And since CBO is forecasting that the federal government this year will spend more than $3.9 trillion, we simply have to figure out the amount of spending restraint necessary so that outlays in 2027 don’t exceed $4.8 trillion.
That’s not a difficult calculation. It turns out that the American people can get a substantial $3 trillion tax and a balanced budget if politicians simply exercise a modest amount of fiscal discipline and limit annual spending increases to 1.96 percent annually.
In other words, if the crowd in Washington does nothing more than simply have government grow just a tiny bit less than the projected rate of inflation, lots of good things can be achieved.
P.S. I can’t resist pointing out yet again that we shouldn’t fixate on balancing the budget. The real goal should be to shrink the burden of federal spending so more resources are allocated by the productive sector of the economy. That being said, if lawmakers address the underlying disease of excessive spending, that automatically solves the symptom of red ink.
P.P.S. Higher taxes, by contrast, generally lead to higher deficits and debt.
[…] to control spending – I pointed out early in the year that it would be easy to cut taxes, control spending, and balance the budget. And I did the same […]
[…] Republicans could have produced a far bolder tax reform plan had they been willing to restrain spending. That didn’t happen. […]
[…] could have produced a far bolder tax reform plan had they been willing to restrain spending. That didn’t […]
[…] In other words, the chart actually is showing that corporate rate reduction is partially financed by a reduction in spending, which is a win-win from my perspective. […]
[…] But let’s set that aside and consider what would be necessary to balance the budget over the 10-year budget window. Earlier this year, I calculated that it would be possible to balance the budget and enact a $3 trillion tax cut so long as politicians would simply restrain federal spending so that it grew by 1.96 percent per year. […]
[…] At the start of the year, I pointed out that it would be possible to both balance the budget and approve a $3 trillion tax cut if spending grew each year by an average of 1.96 percent. […]
[…] were willing to impose some modest spending restraint, by contrast, that would have given them enormous flexibility for large tax cuts (while also balancing the […]
[…] modest spending restraint would enable both huge tax cuts and a balanced […]
[…] the growth of government, which is unfortunate since some fiscal prudence (federal budget growing about 2 percent per year) would have allowed a very large tax cut while also balancing the budget within 10 […]
[…] Republicans would have a lot more flexibility to produce a very popular tax reform plan if they had imposed some spending […]
[…] P.P.S. The biggest obstacle to good tax policy is the unwillingness of Republicans to impose even a modest amount of spending restraint. […]
[…] of tax reform financed by spending restraint. If Republicans simply limited federal spending so it grew by 1.96 percent per year over the next 10 years, that would enable both a balanced budget and a $3 trillion tax […]
[…] In my ideal world, we’re having a substantive debate about corporate tax policy, double taxation, marginal tax rates, and fundamental tax reform (plus spending restraint so big tax cuts are feasible). […]
[…] good tax policy enabled by spending restraint. Exactly what I’ve been recommending for […]
[…] Mitchell, a conservative economist, has written that it's "relatively simple to have a big tax cut and still achieve balance in 10 years with a bit of extra spending discipline. That’s the good […]
[…] Mitchell, a conservative economist, has written that it’s “relatively simple to have a big tax cut and still achieve balance in 10 years with a bit of extra spending discipline. That’s the […]
[…] That’s certainly achievable with a modest amount of spending restraint. And it’s even relatively simple to have a big tax cut and still achieve balance in 10 years with a bit of extra spending discipline. That’s the […]
[…] and the White House decide to restrain spending, which easily would create room for a very large tax cut (what I prefer, but I won’t hold my breath for this […]
[…] line. When the Congressional Budget Office released its fiscal forecast earlier this year, I crunched the numbers and showed that we could balance the budget within 10 years and lower the tax burden by $3 trillion […]
[…] and the White House decide to restrain spending, which easily would create room for a very large tax cut (what I prefer, but I won’t hold my breath for this […]
[…] and the White House decide to restrain spending, which easily would create room for a very large tax cut (what I prefer, but I won’t hold my breath for this […]
[…] and the White House decide to restrain spending, which easily would create room for a very large tax cut (what I prefer, but I won’t hold my breath for this […]
[…] In an ideal world, tax reform would be financed in large part with spending restraint. Sadly, Washington, DC, isn’t in the same galaxy as that ideal […]
[…] there’s a much better way to enable those pro-growth […]
[…] allowing economic growth to maximize tax receipts. Simple math with the latest CBO numbers also reveals we could cut taxes by “$3 trillion” while still closing the deficit in 10 years, if we were to […]
[…] allowing economic growth to maximize tax receipts. Simple math with the latest CBO numbers also reveals we could cut taxes by “$3 trillion” while still closing the deficit in 10 years, if we were to […]
[…] allowing economic growth to maximize tax receipts. Simple math with the latest OMB numbers also reveals we could cut taxes by “$3 trillion” while still closing the deficit in 10 years, if we […]
[…] Regarding my remarks, I think the most relevant thing I said was when I shared new data from the Congressional Budget Office and pointed out that we can simultaneously balance the budget within 10 years and have a $3 trillion tax cut if politicians simply exercise a modest bit of spending restraint and limit annual budget increases to 1.96 per year. […]
Would love to see the same calculation for us here in the UK!
Fine article. I haven’t read anything from this perspective and especially liked the “Golden Rule”.