MEETING THE ENERGY NEEDS OF OUR COUNTRY A VIEW FROM WASHINGTON, D.C.
View from Washington
description
Transcript of View from Washington
Tax and Budget Policy in the Washington
Swamp as We Approach Another
Election Year
Iowa Bankers Association 2014 Bank Management Conference
Des Moines, Iowa
February 12, 2014
Kenneth J. Kies Managing Director
Federal Policy Group
Page 2
View from Washington
Page 3
Overview
Federal Fiscal Outlook Economic Outlook Looming Deadlines How is Obamacare doing? On to the 2014 Election Outlook for Tax Reform in 2014 – Is More
Redistribution Needed? Possible Game Changers
Page 4
The Outlook for 2013
Federal Fiscal Outlook
Page 5
Deficit Outlook Under CBO
$1,413$1,294 $1,300
$1,087
$680$514 $478 $539 $581 $655
$752$836 $912
$0$200$400$600$800
$1,000$1,200$1,400$1,600$1,800
An
nu
al
De
fic
it (
$ b
illio
n)
Fiscal Year
CBO Baseline
Source: CBO Baseline Budget Outlook, February, 2014 Source: CBO Baseline Budget Outlook, February, 2014
Page 6
Federal Debt Outlook: White House
$16.1$17.0
$18.1$19.1
$20.0$20.9
$21.8$22.6
$23.4
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Pu
blic
ly
He
ld D
eb
t ($
Tri
llio
ns
)
Fiscal Year
Total Federal Debt
Source: White House Updated Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, July 2013 Source: White House Updated Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, July 2013
Page 7
Federal Debt Outlook: White House
106% 107% 107% 107% 106% 105% 104% 104% 103%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Fiscal Year
Total Federal Debt (As % of GDP)
Source: White House Updated Budget for Fiscal Year Source: White House Updated Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, July 2013 2014, July 2013
Page 8
Now Even Worse News
Page 9
Entitlements Drive the Debt Higher
Page 10
Federal Revenues Were Depressed As Well
Revenues as a percent of GDP have averaged 17.8 percent since 1950
Except for 2013, Revenues as a percent of GDP have been at their lowest level since 1950
FY- 2009 - 15.1%
FY- 2010 - 15.1%
FY- 2011 - 15.4% FY- 2012 – 15.7%
FY- 2013 – 18.4%
Page 11
Revenues Continue to Recover
Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
% of GDP 16.7 17.5 18.2 18.2 18.1 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.1 18.1 18.2
Source: CBO Baseline Budget Outlook, February, 2014 Source: CBO Baseline Budget Outlook, February, 2014
Page 12
The Interest Rate Time Bomb
Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Billions $221 $233 $268 $326 $404 $493 $569 $635 $694 $755 $819
% of GDP 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2
Total FedSpending(Billions)
$3,454 $3,543 $3,783 $4,020 $4,212 $4,425 $4,684 $4,939 $5,200 $5,522 $5,749
% of Total Spending
6.4% 6.5% 7.1% 8.1% 9.6% 11.1% 12.1% 12.6% 13.3% 13.7% 14.2%
10-yearTreas Notes
2.4 3.1 3.7 4.3 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Federal Net Interest Expense
Source: CBO Baseline Budget Outlook, February, 2014Source: CBO Baseline Budget Outlook, February, 2014
Page 13
Putting the Debt in Perspective for Fiscal Year 2011
U.S. Tax Revenue: $2,314,000,000,000
Federal Budget: $3,597,000,000,000
New Debt: $1,283,000,000,000
National Debt: $14,698,625,550,307.37 (and counting)
Budget Cuts: $38,500,000,000
Source: The Congressional Budget Office, Treasury Department’s Bureau of Public Debt
Page 14
Drop 8 Digits, the Debt becomes a Family Budget
Annual Family Income: $23,140
Money Family Spent: $35,970
New Credit Card Debt: $12,830
Credit Card Balance: $146,986.37 (and counting)
Budget Cuts: $385
Page 15
The Real Kicker
“A federal budget compromise that was hailed as historic for proposing to cut about $38 billion would reduce federal spending by only $352 million this fiscal year, less than one percent of the bill’s advertised amount, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”
- The Washington Post, April 14, 2011
Page 16
Translation:
The Family Budget was cut by $3.85, not $385
Page 17
State of the Economy
Page 18
States and Cities in Fiscal Crisis
States face trillions in pension funding shortfall (continued)
– The state pension situation is improving, but most plan funding is still low… On average, state pension plans are roughly 73 percent funded, according to Morningstar, an investor research company that puts together the annual report.
The Washington Post, September 17, 2013
10 states where the public pension fight is fierce (Unfunded Liability):
California ($100 billion), Illinois ($85 billion), Kansas ($9.2 billion), Kentucky ($30 billion), Louisiana ($18 billion), New Hampshire ($4.26 billion), New Jersey ($41.7 billion), New York ($9 billion), Oklahoma ($10.6 billion), Rhode Island ($4 billion)
The Wall Street Journal, October 7, 2012
Some cities face bankruptcy
– “Harrisburg [PA] is in default on its debt and has been effectively shut out of the municipal-debt market, which cities and states use to finance everything from building schools to paving roads.Harrisburg's misery is familiar to many U.S. cities trying to climb out of debt used to finance convention centers, hotels and employee pensions. Some governments are cut off now from funding for necessities such as repairing infrastructure.” The Wall Street Journal, February 1, 2013
Page 19
Detroit: The Mother of all Pension Problems
Page 20
Is New York City Next?
Mayor Michael Bloomberg: NYC may be the next Detroit
New York City is headed toward the same bankrupt fate as Detroit, unless the incoming mayor tends to municipal union issues and
curbs soaring pension costs right away, Mayor Michael Bloomberg warned on Tuesday. “Avoiding the hard choices is how Detroit went
bankrupt,” he said, in a speech before a Brooklyn crowd… he’s advising his followers to take heed from a city that’s been there, done
that, in terms of financial disaster. Chicago, he reminded, just sent pink slips to 2,100 teachers and school workers to help defray the
costs of pensions.
Washington Times, August 8, 2013
Page 21
Looming Deadlines
Page 22
Looming Deadlines
February 7, 2014 – Debt Ceiling
March 31, 2014 – Expiration of the “Doc Fix”
October 1, 2014 – Beginning of Fiscal year 2015
November 4, 2014 – Mid Term Elections
December 21, 2014, Tax Extenders
Page 23
How is Obamacare doing?
Page 24
Indicators that your employer has changed to Obama’s Health Care Plan
Page 25
Two Coverage Options:
Above the waist or below the waist
Page 26
Directions to your doctor’s office include
“Take a left when you enter the trailer park.”
Page 27
The tongue depressors taste faintly of Fudgesicles
Page 28
The only item listed under Preventative Care Coverage is “an apple a day”.
Page 29
Your primary care physician is wearing the pants you gave to Goodwill last month.
Page 30
“The patient is responsible for 200% of out-of-network charges,” is not a typographical error.
Page 31
Every one of their approved doctors are incarcerated
Page 32
And the Number One Sign You’ve Joined Obama’s Health Care Plan:
Page 33
You receive notice that you are now a part time
employee instead of full time.
Page 34
On to the 2014 Election
Page 35
2014 Election: Rothenberg Report
Category Senators
Pure Toss Up Mary Landrieu (D-La)
Tilt Republican Mark Prior (D-Ark.)Max Baucus (D-Mont.) (open)
Tilt Democrat Mark Begich (D-Alaska)Kay Hagen (D-NC)
Lean Republican Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) (open)
Lean Democrat Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) (open)
Republican Favored Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) (open)Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) (open)
Democrat Favored Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)Carl Levin (D-Mich) (open)
Mark Warner (D-Va)
Rothenberg Report, January 23, 2014
Page 36
How Popular is Congress?
Page 37
Gallup:
Congress approval is up to 13%, from 11% in October during the U.S. government shutdown. The disapproval rate of Congress is 82%, down from 85% in October.
- January 5-8, 2014
Page 38
The Gallup Poll:
June 13, 2013
Page 39
Compared to Congress, the poll found Respondents prefer:
Witches, 46% to 32%Jury Duty, 73% to 18%Hemorrhoids, 53% to 31%Anthony Weiner, 50% to 23%Vladimir Putin, 49% to 28%Charles Manson, 56% to 18%FRANCE, 46% to 37%Miley Cyrus, 36% to 31%The DMV, 48% to 25%‘Twerking’, 37% to 33%. Source: Public Policy Polling, October 8, 2013
Page 40
Outlook for Tax Reform in 2013 –
Is More Redistribution Needed?
Page 41
Sophisticated Discussion on Tax Reform?
The current tax code “is kind of screwy.”
President Barack Obama, April 6, 2011
Page 42
The Tax Code Has Become More Progressive
Year IncomeClass
% of TotalAGI
% of Total Income Tax Paid
2010 Top 1% 18.9% 37.4%
Bottom 50% 11.7% 2.4%
2007 Top 1% 22.86% 39.81%
Bottom 50% 12.19% 3.36%
2000 Top 1% 20.81% 37.42%
Bottom 50% 12.99% 3.91%
1990 Top 1% 14% 25.13%
Bottom 50% 15.03% 5.81%
1980 Top 1% 8.46% 19.05%
Bottom 50% 17.68% 7.05%
Source: The Tax Foundation, “Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data”, November 29, 2012
*Handout: Joint Committee on Taxation “Overview of the Federal Tax System”, February 24, 2012
Page 43
Taxes to Increase in 2013 for Wealthier Taxpayers
Sources: Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimate Of Federal Tax Expenditures For Fiscal Years 2012-2017, February 1, 2013 White House Office of Management and Budget, January 8, 2013
The White House projects wealthier taxpayers will pay an additional $27 billion in taxes in calendar year 2013 because of the Fiscal Cliff deal. The White House further estimates that high-income taxpayers will pay an additional $88 billion per year by FY2023.
Page 44
Tax Expenditures benefit more than the “Rich”
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation , Estimate Of Federal Tax Expenditures For Fiscal Years 2012-2017, February 1, 2013
2012 Federal Tax Benefits Total Benefit for Incomes$200,001 and Above
Total Benefit for Incomes$200,000 and Below
Mortgage Interest $23.6 Billion $44.5 Billion
Student Loan Interest $0 $1.3 Billion
Education Credits $65 Million $11.8 Billion
Child Tax Credit $16 Million $56.7 Billion
Earned Income Tax Credit $0 $59 Billion
Child Care Credit $166 Million $3.1 Billion
Charitable Giving $21.6 Billion $16 Billion
Local Taxes (Including Sales) $24.1 Billion $19.6 Billion
Medical $1.4 Billion $10.3 Billion
Real Estate Tax $6 Billion $18.2 Billion
TOTAL $76.9 Billion $240.5 Billion
Page 45
Tax Rates for California and New York City
StateTop Federal
Tax Rate(inc. 3.8%
Medicare tax)
Top State/Local Tax
Rate
Total Top Income Tax
Rate
California 43.4% 13.3% 56.7%
New York City 43.4% 12.696% 56.096%
Page 46
Selected Federal Means-Tested Programs and Refundable Tax Credits
Outlay for theFederal Government
1972(2012 Dollars)
1991(2012 Dollars)
2011(2012 Dollars)
Earned Income Tax Credit Amount Spent* % of all Tax Filers
00
$8 Billion7.6%
$55 Billion17.7%
Child Tax Credit Amount Spent* % of all Tax Filers
00
00
$28 Billion14.7%
Supplemental Security Income Amount Spent % of all U.S. Residents
00
$23 Billion1.8%
$49 Billion2.5%
AFDC/TANF Amount Spent % of all U.S. Residents
$18 Billion**
$20 Billion**
$18 Billion**
SNAP (Food Stamps) Amount Spent % of all US Residents
$9 Billion5.3% (11.1 million)
$31 Billion8.9% (22.6 million)
$79 Billion14.3% (44.7 million)
Housing Assistance Amount Spent % of all Households
$5 Billion2.1%
$26 Billion4.1%
$39 Billion3.7%
Pell Grants Amount Spent % of US Residents
00
$8 Billion1.3%
$36 Billion3.0%
Tax Code provisions in RED.*Numbers for tax credits consist only of amounts paid to tax filers because they exceed filers’ tax liabilities.**Comprehensive data on participation are not available for AFDC/TANF.
Source: Congressional Budget Office, “Means-Tested Programs and Tax Credits for Low-Income Households,” February, 2013
Page 47
Common Theme: Tax Expenditures
Page 48
Prime Targets
Tax Expenditure for Individuals Estimated Cost (2013 – 2017)
Health Care Exclusion $ 760 billion Home Mortgage Deduction $ 379 billion Reduced Taxes on Investments $ 402 billion Defined Benefit Plans $ 212 billion Earned Income Credit $ 326 billion State and local, Sales Tax,
and Property Tax Deductions $ 278 billion Defined Contribution Plans $ 336 billion Charitable Deductions
(excluding Health and Education) $ 183 billion Medicare – Hospital (Part A) $ 170 billion Social Security/RR Retirement $ 180 billion Cafeteria Plan Exclusion $ 192 billion Inside Buildup $ 158 billion
Joint Committee on Taxation “Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2012-2017,” February 1, 2013
Page 49
Prime Targets
Corporate Tax Expenditures Estimated Cost (2013-2017)
Deferral of active income of controlled foreign corporations $ 265 billion
Exclusion of interest on public purpose State and local government debts $ 191 billion Deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities $ 78
billion Inventory property sales source rule exception $ 18
billion Depreciation of Equipment in excess of alternative depreciation system $ 26 billion Inclusion of income arising from business indebtedness
discharged by the reacquisition of debt instrument $ .3 billion Tax Credit for low-income housing $ 37
billion Expensing of research and experimental expenditures $ 34
billion Inventory methods and valuation: Last in first out $ 27 billion Reduced rates for first $10,000,000 of corporate taxable income $ 19 billion
Joint Committee on Taxation “Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2012-2017,” February 1, 2013
Page 50
Credit Union Tax Exemption
Today, credit unions are largely indistinguishable from banks in how, and with whom, they conduct business, with one crucial exception – banks pay corporate income taxes and credit unions do not.
The most recent JCT tax expenditure analysis estimated that the tax exemption for
credit unions will reduce federal tax revenues by $9.46 billion over fiscal years 2014-2018.
This multi-billion dollar tax subsidy confers a substantial competitive advantage that no longer has any policy or economic justification. All credit unions should pay federal corporate income taxes.
Page 51
Credit Union Tax Exemption (continued)
As initially conceived, credit unions were small, volunteer-run depository institutions serving members, many of whom had very limited means, with a common bond or affiliation, such as the same employer or church.
Credit unions have moved sharply away from their original mission while growing substantially in size. Some credit unions have implemented schemes that permit anyone at all to bank with them, eliminating supposed membership restrictions.
At the end of 2012, federally insured credit unions had $74.2 billion of undivided earnings
and had record earnings for the year.
In addition, the greatest growth was in the very large credit unions—that is, those that least resembled the very small institutions that were prevalent when Congress first granted credit unions tax-exempt status. As the National Credit Union Administration noted:
“Growth [in 2012] was most robust in credit unions with assets above $250 million. This group of 751 credit unions showed the largest gains in nearly every category, including membership, net worth, market share, loans and assets.”
Page 52
Credit Union Tax Exemption (continued)
Any basis for the credit unions’ tax exemption long ago ceased to apply. As noted in a 2005 Tax Foundation study, “Today the principal justification for the tax exemption would seem to be that it already exists.”
There is ample precedent for repealing the tax exempt status of financial services entities when the original justification for that status ceases to exist.
For example, Congress repealed the tax exemption for savings and loans and cooperative and mutual savings banks in 1951, and the tax exemptions for other financial services entities in 1986 and 1997.
Credit unions were first characterized as tax exempt nearly a century ago because of their similarity to savings and loans and cooperative and mutual savings banks, but those other entities have paid income taxes since 1951.
Both Republican and Democratic Administrations have proposed repealing or
curtailing the tax exempt status of credit unions in order to end a disparity that provides credit unions an unjustified competitive advantage, at taxpayer expense.
Page 53
Credit Union Tax Exemption (continued)
In 1978, President Carter proposed repealing the tax exempt status of credit unions, stating:
“I am recommending changes that will recognize the contemporary practices of financial institutions and will bring the tax treatment of commercial banks, savings and loan associations and credit unions more in line with the taxation of other businesses…. Credit unions are tax-exempt. Yet, their powers and functions are defined so broadly that the term ‘credit union’ can include financial institutions that are functionally identical to a savings and loan association. The tax exemption provides them with an unfair financial advantage over their competitors.”
In 1986, President Reagan proposed taxing credit unions as part of his plan to reform the tax code. He stated:
“In an economy based on free market principles, the tax system should not provide a competitive advantage for particular commercial enterprises. Credit unions should thus be subject to tax on the same basis as other financial institutions.”
Page 54
Credit Union Tax Exemption (continued)
In 1990, the George H.W. Bush Administration proposed repealing the tax exempt status of credit unions with $50 million or more in assets. His Treasury Department explained:
“Because of their tax exemption, credit unions enjoy a competitive advantage over other financial institutions such as commercial banks and savings and loan associations….In an economy based on free market principles, the tax system should not provide a tax subsidy to particular commercial enterprises or a competitive advantage to those enterprises over others that perform substantially the same functions. Although credit unions were founded to extend short-term personal loans to narrowly defined groups, today large credit unions frequently function more as full service consumer banks.”
In 2010, President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board supported taxing credit unions, stating:
“Unlike other financial institutions like banks and thrifts, credit unions do not pay corporate taxes on their income. This puts them at a competitive advantage relative to other financial institutions for tax reasons. Eliminating this exemption would raise revenue and level the playing field.”
Page 55
Possible Game Changers
1. Obamacare1. Young people
2. Who actually pays?
3. How mad people get with possible change in service, narrower networks, higher deductibles and copays
4. Relentless news coverage1. Colorado
2. Russian Olympics
3. Domestic Terror Event
4. Natural Disaster
5. World Cup in Brazil
Page 56
Possible Game Changers (cont’d)
6. Presidential Politics 1. Christie
2. Clinton
3. Biden
4. Jeb Bush
7. Supreme Court decision on recess appointments
8. Supreme Court decision on Illinois/home health workers
9. IRS – 501 (c)(4) Scandal
10. NSA
11. Benghazi
Page 57
Possible Game Changers (cont’d)
12. Foreign Policy
a. Syria
b. Libya
c. Egypt
d. Israel
e. Iran
f. Afghanistan
g. China – Japan
h. North Korea
13. Immigration Reform
14. War on Income Inequality & Unemployment Benefits
15. New Congressional Scandal
16. Unknown