Four out of four panelists agree: U.S. fiscal policy does not cheat future generations

George Washington Law Review

Volumn 77, Issue 5-6, 2009, Pages 1402-1410

  Buchanan, Neil H ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449130854     PISSN: 00168076     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. The symposium's second panel, Government Finances Today and Economic Prosperity Tomorrow, included four papers discussing fiscal policy and justice between generations: a principal article by me, Neil H. Buchanan, What Do We Owe Future Generations?, 77 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1237 (2009).
2. a follow-up article by Daniel Shaviro, The Long-Term U.S. Fiscal Gap: Is the Main Problem Generational Inequity?, 77 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1298 (2009), and
3. scholarly comments from Nancy J. Altman, Social Security and Intergenerational Justice, 77 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1383 (2009), and
4. Larry Zelenak, Does Intergenerational Justice Require Rising Standards of Living?, 77 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1358 (2009).
5. Author's calculations based on data provided in THE 2007 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS, H.R. DOC. NO. 110-30, at 78-79 tbl.V.A2,94-95 tbl.V.B2 (2007), available at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR07/ tr07.pdf [hereinafter 2007 TRUSTEES' REPORT] (showing that GDP per capita would be 144% higher in 2085 than in 2005 for the high-cost scenario).
6. See also Neil H. Buchanan, Social Security and Government Deficits: When Should We Worry?, 92 CORNELL L. REV. 257, 266 n.57 (2007) (showing that, under the most pessimistic scenario using 2006 data, the trustees' forecasts for 2080 imply that per capita GDP would be 131% higher than in 2005). Note that the 2006 forecasts end in 2080, whereas forecasts beginning with the 2007 TRUSTEES' REPORT extend through 2085.
7. See 2007 TRUSTEES' REPORT, supra, at 78-79 tbl.V.A2, 94-95 tbl.V.B2.
8. Author's calculations based on data provided in 2007 TRUSTEES' REPORT, supra note 2, at 78-79 tbl.V.A2, 94-95 tbl.V.B2, which shows that GDP per capita would be 249% or 395% higher in 2085 than in 2005 for the intermediate and low-cost scenarios, respectively.
9. Author's calculations based on data provided in THE 2009 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AOE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS, H.R. DOC. NO. 111-41, at 85-86 tbl.V.A2, 103-04 tbl.V.B2 (2009), available at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/ tr09.pdf (showing that GDP per capita would be 149%, 246%, or 379% higher in 2085 than in 2005 for high-cost, intermediate, and low-cost scenarios, respectively).
10. Buchanan, supra note 1, at 1287-96.
11. Id. at 1250-58.
12. See Shaviro, supra note 1, at 1334-37. Professor Shaviro specifically used the term "doomsday scenario" in his oral remarks at the symposium.
13. See infra note 14 and accompanying text.
14. See Buchanan, supra note 1, at 1237-90 & nn.1-9;
15. See also Neil H. Buchanan, "Generational Theft"? Even With Stimulus and Bailout Spending, U.S. Fiscal Policy Does Not Cheat Future Generations, CHALLENGE (forthcoming September/October 2009), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1357772 (quoting, among other incendiary comments, Laurence Kotlikoff s claim that U.S. fiscal policy amounts to "fiscal child abuse").
16. Daniel Shaviro, Understanding the Generational Challenge, 75 TAX NOTES 714, 715-16 (1997) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). Note, however, that the final sentence of that quotation drops the conditional tense and adopts a prescriptive stance.
17. Daniel N. Shaviro, Op-Ed., How Tax Cuts Feed the Beast, N.Y. TIMES, Sep. 21, 2004, at A27.
18. Daniel N. Shaviro, Reckless Disregard: The Bush Administration's Policy of Cutting Taxes in the Face of an Enormous Fiscal Gap, 45 B.C. L. Rev. 1285, 1333-34 (2004).
19. Daniel N. Shaviro, Accrual Accounting and the Fiscal Gap, 41 HARV. J. ON LEGIS. 209, 214 (2004).
20. Shaviro, supra note 1, at 1300 (footnotes omitted).
21. See Altman, supra note 1, at 1385.
22. Cf. id. at 1400 & nn.84-87;
23. Robert J. Samuelson, Op-Ed., Young Voters, Get Mad, WASH. POST, Oct. 22, 2008, at A19 (describing the American Association of Retired Persons as "the citadel of seniors' political power and the country's most powerful 'special interest'" and noting that it "wields a virtual veto over roughly two-fifths of the federal budget").
24. But cf. Samuelson, supra note 16, at A19 (referring to "Social Security and Medicare" without differentiation at two points in editorial while ignoring key differences in each program).
25. Altman, supra note 1, at 1395-97.
26. Id. at 1393-94.
27. Id.
28. See Paul Krugman, Op-Ed., Ailing Health Care, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 11,2005, at A19 ("We spend far more per person on health care than any other country-75 percent more than Canada or France-yet rank near the bottom among industrial countries in indicators from life expectancy to infant mortality.");
29. See also Posting of Uwe E. Reinhardt to N.Y. Times Economix Blog, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ll/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so- much-part-ii-
30. indefensible-administrative-costs/ (Nov. 21, 2008, 10:34 EST) (noting that "[t]he United States spenft] nearly 40 percent more on health care per capita than its O.D.P. per capita would predict" in 2006, where the prediction is "based on trends in other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development").
31. Zelenak, supra note 1, at 1382.
32. See id. at 1363-64, 1381-82.
33. See id. at 1360-62.