Showing 194 database articles primarily about Government Spending

Currently filtering by:

For whatever topics you select (currently: Government Spending):

Include articles that mention this topic 380

Only articles primarily about this topic 194

The Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Budgetary Costs And Distributional Impact

Junlei Chen Penn Wharton Budget Model University Of Pennsylvania

Date Posted:: September 9, 2022
Is Database:: Database

Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan could cost >$1T.

The Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan is projected to cost over $1 trillion, driven by three main components: debt cancellation, loan forbearance, and a new income-driven repayment (IDR) program. Debt cancellation alone is estimated to cost up to $519 billion, benefiting primarily households earning $88,000 or less. Loan forbearance adds another $16 billion, while the IDR program could cost $70 billion under static assumptions. However, potential changes in borrower behavior and future IDR program details could increase costs by an additional $450 billion or more. This plan's financial implications are significant, with the majority of benefits skewed towards lower-income households, potentially impacting federal budget allocations and economic inequality.

President Biden’s new student loan forgiveness plan includes three major components. We estimate that debt cancellation alone will cost up to $519 billion, with about 75% of the benefit accruing to households making $88,000 or less. Loan forbearance will cost another $16 billion. The new income-driven repayment (IDR) program would cost another $70 billion, increasing the total plan cost to $605 billion under strict “static” assumptions. However, depending on future IDR program details to be released and potential behavioral (i.e., “non-static”) changes, total plan costs could exceed $1 trillion.

Junlei Chen and Kent Smetters, “The Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Budgetary Costs And Distributional Impact,”Penn Wharton Budget Model University Of Pennsylvania, August 26, 2022, https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/8/26/biden-student-loan-forgiveness

The Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Budgetary Costs And Distributional Impact

Key Points

We estimate that President Biden’s proposed student loan debt cancellation alone will cost between $469 billion to $519 billion over the 10-year budget window, depending on whether existing and new students are included. About 75% of the benefit falls to households making $88,000 or less per year.

Loan forbearance for 2022 will cost an additional $16 billion.

Under strict “static” assumptions about student borrowing behavior and using take-up rates within existing income-based repayment programs, the proposed new IDR program will cost an additional $70 billion, increasing total package costs to $605 billion.

However, depending on future details of the actual IDR program and concomitant behavioral changes, the IDR program could add another $450 billion or more, thereby raising total plan costs to over $1 trillion. These details require future study.

The Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Budgetary Costs and Distributional Impact

Introduction

President Biden has recently announced a fact sheet for a student loan relief proposal that includes:

Debt cancellation: Individuals earning less than $125,000 (or $250,000 for families) a year will be eligible for up to $10,000 in debt cancellation. Pell Grant recipients earning less than $125,000 (or $250,000 for families) a year are eligible for up to $20,000 in debt reduction.
Forbearance: Student loan forbearance extended through December 31, 2022.
New Income-Driven Repayment (IDR): This plan proposes:

Capping monthly payments to 5% (relative to the current rate of 10% or more) of the discretionary income for undergraduate loan borrowers;

Covering the borrower’s unpaid monthly interest so that debt balances will not grow even when monthly payments are zero;

Raising the amount excluded from the calculation of discretionary income from 150% to 225% of the poverty line; and,

Forgiving loan balances after 10 years of payments, instead of 20 years, for borrowers with original loan balances of $12,000 or less.

The estimation methods herein largely follow our previous brief on student loan debt forgiveness, along with some updates to accommodate the new details released by the Biden Administration. Our previous brief also provides additional background into existing income-based repayment programs.

Loan Forgiveness (“Debt Cancellation”)

Table 1 reports the 10-year budgetary cost estimates for the student loan forgiveness portion of the Biden proposal. The $468.6 billion cost in 2022 corresponds to loans only for students who have separated from eligible post-secondary education and no longer have their debt payments deferred. The $519.1 cost over the 10-year budget window includes students currently enrolled in college with loan deferral status as well as future students during the budget window. As discussed in our previous brief, our loan forgiveness calculations include cost savings to existing income-based repayment programs with partial take-up rates.

The Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Budgetary Costs And Distributional Impact: Extended Excerpt Image 1

Table 2A reports the distributional impact of loan forgiveness in 2022 across all ages while Table 2B restricts the ages to 25 – 35, an age range that is arguably a bit more consistent with lifecycle effects. About 74 percent (Table 2A) to 76 percent (Table 2B) of forgiveness accrues to households making less than $82,400 (Table 2A) or $88,043 (Table 2B). Relative to our previous brief, the extra Pell grant trigger bonus of an additional $10,000 in forgiveness—for a total forgiveness of up to $20,000 for Pell grant recipients—skews the distribution more toward lower-income households.

The Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Budgetary Costs And Distributional Impact: Extended Excerpt Image 2

Loan Forbearance

Table 1 reports that loan forbearance will cost an additional $16 billion. This amount is “stacked” after loan forgiveness. The presence of loan forgiveness reduces the additional cost associated with forbearance. Given its size, the distributional impact is not reported, but it is more evenly distributed throughout the income distribution relative to loan forgiveness.

Income Driven Repayment

Table 1 also reports that the new IDR plan will cost an additional $70.3 billion over the 10-year window when “stacked” after the loan forgiveness and forbearance.

This new program will likely target lower income households even more than loan forgiveness noted above. However, assigning the new IDR gains to specific income groups with reasonable accuracy requires the use of confidential data and an associated mandatory external review period. We will revisit this issue in coming weeks.

This calculation also assumes that take-up rates in the new IDR proposal are the same as in existing income repayment plans. As we document in our previous brief, a majority of qualified borrowers do not enroll in existing programs.

Future Analysis is Needed

The new features in the new IDR proposal, however, could sharply increase take-up rates. Even many borrowers who anticipate not being qualified in future years would typically be better off enrolling in the intermediate years in which they are qualified. There would also be financial incentives for future borrowers to shift education financing toward more borrowing to take advantage of the 5% repayment threshold. If the Department of Education simply auto-enrolled borrowers for which it had sufficient information (i.e., switched from “opt in” to “opt out”), the additional costs of the IDR program alone could reasonably exceed $450 billion.

The actual net distributional effects (the “incidence”) of the new IDR program will also depend on future program details yet to be released. Part of the benefit might be captured by colleges and universities in the form of higher net prices, either higher tuition prices or reduced needs-based tuition offsets.

We plan to examine these issues in future work, especially as new program details emerge.

The Fairest Way to Reform Social Security May Also Be the Worst Way to Grow the Economy

Andrew Biggs American Enterprise Institute

Date Posted:: May 28, 2026
Is Database:: Database
Is Important:: Important

Biggs argues that “fair” approaches to restoring Social Security solvency – those that do not cut already accrued benefits – are less effective than “unfair” ones that do, because the latter incentivize increased work effort, raising growth and revenue.

Imagine that Social Security reform follows the fairness model, in which accrued benefits are paid in full but the rate at which future benefits are earned is reduced. A simple way to do this is to increase the payroll tax rate To keep Social Security permanently solvent, meaning through 75 years and beyond, would require an immediate and permanent increase in the payroll tax rate [from] 12.4% to 17.6%. The higher rate would decrease labor supply and reduce economic growth. [Consider] an alternate reform, which looks clearly unfair: fix Social Security’s funding gap entirely by reducing accrued benefits that Americans already have earned. As of 2025, Americans had accrued $54 trillion in Social Security benefits. Social Security’s unfunded obligation as of 2025 was $26 trillion. So, roughly, this means cutting Americans’ “earned benefits” in half. [Analyzing the 1977 reform that undid the notorious 1972 “double-indexing” of benefits, a group of economists], using SSA earnings data, found that, for every dollar of lost benefits, the affected Americans increased their earnings by 61 cents. Moreover, these additional earnings would be taxed by Social Security, further strengthening the program’s finances. In effect, this makes cutting benefits a “cheaper” way to fix Social Security than raising taxes, because people respond in ways that also increase tax revenues.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

A 5.2 pts payroll tax increase to 17.6% drives reduced labor supply and slower economic growth vs. the status quo.
$54 trillion in accrued Social Security benefits vs. the unfunded obligation reveals that benefit cuts would reduce growth drag but.

The World’s Most Surprising Capitalist Makeover Is Under Way in Sweden

Tom Fairless Wall Street Journal

Date Posted:: May 12, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Swedish public social spending is now 23.7% of GDP, just 1pp above that of the US and well under France’s 31.6%. Market-based reforms in the 1990s brought overall government spending down from 69.4% to 49.3% in 2024.

For decades, Sweden was shorthand for the brand of high-tax, high-spend government that managed people’s lives from cradle to grave through state-run hospitals, schools and care homes. No longer. With little fanfare, this Nordic country of 11 million has embraced capitalism. Today, nearly half of primary healthcare clinics are privately owned, many by private-equity firms. One in three public high schools is privately run, up from 20% in 2011. School operators are listed on the stock exchange. The capitalist makeover has allowed Sweden to do what few industrialized countries have managed in recent years: shrink the size of the state. That has enabled the government to sharply lower taxes and, economists say, sparked a surge in entrepreneurship and economic growth. Its total public social spending bill—which includes healthcare, education and all welfare payments—has fallen to 24% of gross domestic product, similar to the U.S. and well below the over 30% for nations like France and Italy. Sweden’s economy is expected to grow by around 2% a year through 2030, roughly the same pace as the U.S. and double the growth rates of France and Germany, according to an April forecast by the International Monetary Fund.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Sweden’s public social spending fell to 24% of GDP, matching the U.S. and 6+ pts below France/Italy, driving lower taxes.
Privately-run primary healthcare clinics reached nearly 50% of the market vs. 20% for high schools in 2011, demonstrating accelerating privatization.
Sweden’s projected 2% annual GDP growth through 2030 doubles France and Germany’s rates, resulting from state downsizing and capitalist sector.

How Policy and Demographics Are Reshaping SNAP: From Families with Children to Older Adults

Angela Rachidi American Enterprise Institute

Date Posted:: May 1, 2026
Is Database:: Database

About 40mm Americans, 12% of the population, receive SNAP benefits, up from 6% in 2000. In 2023, only 34% of these households included children, down from 49% in 2010, while 36% contained an elderly person, up from 16% in FY2010.

Comparing FY2000 with FY2025, the share of the population receiving SNAP doubled from 6% to 12%, while real SNAP costs per capita increased by 179%—from roughly $100 per year to $279 (in 2024 dollars). Despite this growth, per capita participation and costs in FY2025 remained below their pre-pandemic peak in 2013, which coincided with the aftermath of the Great Recession and changes in eligibility and other policies stemming from the 2008 Farm Bill. SNAP is countercyclical, meaning that all else equal, the number of people receiving SNAP should rise during recessions because of increased unemployment and decline as the economy recovers, [though] overall SNAP participation has grown faster than changes in the unemployment rate alone would predict. Over the long run, and especially since FY2020 (due to the Thrifty Food Plan’s increase in the maximum SNAP benefit), costs per capita have not returned to prerecession levels after a period of high unemployment. In FY2023, the share of SNAP households containing an elderly person (36%) exceeded the share containing a child (34%) for the first time. This was a sharp departure from the early 2000s, when more than half of SNAP households contained a child and less than 20% included an elderly person (Figure 2).

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

SNAP participation doubled from 6% to 12% of the population between FY2000–FY2025, driven by policy expansions and demographic shifts outpacing.
Real per capita SNAP costs rose 179% from $100 to $279 (2024 dollars) over 25 years, with the Thrifty Food.
FY2025 SNAP enrollment remains 8–12% below the FY2013 peak despite 25-year growth, indicating countercyclical policy design successfully targets recession-driven need.

Washington’s Growing Portfolio: Tracking U.S. Government Investments

Jonathan Hillman Council On Foreign Relations

Date Posted:: April 23, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Since January 2025, the USG has taken equity stakes totaling $20.9B in 16 American businesses. $8.6B, ~41% of the total, was invested in critical mineral miners and processors, while $8.9B, ~43% of the total, funded the government’s 10% stake in Intel.

Since January 2025, the U.S. government has invested $20.9 billion across sixteen deals involving direct ownership, broadening a toolkit that has traditionally focused on grants, loans, and tax incentives. The Department of Commerce has participated in six such deals, including taking a 10% stake in Intel. The Development Finance Corporation, the United States’ development bank, has executed three equity transactions in critical minerals, healthcare, and infrastructure. The Department of Defense leads the way with seven such deals. The U.S. government is also working with a range of partners and has mobilized an additional $4.75 billion in investment. Private co-investors include J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and others.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

The U.S. government deployed $20.9bn in direct equity investments since January 2025, expanding beyond traditional grants and loans to drive.
The Department of Defense leads with seven equity deals of the sixteen total, establishing direct ownership as a core national.
Commerce Department’s 10% Intel stake exemplifies government equity participation in critical infrastructure, mobilizing private capital alongside public investment to strengthen.

How Federal Spending is Distributed by Age

Kent Smetters University of Pennsylvania

Date Posted:: April 2, 2026
Is Database:: Database
Is Important:: Important

In 2025, of the 62.5% of Federal spending that is age-assignable on a per-capita basis, US retirees aged 65+ were given $43,700, working-age adults 26–64 got $7,300, and children and young adults got $4,300.

We trace spending items within 52 general spending categories, totalling $7T for the 2025 Fiscal Year. We are able to classify a total of $4.4T across three broad age categories and assign the remaining $2.6T to an all-ages residual. Retirees (adults age 65 and older) receive $2.7T, equal to 38.6% of total federal outlays and 61.9% of age-assignable spending. Working-age adults (ages 26-64) receive $1.2T (27.9% of age-assignable), and children and young adults (under age 26) receive $449B (10.3%). The dominance of the retiree category reflects two programs above all others: Social Security and Medicare. Social Security directs $1.3T to retirees, and Medicare sends $835B. Together, they account for 80% of all age-assignable spending on older adults. But the retiree total extends beyond these two entitlements. Federal employee retirement benefits ($169B), housing assistance for older households, Medicaid long-term-care spending, and VA medical care all contribute, making the federal budget more retiree-focused than a Social Security–only lens would suggest.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Federal spending heavily favors retirees, who receive 38.6 percent of total outlays through Social Security, Medicare, and related programs.
Working-age adults and children combined receive less than half the spending directed to retirees despite representing larger population segments.
Social Security and Medicare alone account for 80 percent of all federal spending on older Americans, dominating the retiree budget.

Has the United States Bent the Health Care Cost Curve?

David Cutler and Lev Klarnet Brookings Papers On Economic Activity

Date Posted:: March 30, 2026
Is Database:: Database
Is Important:: Important

In 2024, medical spending as a share of GDP was just above its 2010 level and 15% ($977B) below its 2010 forecast; 21% of the gap was due to technology, 24% to price reductions, and 11–27% to reforms such as prior authorization and higher deductibles.

Five factors are important in the slowdown in spending [Figure 16]. The first is technology-associated changes in health and site of care. These correspond to the subsequent innovations in our model. Together, technologies along these lines account for 21% of the overall cost slowdown and double that in Medicare. Second, long-run supply is more elastic than short-run supply, which lowers spending over time. This is particularly apparent in the impact of patent expiration for pharmaceuticals and in relative declines in imaging reimbursement. We estimate that greater long-run supply explains 6% of the spending slowdown. Third, a variety of market changes contribute to reduced and more elastic demand, including increased cost sharing paid by consumers, physicians not paid as much for using technologies, and insurers imposing restrictions on technology use - a rough guess is that these account for 11 to 27% of the spending slowdown. Fourth, the population is healthier in ways that reduce spending. This includes fewer hospitalizations for smoking-related conditions and reduced need for formal home health care. The birth rate has fallen as well, which reduces the need for care. We estimate improved population health explains 7% of the spending slowdown. A major component is slower price growth. Net of upcoding, we estimate lower price growth explains 24% of the spending slowdown.

Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan could cost >$1T.

Biggs argues that “fair” approaches to restoring Social Security solvency – those that do not cut already accrued benefits – are less effective than “unfair” ones that do, because the latter incentivize increased work effort, raising growth and revenue.

Does preserving Social Security benefits require sacrificing economic growth?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Swedish public social spending is now 23.7% of GDP, just 1pp above that of the US and well under France’s 31.6%. Market-based reforms in the 1990s brought overall government spending down from 69.4% to 49.3% in 2024.

How is Sweden's shift to privatization impacting its economic growth?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

About 40mm Americans, 12% of the population, receive SNAP benefits, up from 6% in 2000. In 2023, only 34% of these households included children, down from 49% in 2010, while 36% contained an elderly person, up from 16% in FY2010.

How Are Policy Changes and Demographic Shifts Impacting SNAP Enrollment?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Since January 2025, the USG has taken equity stakes totaling $20.9B in 16 American businesses. $8.6B, ~41% of the total, was invested in critical mineral miners and processors, while $8.9B, ~43% of the total, funded the government’s 10% stake in Intel.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

In 2025, of the 62.5% of Federal spending that is age-assignable on a per-capita basis, US retirees aged 65+ were given $43,700, working-age adults 26–64 got $7,300, and children and young adults got $4,300.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

In 2024, medical spending as a share of GDP was just above its 2010 level and 15% ($977B) below its 2010 forecast; 21% of the gap was due to technology, 24% to price reductions, and 11–27% to reforms such as prior authorization and higher deductibles.

Related Articles:

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI