“A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
“Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
“Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
“There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts

Showing 194 database articles primarily about Government Spending

Currently filtering by:

Remove Government Spending

Remove "primary topics only" restriction

Remove 'Database'

Show all 7,196 articles

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

Include articles that mention this topic 380

Only articles primarily about this topic 194

Why Biden Shouldnt Let the Federal Debt Deter a Spending Spree

Matthew Klein Barron's

Date Posted:: January 28, 2021
Is Database:: Database

@M_C_Klein: Since 2008, net debt is ~ unchanged as private deleveraging has offset the rise in public debt. Federal debt has gone from 50% to 100% of GDP, while private debt has dropped from 290% to 240%.

Since 2008, the net debt level in the U.S. has remained relatively stable as private sector deleveraging has counterbalanced the increase in public debt. Federal debt has surged from 50% to over 100% of GDP, while private debt has decreased from 290% to 240%. This shift suggests that despite a $15tn rise in federal debt, the overall indebtedness of Americans has not increased significantly, even during the pandemic. The larger economy and reduced private debt levels have mitigated the impact of rising government borrowing. This context provides a rationale for continued public investment, as the economic environment remains conducive to managing higher federal debt levels without exacerbating total indebtedness.

Matthew Klein, "Why Biden Shouldn’t Let the Federal Debt Deter a Spending Spree,"Barrons, January 22, 2021, https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-biden-shouldnt-let-the-federal-debt-deter-a-spending-spree-51611346201

Why Biden Shouldnt Let the Federal Debt Deter a Spending Spree: Extended Excerpt Image 1

“Financial Accounts Of The United States,” Federal Reserve, Accessed Fabraury 1, 2021, https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20200611/html/introductory_text.htm

Good factoid/graph from Matt Klein, "...While the level of federal debt has soared by some $15 trillion since the end of 2008, Americans’ total indebtedness has not—even with the pandemic. Rising government borrowing has been offset by a much larger economy and by lower levels of private debt. Thus, while the ratio of federal debt to gross domestic product has risen from about 50% to over 100%, the ratio of private debt has dropped from about 290% to about 240% over the same period, leaving overall indebtedness roughly unchanged...."

Ed Comment 1/2:“Add to db. Note this has a shelf life. I find it hard to believe that the private sector has reduced its level of indebtedness by 50% of GDP. The last time we saw the fed graph that I recently ask you to check to see if they had updated it (plz send it to me for perspective) company debt had risen while mortgage debt had fallen. But now people are building and buying houses like crazy. Prices have risen so I would have guessed debt has also risen as a result. Somin’ don’t smell right. BTW, I thought Klien was a never trump conservative. With debt above 100% of GDP, I’m surprised he is encouraging more spending even though rates are low. Rates are low in large part because of covid—people all over the world are saving like crazy (although I would still be surprised if Americans saved enough to reduce debt by 50% of GDP). If they spend that money when the economy recovers, rates my not stay low. That said, long rates are still very low too. He says: But America also faces significant challenges in the decade ahead—whether it’s shifting to renewable-energy resources to reduce carbon emissions, reviving the manufacturing base, or confronting an increasingly aggressive China—and meeting them will probably require substantial public investment. If that’s true, why would we borrow and redistribute/consume which is what biden is proposing with his $1.9T? He says: “investments that boost growth—whether in infrastructure, pollution control, scientific research, education, or public health—effectively pay for themselves.” NO. theycanpay for themselves if they grow the economy enough, but the data says they rarely do because government does such a poor job of managing them effectively. Worse he says CBO say our economy could have been 12% bigger. I’m highly doubtful the kind of investment the government makes with risk-averse savings are the kind of investment that produce that growth. Those are risky equity bets that luckily payoff….”

Ed Comment 2/2:“I think matt Klein might be an unreliable interpreter of the data. I think financial debt is double counted with private sector debt (since all financial sector debt eventually is borrowed by the private sector. It may also be the case that as the banks hold reserves it reduces their net debt (debt-cash). But in today’s f-up monetary policy regime, bank reserves are just “federal reserve debt” financing treasury debt. So he may be seeing an offset that he doesn’t account for—as public debt rises and is being financed by (the fed paying interest on) bank reserves, net financial sector debt may appear to be declining, even though financial sector loans to the private haven’t changes (and never should have been included in the first place, since they were included in the private sector). I also know from Waters that, unlike the bond markets, the bank market has not fully recovered. Financial sector debt is often counted multiple time as one link in the chain of intermediation lends to the next that lends to the next, etc. before it get lent to the end user. (the repo market is an example of banks lending to banks and not to end users. It may be the case that the number of steps in the chain of intermediation has declined as bank lending has backed up. So financial sector debt (which can be “double” counted many times inside of the financial sector before it is then again double counted when it is lent to the private sector) may have declined for this reason. My guess is your chart is more accurate than his. And what I surmised is true, namely, that there has been no offsetting private sector decline. …and that cash saved and not spent in the pandemic is likely to be consumed when the pandemic is over.”

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.

@M_C_Klein: Since 2008, net debt is ~ unchanged as private deleveraging has offset the rise in public debt. Federal debt has gone from 50% to 100% of GDP, while private debt has dropped from 290% to 240%.

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