Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
  • Mentions 387
  • Primary focus 194
Showing 194 database articles primarily about Government Spending
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Government Spending
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,320 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Government Spending):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

NY spends 8B each year on job programs. So where are the jobs?

AI Summary. A USA Today Network investigation found that New York's roughly $8bn a year in economic development spending has fallen short of its job-creation goals, with some programs lacking benchmarks for success. The StartUp NY program delivered about a third of the 3,324 jobs promised, and local development corporations granted $1.3bn in tax breaks for 1,686 jobs against 9,136 promised.

Joseph Spector Democrat and Chronicle
Date Posted:
June 8, 2017
Is Database:
Database

New York’s $8bn annual investment in job programs has largely failed to meet objectives, with underperformance & lack of transparency.

Do state economic development subsidies deliver the jobs they promise?

Core argument: New York spends $8bn a year on job programs, yet a USA Today Network investigation found many initiatives fell short of job creation goals and some lacked benchmarks for measuring success.

Despite New York's annual $8bn investment in job programs, the state's economic development efforts have largely failed to meet their objectives, with significant issues such as underperformance and lack of transparency. A USA Today Network investigation revealed that many initiatives fell short of job creation goals, with some lacking benchmarks for success. For instance, the StartUp NY program promised 3,324 jobs but delivered only a third by 2016. Similarly, Local Development Corporations provided $1.3bn in tax breaks but achieved only 1,686 jobs against a promise of 9,136. The labor force outside NYC continues to shrink, with a 3.4% decline from 2011 to 2017, despite a statewide unemployment rate drop from 8.3% to 4.6%. The state's largest incentive program, tax credits for movies and TV shows, cost $42,000 per job. These findings highlight the need for stronger oversight and transparency in New York's job programs to ensure taxpayer money is effectively utilized.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. New York spends $8bn a year on job programs, yet a USA Today Network investigation found many initiatives fell short of job creation goals and some lacked benchmarks for measuring success.
  2. StartUp NY promised 3,324 jobs but delivered about a third by 2016, while Local Development Corporations granted $1.3bn in tax breaks and produced 1,686 jobs against a promised 9,136.
  3. The labor force outside New York City shrank 3.4% from 2011 to 2017 even as the statewide unemployment rate fell from 8.3% to 4.6%, and the state's largest incentive program, film and TV tax credits, cost $42,000 per job.

Joseph Spector and Sean Lahman, "NY spends $8B each year on job programs. So where are the jobs?,"Democrat and Chronicle, June 7, 2017,https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2017/06/07/new-york-job-programs-investigation/102323140/

NY spends $8B each year on job programs. So where are the jobs?

ALBANY — In late 2015, New York announced a sweeping agreement to save four Kraft-Heinz production plants across upstate, vowing to invest $20 million to save the 940 jobs.

Now, less than two years later, the small town of Campbell in the Southern Tier is unsettled. Efforts are teetering to keep open a Kraft cheese plant in the community of fewer than 3,700 people, and the company announced in May it will continue to look for a new buyer until August, leaving 330 jobs in the balance.

"They don’t know if the plant is going to be bought by somebody or if they are just going to close the doors, and everybody just gets laid off -- the unemployment line," said the local union's leader, Rich Dexter.

The plant's fate illustrates the perilous nature of New York's economy as it pours at least $8 billion a year — more than any state in the nation — into dozens of job-creation programs that haven't met their goals.

A six-month-long investigation by the USA Today Network in New York found myriad problems with the state's economic-development efforts, ranging from under-performing programs to a lack of transparency on how taxpayers' money is spent.

And despite the spending, the labor force outside New York City continues to shrink.

Among the investigation's findings, which centered on a dozen economic-development programs that have doled out $13 billion in incentives since 2011 when Gov. Andrew Cuomo took office:

Money went to initiatives that in many cases fell short of the job goals, while others did not set any benchmarks for assessing their success or failure.

The state's Regional Economic Development Councils have pledged more than $4.4 billion to 5,300 projects since 2011, but few have job-creation targets, and potential conflicts of interest emerge.

The state's largest incentive program, tax credits for movies and TV shows, provided more than $730 million for 273 television and movie productions since 2014 — at a cost per job of $42,000.

One effort, the StartUp NY program, which provides tax-free zones to new businesses, dished out nearly $6 million in tax breaks in addition to $53 million in ads to promote it. It initially promised 3,324 jobs, but created a third of that as of the end of 2016.

Local Development Corporations, run locally, gave out nearly $1.3 billion in state and local tax breaks to 1,660 projects between 2010 and 2015. The net number of jobs came in at 1,686 — far short of 9,136 promised.

Nearly half of jobs promised by another type of local body, Industrial Development Agencies, fell short of their stated goals. And while the total cost of IDA projects rose by 22 percent between 2010 and 2015, the tax exemptions for the projects grew by 44 percent.

The review comes as the state Legislature and Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli are calling for stronger laws and better oversight of the massive incentive programs.

Also, a state scandal that led to the arrest of Cuomo's former top aides last September is centered around the state's economic-development efforts.

"I have long said that the best economic-development program the state can have is to improve the job-creation climate for everyone and reduce the cost of doing things in New York," said Assemblyman Robin Schimminger, a Buffalo-area Democrat who heads the Assembly's Economic Development Committee.

"That’s the best economic-development program, but it doesn’t create headlines."

State officials have defended their efforts, saying the Cuomo administration's investment in the New York economy is unrivaled.

"I’m proud to say upstate New York has now had a greater investment from the state government than any administration in the history of the state of New York," Cuomo said April 25 in Rochester. "That’s exactly what upstate needed. We’re now going to continue, and we’re building on that."

Indeed, the state has the most jobs in its history; the unemployment rate is nearly half what it was when Cuomo took office. He also lowered business and income taxes, as well as approved a property-tax cap.

Howard Zemsky, Cuomo's economic-development czar and head of Empire State Development, said the various business programs are aimed at luring in new companies and bolstering existing ones, as well as trying to lower the cost of operating in New York.

The state has committed $1.5 billion to transform Buffalo, is spending $700 million a year on the state's 10 economic regions and investing $10 million a year to revive downtowns. Another $500 million each is going to the Rochester area, the Southern Tier and central New York.

"The economy has gotten dramatically better over the years, and I think we’re putting in place some fundamental building blocks for a continued transformation of that economy," Zemsky said in an interview with the USA Today Network's Albany Bureau.

He said the upstate economy needs time to change a trajectory that for decades was headed downward because of a loss of manufacturing jobs and population.

Tourism, health care and agriculture have been the state's fastest-growing sectors after decades of relying on manufacturing.

"There isn’t any one silver-bullet project or idea can transform economies that have been in some state of either depletion or decimation over a 40-year period," Zemsky, a Buffalo businessman, said. "It’s not realistic to say we will grow faster than the Sun Belt overnight."

Cuomo's office declined to make the Democratic governor available for an interview about the state's programs.

Criticism and lack of transparency

The heavy spending has also been met with criticism, particularly in several recent national studies.

A Pew Charitable Trusts report in May found New York is one of the worst states in evaluating the effectiveness of its tax breaks and grants.

A month earlier, the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research found New York awarded $8 billion in incentives in 2015 — three times as much as the next three largest states combined.

"The majority of studies suggest incentives are not cost-effective, with either no statistically significant effects or large costs per job created," the report said.

The Citizens Budget Commission, a business-backed group, determined all the spending comes to $8.6 billion a year -- more than half of which came from economic-development authorities linked to local governments.

The USA Today Network's review found many of the state's programs lack clear reporting standards. The regional development councils, for example, have no clear benchmarks to objectively determine whether the $750 million it allocates each year is well-spent.

In one case, renovations to the low-income senior housing Maple Terrace facility in New Rochelle received among the most largest awards issued by the councils: $9.5 million in 2012, but records show no indication that jobs were created or if the work was completed.

The findings from the investigation were buttressed by a report in May by Comptroller DiNapoli.

He said half of Empire State Development's programs failed to meet reporting requirements. The agency had a remarkable 173 subsidiaries under its umbrella, yet only had annual reports for 15 of them. Thirty-six of programs had no reporting requirements at all.

"You need to have transparency in terms of where is that money going and what are we getting in return for it," DiNapoli told the Albany Bureau. "And don’t assume just because you are putting money in a particular program that you are getting the return intended."

Zemsky and state officials have blasted DiNapoli's audits, saying they do a "tremendous amount of reporting" on projects. At a board meeting last month, Zemsky said the reporting is the most in the state's history, blasting DiNapoli's report for being "inept."

Methodology of the investigation

The USA Today Network in New York partnered late last year with the Investigative Post in Buffalo, ProPublica and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism to collect data from the state's economic-development programs through Freedom of Information requests.

Then the USA Today Network took the initial findings and expanded it to include additional data and analysis to provide a comprehensive review of the state's incentives.

One of the key takeaways is that for all the money spent, job creation can be limited.

And while some programs have clawback provisions or a limit on tax breaks if the jobs aren't created, the standards are not uniform.

One of the state's largest efforts, the Excelsior Jobs Program, provides tax credits in exchange for jobs. It is often hailed as one of the state's more accountable programs.

Yet even it has drawn questions.

Records showed that between 2012 and 2016, Excelsior committed $708 million in tax credits to 450 companies that pledged to create 45,750 jobs. As of last fall, only $52 million of the credits have been given out, and the companies reported creating roughly 19,000 jobs.

That's a decent return: About 7 percent of the amount pledged was spent, but 46 percent of the jobs were created.

But those job figured have been questioned.

A DiNapoli audit last year found the state could not provide documentation to support many of the Excelsior job claims. In some cases, job-creation goals were changed retroactively, and the state was counting new employees hired, not new positions created, which doesn't account for turnover. The state disputed the findings.

Another program, called JOBS Now program, offers loans and grants to businesses willing to relocate to New York. The projects that received about $36 million in funding pledged 8,450 jobs, but have delivered fewer than half that number to date, the records showed.

Good-government and business groups want the state to create a "Database of Deals" so the public can gauge how their money is spent and crack down on abuse. The state budget approved April 9 included a requirement for the state to create an annual comprehensive economic-development report.

Cuomo's former top aide Joseph Percoco was accused last fall of accepting payments from companies seeking business with the state in exchange for using his influence in government.

Former SUNY Polytechnic Institute president Alain Kaloyeros was charged separately in a bid-rigging scandal involving some of the state's top economic-development projects.

Cuomo has said he was unaware of the alleged activities.

The state Legislature has a series of bills it is considering before its session ends in late June to try to better account for the state's spending.

"We’ve all seen the indictments. We’ve all seen the mounting evidence, and we know that something is wrong here," said Jennifer Wilson, policy director for the state League of Women Voters.

"Millions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on one of the largest bid-rigging schemes in state history."

The scandals led some of the state's largest projects to falter.

In December, Austrian computer chip maker ams dropped plans for a multi-billion technology campus in Utica with SUNY Poly. A nearly $5 billion SUNY Poly deal with IBM and other computer-chip makers ended in 2016, and now some of the equipment from the sprawling nanocenter in Albany is being auctioned off.

In Batavia, unrelated to SUNY Poly, a massive yogurt plant owned by Muller Quaker Dairy with Pepsi shuttered last year after three years and after hoping to create 200 jobs, leaving one of the largest dairy producing plants in the nation vacant. Later, DiNapoli knocked Empire State Development for lowering job-creation requirements for the project so it could get tax breaks.

In the North Country, an Alcoa plant's future is uncertain after the state brokered a deal two years ago to keep it open through 2019 and save nearly 600 jobs.

"It’s a good place to do business, and I just hope the business we have can compete in the global marketplace," said John Burke, a legislator from St. Lawrence County, where many of the Alcoa workers live.

ESD's Zemsky said the agency has taken over the SUNY Poly projects and has assured companies the scandal won't impact state operations.

A $600 million photonics center in Rochester, for example, is now being headed by the state agency and Cuomo's office, rather than SUNY Poly. And the state is investing more than $750 million in a SolarCity solar panel factory in Buffalo, which had been tied to SUNY Poly.

"We’ve got those deals in much better spots now than they were. They were all in some condition of paralysis or disarray," Zemsky said.

Improving the regions

All the money for the projects, though, hasn't created a widespread turnaround in the economy outside New York City — where three out of four new jobs in the state were created from 2009 to 2014.

While the state's employment rate fell from 8.3 percent in January 2011 to 4.6 percent in January 2017, so too has size of the workforce outside the city, the USA Today Network's review found.

The labor force in the city grew 5 percent during that period while it fell 3.4 percent everywhere else, records from the state Labor Department showed.

A bright spot has been the lower Hudson Valley, where the labor force was up slightly and the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent.

Also, a report this month from the Urban Land Institute showed Buffalo had the 12th largest increase in its population of millennials -- those aged 25 to 34.

Upstate cities, though, continue to struggle with among the worst poverty levels in the nation and slow growth.

Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse ranked among the worst metropolitan areas in the nation for economic growth between 2010 and 2015, a Brookings Institute Metropolitan Policy Program report in March found.

New York outside the city, particularly upstate, did not have the type of nosedive during the recession that some parts of the country felt. So as other places have grown since then, upstate hasn't, said Alan Berube, the group's deputy director.

"It actually weathered the recession OK," he said. "So while the rest of the country has been picking up steam during the recovery, most of upstate has not."

The labor force has shrunk in part because of the aging population outside the city, ranking New York as the fourth-oldest population in the nation.

Other economists painted a more optimistic picture, as did Zemsky.

The largest job loss in New York has been, ironically, a decline in the government sector, records show, where employment dropped 5 percent between 2010 and 2015 or nearly 69,000 fewer jobs.

Zemsky said he has gotten used to naysayers, but believes in the state's strategy to reverse 40 years of job declines outside the city.

"At the end of the day, you have to take the noise out and say, ‘Do we have a fundamentally sound, go-forward strategy that will make a significant impact in the upstate economy over the long haul?’" he said.

"Because the damage that has been done has no quick fix."

  • Government Spending
  • Comparisons
    • Geography (Urban/Rural)
  • Fiscal Policy
  • Politics
  • Productivity
    • Workforce Reorganization
      • Urban vs Rural
Previous articleMay 30, 2017Trumps budget signals the absence of a realistic agendaTrump’s budget is fiscal policy “entirely divorced from reality.”Next articleJune 8, 2017Why London deserves a thank you note from the rest of BritainLondoners paid £3,070 more in tax than they received in public spending, contributing to a 7% of GDP budget surplus.
Showing 193 database articles primarily about Government Spending

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

AI Summary. Fully closing Social Security's funding gap by raising the payroll tax rate would require an immediate, permanent increase from 12.4% to 17.6%, which would reduce labor supply and economic growth. Research on a prior benefit cut found affected Americans raised earnings by 61 cents per dollar of lost benefits, generating additional payroll tax revenue.

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.

Biggs argues that “fair” approaches to restoring Social Security solvency – those that do not cut already accrued...

Does closing Social Security's gap with higher payroll taxes hurt growth?

Core argument: Keeping Social Security permanently solvent under the "fairness" model of paying accrued benefits in full would require an immediate and permanent payroll tax increase from 12.4% to 17.6%, which would decrease labor supply and reduce economic growth.

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

  1. Keeping Social Security permanently solvent under the "fairness" model of paying accrued benefits in full would require an immediate and permanent payroll tax increase from 12.4% to 17.6%, which would decrease labor supply and reduce economic growth.
  2. Americans had accrued $54 trillion in Social Security benefits as of 2025 against an unfunded obligation of $26 trillion, so closing the gap solely by cutting already-earned benefits would mean roughly halving those benefits.
  3. Economists analyzing the 1977 reform that undid the 1972 "double-indexing" of benefits found, using SSA earnings data, that affected Americans raised their earnings by 61 cents per dollar of lost benefits, earnings that Social Security would tax.

Related Articles:

  • Social Security and Trends in Wealth Inequality — The authors estimate that including Social Security in household wealth leaves top wealth shares little changed over three decades, with the top 10% and top 1% shares rising 1.1 and 1.6 percentage points versus roughly 9 and 6 points for marketable wealth alone. Social Security wealth grew from $7tn to $39tn.
  • How Federal Spending is Distributed by Age — An analysis classifying $4.4tn of $7tn in federal spending by age finds retirees aged 65 and older receive $2.7tn, 38.6% of total outlays and 61.9% of age-assignable spending, versus $1.2tn for working-age adults and $449bn for those under 26. Social Security and Medicare account for 80% of age-assignable spending on older adults.
  • The Great “Transfer”-mation — Government transfers rose from 8.2% of Americans' total personal income in 1970 to 17.6% in 2022, making them the third largest income source after work and investments. The share of U.S. counties drawing a quarter or more of personal income from transfers rose from under 1% in 1970 to 53% in 2022.
  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
    • Taxation

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

AI Summary. Sweden has opened public services to private providers, with nearly half of primary healthcare clinics privately owned and one in three public high schools privately run, up from 20% in 2011. Its public social spending has fallen to 24% of GDP, similar to the US and below the over 30% in France and Italy.

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.

How has Sweden shrunk its state by privatizing public services?

Core argument: Sweden's total public social spending, covering healthcare, education and welfare payments, has fallen to 24% of GDP, similar to the U.S. and well below the over 30% of nations like France and Italy.

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

  1. Sweden's total public social spending, covering healthcare, education and welfare payments, has fallen to 24% of GDP, similar to the U.S. and well below the over 30% of nations like France and Italy.
  2. Nearly half of Sweden's primary healthcare clinics are privately owned, many by private-equity firms, and one in three public high schools is privately run, up from 20% in 2011, with school operators listed on the stock exchange.
  3. An April forecast by the International Monetary Fund projects Sweden's economy will grow around 2% a year through 2030, roughly matching the U.S. and double the growth rates of France and Germany.

Related Articles:

  • How Sweden Overcame Socialism — After government spending reached 70% of GDP and public debt 80% of GDP, Sweden adopted market-oriented reforms including privatized healthcare services, for-profit schools, reduced welfare benefits, deregulation of electricity and transportation, and a corporate tax cut from 28% to 22%. Public debt has since fallen to 41% of GDP, with growth outpacing European Union peers by roughly 1 point annually.
  • Reforming the Welfare State: Recovery and Beyond in Sweden — Sweden's structural reforms — flexible exchange rates, inflation targeting, a smaller public sector, less generous social insurance, and deregulated markets — accompanied export-led growth, a current account surplus lasting over a decade, government spending falling to 52% of GDP, and central government debt dropping from nearly 80% of GDP to about half that.
  • The US Has One of the Highest Fertility Rates Among Peer Countries — The tempo-adjusted fertility rate, which accounts for shifts in the timing of births, shows the US rate falling since roughly 2009-10 and dropping below the 2.1 births-per-woman replacement level around 2017, reaching 1.82 in 2022. The US decline is less severe than in many peer countries.
  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
  • Politics

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

AI Summary. The share of the US population receiving food stamps doubled from 6% to 12% over roughly 25 years, with real costs per capita rising 179% to $279 a year, though both remain below their post-Great-Recession peak. Households with an elderly person now outnumber those with a child, reversing the early-2000s pattern.

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.

How have food stamp enrollment, costs, and recipient households changed?

Core argument: The share of the U.S. population receiving SNAP doubled from 6% in FY2000 to 12% in FY2025, while real SNAP costs per capita rose 179%, from roughly $100 to $279 per year in 2024 dollars.

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

  1. The share of the U.S. population receiving SNAP doubled from 6% in FY2000 to 12% in FY2025, while real SNAP costs per capita rose 179%, from roughly $100 to $279 per year in 2024 dollars.
  2. In FY2023, the share of SNAP households containing an elderly person reached 36%, exceeding the 34% containing a child for the first time, against the early 2000s when over half contained a child and under 20% included an elderly person.

Related Articles:

  • The Great “Transfer”-mation — Government transfers rose from 8.2% of Americans' total personal income in 1970 to 17.6% in 2022, making them the third largest income source after work and investments. The share of U.S. counties drawing a quarter or more of personal income from transfers rose from under 1% in 1970 to 53% in 2022.
  • Poverty and Dependency in the United States, 1939–2023 — Extending a consistent poverty measure back to 1939, the authors estimate US absolute poverty fell from 48.5% to 19.5% between 1939 and 1963, driven by growth in market income rather than government transfers net of taxes. Poverty fell no faster in the 24 years after the War on Poverty than before.
  • Government Benefit Programs Already Do A Lot To Help Low Income Families — For a two-adult, three-child family, existing taxes and government benefits bring take-home resources to about $58,000 with no earnings, $79,000 with $20,000 of earnings, and $90,000 with $80,000 of earnings plus $15,000 in employer health premiums. A $75,000 gap in earnings and work-related benefits narrows to $11,000 in take-home pay.
  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
  • Workforce
    • Poverty/Crime

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

AI Summary. The U.S. government has invested $20.9bn across sixteen deals taking direct ownership stakes, expanding beyond its traditional toolkit of grants, loans, and tax incentives. The Department of Defense leads with seven deals, the Department of Commerce has six including a 10% stake in Intel, and partners have mobilized an additional $4.75bn.

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.

Is the U.S. government taking direct equity stakes in companies?

Core argument: Since January 2025, the U.S. government has invested $20.9 billion across sixteen deals involving direct ownership, broadening a toolkit traditionally focused on grants, loans, and tax incentives.

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

  1. Since January 2025, the U.S. government has invested $20.9 billion across sixteen deals involving direct ownership, broadening a toolkit traditionally focused on grants, loans, and tax incentives.
  2. The Department of Defense leads with seven direct-ownership deals, followed by the Department of Commerce with six, including a 10% stake in Intel, while the Development Finance Corporation has executed three equity transactions in critical minerals, healthcare, and infrastructure.
  3. The U.S. government has mobilized an additional $4.75 billion in investment alongside private co-investors including J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs.

Related Articles:

  • Industrial Policy and Economic Security — Industrial policy justified on national security grounds requires weighing how much economic inefficiency is worth tolerating, since costs incurred today make a country poorer and therefore less able to project power later. The calculation is difficult because security gains are probabilistic and long-term economic costs are speculative.
  • The Cold War and the U.S. Labor Market — The authors estimate that declining U.S. military procurement spending from the 1950s to the 1990s explains roughly 18–30% of the decline in manufacturing employment and just under 10% of the rise in top-decile income inequality. They argue Cold War procurement raised demand for manufacturing workers and helped sustain tight labor markets for low-skill workers.
  • Capital Is Making a Comeback — Tangible investment in property, factories and equipment fell from 12.5% to 8.5% of private gross domestic product, while intangible investment in intellectual property, software and process knowledge rose from about 11.5% to 16.75%. The author argues demand for tangible capital investment will now have to rise.
  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
  • Politics
  • Productivity
    • Investment
  • Security

How Federal Spending is Distributed by Age

AI Summary. An analysis classifying $4.4tn of $7tn in federal spending by age finds retirees aged 65 and older receive $2.7tn, 38.6% of total outlays and 61.9% of age-assignable spending, versus $1.2tn for working-age adults and $449bn for those under 26. Social Security and Medicare account for 80% of age-assignable spending on older adults.

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.

How is federal spending distributed across age groups?

Core argument: Retirees aged 65 and older receive $2.7 trillion of federal spending in fiscal 2025, equal to 38.6% of total outlays and 61.9% of age-assignable spending, versus $1.2 trillion for working-age adults aged 26–64.

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

  1. Retirees aged 65 and older receive $2.7 trillion of federal spending in fiscal 2025, equal to 38.6% of total outlays and 61.9% of age-assignable spending, versus $1.2 trillion for working-age adults aged 26–64.
  2. Children and young adults under age 26 receive $449 billion, or 10.3% of age-assignable federal spending, out of $4.4 trillion classified by age within a $7 trillion budget, with $2.6 trillion assigned to an all-ages residual.
  3. Social Security directs $1.3 trillion and Medicare $835 billion to retirees, together 80% of age-assignable spending on older adults, with federal employee retirement benefits ($169 billion), housing assistance, Medicaid long-term care, and VA medical care contributing further.

Related Articles:

  • The Great “Transfer”-mation — Government transfers rose from 8.2% of Americans' total personal income in 1970 to 17.6% in 2022, making them the third largest income source after work and investments. The share of U.S. counties drawing a quarter or more of personal income from transfers rose from under 1% in 1970 to 53% in 2022.
  • France and Britain Are In Thrall To Pensioners — French pensioners receive larger government payments than in any other western country and begin receiving them several years earlier, leaving over-65s with higher average incomes than the working-age population — a situation without precedent internationally or in France's own history. Proposals to raise the retirement age or delay pension increases have triggered nationwide protests and government collapses.
  • The Budgetary Impact of the Abandonment of Federalism — Federal spending on activities originally regarded as state, local, or private-sector responsibilities is estimated to have risen from 2% of GDP in 1950 to 14% in 2019, exceeding the entire growth in federal spending over that period and reaching two-thirds of all federal outlays. Aid to individuals accounts for 80% of that increase, grants to states the remaining 20%.
  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
  • Healthcare/Seniors
  • Workforce
    • Poverty/Crime

Has the United States Bent the Health Care Cost Curve?

AI Summary. The authors estimate that a slowdown in US health care spending reflects technology-associated changes in health and site of care (21% of the slowdown, double that in Medicare), more elastic long-run supply (6%), market changes reducing and making demand more elastic (11–27%), improved population health (7%), and slower price growth net of upcoding (24%).

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.

What explains the slowdown in US health care spending?

Core argument: Technology-associated changes in health and site of care account for 21% of the overall U.S. health care cost slowdown and double that share in Medicare, according to the authors' estimates.

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.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Technology-associated changes in health and site of care account for 21% of the overall U.S. health care cost slowdown and double that share in Medicare, according to the authors' estimates.
  2. The authors estimate that slower price growth, net of upcoding, explains 24% of the health care spending slowdown, while market changes reducing demand — higher consumer cost sharing, lower physician payment for technology use, and insurer restrictions — account for a rough 11–27%.
  3. Improved population health explains an estimated 7% of the spending slowdown, through fewer smoking-related hospitalizations, reduced need for formal home health care, and a lower birth rate, while greater long-run supply elasticity explains 6%.

Related Articles:

  • Sick as a Dog — US healthcare stocks tracked technology-sector returns from 1989 to 2019 with lower volatility (15% vs 24%), but have since stagnated as technology advanced. Major pharmaceutical firms trade at forward price-to-earnings ratios of 8x–9x, biotech carries one of the market's largest valuation discounts, and 80% of biotech initial public offerings since 2018 have collapsed.
  • Saved by Medicaid: New Evidence on Health Insurance and Mortality from the Universe of Low-Income Adults — Using linked Census and tax records for 37m low-income adults, the authors estimate that state Medicaid expansions raised enrollment by 12 percentage points and cut mortality among low-income adults by 2.5%, implying a 21% reduction in the mortality hazard of new enrollees. They estimate direct budgetary costs of $5.4m per life saved and $179,000 per life-year saved.
  • The Great “Transfer”-mation — Government transfers rose from 8.2% of Americans' total personal income in 1970 to 17.6% in 2022, making them the third largest income source after work and investments. The share of U.S. counties drawing a quarter or more of personal income from transfers rose from under 1% in 1970 to 53% in 2022.
  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
  • Healthcare/Seniors
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms