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

Who Is Financing the Federal Government?

AI Summary. The U.S. federal government has sold $5.4tn in bills, notes, and bonds, with most of that borrowing effectively self-financed as federal deficits raised household, business, and state and local government holdings of liquid assets that were recycled into Treasury purchases. The Federal Reserve bought about $3tn, alongside money-market funds and banks, while foreign demand is rebounding.

Matthew Klein The Overshoot
Date Posted:
October 4, 2021
Is Database:
Database

The US federal government has sold $5.4tn in bills, notes, & bonds since 2019, with most borrowing self-financed. Fed, money-market funds, banks & state/local governments have been major buyers, with foreign demand rebounding to pre-pandemic levels.

Who is buying the federal government's new debt?

Core argument: The U.S. federal government has sold $5.4tn in bills, notes, and bonds since the end of 2019, with most of that borrowing effectively self-financed as deficits raised household and business liquid assets that were recycled into Treasury purchases.

Since the end of 2019, the U.S. federal government has sold $5.4tn in bills, notes, and bonds, with most borrowing effectively self-financed. Federal deficits have led to increased household and business holdings of liquid assets, which have been recycled into Treasury debt purchases. State and local governments, benefiting from federal aid and budgetary windfalls, have also invested surpluses in Treasury securities. The Federal Reserve, money-market funds, and banks have been major buyers, with the Fed purchasing about $3tn. Foreign demand is rebounding, with $364bn in Treasury notes and bonds bought by foreign investors in early 2021, marking a return to pre-pandemic levels and supporting the dollar despite a rising current account deficit.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The U.S. federal government has sold $5.4tn in bills, notes, and bonds since the end of 2019, with most of that borrowing effectively self-financed as deficits raised household and business liquid assets that were recycled into Treasury purchases.
  2. The Federal Reserve purchased about $3tn of Treasury debt, joining money-market funds and banks as major buyers, while state and local governments invested surpluses from federal aid and budgetary windfalls in Treasury securities.
  3. Foreign investors bought $364bn in Treasury notes and bonds in early 2021, a return to pre-pandemic levels that has supported the dollar despite a rising U.S. current account deficit.

Matt Klein reports that while the Federal government is currently financing the Federal government foreign demand is up ticking, "...The U.S. federal government has sold about $5.4 trillion in bills, notes, and bonds since the end of 2019. Who has been on the other side? In practice: the U.S. federal government. Most of the borrowing has been effectively self-financed. The reason is that federal deficits have facilitated a surge in household and business holdings of bank deposits, money-market fund shares, and other safe liquid assets. Much of those savings have then been recycled into purchases of Treasury debt. At the same time, generous federal aid to states and localities—plus unexpected budgetary windfalls due to soaring housing and stock markets, robust income growth for top earners, and sustained consumer spending, which in turn can be explained in part by the federal government’s extraordinary support programs—have left America’s subnational governments with huge surpluses that have been recycled into Treasury bills, notes, and bonds. The net effect is that most of the money that the Treasury borrowed to disburse to the rest of the economy has been lent back to the federal government.... The main change is that demand from “rest of the world” has soared, which is why average quarterly demand for all of 2020Q1-2021Q2 was almost identical to 2015Q1-2019Q4 despite the unprecedented selling that occurred in the first half of 2020. More Treasury notes and bonds were bought by investors domiciled abroad in the first half of 2021 ($364 billion) than in any other two-quarter period outside of 2010. That’s more than offset the ongoing liquidation of bills accumulated during the peak of the panic. For better or worse, the rebound of foreign purchases represents a return to normalcy. It also helps explain the persistent strength of the dollar in the face of a rising current account deficit. How much of this buying can be attributed to explicit or surreptitious currency intervention by foreign governments is a subject for another time...."

Matt Klein, "Who Is Financing the Federal Government?,"The Overshoot, October 1, 2021, https://theovershoot.co/p/who-is-financing-the-federal-government

Who Is Financing the Federal Government?

The U.S. federal government has sold about $5.4 trillion in bills, notes, and bonds since the end of 2019. Who has been on the other side? In practice: the U.S. federal government. Most of the borrowing has been effectively self-financed.

The reason is that federal deficits have facilitated a surge in household and business holdings of bank deposits, money-market fund shares, and other safe liquid assets. Much of those savings have then been recycled into purchases of Treasury debt.

At the same time, generous federal aid to states and localities—plus unexpected budgetary windfalls due to soaring housing and stock markets, robust income growth for top earners, and sustained consumer spending, which in turn can be explained in part by the federal government’s extraordinary support programs—have left America’s subnational governments with huge surpluses that have been recycled into Treasury bills, notes, and bonds.

The net effect is that most of the money that the Treasury borrowed to disburse to the rest of the economy has been lent back to the federal government.

According to the latest release of the U.S. Financial Accounts, the major buyers of marketable Treasury securities since the end of 2019 have been, in descending order of importance: the Federal Reserve (about $3 trillion), money-market mutual funds ($1.2 trillion), state and local government treasuries ($555 billion), and U.S. banks and credit unions ($535 billion).1

That’s a big change from before the pandemic.

From 2015Q1—just after the Fed had fully tapered its bond purchases from LSAP3—through 2019Q4, the U.S. Treasury issued about $207 billion in bills, notes, and bonds more than it repaid each quarter, on average.

Pension plans, insurers, money funds, mutual funds, and ETFs bought about $84 billion each quarter on behalf of savers, on average, while U.S. banks, credit unions, and U.S. branches of foreign banks bought about $20 billion.

“Households and nonprofits”, a category that includes hedge funds,2 bought about $56 billion each quarter on average, with the biggest purchases in 2018 and early 2019. The “rest of the world”, which includes U.S. hedge funds legally domiciled in the Caribbean, the offshore subsidiaries of U.S. multinationals that recycle retained earnings into U.S. fixed income to avoid taxes, as well as foreign insurers, pension plans, and central banks, bought about $29 billion each quarter, on average. The Fed was letting its portfolio shrink by about $10 billion each quarter, on average.

From 2020Q1 through 2021Q2, the Treasury issued about $898 billion of marketable debt securities each quarter, with about half of all that borrowing taking place in 2020Q2. That extra issuance has been absorbed entirely by the Fed, money-market funds, state and local governments, and U.S. banks and credit unions.

Who Is Financing the Federal Government?: Extended Excerpt Image 1


Let’s start by looking at what’s happened with state and local governments.

The surprise windfall

State and local government tax receipts have surged 10% compared to before the pandemic. Personal income tax revenue is running 20% above pre-pandemic levels, corporate profit tax revenue is running 27% above, and sales tax revenue is 11% above.

Residential and commercial property taxes are the single biggest revenue source for states and localities. Collections are up only 3% so far, but the recent 20% surge in house prices should get baked into assessments and provide another tailwind to government revenues in the years ahead.

State and local government policymakers hadn’t expected any of this when the pandemic began. They remembered the last downturn, when tax revenues fell 9% from 2008Q2 to 2009Q2 and took years to recover in nominal terms. The initial reaction to the pandemic was therefore to slash investment budgets and to lay off workers quickly. Capital spending net of depreciation was 9% lower in 2021Q2 than in 2019Q4 on a seasonally-adjusted basis, while payrolls are still about down about 1 million from February 2020.

The net effect is that the underlying budget deficit of the aggregate state and local government sector was 19% smaller in 2021Q2 than in 2019Q4 on a seasonally-adjusted basis. On top of all this, state and local governments got about $350 billion in general purpose aid from the federal government ($150 billion in 2020Q2 and $200 billion in 2021Q2), as well as around $20 billion in additional Medicaid funding.

So far, treasurers of the states and localities have used their windfalls to buy Treasury debt in unprecedented size, although it’s likely that these surplus holdings will be liquidated in the years ahead to provide additional public goods and services.

Who Is Financing the Federal Government?: Extended Excerpt Image 2


What about everyone else?

With the exception of state and local governments, the big buyers of Treasury debt—the Federal Reserve, money-market funds, banks, and credit unions—are intermediaries. They buy Treasury bills, notes, and bonds only to the extent that others are willing to hold their liabilities. So if we want to answer the question of who is financing the Treasury, we must therefore look at who is financing these other entities.

A brief tour of the Fed’s balance sheet

The biggest and most obvious buyer of Treasury securities during the pandemic has been the Fed. After buying about $820 billion in March 2020 and $675 billion in April 2020, the Fed has settled into a purchase schedule of about $80 billion a month, or $240 billion each quarter. That’s about half of what the Treasury has borrowed, on average, in the first half of the year. (Note that the Fed is likely going to start “tapering” these purchases by the end of this year and could be entirely out of the bond-buying business by next summer.)

The Fed has financed its purchases—as well as its purchases of $1.1 trillion of mortgage-backed securities—by creating offsetting liabilities. The yields on these liabilities currently range from 0% to 0.25%, which is substantially less than the yields on the securities that the Fed buys. That difference explains why the Fed pays about $100 billion a year to the Treasury in profits. The central bank’s purchases effectively transform longer-duration debts yielding 1-3% into money-like claims yielding roughly zero. The government’s debt doesn’t disappear, but the effective interest costs paid by the government are reduced by about a fifth.

Since the end of February 2020, the Fed has created about $2.4 trillion in additional deposits held by banks as reserves (of which about $700 billion are additional reserves held by the U.S. branches of foreign banks), about $1.5 trillion in repo liabilities3 (mostly to money-market funds) and about $400 billion in physical currency.

Who Is Financing the Federal Government?: Extended Excerpt Image 3


Let’s look at each of these components in turn.

Reserves

Banks hold reserves at the Fed to settle payments with other banks, to manage their cash needs, and to satisfy regulatory requirements to back their short-term debts (mostly deposits held by households and businesses) with high-quality liquid assets. The Fed creates and destroys reserves by buying and selling securities and by adjusting the size of its lending programs. The banking system as a whole can only get rid of reserves by transforming them into other Fed liabilities, which generally requires the cooperation of other sectors of the economy.4

Problems can flare up when banks need to hold more reserves than are available to them. That’s why the Fed bought about $300 billion in Treasury bills in October 2019-February 2020—before the pandemic—to ensure that there were enough reserves to keep the banking system stable. It also did about $200 billion in repo lending to securities dealers during that period to ensure there was enough money available to prevent interest rates from spiking.

The Fed’s pandemic-induced bond-buying fixed the reserve shortage, but it had the potential to create a new problem: banks were getting stuffed with low-yielding assets relative to their shareholder capital. That threatened banks’ ability to comply with the supplementary leverage ratio (SLR): a hard limit on the ratio of bank assets/equity, with no allowances for the quality of the assets banks hold. The leverage ratio was created as a backstop to prevent banks from gaming the risk-weighted capital requirements, as they had before the financial crisis.

The Fed and the world’s other major banking regulators had two workarounds. First, they created exemptions to the leverage ratio rules. Reserves would no longer be counted as assets against shareholder equity. (The Fed, unlike other regulators, also allowed banks to hold as much U.S. Treasury debt as they wanted without triggering the SLR.) Second, the regulators curtailed dividends and buybacks, forcing the banks to retain earnings. That lifted the equity side of the ratio, especially after factoring in the impact of government income support on loan losses.

But then the Fed allowed the SLR exemption to expire on March 31, 2021. At the time, I wrote—correctly, as it turns out—that this wouldn’t be a big deal. Banks might be constrained in their ability to grow their balance sheets by adding deposits and reserves, but the financial system as a whole would be fine as money-market funds expanded to fill the gap. And it turns out that the banks weren’t even that constrained, with reserves rising roughly $300 billion since mid-March, although the pace of increase has been slower than before.

The Treasury General Account and the Reverse Repo Facility

To understand the rise and fall of the Treasury General Account (TGA) balance—and the subsequent surge in the Fed’s repo borrowing—we need to look at Treasury bill issuance and at the behavior of money-market mutual funds.

On the eve of the pandemic, the face value of Treasury debt maturing in under a year was $4.9 trillion. By June, that number had jumped to $7.4 trillion. About 90% of the total increase in federal debt was financed by issuing extra Treasury bills, rather than notes or bonds.

This borrowing proved to be excessive. Despite the surge in spending associated with pandemic relief, the Treasury ended up raising a lot more cash than it needed. The result was a $1.4 trillion increase in the Treasury’s own deposits held at the Fed in the span of a few months. In other words, the Treasury was selling bills to the public and then depositing the proceeds at the Fed, which then went out and bought notes, bonds, and mortgages. That helped push down the supply of bank reserves as the Treasury effectively “sterilized” some of the Fed’s asset purchases.

The TGA balance has been liquidated in 2021 to finance the American Rescue Plan Act and, more recently, to cover the government’s spending needs as the debt ceiling strangled new debt issuance. (Once the debt ceiling is raised, the TGA should rise again.)

As the Treasury spent down its TGA balance into the broader economy, it provided cash to the private sector. Some of the money has ended up in the banking system as deposits, thereby re-entering the Fed as reserves.

But banks don’t want more deposits and reserves if it means bumping into the SLR, which could mean limits on dividends and buybacks. So they’ve been encouraging depositors to take their savings elsewhere by charging punitive fees. As a result, most of the money released from the TGA has gone outside of the banks and into money-market mutual funds, which have turned around and lent to the Fed via the repo market.

Who Is Financing the Federal Government?: Extended Excerpt Image 4


Put it together, and the vast majority of the Fed’s purchases of Treasury debt are being financed by banks and money-market funds. That means we’ll need to look further at those two sectors—which have also been large direct buyers of Treasury debt—to understand what’s going on.

Money-market funds and banks

Money-market mutual funds bought about $1.2 in Treasury bills in March-May 2020, which was about half of the total amount issued. From then through February 2021, direct holdings of Treasury securities were basically flat. More recently, money funds have sold about $370 billion of direct holdings of Treasury debt and added about $800 billion in repo exposure to Treasury securities, with the Fed almost certainly on the other side of those transactions. (The main reason is that the Fed’s repo facility offers better yields and liquidity for money funds than Treasury securities.)

Who Is Financing the Federal Government?: Extended Excerpt Image 5


On net, money market funds have therefore contributed about $1.7 trillion to the total demand for Treasury debt since the start of the pandemic, and more than $400 billion since February 2021.

Banks have mostly added reserves to their balance sheet, rather than Treasury securities, but they have still bought a decent chunk of bills, notes, and bonds since the pandemic began. At least, they did plenty of buying after having sold off some of their holdings during the worst of the financial crunch in March and April.

Who Is Financing the Federal Government?: Extended Excerpt Image 6


Adding the banks and money funds together gets you to $1.4 trillion in direct purchases of Treasury debt since the pandemic began plus around $3.4 trillion5 in financing for the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. Some of that $3.4 trillion is financing the purchase of mortgage-backed securities rather than Treasury debt, but given that the Fed has generally bought just under $3 of Treasury securities for every $1 of MBS, the banks and money funds have probably provided around $2.5 trillion in indirect demand for Treasury debt via the Fed. That’s $3.9 trillion in total demand, versus roughly $5.4 trillion in total supply.

But banks and money funds are intermediaries just like the Fed. So how have they been financing their own balance sheets?

In both cases, the answer is: household and business savings accumulated thanks to the combination of cash infusions from the federal government and spending constraints. Households and nonprofits have boosted their holdings of bank deposits, money fund shares, and physical currency by $3.8 trillion since the end of 2019, while U.S. businesses (corporate and noncorporate) have lifted their holdings of deposits and money fund shares by $1.5 trillion. Not all of that cash has gone into Treasury debt or to the Fed, but most of it has.6

The bulk of the household saving boom can be attributed to the combination of nearly $2 trillion in federal government income support plus the rise in forced saving due to the pandemic’s impact on consumer services. As for companies, they drew on bank credit lines and sold bonds to raise cash early in the pandemic, but ended up not needing the money as sales and profits snapped back. That snapback in turn was a function in part of the government spending that supported both businesses directly as well as their customers.

What’s changed in 2021?

I’ve spent most of this piece looking at the total amount of debt the Treasury has sold since the pandemic began. But there have been some interesting shifts more recently that warrant some attention. Note that we only have comprehensive data for the first half of the year.

Most of the big buyers—the Fed, state and local governments, and U.S. banks—continued to be big buyers in 2021H1. “Households”, which likely means hedge funds, continued to be big sellers. Money funds largely stopped direct purchases, although their rising repo lending to the Fed means they are still big sources of indirect financing, as noted above.

The main change is that demand from “rest of the world” has soared, which is why average quarterly demand for all of 2020Q1-2021Q2 was almost identical to 2015Q1-2019Q4 despite the unprecedented selling that occurred in the first half of 2020. More Treasury notes and bonds were bought by investors domiciled abroad in the first half of 2021 ($364 billion) than in any other two-quarter period outside of 2010. That’s more than offset the ongoing liquidation of bills accumulated during the peak of the panic.

Who Is Financing the Federal Government?: Extended Excerpt Image 7


For better or worse, the rebound of foreign purchases represents a return to normalcy. It also helps explain the persistent strength of the dollar in the face of a rising current account deficit. How much of this buying can be attributed to explicit or surreptitious currency intervention by foreign governments is a subject for another time.

1 There have been other buyers, such as mutual funds, ETFs, pensions, and insurers, but those purchases have been largely offset by sales from hedge funds, U.S. offices of foreign banks, and U.S. securities broker-dealers. There has been a reallocation of Treasury holdings from more speculative buyers to “real money” investors, but these transactions aren’t financing the aggregate increase in issuance.

2 Hedge funds are lumped in with “households and nonprofits” and with “rest of the world”, depending on their legal domicile. The Fed publishes information on hedge funds’ consolidated balance sheet with a lag in the Enhanced Financial Accounts, but this includes changes in valuations/ So far, the data on hedge funds only go through the end of 2020. From 2019Q4 through 2020Q4, hedge fund holdings of Treasury debt fell by more than $300 billion even as the prices of individual bonds rose. The quarterly data on transactions shows that “households and nonprofits” sold $380 billion in U.S. Treasury debt from 2020Q1 through 2021Q2.

3 The Fed sells bonds to its counterparties for cash and promises to buy (repurchase) the bonds back the next day at a slightly higher price. The result is extremely similar to a deposit that pays interest. The main difference is that savings held at the Fed as repos can only be accessed once a day.

4 For example, an old-fashioned bank run where depositors demanded physical currency from their ATM en masse would destroy reserves without changing the size of the Fed’s balance sheet. The Treasury could destroy reserves by selling T-bills, taking deposits from the banking system and generating proceeds that could then be deposited in the Treasury’s account at the Fed. That’s more or less what happened with the Supplementary Financing Program in 2008, as well as in March-July 2020. The TGA, discussed in the next section, has a similar effect.

5 Bank reserves are up by a little more than $2.4 trillion. As of the end of August, money-market repo lending to the Fed was up around $800 billion. Total usage of the Fed’s reverse repo facility has gone up another $250 billion since then. But some of that lending might be from counterparties other than money funds.

6 About 72% of the total increase in bank deposits since the start of the pandemic has been matched by a rise in holdings of reserves and Treasury securities. Banks have also bought about $800 billion of agency MBS while money funds have sold about $300 billion.

  • Government Spending
  • Comparisons
    • Historical
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
  • Monetary Policy
Previous articleOctober 4, 2021Americas Superstar Cities Arent What They Used to BeUS cities grow past 1 million mark, but population share declines: From 2010-2020, the 10 largest cities saw growth but accounted for a slightly smaller share of the US population, as suburban expansion outpaced urban centers. @JustinFox @BloombergNext articleOctober 7, 2021No evidence for cumulating socioeconomic advantage. Ability explains increasing SES effects with age on children's domain test scoresResearch by @GaryMarks in @Intelligence finds SES effects on children’s test scores are minimal when net of parental & child’s abilities, indicating no cumulative socioeconomic advantage. This suggests SES impact is more genetic in origin.
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