Analysis: Obama deficit plan unlikely to impress ratings firms

WASHINGTON Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:16pm EDT

President Barack Obama walks to a high-level meeting on Libya at the United Nations in New York September 20, 2011. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

President Barack Obama walks to a high-level meeting on Libya at the United Nations in New York September 20, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's plan to tame U.S. budget deficits probably relies too much on ending wars and too little on tackling health care spending to impress Wall Street credit rating agencies.

The United States is struggling to recover from a burst housing bubble and deep recession that ravaged public finances and led credit rating agency Standard & Poor's to strip the nation of its gold-plated AAA credit rating last month.

An aging population will strain public finances further in coming years, consuming more healthcare and pension benefits offered by the federal government. In its downgrade, S&P said funding those future outlays was "key to long-term fiscal sustainability."

But less than a tenth of the savings in Obama's plan to cut budget deficits by $3.6 trillion would come from health spending. Reforms to the Social Security pension program were left out altogether.

In contrast, winding down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which give only one-off savings, account for a nearly one-third of the plan.

"If I were S&P, I would not change my rating on the basis of this proposal," said Rudolph Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Analysts at Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service, two of Wall Street's three large ratings agencies, declined to comment on Obama's plan. The third agency, Fitch, did not return calls seeking comment.

SPENDING BATTLE

The rating downgrade by S&P helped crystallize the view that the country faces a decline as a global economic power.

After a spending battle in Congress that nearly left the country unable to its bills, S&P said last month it was also irked by Washington's refusal to go beyond "minor policy changes" in the country's main health program known as Medicare.

In the plan Obama unveiled on Monday, the projected healthcare savings amount to just $320 billion through 2021. Much of this is within the Medicare program, but mostly through cuts in payments to care providers, not structural reform.

"It's hard to see how Medicare is even fixable under the current structure," said Davis Wyss, who was chief economist at S&P until earlier this year and is now a visiting scholar at Brown University.

Obama's proposal, which will serve as a recommendation for a congressional panel charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in budget savings, is "a good-sized downpayment on what needs to be done, but the Medicare fix is still critical," Wyss said.

Under current law, federal spending on healthcare programs and Social Security will likely rise from about 10 percent of gross domestic product to 15 percent in 25 years. Much of that is because of an aging population.

Without big tax hikes, those outlays would have to be funded by borrowing. And even if Obama were to win approval of his proposals to boost taxes -- a big "if" given Republican opposition -- it's not clear the president's plan would bring down debt levels enough to please S&P.

"Wherever it would land (the ratio of publicly held debt to GDP) would be well above 70 percent ... and in all likelihood not enough to reassure markets or credit rating agencies," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Banking on $1 trillion in savings from drawing down the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan also undermines the credibility of the plan in the eyes of some experts because those spending cuts were probably going to happen anyway.

"It's not real reform, and so you really need to do more substantive things that have a longer-term impact," said David Walker, a former U.S. comptroller general who has been outspoken on the need to tighten the nation's belt.

"They're going to have to do more credible things."

(Additional reporting by Walter Brandimarte in New York; Editing by Padraic Cassidy)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (7)
PessimistNJ wrote:
Only because Obama hasn’t included them in his new jobs bill. They’re not getting a hand out so is this a surprise? Not really they are just throwing a temper tantrum are not getting any money this time around so they’re upset.

Sep 20, 2011 5:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Adam_S wrote:
The same rating agencies that told us subprime mortgage debt was a rock solid investment? Oh, yee arbiters of a good deal!

Sep 20, 2011 5:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:
Why would this plan impress anyone who actually cares about the long term debt problems of the country? This plan is not meant to be a solution, it’s just something to campaign against the Republicans on when they vote it down, as they said they would all along. Now, that’s what I call leadership!

Sep 20, 2011 9:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.