Government spending on the elderly continues to climb.  Fueled by rapid growth in the number of Americans over age 65 and increased spending on benefits per person, public expenditures devoted to the elderly continue to edge up. A crucial question for future policy making is whether rising outlays on programs for the aged will squeeze out spending on programs for children, especially investments in their schooling. Many pessimists think this outcome is inevitable, and they urge us to reduce government commitments to the elderly to make room for spending on the young.

Federal spending is especially concentrated on the elderly. The Urban Institute publishes annual estimates of federal outlays on children and adults over 65. The estimates inevitably show a huge imbalance in spending on the two groups. In 2011, federal spending for the elderly amounted to almost $28,000 per person over 65.  In the same year, per capita spending on Americans under 19 amounted to just $4,900 per person. This means aged Americans received $5.72 in federal spending for every $1.00 received by a child 18 or younger.

The Urban Institute’s latest estimates show that federal spending on youngsters has trended down in recent years.  After reaching a peak of about $500 billion in 2010, expenditures on children fell 7 percent by 2012, and they have remained unchanged since then.

Future prospects are not encouraging. Urban Institute analysts predict that from 2014 to 2025, only 2 percent of federal spending growth will go to children. Almost 60 percent will be swallowed up by additional outlays on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Spending on many federal programs that provide benefits to children are financed out of discretionary programs. In contrast, big public programs for the aged seem to run on automatic pilot, with spending linked to changes in the cost of living and the size of the population past 65. Spending on most domestic discretionary programs is expected to be severely constrained as a result of Congressionally imposed budget caps. This is bad news for many federal programs targeted on children.

Focusing solely on federal government spending gives a misleading picture, however. While federal spending is heavily concentrated on the elderly, state and local spending tilts toward programs that help children, notably, through public school budgets.  Whereas aged Americans receive $5.72 in federal spending for each $1.00 received by someone under 19, those under 19 receive $10.11 in state and local spending for each $1.00 received by someone who is 65 or older. To be sure, total federal spending is considerably greater than that of state and local governments, but the imbalance of public spending on the young and the old is less extreme than federal budget statistics suggest.

Government spending on the aged is high because legislators (and voters) decided to establish government-backed pensions—through Social Security—in the 1930s and government-guaranteed health insurance for the elderly—through Medicare—in the 1960s.  In view of the overwhelming and enduring popularity of these two programs, most voters appear to think this was a sensible choice.  One implication of the policies is that Americans past 65 derive a sizable percentage of their retirement income, and an even bigger share of their health care, from public budgets.

The nation has not made an equivalent commitment to support the incomes or guarantee the health insurance of Americans under 65, except in special circumstances.  Those circumstances include temporary unemployment, a permanent work disability, and low household income.  Families headed by someone under 65 are expected to derive their support mainly from their jobs and from their own savings.  If non-aged families prosper, government spending on them falls.  If instead breadwinners become disabled or lose their jobs, government spending will increase as a result of higher disability payments, unemployment and food stamp benefits, and public assistance rolls.

Nearly all children are raised in families headed by someone under 65.  The government benefits they receive, except for free public schooling, increase in bad times and should decline when the unemployment rate falls.  The Urban Institute’s numbers are instructive.  Between 2007 and 2011, real federal spending on children increased 27 percent, or more than 6 percent a year, as the unemployment rate soared in the Great Recession. Federal spending on children then fell as unemployment—and outlays on government transfer payments—shrank.  For many categories of public spending on children, we cannot assume that lower spending signals a weaker commitment to children’s well-being. Instead it may signal a healthier private economy, a lower unemployment rate, and faster improvement in breadwinner incomes.

Of course, some components of government spending on children do not automatically rise in a slumping economy or shrink when breadwinners’ earnings improve.  Public investments in children’s preschool and K-12 education should be adjusted to reflect the needs of children for compensatory instruction and the expected payoff of added investment in schooling.  Statistics on public school budgets show that spending per pupil has increased considerably faster than inflation and faster than GDP per person over the past seven decades (see Chart 1). Whether spending has increased as fast as warranted is debatable, but rising government spending on the aged has not caused per-pupil spending on K-12 schools to shrink.

Government spending on children’s health has also increased over time as public insurance for children has been expanded.  In 2014 just 6 percent of Americans under age 19 lacked health insurance for the entire year.  The only age group with higher health insurance coverage was the population past 65, which is covered by Medicare (see Chart 2).  The main explanation for rising insurance coverage among children is that federal and state health insurance programs have been expanded to cover most low-income children.  Insurance coverage of children can and should be improved, but a sizeable expansion of public insurance has occurred despite the increase in public spending on the elderly.

The presumption that rising outlays on programs for Americans past 65 must come at the expense of spending on children rests on the unstated assumption that voters will zealously defend programs for the aged while tolerating cuts in programs that fund education, income protection, and health coverage for the young.  The trend toward higher public spending on the elderly has been underway for at least five decades, but the predicted cuts in spending on the young have yet to materialize.

Editor's Note: this op-ed first appeared in Real Clear Markets.

The U.S. military will carry out a major modernization of its strategic nuclear forces in the 2020s.

It will cover all three legs of the strategic triad.

Much of the planned program makes sense. The long-range standoff (LRSO) — a new nuclear-armed cruise missile to outfit strategic bombers — does not.

The primary reason for the modernization program is that many US strategic weapons systems are aging out, and American policy is that, as long as there are nuclear weapons, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and robust nuclear deterrent.

The Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines will begin to hit the end of their service life in the late 2020s, and the Navy will need new submarines. Submarines and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) make up the most survivable leg of the triad, and they carry the bulk of deployed US strategic warheads.

The service life of the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) runs out in 2030. The Air Force seeks a replacement ICBM. At a minimum, keeping an ICBM leg of the triad would require another life extension program for existing Minuteman III missiles.

As for the air-breathing leg of the triad, the Air Force wants to procure 80 to 100 B-21 bombers. Plans are shrouded in secrecy but reportedly will incorporate stealth features and advanced electronic warfare capabilities to allow the aircraft to penetrate contested air space. The Air Force is also modernizing the B61 nuclear gravity bomb for use on strategic bombers.

It is not clear why the United States will need to replace 400 deployed ICBMs on a one-for-one basis, particularly as the Air Force several years ago was prepared to go down to 300. A force of 200-300 ICBMs would suffice and result in significant cost savings. Likewise, one can challenge the requirement for 12 new ballistic missile submarines, as opposed to nine or 10.

The biggest question, however, arises over the LRSO, with a projected cost of $20 billion to $30 billion. The Air Force originally developed nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) in the 1970s because the B-52 — then the mainstay of the strategic bomber fleet — presented a big target for adversary radars. That would make it hard for the aircraft to penetrate air defenses. A B-52 armed with ALCMs could remain outside of radar range and release its cruise missiles.

The B-2, with its stealth features, was designed to restore a penetrating capability. The Air Force plans to use stealth and electronic warfare capabilities to give the B-21 a penetrating capability as well. If these bombers can defeat and penetrate air defenses, that makes the LRSO redundant. (Moreover, unlike in the 1970s, the Air Force today has very capable long-range conventionally armed cruise missiles that provide a standoff capability for bombers.)

If, on the other hand, the stealth of the B-21 will be compromised in the not-too-distant future, then one has to question the wisdom of spending $60 billion to $80 billion — and perhaps more — to procure the B-21. If we believe the B-21 would soon encounter problems penetrating air defenses, scrap that program. Buy instead modified Boeing 767s, a variant of which will serve as the Air Force’s new aerial tanker, and arm them with the LRSO.

The Air Force’s evident attachment to the B-21 suggests, however, that it believes that the aircraft will be able to defeat adversary air defenses for some time to come. That means that the LRSO would add little capability to the US strategic force mix.

If one were to argue for the redundant capability provided by the LRSO, the number of new ALCMs that the Pentagon proposes to purchase — 1,000 to 1,100 — is difficult to understand. Even allowing for extra cruise missiles for test purposes, the number seems excessively high.

In its 2010 annual report to Congress on implementation of the Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty (SORT), the State Department advised that, as of Dec. 31, 2009, the United States had 1,968 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads. That figure captured the actual number of nuclear warheads atop SLBMs and ICBMs plus the number of nuclear bombs and ALCMs at air bases for use by bombers.

On June 1, 2011, a State Department fact sheet showed the number of deployed US strategic warheads as 1,800 as of Feb. 5, 2011, when the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) went into force. A Dec. 1, 2011, fact sheet provided a more detailed breakdown of US strategic forces. It stated that, as of Sept. 1, 2011, the United States had 1,790 deployed strategic warheads and 125 deployed strategic bombers. Like SORT, New START counts each warhead on a deployed ballistic missile as a deployed warhead. But New START counts bomber weapons differently from SORT. New START attributes each deployed bomber as one warhead, regardless of the number that it can carry or the number of weapons that may be at bomber bases.

The 125 deployed bombers on Sept. 1, 2011, would have counted as 125 under New START’s deployed strategic warhead total. Reducing 1,790 by 125 yields 1,665 — the number of deployed warheads then on US SLBMs and ICBMs.

Comparing the SORT and New START numbers is a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison, but it gives some idea of the number of bomber weapons at US strategic bomber bases. Unless there was a dramatic increase in the number of warheads on ICBMs and SLBMs between the end of 2009 and September 2011 — and there is no reason to think that there was — comparing SORT’s 1,968 figure (end of 2009) to the 1,665 deployed warheads on ICBMs and SLBMs (under New START counting rules in September 2011) suggests some 300 nuclear bombs and ALCMs were at bomber bases. The B-2s would have been armed with bombs, which indicates a maximum of 200-250 ALCMs. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) also estimates that there are about 300 nuclear weapons at strategic bomber bases, of which 200 are nuclear-armed ALCMs. FAS believes an additional 375 ALCM airframes are held in reserve.

This comparison raises the question: Why would 1,000-1,100 ALCM airframes be needed to support a couple of hundred deployed ALCMs?

The United States should sensibly modernize its strategic deterrent, particularly in a time of tight defense budgets. The case for the LRSO is demonstrably weak, especially for the planned size of the program. The LRSO should be shelved.

This piece was originally published in Defense News.

This week will bring a cornucopia of new data, an econo-nerd's dream. Unfortunately for some of us nerds, there won't be any releases on state and local government finances. (The Census Bureau generally has to wait for all states to report and, as you can imagine, some states are laggards.)

However, there will still be a lot in this week's numbers for those who follow state and local government finances, pay into state and local coffers, or consume predominantly state and local public services like education, roads, and health care. Here are a few trends worth watching:

First, Tuesday's March S&P/Case Shiller house price indexes will be important for states whose fortunes are tied to real estate, especially in the West and Southwest. Macroeconomic forecasters are predicting home prices will decline slightly compared to one year ago but continue to increase month-to-month, suggesting that perhaps the market has hit bottom.

That would be good news for the housing sector. However, research from Federal Reserve Board economists Byron Lutz, Raven Molloy, and Hui Shan suggests that any boon to state and local revenues would be minor. They calculate the housing bust per se generated only a $22 billion drop in taxes over three years, equivalent to roughly 3 percent of annual state and local revenues excluding federal funds.

Meanwhile, the latest Census data suggest that state taxes are growing, but at a pace that is slower than usual. More worrisome, the pace appears to be moderating. In recent weeks, California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island have all reported taxes coming in below projections. Also, local property taxes are likely to remain in the doldrums for some time. They tend to respond to house price changes with a delay and thus just started showing the effects of the housing bust in late 2010. Property taxes recently turned positive again, but these gains are anemic by historical standards and likely caused by rate hikes in some jurisdictions rather than improving property values.

Next up this week are Bureau of Economic Analysis revisions to first quarter GDP. Macroeconomists will be attuned to how the revisions compare to advance estimates and what this portends for the recovery. They might also take note of whether these governments are detracting from growth - as they have done by an average of 0.2 percentage points in each quarter since 2008 - or contributing to it as usual. State and local watchers will be more focused on state and local spending, which unlike previous downturns, has declined in real per capita terms and not yet recovered.

That leads us to the biggest number to watch this week - Friday's jobs report. State and local employment is already down by 665,000 jobs or about 3.5 percent from its pre-recession peak. Recent trends suggest that cuts may be abating, but this total masks differences across subsectors - state education has been adding jobs while losses continue in all other subsectors, especially at the local level.

Ongoing state and local job losses also distinguish this recession from previous downturns in the modern era. This may be in keeping with the depths of this Great Recession. However, it's hard to imagine state and local residents aren't feeling the pinch of higher property tax burdens or lower services. To take one example, Governor Jerry Brown has proposed closing California's $16 billion budget gap by converting state employees to a four day work week and closing state parks. From a macro perspective, the fiscal tightening may be over. But that doesn't mean state and local governments aren't still a real drag.

The headlines seem pretty good. Unemployment fell a tick to 7.3 percent. And jobs growth continued, with payrolls expanding by 169,000 in August, which is just shy of the 175,000 new jobs that analysts were expecting.

But beneath the headline: blech!

The most important news was the revisions to what we had previously thought was a healthy and perhaps self-sustaining recovery. Instead, jobs growth in July was revised from 162,000, to a weak 104,000, and June was also revised downward. Taken together, this month's revisions means we've created 74,000 fewer jobs than previously believed. And the previous jobs report subtracted another 26,000 jobs through revisions. Moreover, for reasons that remain a mystery, revisions have tended to be pro-cyclical, meaning that the healthy recovery we thought we were having might have been expected to yield further upward revisions. All this means that analysts are hastily revising their views.

The other bad news comes from the household survey, where employment fell 115,000, leading the employment-to-population ratio to decline by 0.1 percentage points. So the decline in the unemployment rate isn't due to folks getting jobs; instead, it's due to people dropping out of the labor force.

I have two simple metrics I use to measure the "underlying" pace of jobs growth. The first puts 80% weight on the (more accurate) payrolls survey, and 20% weight on the noisier household survey. That measure suggests employment grew by only 112,000 in August. The alternative is to focus on the 3-month average of payrolls growth, which suggests we're creating slightly around 148,000 jobs per month.

Bottom line: This report says that we're barely creating enough jobs to keep the unemployment rate falling from its current high levels. Policymakers have been looking for a signal that the recovery has become self-sustaining. This report doesn't provide it. And until we're confident that the recovery will keep rolling on, we should delay either any monetary tightening, further fiscal cuts, and definitely postpone the legislative shenanigans that Congress is threatening.

I came across an interesting chart in yesterday’s Morning Money tipsheet from Politico that struck me as a something that sounded intuitively correct but was, in fact, not. It's worth a comment on this blog, which has served as a forum for discussion of jobs numbers throughout the recovery.

Between last week’s BLS employment report and last night’s State of the Union, we’ve heard a lot about impressive job growth in 2015. For my part, I wrote on this blog last week that the 2.6 million jobs created last year makes 2015 the second best calendar-year for job gains of the current recovery.

The tipsheet’s "Chart of the Day," however, suggested that job growth in 2015 was actually lower-than-average if we adjust for the change in the size of the labor force. This is what was in the tipsheet from Politico:

CHART OF THE DAY: NOMINAL JOB GROWTH — Via Hamilton Place Strategies: "Adjusting jobs data to account for labor force shifts can help shed some light on voters' economic angst, even as we see good headline statistics. … Though 2015 was a good year in terms of job growth during the current recovery and had higher-than-average job growth as compared to recent recoveries, 2015 actually had lower-than-average job growth if we adjust for the change in the size of the labor force." http://bit.ly/1OnBXSm

I decided to look at the numbers.

The authors propose that we should "scale" reported job gains by the number of workers, which at first seems to make sense. Surely, an increase in monthly employment of 210,000 cannot mean the same thing when there are already 150 million employed people as when there are just 75 million employed people.

But this intuition is subtly wrong for a simple reason: The age structure of the population may also differ in the two situations I have just described. Suppose when there are 75 million employed people, the population of 20-to-64 year-old people is growing 300,000 every month. Suppose also when there are 150 million employed people, the population of 20-to-64 year-olds is shrinking 100,000 per month. 

Most informed observers would say that job growth of 210,000 a month is much more impressive under the latter assumptions than it is under the first set of assumptions, even though under the latter assumptions the number of employed people is twice as high as it is under the first assumptions.

BLS estimates show that in the seven years from December 2008-December 2015, the average monthly growth in the 16-to-64 year-old (noninstitutionalized) U.S. population was 85,200 per month. That is the lowest average growth rate of the working-age population going back to at least 1960. Here are the numbers:

Once we scale the monthly employment gain by the growth in the working-age population, the growth of jobs in recent years has been more impressive—not less—than suggested by the raw monthly totals. Gains in employer payrolls have far surpassed the growth in the number of working-age Americans over the past five years.

Headline writers have been impressed by recent job gains because the job gains have been impressive.