• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Ghost Savings: Spectrum or Spectral?

    The federal government owns vast assets that would be better managed and more productive in the hands of the private sector.  Selling some of these makes sense to reduce debt, reduce the deficit, and help shrink our bloated government.

    However, selling assets is often abused as another Washington ploy that claims to reduce the deficit but becomes a ruse for more spending.

    There is real money to be had from the sales.  Public lands.  Unused buildings.  And the ever-popular “spectrum auctions” that take bids for the right to use different portions of the airwaves.

    But proceeds too often are spent to make short-term fixes of spending gaps, creating no permanent solutions to serious ongoing problems and instead delaying reforms.  They do not reduce the deficit.  They do not reduce the size of government.

    Congress is poised once again to abuse asset sales by using them to justify more spending rather than to shrink government and its deficit spending.  A prime example is that they may use permanent auctions of spectrum to plug just part of a single year’s problems with Medicare payments to doctors.

    That’s a standard Washington game:  Use different time frames to make something look better.  In the real world, we know that something can only be sold once (excepting perhaps the Brooklyn Bridge).  And one-time money should not be spent on repetitive costs.

    Congress has created a recurring problem known in D.C. as the “doc fix.”  This traces to a 1997 decision (creating what is officially known as the Sustainable Growth Rate—SGR) to cap the amounts paid to doctors by Medicare.  That made projections of future costs appear to be smaller.  Because the SGR formula cuts payments so that they lag behind actual costs, doctors rightfully complain about government is price-fixing.  Physicians warn that they cannot afford to treat Medicare patients unless they are paid properly.

    Undoing the SGR is expensive; it projects as a $300-billion expense over the next 10 years.  Instead, ever since 2003, Congress has rescinded the SGR’s cuts for one year at a time—fixing the payments to doctors.  Thus, the “doc fix.”

    The longer the underlying formula remains unfixed, the more it gets out of whack.  Without a doc fix this year, medical providers will see a 27% cut in their fees come January.  But making just a one-year adjustment carries a $21-billion price tag.  Politics requires that Congress claim to get the money from an offset someplace else in government, rather than just borrowing that amount.

    Enter the spectrum auction as a major source of money.

    Since 1994, the Federal Communications Commission has auctioned off different wavelength segments of the airwaves, for uses that include radio and TV broadcasting, cell phones, public safety and military communications, and wireless broadband.  Having a license to use the spectrum has become increasingly valuable as technology expands.  The auctions have generated tens of billions of dollars to the federal treasury, much more than earlier allocation systems that involved only licensing and lotteries.

    Auctions are held whenever Congress authorizes it for segments of the spectrum.  For example, an auction in 2006 raised $13.9-billion; one in 2008 raised $19.6-billion.  These proceeds do not always reduce the deficit, though, because Congress often uses some of the money for other things.  Like public safety communications networks.  Educational TV.  Cultural broadcasts.  So net savings often become illusory.

    The successful spectrum bidders essentially get a permanent lease, subject only to costs of renewal applications every few years.  Those who have been using non-auctioned airwaves—such as licensed broadcasters and others who won under the old lottery system—want to hang onto those rights, and not have to compete in an auction.

    The latest proposal is to have another spectrum auction and use its proceeds as an offset for a one-year “doc fix” for Medicare.

    President Obama projected it could raise $28-billion, but wanted to use big chunks of that for a public safety communications network.  The Congressional Budget Office projected that network would cost almost $12-billion, reducing the net budget savings of the spectrum auction to $15.8-billion.  Several bills in Congress propose variations on this theme.

    But netting $15.8-billion from auction of permanent spectrum rights is an unbalanced and insufficient offset for the $21-billion cost of a one-year “doc fix.”  The fix is temporary; the sale is forever.

    Doing a doc fix a single year at a time is costly and delays the real reforms needed to Medicare.  But by pretending that selling part of the spectrum forever is a justified offset for more spending, Congress would be trying to grab money out of thin air.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Ghost Savings: Spectrum or Spectral?

    1. Frequency Manager says:

      Unfortunately, the SPECTRUM AUCTIONS are usually at the expense of the DOD/MILITARY and, we are in fact going thru a heck of a time trying to meet civilian demands to relocate, buy new equipment to change frequencies, and the DOD ends up not having the bandwidth it should have…. all because some congressman or senator is lobbied by a company who sees a way to make millions and millions of dollars.

    2. Bobbie says:

      Mr. Istook wrote: "But proceeds too often are spent to make short-term fixes of spending gaps, creating no permanent solutions to serious ongoing problems and instead delaying reforms. They do not reduce the deficit. They do not reduce the size of government."
      I mean this man uses the words "against the constitution" to his convenience while his unconstitutional acts brought us here! why isn't this recognized? in respect to permanent tax cuts automatically decreases the size of government. why isn't that a no brainer? why do we want to compromise unconstitutional issues? isn't this the time to put government in it's constitutional place? give doctors their right to conduct their practice without the inference of government. no decent person asked for help from government and government is not helping anyone but themselves.

    3. Bobbie says:

      correction!!: not that it could be mistaken but today people will spin anything…

      when I wrote "this man" in the 2nd paragraph, of course I'm referring to the President. sorry for any misunderstandings…

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.