This paper reviews Alan D. Viard's article "Four Long-Term Fiscal Realities," published in Business Economics (2009). Viard projects dramatic growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending relative to GDP, creating a significant fiscal imbalance that future generations will need to address. The review examines Viard's four central predictions: rising federal revenue, reduced entitlement spending, an increased tax burden on the middle class, and a partial shift toward consumption taxation. The paper also evaluates Viard's use of empirical evidence, including Congressional Budget Office data and survey research, and assesses his contribution to fiscal policy discourse relative to prior literature on interest rates and debt default scenarios.
The paper demonstrates evaluative summarization — a technique in which a reviewer not only reports an author's claims but also assesses the quality of the evidence used to support them. Rather than simply describing what Viard argues, the writer explicitly addresses whether the empirical basis (CBO projections, survey data by Blinder and Krueger) is sufficient and well-integrated, modeling how an academic book or article review should balance description with critical judgment.
The paper opens with a concise summary of Viard's four fiscal realities, then unpacks each prediction in sequence. A dedicated section examines the author's use of evidence, followed by an assessment of the article's contribution to the broader fiscal policy literature. The paper closes with a brief personal reflection on the subjective definition of the middle class, connecting an accessible detail to the article's larger argument. The single reference is formatted in APA style.
"Four Long-Term Fiscal Realities" by Alan D. Viard addresses the probable financial future of the United States as a result of increased growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending. According to the author, the four realities will entail: (1) the rise of federal revenue above its current share of GDP; (2) the reduction of entitlement spending relative to current policies; (3) an increased burden on the middle class to address the fiscal imbalance; and (4) the likelihood of consumption taxation becoming an increasing part of the federal taxation system.
In terms of the first implication, Viard interestingly notes that the rise of federal revenue above its current share of GDP will be politically rather than financially necessary. This means that public willingness to accept certain fiscal realities — such as a reduction in benefit levels relative to those promised by current policies — is unlikely.
The second reality, a reduction in entitlement spending, means that continually rising health-care costs will need to find increased financing from the private sector rather than relying on the public sector as the sole source of funding. According to the author, this could imply a dramatic modification of the current health-care system.
In terms of the third reality, the middle class is by far the largest sector of American society, and therefore the largest tax burden will fall upon this income group. In realistic terms, only a limited tax burden can be imposed upon the higher-income group, and very little can be imposed on the lower-income group. In practical terms, the greatest collective burden will have to be borne by the largest sector of economic society.
Finally, because the public is unlikely to accept the complete replacement of income taxation by consumption taxation, the most likely long-term solution is a partial replacement to mitigate the strain created by rising federal revenue requirements.
According to Viard's projections, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will rise from 8.5% of GDP, as estimated in 2007, to 14.5% in 2030, and 25.7% in 2082. In addition, only a modest rise is projected in federal revenue under current policies — from its 18.8% level in 2007 to only 20.9% in 2082. The imbalance created by this trajectory needs to be addressed if future generations are not to face a severe reduction in their wealth levels, a key implication that Viard duly emphasizes. For broader context on the trajectory of U.S. federal budget projections, historical spending and revenue data provide important background for understanding the scale of the challenge Viard describes.
The author makes substantial use of empirical evidence in the form of published literature and survey data. He quotes the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), for example, to substantiate his claims regarding future fiscal projections for the United States. Survey data collected by Blinder and Krueger (2004) are used to substantiate the assertion that Americans tend to be unwilling to accept benefit cuts as the sole measure to address the long-term Social Security deficit. Instead, the survey suggests that the majority of Americans favor a combination of tax increases and benefit cuts to achieve this end.
Throughout the publication, empirical sources are used to substantiate the author's points. Viard makes frequent and ample use of published data without allowing these sources to override his own conclusions. There is a strong balance between the use of data and the author's own views regarding the financial future of the United States.
Viard's assertions are therefore soundly substantiated without the article becoming a repetitive review of existing literature. Instead, he combines published data, survey research, and his own analysis in a way that provides a valuable contribution to ongoing investigation of U.S. fiscal policy.
You’re 66% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.