A terrifying but informative article concerning the United States’ colossal debt load and deficits appeared today in the New York Times (yes, you heard that correctly – the New York Times). I would consider this required reading, as it depicts the truly grave situation we as a nation have created. The highlights:
Treasury officials now face a trifecta of headaches: a mountain of new debt, a balloon of short-term borrowings that come due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are sure to climb back to normal as soon as the Federal Reserve decides that the emergency has passed.
Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today’s low rates by exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages.
With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.
In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
…“The government is on teaser rates,” said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates lower deficits. “We’re taking out a huge mortgage right now, but we won’t feel the pain until later.”
…“What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter,” said William H. Gross, managing director of the Pimco Group, the giant bond-management firm. “The United States is not only not saving nuts, it’s eating the ones left over from the last winter.”
The current low rates on the country’s debt were caused by temporary factors that are already beginning to fade. One factor was the economic crisis itself, which caused panicked investors around the world to plow their money into the comparative safety of Treasury bills and notes. Even though the United States was the epicenter of the global crisis, investors viewed Treasury securities as the least dangerous place to park their money.
On top of that, the Fed used almost every tool in its arsenal to push interest rates down even further. It cut the overnight federal funds rate, the rate at which banks lend reserves to one another, to almost zero. And to reduce longer-term rates, it bought more than $1.5 trillion worth of Treasury bonds and government-guaranteed securities linked to mortgages.
Those conditions are already beginning to change. Global investors are shifting money into riskier investments like stocks and corporate bonds, and they have been pouring money into fast-growing countries like Brazil and China.
…Even a small increase in interest rates has a big impact. An increase of one percentage point in the Treasury’s average cost of borrowing would cost American taxpayers an extra $80 billion this year — about equal to the combined budgets of the Department of Energy and the Department of Education.
But that could seem like a relatively modest pinch. Alan Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price, estimated that the Treasury’s tab for debt service this year would have been $221 billion higher if it had faced the same interest rates as it did last year.
The White House estimates that the government will have to borrow about $3.5 trillion more over the next three years. On top of that, the Treasury has to refinance, or roll over, a huge amount of short-term debt that was issued during the financial crisis. Treasury officials estimate that about 36 percent of the government’s marketable debt — about $1.6 trillion — is coming due in the months ahead.
If that doesn’t feel like a bath in ice-cold water, I don’t know what does. Thankfully, prominent Republicans have begun to emphasize deficit reduction (which voters consider a top priority), after the party has rightfully shouldered criticism from opponents and voters for the inexcusable run-up in spending under the Bush administration. Also on the positive side, the party has multiple governors – Pawlenty and Romney, among others – with strong records of managing deficits and spending in the mix for 2012.
As a last note, I’d like to get an idea of what readers value more: balanced budgets (with current federal tax rates) or tax cuts (with corresponding national deficits of, say, under $300 billion).
(h/t) Commenter MWS
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Balanced Budget with the current ‘Bush’ Tax rates on all income brackets. I don’t think it will do any good cutting taxes if the government so devalues our currency by runaway spending that it’s not worth anything.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
This country is sooooo f’ed, in so many ways. I just hope we keep first world status.
As for balanced budgets vs tax cuts, we can’t afford any tax cuts. If we were just spending on debt interest, defense, social security and Medicare, absolutely no other spending,, we would STILL be running a deficit.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Kevin,
I would argue that we can’t afford government-run health care and cap-and-trade.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
#3, you could say that about the health reforms, even though it saves money.
Not about cap and trade, however. If anything it’ll give us some very necessary revenues.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
No more borrow-and-spend Republicanism! Balanced budgets first, then we can talk about tax cuts.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Kevin,
It might give us short-term revenue, but it would suppress economic growth, which would depress revenues over the long run. And how would spending more government revenues on health care “save money” over the House GOP plan, which involves allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines and pool together to buy at group rates, caps malpractice lawsuits and encourages healthy behavior and HSA’s?
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Balanced budgets, definitely.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
First thing you need to do is put a – small – tax on all imports (lets say 2 pennies on the dollar) – that will instantly give you a few billion in income that you can use as debt repayment. Other countries are profiting big time from our open door trade policies, while we get far less in return.
But the GOP faces a significant problem running on the issue of debt – it would give us very little room to work at the big-time problems facing the country. People like to see something that has a direct effect on them – and, lets face it, for most people, federal debt is a pretty abstract issue. Could we really win two terms in a row if all we did was cut spending, and not get to work on the major things?
I’m no military expert, and I’m certainly not going to advocate cutting back on our global reach, particularly not with China becoming a major player – but perhaps we could consolidate some of our European and Asian bases in a way that would still give us rapid deployment time and significant intimidation power without the high cost.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
5#6, the Republican plan is not significant reform. It works under the premise of “best health care system in the world” and offers only minor tweaks.
But, the Democratic plan is becoming increasingly terrible as well…
As for your Laffer Curve stuff, we’re far away from the point of ‘higher taxes = less revenue”. We’ll never reach that point again in this country.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
From the article:
“With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically.”
This is why I’ve been saying for a while now that the debt is reaching critical mass. Soon, we won’t be able to control what happens with monetary policy, and may reach a point where we can’t even cut spending enough or increase taxes enough to get to a balanced budget.
I think INTEREST on the national debt could EASILY go to a trillion a year by 2012 or 2016, at the rate we are adding to it, if interest rates just go back up to where they were in the early 90s.
Everybody says what a sacred cow Social Security is, and how its benefits are SOOOO untouchable. Well I say, why are the benefits of the generation that ran up $12 trillion in debt so untouchable, when their kids and grandkids will see their benefits cut, AND have to pay on the $12 trillion that this generation ran up??????
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
WSU,
Why are we borrowing from the Europeans and Japanese to defend the Europeans and Japanese?
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
“Everybody says what a sacred cow Social Security is, and how its benefits are SOOOO untouchable. Well I say, why are the benefits of the generation that ran up $12 trillion in debt so untouchable, when their kids and grandkids will see their benefits cut, AND have to pay on the $12 trillion that this generation ran up??????”
Because it was a promise. A promise made that many people will rely on for a livelihood in the next few decades. To pull back social security for the EXISTING class of beneficiaries would leave many in poverty, probably just dependent on other kinds of government help.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
“Why are we borrowing from the Europeans and Japanese to defend the Europeans and Japanese?”
Because it does more than just “defend the Europeans and Japanese” – it allows us a say in global affairs, gives us quick deployment time to virtually any conflict on the Eurasian landmass, and helps keep adversaries – existing or potential – at bay.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
#12, indeed. Why are we borrowing money from the PRC so we can put troops in Taiwan to protect them from the PRC?
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Kevin,
BTW, I assume you know that the notion that ObamaCare cuts the deficit is a lie. When they say that, they only mean the first 10 years. They can say it does over the first ten years becaus it involves 10 years of taxes and only 5-6 years of benefits. So it accumulated tax revenue before it pays benefits and then rapidly exhausts that accumulated surplus, running higher and higher deficits thereafter. It also assumes that Congress is willing to make massive cuts in Medicare it will probably never make.
Why not put all those taxes the Democrats are raising towards deficit reduction, instead of a new entitlement program, considering the entitlement programs we have now are already heading for insolvency?
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
11, not 12
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
WSU,
“Because it was a promise”
Yeah, everyone keeps saying that.
And what was the promise that this older generation made to the younger? $12 trillion and counting in debt? Insolvent Medicare, bankrupt Social Security?
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I’m not saying I agree with it – but who is going to put millions of seniors out on the streets?
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
#15, honestly, there’s so much wrong with the Democratic health care plan that I don’t know where to begin.
And I’m pretty pessimistic about the country’s financial situation. We passed the tipping point a while ago.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
WSU,
“it allows us a say in global affairs, gives us quick deployment time to virtually any conflict on the Eurasian landmass, and helps keep adversaries – existing or potential – at bay.”
A new Ferrari would get me to work faster, look awesome in my garage, and give me status at the golf course.
But I can’t afford it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
“But I can’t afford it.”
Are you really willing to turn over the job of Global power to Beijing or Moscow? Do you see either of them working, as the US does, to defend out interests and ideals? And Do you honestly believe that their interests or ideals are remotely similar to our own?
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
WSU,
I’m talking about a small haircut in Soc. Sec and reindexing, not throwing granny out in the street. But we have to bend that growth line down, or a lot more of us will be living in the streets 10, 20, or 30 years from now.
This has to be a shared sacrifice. Gen X, Y, and Z are already on the hook. It’s time for the generation that ran up the debt to make some sacrifices too. (I’m talking to you, baby boomers)
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I think the argument is that people who will retire 20, 30, and 40 years from now have the time and knowledge to make changes or start saving more.
Not so for those already out of the workforce.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
WSU,
“Are you really willing to turn over the job of Global power………”
Can’t afford it.
Can’t afford it.
Can’t afford it.
Can’t afford it.
You see, when you buy something you can’t afford, whether it’s a house, car, or SuperPower status, you end up losing it anyway, but you’re worse off than you would have been if you hadn’t deceived yourself in the first place.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
So MWS, you’re willing to hand the world over to China and Russia?
I think we can probably find other ways to reduce the deficit and the debt.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
WSU,
Make changes???? Government is going to have to swallow so much of our income just to service the debt many of us won’t be able to afford to make changes…..
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
WSU,
“So MWS, you’re willing to hand the world over to China and Russia?”
They can’t afford it either.
There are worse things in the world than no SuperPowers. There is nothing in Holy Writ that states one or two counties has to rule the world.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
WSU,
BTW, Russia is facing far worse problems than we are. They are facing demographic collapse, and based on recent trends, they will have a smaller population in 2050 than Yeman. China has its own problems.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I’m just not sure how you can – practically – go in and tell people, “sorry, we made you a promise, and you planned the next quarter/third of your life on that promise, but we’re going to have to take it away – regardless of what it does to you.
Its not realistic.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“BTW, Russia is facing far worse problems than we are. They are facing demographic collapse, and based on recent trends, they will have a smaller population in 2050 than Yeman.”
…which isn’t stopping them from stocking up their navy again: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_france_navy_ship
As for China, I’m well aware they face their own problems – and maybe, when those problems start to become an issue, and China has to cut back its own military, stop looking at becoming the top suerpower, etc – then we can look to reduce our own role.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
WSU,
“Its not realistic.”
Poltically you’re right, because too many Americans are selfish.
That just means that Gen X and later is just doubly screwed.
The worst generation ever in America squandered the wealth of 3 generations. Their parents (inheritence), their own (consumer debt), and their kids (the national debt). We’ll be picking up the pieces for a loooooooooooooong time. I suspect that Gen X and Gen Y will on average have a lower standard of living than their parents.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“because too many Americans are selfish.”
Actually, I don’t think its all selfishness, because, all together, younger generations could easily overrule those older than themselves if they voted as a group.
Its not just grandma voting to keep her free money from the government, its her daughter and her grandson voting because they don’t want grandma living in poverty.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Too late for policy solutions. Evidence: the price of gold.
Whether the Federal Reserve chair admits it or not, whether through unintended consequences or conscious design, the U.S. is prepared to burn off its debt through super-massive inflation.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
The price of Gold is a commodity bubble, because, quite frankly, its really the only bubble we haven’t really experienced. Currency doesn’t make that good of a bubble, and we’ve gone through both stocks and properties.
Hard non-property assets are the thing to run to, because they’re the only thing people haven’t been burned by yet.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Guns, ammo, cigarettes, and beer.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Those of you who choose balanced budgets over tax cuts would damn us to a trap from which we could not escape.
You pay down debt by increasing revenue. You increase revenue through growth. You get growth from tax cuts.
But there’s one tax-neutral way to stimulate massive growth: The Fair Tax.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Not a bubble effendi. Not any more than it was a bubble in the late 70s when gold began its long climb even as the dollar tilted into sustained double digit inflation–same policy insanity; same result. Volcker under Reagan raised interest rates to cause the worst recession since the Great Depression–we still haven’t reached 1983 levels of unemployment–a super painful jolt that paved the way for years of prosperity based on a strong dollar. Can you imagine any elected office holder in our era with that kind of courage? Neither can I.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“But there’s one tax-neutral way to stimulate massive growth: The Fair Tax.”
Flat tax does the same thing.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
#38: Not nearly the same, because it’s still a tax on income rather than consumption. But it’d be enough.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Metro,
I like the flat tax too. But any tax changes we make at this point need to be revenue positive, short term and long term. We are dangling over the precipice as it is, and we can’t afford a drop in revenue that tax cuts would bring on the promise of future greater revenue.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
oops, I meant, I like the FAIR tax too.
By and by, wasn’t Huck the only one advocating that last time?
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
“Not nearly the same, because it’s still a tax on income rather than consumption.”
My concern would be the – at least initial – sticker shock assocated with the fair tax, that, and I think its better to have a tax that you pay, and be done with, no matter what else you do.
Any kind of consumption tax would probably decrease consumption.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
You don’t say. But an American VAT is coming, friends and well wishers. It generates too much lovely money for our policy elites to ignore. And it does so invisibly, unlike income taxes. No tax revolts, just economies that no longer grow, like Europe.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Balanced budget. Screw the tax cuts and anyone who advocates them.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
“And it does so invisibly”
…the fourteen percent jump in prices is hardly “invisible”
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
From the Europeans (and canadians) I’ve talked to, they generally DO have full knowledge of the taxes – but they are willing to pay them because of the services they get in return.
Its a different perspective than Americans have.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Balanced budget.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
MWS, yes, Huck was. But I always thought he advocated the Flat Tax insincerely as a cover-up for his poor record on economic conservatism.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
And apparently you are now on the record for tax increases. I have no idea why we are in the same party.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Metro,
Instead of increasing rates under our anti-growth, Byzantine tax code, I would prefer tax reform that would be either revenue neutral and pro-growth, or revenue positive and growth neutral. The first would obviously be better.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Metro,
“And apparently you are now on the record for tax increases.”
Do you prefer enormous, economy-crushing deficits, or where would you make the cuts?
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/budget.html
Anyone wanna try and balance it?
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Kevin,
I don’t think anyone is suggesting we could balance the budget tomorrow. But, I got it under a trillion dollar deficit without raising taxes. And as long we’re reduce it by 80-100 billion a year, during recessionary times, it will pretty much disappears in boom years. With 4% yearly GDP growth and 6% unemployment we’ll likely gain 200 billion more, per year, to spend, so reducing it by 80-100 billion isn’t unthinkable if we get serious about fundamental, but not bank-breaking, health care reform.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Matthew,
For perspective, every 1% interest rates on Treasuries go up next year, another $80 billion is added to the interest expense on the debt. So if interest rates rise 1% a year, your savings evaporate. Given the fact that short term rates are basically zero, and we are under a lot of inflationary pressure (not to mention a declining dollar, I don’t think an 80-100 billion a year reduction even comes close. If our debt next year is say, 1.3 trillion instead of 1.4 trillion (like this year), that adds another 65 billion in interest alone just for next year’s deficit, assuming a modest 5% (which may seem high now, but in 2-3 years, it will be very modest).
If interest rates go up say, 1.5% next year, and we cut 100 billion in spending, our interest expense will still go up about 160+ billion, meaning our deficit is even larger than when we started.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
#51: Where would I make the cuts? What wouldn’t I cut?! Everything but courts, police and defense.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
BTW, only those 3 are the proper role of government, in my view.
Also, I’d auction off large portions of government owned land to reduce or eliminate the debt.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Metro,
Go to Kevin’s link and see if that works. It’s pretty interesting.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
MWS,
I didn’t mean I’d cut 80-100 billion of spending per year; I meant I’d cut the deficit 80-100 billion a year during low growth years. If you made emergency President right now, I’d probably shave off about 200 billion with “crisis capital” and then try to shave off 80-100 billion per year while we’re still in low growth. I don’t think it’s either feasible or wise to consistently cut the deficit by greater amounts when we have 0 or near 0 growth. But, once we get back on track, growth-wise, I imagine an inflation – 2 to 3 percent spending increase rate would eliminate the deficit in 5 or so years. So 400 billion over the next 3 years, say, and and additional 1 trillion over the next 8. The key though is to get on the pathway to send a signal to the markets and curb likely inflation.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Matthew,
“The key though is to get on the pathway to send a signal to the markets and curb likely inflation.”
I think that’s critical. If the government doesn’t show some restraint and develop some kind of plan where we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, the bond vigilantes will revolt, and the whole thing could come tumbling down, where are choices are either monetizing the debt (through the hyper-inflation “tax”) or default (which probably would be the end of capitalism as we know it).
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Metro,
Also, it’s not a question of what you’d be willing to cut. You’re constantly berating so-cons as extremist; well it’s extremist to believe you live on some kind of fantasy island where you can just hack at budgets til your heart’s content. We simply CAN’T eliminate everything except courts, defense, and police. It won’t happen. Not in a million billion years. We also probably can’t cut more than 15% in anything even under crisis conditions. So then what? If you keep cutting taxes and political realities prevent heavy spending cuts, then you’ll have deficits out until the end of the universe…which will be a helluva lot sooner what with the US going insolvent and all.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“We simply CAN’T eliminate everything except courts, defense, and police.”
That would be the Taliban wing of the FiCons.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Exactly. The funny thing is, I DID cut from defense. There’s no way you can eliminate 1.4 trillion in spending, in the actual world, if you leave anything as untouchable; certainly not something that accounts for 1/5-1/6 of our budget. And certainly not if you plan to keep on cutting taxes into oblivion. Short term, even a more lengthy deficit reduction plan, without tax increases, requires you to get rid of all the sacred cows.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Metro,
Truly, you won’t get most voters to voluntarily accept major cuts in what government does until you make them pay for the government they have. If you really want to shrink government, stop letting Congress put it on the country’s credit card. It’s like everywhere else in life, people spend less when they are spending cash.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 pm
1. I don’t criticize SoCons for “extremism”; I criticize them for being wrong. I am an extremist. So were the American Revolutionaries.
2. Of course you can’t get to minarchism all at once. I’m a pragmatist when it comes to means. Let’s start chopping. But you have to sell it as a positive, like Reagan did: unleashing the spirit of freedom.
3. There is way too much government to cut for anyone to defend tax increases, which decrease growth.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:09 am
It’s a promise we can’t keep. Our entitlement programs are insolvent. But no one needs to cut anything. History is about to do that for us in form of a massive currency crisis. When the US$ becomes worthless it will not matter how much money we shower on our retirees. Nor will it matter to them.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:14 am
“It’s a promise we can’t keep. Our entitlement programs are insolvent. But no one needs to cut anything. History is about to do that for us in form of a massive currency crisis. When the US$ becomes worthless it will not matter how much money we shower on our retirees. Nor will it matter to them.” BINGO, let’s quit the FiLib non-sense and start cutting!
November 24th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Ah!!! I found what I was looking for. Somtimes it takes so much effort to find even tiny useful piece of information. http://bit.ly/2Lsw39
November 28th, 2009 at 9:26 am
The US doesn’t need the misguided budget priorities of Tim “bridge collapse” Pawlenty in the White House. Here in Minnesota, the Governor has cut public safety – bridge repair, deicing trucks, lifeguards and nutrition – while continuing his corporate welfare, like utility monopolies, windmills (that can’t produce reliable power) and corn ethanol subsidies. He has also done nothing to promote competition in health care. We need a President who cuts wasteful government programs by relying on free markets while preserving vital public services.