US debt and deficit - graph of the week

From the latest US budget proposal, I found an interesting graph that was given attention to in Congress.

Source: US President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013. Analytical Perspectives, pp. 58 

It describes a long term fiscal challenge facing America, where the current administration (led by the Treasury secretary Mr Geithner) stresses the importance on short-term deficit control and debt reduction, something vehemently opposed by Paul Krugman. 

The idea is to decrease the short term deficit and decrease the growth rate of the public debt by the end of the decade. The deficit is projected to be around 2.8% of the GDP by 2019, which is a goal within reach.
"Beyond 2022, however, the fiscal position gradually deteriorates mainly because of the aging of the population and the high continuing cost of the Government’s health programs." Analytical Perspectives, US Budget (February 2012), pp.58
These expected costs will drive up the deficit and cause a huge increase of the public debt in the next 50 years. Mr Geithner stresses out how this graph describes the two-way approach of the administration; one to take care of the short-term deficit, and the other where they apparently don't care on the long-term sustainability of their solution, rejecting other views cause they "don't like it". 

Now, even though the projections can be biased and shouldn't be completely trusted (as it's unlikely that the debt could grow so big in the course of the next 50 years - there is always an upward bias in forecasting models) it does show a unfavourable trend for the US public finances. 

Even more surprising is the reason why the current administration decided to reject the proposals made by their own non-partisan fiscal commission. In fact, here is how the Bowles-Simpson report projected the movement of the US debt under three scenarios:

Source: "The Moment of Truth" National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility
and Reform. December 2010, pp. 10.
Pay attention to the blue line denoting the Commission proposal's debt levels for the next 30 years. From comparing the two graphs it seems that the current budget proposal chose the current policy scenario (green line in the second graph), only smoothing it a bit until 2020, and then letting it rise unsustainably. 

Furthermore, where the current budget proposal finds no way of eliminating the deficit (the aforementioned 2.8% is the lowest it can go), the Bowles-Simpson report actually does manage to get the deficit under control and seriously decrease the public debt. 

Source: "The Moment of Truth" National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility
and Reform. December 2010, pp. 16.
Perhaps the current administration is worried about the upcoming elections later this year and doesn't want to engage into necessary entitlement cuts and the welfare state reform, which is a sad motive to be guided by, at least for the economy. 

Comments

  1. kyle821 February 2012 at 12:53

    I really really hate this, but there is only going to be one answer (well several answers)to our future problem. Curtailing the growth of the entitlements is important.

    But the big solution I see is going to be sales or VAT taxes. I hate the prospect. But it is the only way I see to allow the government to reclaim some of the income of all the many millions of retired people.

    Most people when they retire end up paying little or no income taxes. That, combined with the cost of their medical care and pensions will ruin the country unless we can get some of that money back.

    Even if government becomes a whole lot more sane and begins to radically cut spending, it won't be enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vuk Vukovic21 February 2012 at 17:24

      I see your point - choose the lesser of two evils :)

      The expected rise of entitlements really makes you wonder how will all this be financed. And in that sense I agree, the best way to fund a welfare state is a VAT or a sales tax.

      However, let me just draw your attention to a good article in the WSJ by Dan Mitchell - he opposes the VAT strongly. His argument is essentially that the VAT is a road to bigger government and a welfare state Europe.

      So my response would be not to think how we can finance the welfare state, but to put a stop to it until it's not too late. Unless it really is too late.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous19 July 2013 at 14:43

      Spoken like a true COMMUNIST.Those retired people EARNED their pensions, retirement plans, and SS. You wouldn't possibly consider elimination of foreign aid, or at least drastic reduction would you? How about doing away with OBAMA PHONES? How about elimination of DISABILITY FROM SS? It was not intended for 40% of the population to be on it. How about EVERY ONE PAYS 10% INCOME TAX? HOW ABOUT DRUG TESTING FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR WELFARE? HOW ABOUT ELIMINATING FOOD STAMPS? HOW ABOUT ELIMINATING SCHOOL LUNCH/BREAKFAST PROGRAMS? THATS WHAT PARENTS ARE FOR!! HOW ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING OFF THEIR ASSES AND GOING TO WORK?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Short-selling explained (case study: movie "Trading Places")

Image
After seeing the movie "Trading Places" (1983), starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, for the thousandth time during the holiday season, I decided to write a quick post explaining what happened at the end of this movie that gets so many people puzzled (including me for the first couple of times I've seen it). This entertaining 80s comedy can actually teach you more about finance and trading than any other Hollywood movie (not counting documentaries), including the infamous "Wall Street" (1987), starring Michael Douglas as the ruthless Gordon Gecko, and especially the latest Scorsese film "The Wolf of Wall Street" (2013). Anyway, we all know the story from Trading Places. Dan Aykroyd plays a snobbish investor Louis Winthorpe ("the Third"), while Eddie Murphy plays a street con artist Billy Ray Valentine whose lives get reversed as a result of a bet between two cruel millionaires, the Duke brothers. The Dukes own a commodities bro
Read more

Economic history: mercantilism and international trade

Image
All too often during poor economic times many debunked economic fallacies of the past get reinvented. The reason is simple: a search for ideas and solutions alternative to the "mainstream" (however we define it) allows those who succumb to these fallacies to repeat the ancient errors classical economics was hoping to get rid of. The short-termism of politics plays a crucial role in the process of persistent perpetuation of such fallacies. This is why in times like these it is essential to go back in economic history and debunk some of the ideas that tend to surface repeatedly. In the following couple of posts, I attempt to do just that.  Misunderstanding trade  One of the most misunderstood areas of economics is international trade. More precisely, the idea that if we were to boost net exports - by subsidizing exports and constraining imports - we can achieve higher GDP growth. If one looks at the simple arithmetic of a standard Keynesian macro model: Y=C+I+G+NX, the
Read more

Rent-seeking explained: Removing barriers to entry in the taxi market

Image
The taxi market is undoubtedly one of the best examples of something economists like to call rent-seeking . What does this phenomenon stand for and why do economists (particularly political economists) devote a lot of attention to it?  The classical definition was given by Gordon Tullock back in his  1967  seminal paper "The welfare cost of tariffs, monopolies and theft" , even though the phrase itself was coined by Anne Krueger in 1974 .  Rent-seeking is a process of gaining private benefits through the political process (by lobbying or logrolling for example). It implies gaining protection for a certain privileged group, which in return promises political support, large campaign contributions, or even bribes. This protection varies from giving a monopoly status to a certain company, regulating market entry than hampers competition (such as introducing licences to specific occupations), imposing tariffs to import goods to protect the domestic industry, handing out su
Read more

Graphs (images) of the week: Separated by a border

Image
Usually comparing countries or regions requires looking at GDP growth data, GDP per capita, living standards, relative income or even the happiness index. But even a simple areal glimpse at the borders separating two systems can be more than enough to conclude which country is richer, healthier, more educated and on average more prosperous. It tells us that the causes of between-country differences have to be more than just climate, geography, culture or mentality. Particularly when the same nation is separated by nothing more than a border depicting the striking differences in political systems of the two countries (a classical example here are East and West Germany, but an equally good example can be North or South Korea).  As a result I found that the following set of images paint a better  picture  on between-country differences   than any existing data on global inequality.  The first one is from a  blog post I encountered on the Why Nations Fail blog, comparing the citi
Read more