Could the U.S. End Up Like Greece? II. How Long Will It Take?

Posted on July 2, 2015 by jackheidel

My last blog post, “Could the U.S. End Up Like Greece?” compares Greece’s present fiscal situation (public debt at 180% of GDP) with our own current fiscal situation (public debt at 74% of GDP and rising fast). The Congressional Budget Office predicts that, under current policy, the U.S. debt will not reach 180% until about 2055, forty years from now. One could (wrongly!) conclude from this that we are okay for the time being.
However, this is not true! The Peter G. Peterson Foundation has taken a closer look at the most recent CBO report. Under a less optimistic, but more realistic, Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the U.S. debt will reach 175% in 2040. The Alternative Fiscal Scenario assumes, for example, that:

About 50 expiring tax breaks will continue to be extended year by year, as they were in 2014 and have been repeatedly in the past. These “tax extenders” increase the deficit by over $40 billion per year.
Discretionary spending will soon rise back up to its historical share of GDP. In other words, the sequester, which is currently holding down the growth of discretionary spending, may be overridden or at least relaxed.

Greece, with its debt at 180% of GDP, is only being required by the European Central Bank to pay 1.7% interest on this debt indefinitely into the future. Thanks to the low interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve, 1.7% is also the current rate of interest being paid on the U.S. debt. But this historically low interest rate is unlikely to continue much longer without setting off a much higher rate of inflation.
In other words, we’ll likely be in the same situation as Greece is currently, in much less than 25 years. Furthermore, Germany and the other EU countries have been keeping Greece afloat for years and may continue to do so.
Who is going to bail us out when we get to where Greece is now? China? Unlikely. We’ll be on our own and it won’t be pretty!

Could the U.S. End Up Like Greece?

Posted on June 30, 2015 by jackheidel

The whole world is watching while Greece decides between two unpleasant alternatives. Will it further tighten its belt in order to stay in the Eurozone? Or will it default on its massive debt, reintroduce the drachma and go through a severe recession likely accompanied by hyperinflation? Greece has put itself into this precarious position by accumulating a debt of 180% of GDP. It’s current situation would be much worse if it were not getting by with the low interest rate of 1.7% from the European Central Bank.
Compare Greece (see chart above) with the U.S. debt situation. Our current public debt (on which we pay interest) is 74% of GDP. This is the highest it has been since the end of WWII. And, thanks to Federal Reserve policy, we are now paying an historically low interest rate of 1.7% on this debt.
The problem is that (under current policy) our debt will keep growing larger and larger until, by 2080, it would reach the enormous level of 270 % of GDP. Our very low interest rate level of 1.7% will almost surely rise in the near future to a more normal level of 5%. As interest rates do begin to rise, and long before the debt reaches 270%, interest payments on the debt will have increased to a much higher level, crowding out other spending.
Notice that, according to the above chart, our debt will reach the Greek level of 180% around the year 2055. But with higher interest rates, it would be exceedingly reckless to assume that we won’t arrive at Greece’s currently perilous state much sooner than that.
Understanding that we have a very serious long term debt problem, it is imperative to begin to address it now, because the longer we wait:

the older our population gets
the higher the debt will rise
the less time we’ll have to phase in changes
the slower our economy will grow, and
the fewer tools we will have to fix it

The answer to the question in the title is: Yes, we could easily end up like Greece if we are foolish enough to postpone action on our own debt problem for much longer.

The Fiscal Time Bomb Is Still Ticking!

Posted on June 18, 2015 by jackheidel

The Congressional Budget Office is by far the most objective source of detailed information about the federal budget, playing a valuable role in the super-charged political atmosphere of Washington D.C. It has just released a new annual report, “The 2015 Long-Term Budget Outlook,” projecting our fiscal health for the 25 year window, 2015-2040, based on current policy. It is a scary scenario indeed.
As shown in the above chart, our public debt (on which we pay interest) has increased from 38% of GDP at the beginning of the Great Recession in 2008 to 74% today. Although it will remain steady at this high level for about five years, it will then resume a steady increase, reaching a level of about 100% of GDP by 2040.
As many observers, including myself, have pointed out, when interest rates eventually return to their normal historical level of around 5%, interest payments on this huge, and rapidly increasing, debt will double or triple from their current low level, causing a very painful budget shortfall.
Simple prudence suggests that the only responsible course of action is to put our debt on a downward path, as a percentage of GDP, in order to minimize this looming problem to the greatest possible extent.
CBO gives some useful guidelines for what is required to do this:

Just to keep the debt at its current value of 74% of GDP by 2040 would require an annual 6% increase in revenue or a 5½% decrease in spending. This would amount, for example, to a $210 billion spending cut for 2016.
To reduce the debt to 38% of GDP by 2040, its average over the past 50 years, would require an annual 14% increase in revenues or a 13% decrease in spending. The spending cut for 2016 would be $480 billion.

These examples show the enormity of the fiscal mess we have gotten ourselves into. Under current policy it will require a big effort just to stay even with where we are right now, without showing any debt reduction over the next 25 years!
Our only hope is to change current policy. But how?

Fixing the Debt: Creating a Greater Sense of Urgency II. An Example

Posted on June 4, 2015 by jackheidel

My last post, ”Fixing the Debt: Creating a Greater Sense of Urgency,” expresses my dismay that our huge debt problem does not receive enough serious attention from the American people. Yes, most Americans deplore the national debt and the deficit spending that leads to it, but it only too seldom affects how they vote for candidates for federal office, thus giving a pass to the big spenders in Congress.
Capture Here is a good example of this refusal to take the debt seriously. The advocacy group FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) ridicules NPR for addressing this problem, “Look a Deficit: How NPR Distracts You From Issues That Will Actually Affect Your Life.” Here is what FAIR is saying:

Interest on the national debt is projected to be only 2% of GDP in 2016 and 3% of GDP in 2024, which is tiny. (But this is because the interest rate for the debt is now abnormally low, approximately 1.7%).

If the Fed keeps interest rates low, then interest on the debt will continue to stay low indefinitely and so the debt will continue to be a trivial problem. And the President appoints 7 of the 12 voting members of the Fed Open Market Committee which sets interest rates.

The reason the Fed raises interest rates is to slow the economy and keep people from getting jobs. (Actually the real reason is not to keep people from getting jobs but to keep inflation under control. Once inflation takes off, it is very difficult to bring it back down as we painfully discovered in the late 70s and early 80s).

Anyhow, if the Fed raises interest rates to keep the labor market from tightening, as it did in the late 1990s, this would effectively be depriving workers of the 1.0 – 1.5 percentage points in real wage growth they could expect if they were getting their share of productivity growth. (A rise in interest rates need not choke off economic growth which is primarily affected by supply and demand. Fiscal policy (tax rates and spending), established by Congress, has a far greater effect on the rate of economic growth than does monetary policy).

If our debt is not soon placed on a sustainable downward path, we will soon have another financial crisis, much worse than the Great Recession of 2008. This will affect everyone’s life in a substantial and very unpleasant way.

Fixing the Debt: Creating a Greater Sense of Urgency

Posted on June 2, 2015 by jackheidel

As I have mentioned before, I am a volunteer for the nonpartisan Washington D.C. think tank “Fix the Debt.” As such I give presentations to civic organizations in the Omaha area about our debt problem and what we can and should do about it. I have now given four such talks and have another one coming up next week.

What is most difficult for me is to try to convey a sense of urgency about addressing this problem. Most people deplore deficit spending in a general sense but not nearly enough people think that dealing with it should take priority over current presumably pressing spending needs such as, for example, depletion of the highway trust fund, expanding military spending, or improving early childhood education, just to be specific.
So here is how I am going to try to create a greater sense of urgency. Several months ago I had a post entitled, “The Slow Growth Fiscal Trap We’re Now In” in which I said (in brief summary) that our current economic condition of

slow growth means
low inflation which leads to
low interest rates which in turn leads to
massive debt which eventually leads to a new and much more severe
fiscal crisis.

This is the predicament we’re now in. Do we consciously maintain a slow growth economy, with all the unemployment pain and stagnant wages which this entails, or do we speed things up, enabling more people to go back to work, and also deal with the higher inflation and interest rates which this will entail?
Faster growth may well eventually come on its own anyway and then we’ll be forced to fix our fiscal problems at a time when they’ll be much worse than they are now.
Isn’t it clear that it is much better to act now in a responsible manner rather than to wait and have to react hurridly later on when the problem is much worse?

Are Economics and Social Progress Related to Each Other?

Posted on May 25, 2015 by jackheidel

“Your (last post) is one of the most active and positive that I have read of yours. You do put your time to where your values are. Those of us who see you as too economically focused and ourselves as more humanely concerned need to act as well. Thanks for your focus and attention.”
from a reader of my blog

I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. The primary reason I write this blog is because I am so concerned about the fiscal recklessness of our national leaders. Our national debt is much too large and still growing too fast. We need to either cut spending or raise taxes (or do both).
But I am also a social progressive. I voted in favor of Nebraska raising its minimum wage last fall. I support gay marriage as a civil right. I support having Nebraska expand Medicaid in order to cover more low-income people (where Medicaid needs to be fixed is at the federal level).
There is in fact a very close connection between having a sound economy and social progress. As the above chart shows, the U.S. ranks very high in both GDP per person and social progress. All of the countries which are most socially progressive also have sound economies. This is not a coincidence.
My last post talks about what society can do to help blacks improve their socio-economic status. This includes improving educational opportunity in the inner city. But improved educational opportunity needs to be closely directed toward improved economic opportunity. This means, for example, having good jobs available for new high school and community college graduates. But this, in turn, means having strong economic growth with intelligent tax and regulatory policies to encourage entrepreneurship and business expansion.
In short, a sound economy is essential for social progress.

My Moral, Social and Political Values

Posted on April 5, 2015 by jackheidel

About a month ago I wrote a post about a book by Dennis Prager, “Still the Best Hope: why the world needs American values to triumph.” According to Mr. Prager, there are three ideologies competing for the allegiance of humankind. They are: Islamism, Leftism and Americanism. He defines American values as 1) Liberty, 2) In God We Trust and 3) E Pluribus Unum, the three expressions which appear on all American coins. His trinity of ideologies and values helps me understand my own political framework.
I consider myself to be a cultural Christian meaning that I identify with Christian values such as practicing the Golden Rule and trying to be a Good Samaritan rather than believing in any particular theological doctrines.
My social values are based on my moral and religious values. Americans have the good fortune to live in a very prosperous country with much personal liberty. But along with our freedom and prosperity comes responsibility. First of all, we are responsible for our own behavior. If we make bad choices, we have to accept the consequences and try to learn from our mistakes. We have greatly benefitted from the hard work of our forebears. In return it is our responsibility to leave the world a better place than we found it.
Just as my social values are consistent with my moral values, so do my social values determine my political values. I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I consider it highly irresponsible for my generation to leave a huge, and growing, national debt for future generations. Either government should cut back on spending or it should raise taxes to pay for what it spends.
But I also consider it to be America’s responsibility, as well as in its own self-interest, to promote freedom and responsibility around the world. This is demanding, expensive and sometimes controversial but we need to be willing to do it. Likewise, we need to provide an adequate safety net for those among us who are truly unable to cope for themselves.
This is my first public attempt to describe the underlying values around which I organize and conduct my life. It’s a start but I’m pretty sure that I’ll be coming back to this theme again in the future!

The Republican Budgets Focus on Entitlement Savings

Posted on March 29, 2015 by jackheidel

Last week, both the House and the Senate passed ten year budget plans which would bring the federal budget into balance by 2025. I have devoted several recent blog posts to discussing these budget proposals and how they address our very serious debt and deficit problems.
There are several important points to make:

Under both of these Republican plans, overall spending will continue to increase by an average of 3.3% per year, from $3.8 trillion in 2016 to just over $5 trillion in 2015. The President’s budget would increase spending to $6.17 trillion by 2025 and would achieve no balance between spending and revenue.
Most of the savings in the Republican budgets, as indicated in the above chart, come from the mandatory (entitlement) programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare would be transformed into a subsidy program along the lines of the exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act. Medicaid would be turned into a block grant program administered by the states. Social Security would be studied by a bipartisan commission to recommend operating efficiencies.
Other social welfare programs would be affected to a much smaller extent. For example, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or Food Stamps, has seen a growth of recipients of 69% between 2008 and 2013 while the poverty rate increased by just 16.5% during the same period. The Republican budgets would block grant Food Stamps to the states in order to achieve operating efficiencies.
It is true that both the House and Senate budgets would increase military spending by about 10%. But so would the President’s budget and we live in a very dangerous world. Military defense is one of the most very basic functions of our federal government.

Our country is in dire fiscal condition with large annual deficits projected indefinitely into the future, contributing to an exploding national debt. It is heartening that our political system is responding to this threat to our future security and prosperity. Let’s hope that House and Senate majorities continue to keep a sharp focus on the urgent task of fiscal restraint.

An Open Letter to Representative Brad Ashford

Posted on March 26, 2015 by jackheidel

You’re off to a great start in Congress! You’ve clearly established that you’re independent minded and that you vote your conscience. I expected that you would act in this way and that is why I supported you during last year’s election campaign. We need more people like you in Congress.
As you perhaps know, I am a non-ideological fiscal conservative and social moderate. I am, like you, mainly interested in finding practical, workable solutions to difficult and complicated problems. But I do have one guiding principle to which I strongly adhere. I believe that, as a general rule, every level of government should refrain from spending more money than what it can pay for with tax revenue.
Unfortunately our federal government has gotten away from this principle in recent years. This is clearly demonstrated in the above chart which shows an already very large national debt getting much, much worse in the coming years.
There is a movement in the new 114^th Congress to address this perilous situation which we have gotten ourselves into. I am referring to the bills drafted by the Budget Committees of both the House of Representatives and the Senate which would produce balanced budgets over the ten year period, 2015 – 2025.
It was reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that the full House voted yesterday to approve the budget bill by a 228-199 margin but without any Democratic votes. This means that either you voted against the Budget Bill or you did not vote on it.
I don’t believe that any one vote is so important that it constitutes a decisive litmus test determining my support of a candidate in a future election. However, as I mentioned above, I feel very strongly that we must greatly shrink our very large budget deficits and that now, not later, is the time to get started on this urgent task.
I hope to be able to support your re-election campaign in 2016 and beyond. That is why I am writing to you at the present time.

How the Obama and Republican Budgets Compare

Posted on March 22, 2015 by jackheidel

The Budget Committees for both the House of Representatives and the Senate have now passed plans to achieve balanced budgets within a ten year period. My last two posts have discussed the compelling need to get deficit spending under control and an overall rationale for how to approach this difficult task. Today I will take a look at the major differences between the Obama budget and the House and Senate budgets. The two congressional budgets are quite similar and will surely be reconciled into a single budget.
Here are the major differences:

Revenue. The President wants to raise taxes by $3 trillion over 10 years to pay for more spending while the Republicans wants revenue-neutral tax reform in order to increase economic growth.

Spending. Under current policy the government will spend $48.6 trillion over the next ten years which represents a 5.1% annual rate of spending increase over the present. The President wants to spend an additional $1 trillion over this time period on new initiatives. The Republicans propose spending about $5.4 trillion less, or $43.2 trillion, which still works out to a 3.3% annual rate of increase over the present.

Deficits. Under current policy the deficit would start to increase, as a percentage of GDP, in 2018. The President proposes to stabilize the deficit at 2.5% of GDP. The Republicans would balance the budget within ten years by shrinking the deficit down to zero.

Public Debt. Under current policy the public debt (on which interest is paid) will increase to 79% of GDP by 2025. The President’s budget would stabilize the debt at the current level of 73% of GDP. The Republican’s balanced budget would shrink the debt to 57% of GDP by 2025.

There are stark differences between the President’s proposed budget and the Republican alternative. Which is the better route to progress and prosperity? Is it to raise taxes, increase government spending and only stabilize the debt or is it to streamline taxes, slow down the growth of spending and shrink the debt? This is a fundamental question of government policy which will not be quickly resolved. But at least the question is being raised in a dramatic way!

It Does Not Add Up

Jack Heidel's blog on fiscal responsibility

Category Archives: deficit