Caliine Baum: Deficit only looks good because it was so bad
08/09/2013 12:00 AM
08/08/2013 5:35 PM
The U.S. budget deficit is plummeting. The Treasury plans to start cutting back on its debt issuance. The deficit scolds have gone underground. Austerity is yesterday’s obsession. The president is exploiting the improved fiscal outlook to push for new spending.
All those statements are true. However, the recent improvement in the debt and deficit as a share of the economy does nothing to alleviate the nation’s long-term structural challenges. The “what, me worry?” crowd needs to listen up.
First, some facts and forecasts: The federal government ran a deficit of $512 billion in the first three quarters of fiscal 2013, almost $400 billion less than the year-earlier period, the Congressional Budget Office reported in its monthly budget review for June 2013.
In May, the CBO projected the fiscal 2013 deficit at $642 billion, or 4 percent of gross domestic product, compared with the prior year’s $1.1 trillion, or 7 percent of GDP. In 2009, the budget gap was 10.1 percent of GDP.
If all goes according to plan – which it rarely does – the debt and deficit ratios will be manageable over the next decade. Under current law, the deficit will shrink to 2.1 percent of GDP by 2015, according to the CBO; the last time the ratio was that low was 2007.
Federal debt – all those trillion-dollar annual deficits combined – will fall to 71 percent in 2018, from 76 percent of GDP next year, before starting to rise. And rise. And rise some more. By 2023, the government’s net interest expense will more than double as a percent of GDP to 3.2 percent, a share exceeded only once in the past 50 years.
And that’s just one of the “serious negative consequences” of “such high and rising debt,” according to the CBO, which is neither an advocacy group nor an assortment of political appointees. In addition to interest expense, a high debt burden reduces national savings, increases the risk of a fiscal crisis and gives Congress less flexibility to respond to “unexpected challenges.”
So why are some economists and politicians so blase about mounting federal debt? Charles Blahous, a public trustee for the Social Security and Medicare programs, attributes it to the cognitive bias that behavioral economists call anchoring, which describes our tendency to rely on an initial reference point, or price, in our decision making. For example, a $50 bottle of wine on a restaurant menu appears reasonable compared with a $100 bottle, even if one’s intention was to spend $25. Fifty becomes the new reference point.
So it is that “massive deficit spending” over the past few years has made the current fiscal position appear almost normal, Blahous said.
I asked him if the recent slowdown in health care spending could augur a better long-term budget outlook. He said the projections of the Medicare and Social Security trustees already assume a deceleration in health care spending and “substantial cost containment” from the Affordable Care Act.
Still, “more legislation is needed to sustain Medicare finances,” Blahous said. The outlook “will get a little worse, or a lot worse, but no one should say it will get substantially better.”
The president and Congress (current or future) must do something soon to change the trajectory of mandatory spending, or there will be dramatic cuts ahead.
And we’re talking real cuts, not the phantom kind – cuts in the growth rate of spending – defined by the government.
Editor's Choice Videos
Join the Discussion
The Wichita Eagle is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.