The Real Danger of Debt

The United States is deep in the red -- and doesn't have the political tools to get out.

BY RICHARD A. POSNER | FEBRUARY 16, 2010

In 2000, the United States had a balanced federal budget. Today, America has a deficit problem that threatens the country's future. It is compounded by former President George W. Bush's fiscal recklessness, the economic crisis that began with September 2008's financial collapse, President Barack Obama's spending ambitions, and the mysterious ability of the weakened Republican Party to create political deadlock in Congress.

Under Bush, spending was increased, taxes were cut, and the result was huge deficits financed by borrowing. Then came the "Great Recession," as it is being called (I call it a depression because of its probable long-term economic and political consequences). The public debt (the important component of the national debt -- the part that is more than an accounting entity -- that is really owed), which the Bush administration's deficits had caused to double, soared further. It soared because of falling tax revenues, rising unemployment benefits, and rising government expenditures to fight the depression (such as Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan). The public debt reached $7.5 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2009 (Sept. 30, 2009) and is expected to increase another $1.6 trillion this fiscal year and another $1.3 trillion next year. That means it may exceed $10 trillion by Sept. 30, 2011. Almost half the debt is owned by foreigners, and the interest payments to them are a drain on American wealth. Interest rates on the debt will rise as the world economy recovers, increasing competition for capital.

The United States has a deeply wounded economy. At this writing, transfer payments by the government to individuals and families (Social Security, unemployment benefits, tax credits, etc.) exceed the taxes being collected from the household sector. At the same time, private investment net of depreciation is negative. This means that private savings are being borrowed by the government, combined with the government's foreign borrowing, and then transferred to households to enable them to maintain their accustomed level of consumption. People are saving more, but government borrowing overwhelms their saving, with the result that aggregate saving -- public plus private -- is negative. So: negative savings, negative private investment, an incredible ratio of household debt to disposable income (1.25 to 1, though down from 1.39 to 1 in 2007), massive government borrowing to finance private consumption -- not a nice combination.

When the American economy does finally recover, tax revenues will rise, unemployment benefits will fall, and depression-fighting programs will end -- so annual deficits should decline. But realistically, this means only that the public debt will grow more slowly than it will be growing this year and next.

The international dimensions of public debt growing slowly or rapidly from a very high level deserve consideration. At some point, the value of the dollar relative to other currencies will fall; this effect will be accelerated if, as is not unlikely, the "easy money" policy of the Federal Reserve, instituted to fight the depression, results in significant inflation. A falling dollar may endanger the dollar's status as an international reserve currency. Foreign contracts are often denominated in dollars rather than in a local currency. If an oil producer in a Middle Eastern country sells oil to a refinery in a South American country, neither party may be happy to have payment made in the currency of the other party's country because by the time payment is due, the value of the currency may have changed to the advantage of the other party. By providing that payment will be made in U.S. dollars, the parties can hedge against changes in the value of the local currencies. For such hedging to be effective, however, the value of the dollar has to be stable. If it becomes unstable, the dollar may cease to be the principal international reserve currency, accounting at present for almost two-thirds of international currency reserves -- a status that allows the United States to run a trade deficit (up to a point) costlessly because foreign countries need to hold U.S. dollar reserves to supply dollars in exchange for local currencies to businesses that have dollar-denominated contracts.

It is true that as growing deficits reduce the value of the dollar relative to other currencies, while making imports more expensive, American exports will grow, implying a shift of workers and capital from services to manufacturing. But the shift, reversing a long-term decline in manufacturing relative to services, may be a painful and protracted one, just as China's transition from an export-led manufacturing economy to a domestic consumer economy is likely to be painful and protracted. Any major restructuring of a country's economy will produce heavy unemployment as a byproduct until the restructuring is complete.

The adjustments that will be needed -- if the economy does not outgrow an increasing burden of debt -- to maintain the U.S. economic position in the world may be especially painful and difficult because of features of the American political scene that suggest that the country might be becoming in important respects ungovernable. The perfection of interest-group politics has brought about a situation in which, to exaggerate just a bit, taxes can't be increased, spending programs can't be cut, and new spending is irresistible. If one may judge by the Bush administration's fiscal improvidence, these tendencies are bipartisan.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: ECONOMICS
 

Richard A. Posner is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago, senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, and author of A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent into Depression, from which this article is adapted.

RHD

8:32 PM ET

February 16, 2010

V.A.T.

What about a value added tax as the solution? You briefly mentioned a VAT in one of your Atlantic blog posts. Perhaps you and Becker should duke it over weather that's a good idea or not. There seems to be a consensus that a VAT tax is the best way to structure our tax system. The only argument that I've heard against it is that it'll be so efficient that Democrats will want to keep it high to pay for more and more government. However that seems like a better reason to fight more government rather than an more efficient tax, especially if that tax can move us toward less debt and higher savings(assuming that the current income taxes are reduced as the VAT is raised).

 

MATTHEW JONES

7:28 PM ET

February 17, 2010

VAT is very helpful to boost

VAT is very helpful to boost our economy. No doubt about it. But, how could you imposed another tax to a person who don't even earn a penny in order to live? They don't have job, they don't have shelter, then even food? I doubt, this could be the best solution as of this moment.Matthew Jones

 

KNJINCVC

12:46 PM ET

February 18, 2010

Transaction tax

I would like to see more discussion about a transaction tax such as “The Automated Payment Transaction (APT) tax”
http://www.apttax.com/

The system, developed by University of Wisconsin Professor of Economics Edgar L. Feige, is known as the APT or Automated Payments/Transaction Tax.

Professor Feige details how the replacement of our current tax system with an (0.3%) APT tax could save the government and its citizens as much as $500 billion annually by eliminating the compliance, collection, enforcement and inefficiency costs of our current tax system. Yes, eliminate 95% of the IRS!!

A transaction would tax speculative stock transaction which a fair tax, flat tax or national sales tax would not do. The APT would eliminate state sales and income taxes.

The APT would tax cash transfers by illegal aliens to their dependents in foreign countries.

 

LARS BAGMAN

10:59 AM ET

February 17, 2010

Myth of the Balanced Budget in 2000

Though often written about, there was no balanced budget in 2000. There was a "projected" surplus but as we have seen recently projections often differ from what actually occurs.

However, we can claim we came closer to a balanced budget in 2000 (only $18 billion deficit) than we have seen since 1970. But somehow coming close doesn't sound a laudable as actually achieving it.

The last time the US had a balanced budget was 1957 when Eisenhower was president.

If you want access to the raw data for your own calculations (avoiding the Climategate style manipulations), please go to:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

The first page shows the debt history for the last 10 fiscal years, back to 9/30/2000. To get earlier data you can access the history archives hot link just above the table, where data all the way back to 1791 is listed, just remember the fed fiscal year ended on 9/30 since 1977.

A balanced budget would imply zero change from one year to the next and that is statistically speaking nearly impossible. But a useful term is surplus, defined as any time the debt decreases from one year to the next.

One can simply subtract a previous year's debt from the following year's debt such as the FY1999 debt of $5,656 billion from the FY2000 debt of $5,674 billion and calculate a deficit of $17.9 billion. No surplus.

If we want a surplus to report, we can define a different type of surplus* such as one leaving out interest expense. If we leave out the $362 billion of interest expense on the national debt in FY2000, wala we have a surplus* of $344 billion.

Using this same logic (or would it be illogic?) we could report surpluses from 1994 through 2001. But for me this is like ignoring interest on a home mortgage when doing a personal budget and then using that "surplus" to go on a spending spree, a recipe for trouble.

 

FREETRADER

11:21 PM ET

February 17, 2010

Excellent Point

You nicely highlight the distinction between an 'operating surplus' which ignores interest on existing debt and an actual surplus. While I am no fan of the bankers helped get the world into the financial mess it is currently in, public governments constantly engage in this type of fraudulent bookkeeping that, if engaged in by any of the bankers who are so frequently lambasted by the very same government, would result in long jail sentences.

I once lived in San Diego, which then billed itself as "The Finest City in the World" -- then in 2005, during the middle of the boom period, the City fathers realized that the City was bankrupt. Mainstream fire department employees were retiring after 20 years of service (at, say, 45 years of age) and were given six figure pensions and medical benefits for life. Nobody on the city board thought it was necessary to figure out what that would mean for the city's finances until a newspaper started asking some tough questions. "Hey, we had a budget surplus last year! We're fine." I'm no believer is laissez-faire economics but this points of the fundamental problem of government -- when you are given someone else's money to satisfy a powerful, entrenched interest group (e.g., public employee unions) it is human nature to do whatever is necessary to keep the entrenched interest group fairly happy, and then turn around and lie to the people who will pay for it about what it is will cost. In the real world, that is termed 'accounting fraud'; in government, it is business as usual.

The problem we all face is the entrenched entitlement programs, especially medicare, which can't possibly be paid for.

 

JJ

7:32 AM ET

February 19, 2010

Confused by Insane Accounting

Lars, the federal government did run a surplus in 98, 99, and 2000. The accounting they use however, is truly insane. I would not have understood it myself if I didn't write a paper in 1999 and have a person from the CBO explain it to me (several times at that before I understood it, and even now I'm still not sure).
The accounting was changed in 1986 as part of Social Security reform. It was decided that the surplus from social security taxes would be used to offset the budget deficit from the general budget. So for 20 years, the general budget was borrowing money from the social security budget.
Now (and this is the part I still have trouble understanding or explaining) this is not a two way street. So when the general budget started running a surplus, we did sent the money back to social security. But it was accounted for as an expense (I think it shows up in the budget as Social Security Debt or something like that). So that gets us to $0.
But it gets crazier, now social security is running a surplus and it should be accruing interest. That interest actually comes out of the general budget as an additional expense. (The interest on our general debt is much greater that $18 billion). That's why we continued to run a deficit on paper even though we were running a surplus.
Your conclusion that we can't ignore the cost of servicing our debt is still a valid point. We have a culture of debt that is eating away at us. The fact that our federal government can't even account for a surplus clearly supports that point even more.

 

FSILBER

7:40 AM ET

February 18, 2010

Blame F.D.R.

Well over two hundred years ago the Founders studied attempts at democracy and self-government throughout history and concluded that it can only last until voters realize they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. Economic collapse results, followed by rule by takeover by a dictator who can make the hard economic decisions without the need for public approval.

This is why they created a Constitution that limited the Federal government to a small set of enumerated powers. This is why conservatives condemned F.D.R. for his expansion of the government beyond those powers (and not, as is often reported, for his being "a traitor to his economic/social class").

Oh, and Clinton balanced the budget only by gutting the military (the military being one of the few legitimate powers assigned to the federal government by the Constitution). Except for welfare reform (which his fellow Democrats opposed), he did not cut any of the traditionally-unconstitutional domestic spending.

 

JJ

8:23 AM ET

February 18, 2010

Different Histories

I'm always stunned at how people can spin world events into their own narrative that puts the blame for all the worlds problems on whomever they dislike most.

The Peace Dividend that Clinton took advantage of started in 1992. The majority of the base closings and "Gutting" of the military was planned before he took office. Most of it was geared around standing-down from the Cold War after the Soviet Union Collapsed.

Economists don't agree on the benefit of welfare reform. Basically, everyone has been proven wrong. Liberals have been proven wrong that it would increase poverty, and conservatives have been proven wrong that it would reduce costs. The basic assumption that people like being on welfare has proven to be wrong, so every prediction based on that assumption has proven to be wrong too.

I love the narrative that when FDR expanded spending before WWII it was unconstitutional and ineffective. But when he expanded spending even more during WWII it was what brought us out of the Great Depression.

Oh, and while were at it. PanAm flight 103 was bombed after Reagan bombed Tripoli, not the other way around. It's common for people with your world view to say that Reagan bombed Tripoli in retaliation for PanAm 103. This doesn't have anything to do with the discussion about our nations debt, but it more clearly shows why your world view is simply wrong.

 

DHPELEGRO

10:04 AM ET

February 18, 2010

Agree with JJ

I won't repeat JJ's points save expanding on the whole "gutting the military" thing and adding a point of my own.

The cut in military spending was both sensible and necessary (regardless of who started it) at the end of the cold war. It never ceases to amaze me how people can complain about reckless government spending and yet the same people doggedly support the incredible amount of money spent on defence, much of which is as wasteful as spending gets (take the F22 and the Osprey as only the most prominant examples that come to mind - and no it is not a problem confined to the US, though it is probably the worst offender). People so set on high defence spending often in other things - such as the budget or social security - hark back to the days before Wilson or FDR or even the founding fathers, yet fail to recall that during these periods generally spending, and the size of standing forces, was vastly smaller. Where is the Republican party of Eisenhower who made a point of keeping defence spending in check with what the US needed AND could afford? The issue is now so intrenched that Obama feels he can't possibly cut defence spending now or in the future, thus ringfencing one area of spending in which one can probably easily find the most collosal waste (though I accept that Gates has done a lot in this direction).

And one point I would make on FSILBER's post. Stop harking back to the founding fathers, they cannot help you now. In no other developed country do I see this dogged determination to take the words and political system of people who lived 200 years ago as gospel as to how to run the country. That is without mentioning that the Founding Fathers disagreed on many of these issues anyway. Much of the inability of US politics to properly engage with the budget issue, and begin to solve the mounting list of major reforms that have been put off for decades, in my opinion is structural. In another country reforms would be passed to fix these issues, in the US it is assumed that since the founding fathers set it up, the system must be fine and there is no need to fix it.

 

MASINI

11:00 PM ET

February 18, 2010

huge danger

That became the boo boo. Yes, it is a huge danger that, but we must assume. That is life. Often have the added risk if you want to win. I do not think someone who is not afraid of it but we must have confidence. And the best specialists that does not fool us.dezmembrari auto piese auto

 

ELI

4:50 PM ET

February 23, 2010

Real Danger of Debt

VAT is useful tool to boost our economy. No question about it. As one said how could you imposed another tax to a person who don't even earn a penny in order to live? They don't have job. Good question to be asked. Find more
articles
.