Do huge deficits matter? Does having an enormous national debt impact us? Will another large entitlement program change our defense spending? The latest estimate is now out from the CBO and the deficit number keeps getting bigger. President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday - and this does not take into account healthcare.
I know that we are told this recent healthcare bill will actually reduce the deficit over the next 20 years, but our current president is not the first to tell us this. In the 1930’s Franklin Roosevelt promised us that the new Social Security system would not be a problem and in the 60’s, Lyndon Johnson assured us that the financial impact of Medicare would be minimal.
The reality is these two social programs are bankrupt. The 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached nearly $107 trillion. That is approximately 7 times the size of the
This was also the first year that cash disbursements for Social Security actually exceeded cash receipts. Now that the intersection of those lines has crossed over, we will never look back. Now, does anyone actually believe that this new massive health care entitlement program will do anything but increase deficits? If the government was run like a business this unfunded liability would need to be recorded on the books. But it is actually off the balance sheet – much like Enron was (I think they went bankrupt).
Check out this graph. It shows that both programs now require about 14 percent of general income tax revenues. As baby boomers begin to retire, that number will soar.
This year it is estimated that the
1. It will weaken
2. It will strengthen
3. It will put long-term defense spending at risk.
4. It will undermine the power of the American system as a model for developing countries.
5. It will reduce the aura of power that has been a great asset for presidents for more than a century.
In considering the implications for defense, bear in mind that last year government spending in the 27 European nations hit 52% of GDP. However, most of these countries struggle to devote even 2% of GDP to defense, compared to more than 4% in the
A look at Europe’s defense spending gives us an insight to what could happen if the U.S. switches spending from defense to social welfare. Presently, America protects the “Free World” – what nation will step up to the plate to police the sea lanes, stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, combat terrorism, respond to genocide and other human rights violations? These are all duties currently being performed by the
We currently owe nearly $4 trillion to foreign investors like
Another area of concern is that we are currently in an interest rate environment where our costs of borrowed money, as a country, are at an all time low, but as interest rates rise in the coming years, a greater portion of our budget will need to go to pay interest payments on our rising debt. Added to the ever increasing entitlement spending, it is easy to see that military expenditures can only go in one direction – down.
If a simple accountant sitting in central
Scott, amen to that. No company, family, or organization can continually run in deficit spending mode. Sooner or later you have to pay the piper, or become insolvent. I know the US Government is somewhat different in that it can print money, but as we know that is a problem all unto itself; that leads to inflation, devalued currency, and decreased purchasing power. We have seen this devastation in the Latin American. They had to be bailed out by the World Bank and who is one of the largest funders of the World Bank? The US of A. So who is going to bail us out?
The problem is, we have congressman doing the spending, budgeting and taxing, yet they have no real fiscal accountability as do CEO's, family heads, or State Governors. They avoid their accountability at election by “bribing" the voters with entitlement spending. This in turn leads to more taxation, which leads to less disposable income, which leads to less consumer spending, which leads to fewer jobs, which leads to less savings, which leads to less capital investment. We can all see where this spiral is going. Why can't our political leaders see this? This is not just economics 101, it is common sense.
This is a very unhealthy environment. I hope that in the 2010 and 2012 elections that we send a real message to dems and repubs alike: we need and want fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Let’s sort out who really needs assistance and lend a hand up and not a hand out.
Do some people have more money than they need? Yes. Do some people have less money than they need? Yes. How do we fix that problem? Not by taking away from those that have, but by giving opportunities to those that have not. How, small business friendly environment that encourages job creation, medical benefits. Incentives for saving and investment. Support and encouragement for people to solve their own problems so government can get smaller, not larger. This is not about dems or repubs, this is not about rich and poor, this is about a basic philosophy of what the US was founded upon and stands for.
"Nuff Said"
Posted by: Tony Schiano | March 29, 2010 at 11:33 AM