Blink! U.S. Debt Just Grew by $11 Trillion
By
Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns
Aug 9, 2012 12:30 AM GMT+0200
Republicans and Democrats spent last
summer battling how best to save $2.1 trillion over the next
decade. They are spending this summer battling how best to not
save $2.1 trillion over the next decade.
In the course of that year, the U.S. government’s fiscal
gap -- the true measure of the nation’s indebtedness -- rose by
$11 trillion.
The fiscal gap is the present value difference between
projected future spending and revenue. It captures all
government liabilities, whether they are official obligations to
service Treasury bonds or unofficial commitments, such as paying
for food stamps or buying drones.
Some question whether “official” and “unofficial” spending
commitments can be added together. But calling particular
obligations “official” doesn’t make them economically more
important. Indeed, the government would sooner renege on Chinese
holding U.S. Treasuries than on Americans collecting Social
Security, especially because the U.S. can print money and
service its bonds with watered-down dollars.
For its part, economic theory sees through labels and views
a country’s official debt for what it is -- a linguistic
construct devoid of real economic content. In contrast, the
fiscal gap is theoretically well-defined and invariant to the
choice of labels. Each labeling choice changes the mix of
obligations between official and unofficial, but leaves the
total unchanged.
Dangerous Growth
The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using the
Congressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget
forecast -- the Alternative Fiscal Scenario -- is now $222
trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion
difference -- this year’s true federal deficit -- is 10 times
larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the
entire stock of official debt in public hands.
This fantastic and dangerous growth in the fiscal gap is
not new. In 2003 and 2004, the economists Alan Auerbach and
William Gale extended the CBO’s short-term forecast and measured
fiscal gaps of $60 trillion and $86 trillion, respectively. In
2007, the first year the CBO produced the Alternative Fiscal
Scenario, the gap, by our reckoning, stood at $175 trillion. By
2009, when the CBO began reporting the AFS annually, the gap was
$184 trillion. In 2010, it was $202 trillion, followed by $211
trillion in 2011 and $222 trillion in 2012.
Part of the fiscal gap’s growth reflects changes in policy,
such as the Bush and Obama tax cuts, the introduction of
Medicare Part D, and the expansion of defense spending. Part
reflects “natural” growth of existing programs, including growth
in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. And part reflects
the demographic time bomb U.S. politicians are blithely
ignoring.
When fully retired, 78 million baby boomers will collect,
on average, more than 85 percent of per-capita gross domestic
product ($40,000 in today’s dollars) in Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Each passing year brings these
outlays one year closer, which raises their present value.
Governments, like households, can’t indefinitely spend
beyond their means. They have to satisfy what economists call
their “intertemporal budget constraint.” The fiscal gap simply
measures the extent to which this constraint is violated and
tells us what is needed to balance the government’s
intertemporal budget.
The answer for the U.S. isn’t pretty. Closing the gap
using taxes requires an immediate and permanent 64 percent
increase in all federal taxes. Alternatively, the U.S. needs to
cut, immediately and permanently, all federal purchases and
transfer payments, including Social Security and Medicare
benefits, by 40 percent. Or it can mix these terrible fiscal
medicines with honey, namely radical fiscal reforms that make
the economy much fairer and far stronger. What the government
can’t do is pay its bills by spending more and taxing less.
America’s children, whose futures are being rapidly destroyed,
are smart enough to tell us this.
(Laurence Kotlikoff, an economist at Boston University, and
Scott Burns, a syndicated columnist, are co-authors of “The
Clash of Generations.” The opinions expressed are their own.)
To contact the writers of this article:
Laurence Kotlikoff at kotlikoff@gmail.com.
To contact the editor responsible for this article:
Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-08/blink-u-s-debt-just-grew-by-11-trillion.html
By: ElegantDecline
In: World News, Politics
Tags: US, Debt, Ticking, Time, Bomb
Location: Washington, District of Columbia, United States (load item map)
Marked as: approved
Views: 1547 | Comments: 29 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
Advertisement below
|
|
| Liveleak on Facebook | |
|
LIKE Liveleak.com |
-
U.S. Deficit Is A Ticking Time Bomb
-
ObamaNomics: US Debt Could Hit $20 Trillion in 10 Years…
-
Chinese govt. threatens US with financial atomic bomb
-
The Gaza Time-Bomb
-
A Ticking Time Bomb, Kirkuk
-
US debt crisis: Senate Democrats block Republican cuts bill
-
US Marines first time wuth a 9mm at the range in Camp Fallujah
-
Yemen: Ticking Time-Bomb in the War on Terror
-
The US national Debt a Ticking time bomb ..
-
Behold: US Debt
-
Time Bomb
-
DHS Report: Number of Islamic Terror Attacks Against US at All-Time High…




MAN! Does world domination cost a lot!
Posted Aug-9-2012 Bycdnbud (153.30) cdnbud View Channel Send Message
(4)
@cdnbud
And the sad part for the u.s. is that they haven't dominated shit since about 1955.
Posted Aug-9-2012 ByCatJuggler (392.20) 
CatJuggler View Channel Send Message
(-1)
I dont understand why they say $2 billion or however many "OVER THE NEXT DECADE".
Is that just to make the number look significant? Why don't they say $2 TRILLION over the next thousand years? That would sound a lot more impressive to the average mathematically illiterate American.
Posted Aug-9-2012 BySaros (859.10) 
Saros View Channel Send Message
(3)
Spending is out of control. If the Gov't wasn't trying to steal our money and control our lives, there would be no debt problem, no debasing the currency, no economic cycle of boom & recession, no fleeing companies and individuals to other countries.
Posted Aug-9-2012 ByYukon6400 (1012.12) Yukon6400 View Channel Send Message
(1)
good article.
the graph looks like it actually stops at 2008 data, so theres a few more years to add to be current. ouch.
also, what's that odd plateau from 1997ish that ends in 2000?
Posted Aug-9-2012 Bylandsolo (387.60) 
landsolo View Channel Send Message
(1)
@landsolo That was Clinton's work.
He reversed the federal deficits of 1998 to 2001, even created a surplus. It did not effect federal debt much though. For those who want to trip over this comment, I will clarify. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the More..
Posted Aug-9-2012 Bynewton (262.30) 
newton View Channel Send Message
(1)
@newton you are correct young grasshopper.
now snatch pebble from my hand.
Posted Aug-9-2012 Bylandsolo (387.60) 
landsolo View Channel Send Message
(0)
@Lone_Wolf
different strokes for different folks. wasn't hurting anyone else, so i could care less.
plus you would do well to recognize that this is Master Po!
Posted Aug-9-2012 Bylandsolo (387.60) 
landsolo View Channel Send Message
(0)
Time to stop paying taxes until the gobermint can sort their shit out.
Don't like your employee, fire em or stop paying em till they fuck off.
Btw the government is suppose to be your employee, just thought you should be reminded of this.
Posted Aug-9-2012 Bysungam (1412.08) 
sungam View Channel Send Message
(1)
Profile of the Debt Trail up Mount Obama.
Posted Aug-9-2012 Bygovett (1012.40) govett View Channel Send Message
(1)
We will go the way of Greece, if folks don't learn to be responsible for themselves.
Not sure where the mentality justifying "Free Stuff from the government" came from.
Posted Aug-9-2012 Bywharris (2348.42) 
wharris View Channel Send Message
(0)
@wharris at this point the dependent parasites outnumber the workers...going to have to burn it all down and start over.
Posted Aug-9-2012 ByVikingRapeSquad (1349.70)

VikingRapeSquad View Channel Send Message
(0)
@wharris Yes the US needs real men not chicken hawks who joke about rape but have so wee little balls they block comments isn't that right Mr Want2 be Viking Man Group Rape Fantasy Squad.
Posted Aug-9-2012 Byrozza2012 (403.28) 
rozza2012 View Channel Send Message
(1)
tic toc
Posted Aug-9-2012 Byyaleoo (763.78) 
yaleoo View Channel Send Message
(0)
I like how the short-sighted blame Obama. We knew before the 2008 elections that WHOMEVER came into office was going to have to spend out the ass to attempt to repair what Bush created by laxing the laws on WallStreet which enabled them to commit frauds that have led to worldwide economic collapse.
Stop looking at "what team you think you are on" and look at the Big Picture. The Big Picture is Factual, Blaming whomever is in office now is Lunacy. It's a FACT. Ignorance is not having More..
Posted Aug-9-2012 Bynewton (262.30) 
newton View Channel Send Message
(0)
@newton
Sure, people expected deficit spending, but Obama's spending has been ineffective. FDR showed that spending to get out of a recession works, but that's just the thing: his spending WORKED. Obama's spending has been fruitless. He's a Wall Street shill like anyone else.
And for the record, Clinton deregulated to an extent far beyond what Bush ever did. He repealed Glass-Steagall which, arguably led to the housing market collapse. The repeal of which, by the way, Obama's administrat More..
Posted Aug-9-2012 Byjum_runky (1630.04) 
jum_runky View Channel Send Message
(0)
@jum_runky I agree he is a shill and that Glass-Steagall repeal defiantly played a huge role. Bush's actions defiantly played a huge role as well. Fact of the matter is, "they" are indeed crashing everything on purpose, and they run both teams.
Posted Aug-9-2012 Bynewton (262.30) 
newton View Channel Send Message
(0)
@newton
I agree with you about one group running the show. Elections are just to give the illusion of choice.
Posted Aug-9-2012 Byjum_runky (1630.04) 
jum_runky View Channel Send Message
(0)
The graph runs up to 2007. You can clearly tell when George W Bush took over. Clinton had the whole thing pretty much stabilized.
Owwyeah, it _sure_ was about time to put some decency back into the White House. 'nuff said.
Posted Aug-9-2012 ByATministraitor (95.00) 
ATministraitor View Channel Send Message
(0)
@ATministraitor
Agreed on Clinton. He was a good Pres who did good things for the u.s.
And then there is Bush..
He and his puppet masters have killed the united states.
Posted Aug-9-2012 ByCatJuggler (392.20) 
CatJuggler View Channel Send Message
(-1)
Notice the correlation between the closing of the gold window & the launch of indebtedness.
Posted Aug-9-2012 Byrozza2012 (403.28) 
rozza2012 View Channel Send Message
(0)
vote: ROBNEY 2012
Posted Aug-10-2012 ByJust Wondering (-0.70) 
Just Wondering View Channel Send Message
(0)
Ouch!!
The u.s. is a perfect experiment in what not to do as a country...
Posted Aug-9-2012 ByCatJuggler (392.20) 
CatJuggler View Channel Send Message
(-1)
The u.s. is a "warring" nation.... Korea, Nam, Iraq, Afgh, ect....
They have gone to war over the most foolish of "reasons"...
Well, its now payback time. They have tried to destroy nations and foreign governments and now that is catching up with them.
And Payback is a real Bitch sometimes.
The american people will be paying for this "warring" attitude for the next 1000 years.
Posted Aug-9-2012 ByCatJuggler (392.20) 
CatJuggler View Channel Send Message
(-1)