• Subscribe to Crisis

  • Government Debt: Cure or Curse?

    by Alfred A. Lagan

    debt1

    The U.S. Treasury announced on its website that, at year end, the national debt topped $14 trillion for the first time. This was an increase from $13 trillion on June 1, 2010, and $12 trillion at year end 2009. When the recession officially began in December 2007, U.S. debt to Gross Domestic Product was about 40 percent, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. In December 2010, after a severe recession and decline of tax revenue, a massive fiscal stimulus package, and various other spending initiatives, debt to GDP is estimated at about 62 percent.

    Measuring a country’s debt differs from measuring its deficit spending. The deficit is the annual shortfall of revenues to spending, and is currently running at a rate of about 9 percent of GDP annually, or roughly $100 billion more per month than the government takes in. A country’s debt, of course, represents the cumulative effect of this deficit spending. At the current rate, and assuming nothing is done to control expenditures or increase revenues, government debt is expected to be about 87 percent of GDP by 2020. If state and local government debt is included, the rate would easily exceed 100 percent of GDP. Municipal debt has also exploded in recent years, as many states tried to cover their revenue shortfalls by tapping the debt market.

    In theory, a country’s spending is a manifestation of its goals and priorities, both short and long term. Incurring debt for such activities as meeting foreign aggression and national defense, infrastructure building, helping to recover from recession, and protecting the helpless from dire poverty has been accepted and considered beneficial for the common good. The judicious use of private debt has also been a significant contributor to America’s unique record of growth and job and wealth creation. The development of the amortized mortgage in the first half of the 20th century, for example, went a long way toward enabling Americans to own their own homes. Federal-guaranteed loans financed by credit have put college education within reach of many. Over time, credit availability has been a central pillar of our growth and rising standard of living.

    As is generally recognized today, it is the abuse of debt and failure of regulatory authorities that caused the collapse of the housing market and left our economy struggling to get out from underneath a record number of foreclosures. Giving mortgages to everyone regardless of their ability to pay is counterproductive at best. Similarly, the level of student loan debt and defaults are both at record levels. An analysis of student loan programs concludes that the vast expansion of loans without restraint or discipline mainly increased tuition and related expenses and drove young people deep into debt. Other examples of exploding debt use both by government and individuals abound. Over the years, all restraints imposed on the financial system to regulate the use of credit were dismantled, and moderation went out with them.


    It is the explosive growth of the country’s accumulated debt
    (and future projections) that is at the heart of the current resistance in Congress to an increase in the allowed debt ceiling. Despite the heated rhetoric that always accompanies the issue, the debt ceiling will ultimately be raised. The controversial issue of government spending, however, will intensify.

    There is a widespread dissatisfaction with the government’s spending priorities. The $3.9 trillion borrowed and spent between the start of the recession until 2010 greatly expanded the size and reach of the bureaucracy but failed to accomplish the goals for which it was intended. Moreover, unlike previous eras, the deficit won’t evaporate as the economy recovers. Even as recession-related spending recedes, the cost of automatic increases in entitlements will accelerate. For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that, by 2019, an estimated 19 million additional people will be eligible for federal aid to buy health insurance under the new health-care legislation.

    There are no accurate estimates of the cost of entitlements to future generations, because they rely on actuarial estimates and numerous other factors. Some studies have placed the unfunded entitlements at $100 trillion. Rising interest costs, too, will add to the debt. The interest tab to the government fell to $197 billion in 2010. The Congressional Budget Office predicts a jump in interest costs to $778 billion by 2020. The working population of the country is expanding very slowly, while the financial burden is rising sharply. And the vast expansion of credits and deductions in recent years has resulted in an estimated 45 percent of American households who do not pay any federal income tax.

    Excessive debt is an insidious reality. Its deleterious effects are exposed to public view by the financial collapse of several euro countries. The United States is not in that situation, but the level of debt and continuing heavy deficit spending threaten the financial security of the American people. The negative effects on our economic culture are also evident. Unemployment benefits have made it easy for some to avoid taking a job, causing not only a dependence on the government but an erosion of trust in government programs. Many people, aware of the excessive government spending, anticipate that the government will revert to inflation to pay its debts. Resorting to inflation as a debt-reduction scheme would destroy the savings and capital of all hard-working people, especially the elderly.

    In short, there is no longer a place to hide. Efforts to tame the government’s excessive spending and unfunded programs must soon face the daunting reality that the promises made to future generations are insupportable. Significant cuts in entitlement benefits, as well as sharp cutbacks in general government spending, are necessary to cure the government’s profligacy. The American people will accept the medicine for the sake of their children and generations to come. Thus far, the political will is lacking.

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Print this   |   Share this

    • Martial Artist

      specifically, programs such as Social Security and military retirement, the latter, at least for those who are retirement eligible. Social security is, and always was, a program participation in which by anyone who was employed, mandatory. Military retirement is a contractual issue.

      Social Security was knowingly designed by FDR’s commission as a Ponzi scheme, a fact admitted by J. Douglas Brown by quotation in a profile piece published in the Washington Post in the latter 1980s, specifically on the last or next to last Sunday before the Sunday on which he died. Brown was a prominent member of the commission. Speaking solely from the point of view of human (not God’s) justice, the only way that government can justly avert a collapse of the Social Security System would be to “buy out” the contributions of those who have not yet begun to draw their benefit. Doing so, using penalties derived from criminal law (a Ponzi schemeis a fraud when all is said and done, would require restitution by the perpetrator, i.e., the government. They should be required to return all contributions (employer and employee), adjusted for inflation, and including some statutorily or court-ordered rate of interest on each year’s contribution. As someone who will reach eligibility to draw full Social Security benefits later this year, I would willingly agree to such a solution. We could all then use the funds restored to us, of which we were fraudulently deprived to fund our own “pension” using actuarially sound means. Younger folks could place them in an IRA or 401K and see to their own retirement.

      Military retirement (full disclosure: this applies to me also) is a different matter, being in the nature of a contract (I served honorably on active duty for 241 months and the formula for the retirement benefit was, and remains, a matter of published law. In this instance, contract law would probably provide the solution—probably the continuation of the contracted payments as specified.

      Non-contributory entitlements are a different matter, it is less clear what would be just. But, in addition to cutting entitlements, serious examination of the functions of the various Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government needs to be conducted, with a clear view of the Constitution, and I would humbly suggest that most of them could be eliminated or pared back VERY, VERY substantially, certainly beginning with the elimination of ALL federal subsidies, of any sort (direct or via tax or other exemptions), to any commercial enterprise.

      Pax et bonum,
      Keith Töpfer, LCDR, USN [ret]

    • Mary

      Social Security is, and always has been, a Ponzi scheme.

      The people forced into it were voters who could have modified it.

    • AT

      …and Wall Street et al

    • Brian English

      “Sure, close down government further, the only entity that was can still elect, at least normally, instead of fixing it.”

      It was the “entity that we can still elect” that voted for the bailouts and the outrageous spending that got us into this mess.

      Too much power is concentrated in the federal government, making federal elected and appointed officials prone to corruption.

      “and Wall Street et al

    • BenK

      It was by honoring and then minimizing its debts (and growing the economy and national defense) that the US currency became trusted; backed by piles of gold that each nation felt was kept safely. Then, by expanding the currency and honoring it dutifully, monetary policy became a tool of international diplomacy and world-balancing force. Now, unmoored, we will realize again that the flow of money itself is worthless and pointless; in the ultimate sense, of course, this could be a spiritual truth; but even in the material sense, goods themselves are what matters, and the lifestyles and securities provided by those goods; their psychological, physical, nutritional and social impacts. Money doesn’t matter… and when US currency doesn’t matter, after the initial disruptions, the one thing that will happen is that the USA will lose a tool for diplomacy and international influence. Which could be good or bad, depending on who is in charge and how much they serve God.

    • AT

      “Big Government and Wall Street fat cats are natural allies.”
      Agree. But Big Government came back under the previous administration, remember? No only that, but they opened the door wide to corrupt finances, leading to the present mess. They gave hand out to drug companies to get money to be re-elected (no bid contracts for Medicare, what was that?). When there is no moral under pining, no virtues, free for all selfishness takes over, in guise of the so called left and right.
      But a functioning, frugal government, under the watchful eyes of honest elected officials is still the less evil form of government. Unfortunately, this country does not make things anymore, perhaps because it is in the hands of the worst generation (sons and daughters of the greatest generation, how ironic). The only thing that is made is hot air, from both the so called

    • John

      Debt is always a bad idea, whether public or private. Here’s a great video on the history of debt in America.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU&