Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Budget Deficit Crisis: The Blame Is Bipartisan
The country is being bombarded with stories claiming that record budget deficits threaten our children's future and jeopardize the credibility of the dollar. These stories are a serious problem -- they have hugely confused the public about the nature of the country's economic crisis. And both parties share the blame.
Starting with the reality behind the scare stories -- trillion-dollar deficits are really huge relative to the money that any of us will ever see in our lifetime. But this is an absurd measure. The United States is a country with more than 300 million people. It doesn't matter that a trillion dollars is a huge amount to any of us individually. What matters is the size of the deficit and the debt relative to the size of the economy.
Only people who want to deceive the public would talk about the deficit or debt in "trillions" of dollars. This is a very simple lie-detector test since honest economists and policy analysts always refer to these sums relative to the size of the economy.
Relative to the size of the economy, the deficits that we are running are large and the debt that we are projected to incur is substantial, but the deficit level is still not coming close to the levels hit in World War II. Nor is the debt level projected to reach post-war peaks or the levels sustained by countries like Italy and Japan. The idea that we are near some debt-driven crisis is absurd on its face.
The United States had the strongest period of growth in its history in the three decades following World War II. This undeniable fact should put to rest the idea that our debt levels will threaten the prosperity of future generations. We hand our children a whole economy and society. If we give them a bad education, a decayed infrastructure, a ruined environment, then we will be jeopardizing our children's economic well-being. However, the debt levels we are currently projecting aren't even large enough to make it to the list of serious problems.
The claim that the dollar faces an imminent crisis because of the budget deficit or national debt is readily refuted by the example of Japan. Japan already has a debt to GDP level that is far larger than we are projected to have by the end of the next decade. In spite of this debt burden, investors are willing to hold ten-year Japanese government bonds at just a 1.5 percent interest rate. If these debt burdens are supposed to make Japan a high risk, someone forgot to tell the people who are putting billions of dollars on the line by holding Japanese government bonds.
There is another side of this Japan story that makes the idiocy of the deficit scare stories even more apparent. According to the deficit fear mongers, the dollar has been falling in recent months because investors are becoming increasingly worried about the U.S. government's ability to pay off its debt. But one of the currencies that the dollar has fallen against is the yen. Are investors who are worried about the U.S. government's ability to pay off its debt selling dollars to buy the bonds of the Japanese government, which has an even higher debt burden?
Let's face it: The deficit hawks will say anything to advance their agenda. Even worse, the media will print it.
This deficit nonsense should have been put to rest long ago, but both parties have hyped it to advance their ends. Currently, the Republicans are making headway in the polls by blaming the Obama administration for a deficit that is primarily the result of economic mismanagement during the Bush years.
But Republicans don't have a monopoly on demagoging the deficit. During the Bush years, many Democrats spoke of the Bush deficits in cataclysmic terms. This was absurd. The deficits were larger than was desirable during part of the Bush administration (large deficits in 2002 and 2003 were helpful in boosting the economy), but they were not hugely out of line. There is certainly no story that can pass the laugh test in which these deficits are responsible for the collapse of the housing bubble and subsequent recession.
There were plenty of grounds to attack President Bush for the economy's performance under his watch. Most importantly, he let an $8 trillion-dollar housing bubble grow unchecked, and giving big tax cuts to the wealthy is not the way to create an educated workforce and a modern infrastructure.
But the Democrats often hyped the deficit -- it was the easiest way to score political points. That helped to give us a situation in which tens of millions of people somehow think the deficit is the cause of the economy's problems when in reality it is the only thing keeping it afloat. In short, the Democrats are paying the price of their own political opportunism. Unfortunately, so is the rest of the country.
- Posted in


34 Comments so far
Show AllI'll defer to Mr. Baker's economic genius, but it seems to me a bit of context might have been useful as he slew Chicken Little and grilled him up in a nice herb sauce.
Wherever you stand on capitalism, it is at least fair to debate the efficacy of deficit spending in advancing the growth of an economy.
However, the Bush deficit was amassed primarily by stimulating the bottom line of Swiss and Cayman Island accounts of a few thousand white males, and also by converting Iraqi citizens to either red mist or refugees.
Notably absent from this article is a specific example of a benefit of the Bush - or any other - deficit.
Sioux Rose
Anyone can enjoy living on unlimited credit, money they don't actually have but presume one day they will have. Isn't this the philosophy that fuels the entire market in derivatives, which are bets on futures, the absence of actual products created by blood, sweat, tears, or innovation and resourcefulness of the solid sort?
I'd like to believe Mr. Baker that all is well when the debt burden in single dollar bills one source said would reach to the moon, unfortunately facts outweigh fiction in this matter. Besides, the analogy to the post WWIII growth is not fitting to present times in that so many natural resources were fit for the plunder then. Now they are in shorter supply, and in many cases obtaining them puts us closer to climate-based crises. In addition, the U.S. was the pre-eminent industrial society after WW II and took advantage of its place in the race to finance the regeneration of Europe after the wars. Now our work force and much of the industrial infrastructure it would depend upon has been dismantled and shipped overseas.
I suppose one sleeps better when they can accept comfortable illusions about our times and what they will cost.
"Anyone can enjoy living on unlimited credit, money they don't actually have but presume one day they will have."
It takes two to tango though. The loaner also "presumes" that they will have the money in the future as well. If not, they shouldn't lend the money.
" Isn't this the philosophy that fuels the entire market in derivatives, which are bets on futures, the absence of actual products created by blood, sweat, tears, or innovation and resourcefulness of the solid sort? "
Only in part I think. The term "derivitive" is quite broad, so it depends on what you are talking about. And as much as you don't wish to see them as "products", the people who are in those markets and presumably know what they are doing see them that way. If you don't see it that way, you should try and stay off the financial "grid" so to speak, stick with cash and barter. Barter doesn't keep you from having to pay taxes on barter transactions, BTW.
Sioux Rose
JAKE: Your cavalier laissez-faire approach (relative to derivatives) would make logical sense if: 1. this "market" in illusion didn't crash the REAL economy 2. my income was not on the line to help pick up the tab as a taxpayer 3. my children's and grandchildren's income wasn't on the line to pick up the tab as long-term debt 4. the "free market" capitalists got to take responsiblity for THEIR choices without the public/taxpayers bailing them out 5. My savings didn't make a paltry 2% interest thanks to the leverage these bankers have on alleged lawmakers who have greased each other's palms, played "revolving career door" theater and largely left the public in a pronounced fiscal lurch. Am I being clear enough? They play we PAY. No. It isn't fair and there are no products, just like VEGAS. Is gambling a product?
"Your cavalier laissez-faire approach (relative to derivatives)"
I simply stated what is factual vis a vis derivatives, it reflected no philosophical "approach" at all. The term "derivatives" is broad, individual derivatives are specific and quite variable.
"1. this "market" in illusion didn't crash the REAL economy"
The real economy is a market too, and they are related.
"2. my income was not on the line to help pick up the tab as a taxpayer
"3. my children's and grandchildren's income wasn't on the line to pick up the tab as long-term debt"
Agreed, depending of course on how lawmaker's decide to spend money. Keep these points in mind *universally*. Government never has money to spend that is not yours and mine through taxes, or borrowed, or printed "out of thin air".
"4. the "free market" capitalists got to take responsiblity for THEIR choices without the public/taxpayers bailing them out"
Agreed.
"5. My savings didn't make a paltry 2% interest thanks to the leverage these bankers have on alleged lawmakers who have greased each other's palms,"
Are you saying somehow that interest rates are broadly determined between back room deals? Why do you think that? In any case, no one forces you to put your money in a savings account, you have *many* other options. Best of luck to you in deciding what is best for you.
"Is gambling a product?"
Absolutely. It's developed, advertised, bought and sold just like any other product. Las Vegas is like a whole market sector of products.
Sioux Rose
JAKE: I am not an economist and up until relatively recently had NO interest in anything of a financial or investment nature. However, my deceased father left me some stocks and I feel it's my responsibility to act as a good steward so that I perhaps can leave something for my own children.
The bank interest payout is definitely related to what's taking place in the overall economy. And I still say the derivative "market" sunk the ship. Sure, inflated home prices created an engineered bubble that was part of this scam, but the selling of insurance (*AIG) on futures (no product, a gamble) is the real story behind the story and involves debt into the TRILLIONS. As has been volleyed about in this thread, we are no longer a post WWII economy in the throes of growth for all... instead, much of our industrial base has dried up, our credit worthiness is in shambles (as a profligate nation), and the karma from war is an undefined element that will also figure greatly onto the balance sheets.
When stocks fell, many put money into CDS... the rate was 4.65% last year and now it's 2.2%. I plan to learn some basic "economics 101" skills in coming months as I do feel our economy is fragile and far from finished with seismic reverberations. I had high hopes of speaking with a trance medium to literally obtain super-sensible advice, but the guy (who used to be reliable) seems to have lost his compass and I am yet to get the data. I would have shared any viable advice with this forum.
"I plan to learn some basic "economics 101" skills in coming months"
This is a great idea, if you devote a half hour per week you'll be way ahead in the "coming months" time frame. I suggest the library, there are tons of books. Don't be discouraged to see disagreement on certain subjects, that's normal. From what you have said, I would stick with personal finance for now, a subject I have always said should be mandatory in public schools.
" I had high hopes of speaking with a trance medium to literally obtain super-sensible advice,"
I wouldn't recommend this, although there was a famous case of a portfolio of stocks selected by throwing darts out performing the market and the experts. I'd stay away from individual stocks, I don't mess with them and many approaches to them really are just gambling. You first need to assess where you are and what goals you have, then go from there. Good luck.
The debt burden in single dollar bills would reach the moon you say? Fine. US GDP in a year in single dollar bills would ALSO reaches the moon. That is also a fact.
Pretty much every major economy in the world now has skyrocketing levels of debt relative to GDP, to deal with the crash. Pretty much every EU economy is projected to go past the EU's limit on the annual budget deficits of EU countries being no more than 3% of that country's GDP. Germany, for example projects 4.4% for 2009.
For the US, the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is projected to be around 3-4%.
Granted, the US' total debt as a percentage of GDP still projects to be higher than that of Germany, but the UK, Italy, and Japan are projected to have worse total debt as a percentage of GDP ratios than the US. US is projected to top out at around 100% of public debt to GDP. UK is projected to 120%, Japan 220% (No, not a typo). And actually, the Japan economy has started growing again, and that is how analysts see Japan paying off that huge debt.
The problem isn't necessarily debt per se. The problem is WHAT the debt is being used for, as Baker points out. Is the debt being used for education, infrastructure, or is the debt being used to bomb people into bloody bits of meat?
Is the debt being used to fund the militarists? Or to be invested in the future of the economy? Guns or butter. Henry8 of course would choose guns.
"The problem isn't necessarily debt per se. The problem is WHAT the debt is being used for,"
I agree 100%. It often makes sense for a family to go into debt to pay for a sensible home, but not for a closet full of designer clothes. The analogy is close I think.
Sioux Rose
RFLOH: Your penchant for details (in your species of analysis) is apt in this instance. I do agree with the points you've raised. And while the issue of what the debt is being used for is critically important (and I think we both agree that militarism solves NO problems and thus constitutes a very poor investment), I really wonder if the ratio of debt to GDP makes sense in the U.S. where much that is calculated on the profit side of the proverbial balance sheet is anything but REAL profit. (I remember it being phrased as GNP.)
I remember reading a very enlightening article some years ago in Mother Jones. Its premise, "Natural Capitalism" challenged what is represented as profitable in America's profligately wasteful society. The authors sought to create an understanding of those aspects of the ecosystem, things as significant as the watershed, that are being used, abused, and in some instances used up. There is no way to pay for their replacements. Yet these incalculable losses figure in on NO balance sheets (at this time).
If there is a toxic spill, the costs of cleaning that mess up figure on the GDP sheet as "profit." Prison building probably factors in, as well. So not only must one deconstruct the rationale behind those monies that cause these high debt numbers, the very basis for reporting profits (GDP/GNP) is an equal or worse farce.
Until those things that are sacred and understood as such (like the mountain tops being senselessly blown away in West Virginia) are valued accordingly, most everything else in this capitalist nexus won't mean shit to a tree. (Thanks to Gracie Slick for that analogy.)
I don't disagree with you. My point, and Baker's point, is what you're saying here. That you need to look into the details. Running up debt to send people who have lost their jobs back to college, and running up debt to help (rich) people build (even more) marble and gold toilets is entirely different. Or running up debt to ensure that every citizen has free college education is different from running up debt to imprison more citizens.
Sioux Rose
JAKE & RFLOH: It's refreshing to find ideological turf in which we all can agree. Pleasant holiday to you both (and all readers of CD).
Thanks and the same from me.
GDP and GNP are essentially the same thing, at least for most conversations. Neither has anything to do with profit or balance sheets, they reflect the market value of goods and services exchanged.
"Besides, the analogy to the post WWIII growth is not fitting to present times"
Don't forget the problem of destroyed infrastructure over all of Europe and other places. Just to add to your point.
Sioux Rose
Jake: I mentioned the regeneration of Europe in my post above as a key element to the prosperity America enjoyed after the World Wars.
I missed it and you are correct of course.
I'm not sure I am buying Mr Bakers lack of concern for the debt we are running up. He uses the argument:
"The United States had the strongest period of growth in its history in the three decades following World War II. This undeniable fact should put to rest the idea that our debt levels will threaten the prosperity of future generations."
We were the last man standing after WWII with a huge manufacturing base in place. Now we are one several large economies competing with each other, plus we're running around bailing out the financial, real estate, and auto industries trying to keep them afloat. We are fighting two wars with no real end in sight. We have high unemployment due to a generation of jobs being off-shored, a population heavily in debt, the greatest concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few, and I could go on an on.
Also here is the big spotted elephant in the room. Oil. Up until the 70s we did not need to import much of it. Once we reached our "Peak Oil" we had to start sending an ever increasing amount of our dollars overseas to purchase the black gold. This is NOT a good thing! To me when you put all these things together, these are not the best circumstances to "grow" your way out of large deficits.
Another thing is the number one trillion. I don't think people completely understand that number. One example is if you spent one million dollars a day, every day for 2700 years you still would not have spent a trillion dollars.
Here is a link to a visual example of what trillions of dollars look like. It IS a lot of money, and through the wonder of compound interest things can get out of hand relatively quickly.
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/03/trillion-dollar-obama-stimulus-plan-visual-of-what-one-trillion-dollars-looks-like/
Although I do agree with Baker on one thing, that is that the deficit being used for disingenuous political arguments. For example the right says because of the deficits we can't afford national health care, but never bother to mention the money spent on wars and the military.
Baker sez: "The United States had the strongest period of growth in its history in the three decades following World War II."
***
Which happened to coincide with FDR-era reforms and regulations on banking and other commerce. And which ended at the moment Raygun rode into town.
Then again, perhaps it's just a coincidence.
yet another reason to call a national constitutional convention to reform our democratic institutions and electoral system.
Of course there is a grand dilemma, the D/R duoopoly have no interest in giving up their stranglehold on power. As always it will take massive collective grass-roots action to force real change; and the ruling classes have huge powers to divide and rule. The corporate media propaganda machine is the most powerful weapon in their arsenal, even more powerful than forces of direct coercion.
A constitutional convention would be the worst thing that could happen. There would be no way to prevent the right wing from doing away with the First Amendment.
No matter what side you are on, it is true that such a convention let's you rewrite the whole thing from scratch.
First Amendment? Bill of Rights? how quaint. What is your suggestion then?
"What matters is the size of the deficit and the debt relative to the size of the economy."
This is it, right here. Evidently we need this restated from time to time because people seem to forget. But both the debt and deficit are historically *high* compared to GDP right now.
"Here is a link to a visual example of what trillions of dollars look like."
I strongly suggest to those who need "visual examples" to brush up on Scientific Notation. With some practice, you will quickly be able to make sense of very small and very large numbers, and most importantly, how they relate to each other. Once you do this, you can smugly refrain from ever saying "that's 'Billion' with a 'B'!!" or any other such nonsensical cliches.
Mr. Baker forgets there is a vast difference between the time period he defines after WW2, when we were the manufacturing giant of the world with boundless credit and today.
Today our manufacturing base has been decimated by both business and government, our education system has been ruined by the theorists and ideologues and our credit has been wasted to the point of bankruptcy.
Deficit and debt Dove's like Mr. Baker are one and the same with the others that led us into our present folly. I'm sure they will not mind the inflation that is about to decend on us in the coming years as it robs the savers and workers and puts the rest on the dole.
The blame is indeed bi-partisan and by the last two Presidents, Bush and Obama. Peas in a pod I'm afraid.
"Today our manufacturing base has been decimated "
Do you have any numbers on that? Thanks in advance.
Take a look at all the products we buy or the quality of most of today's jobs worse than 20 years ago. You'll rarely find anything made here anymore. Numbers can help but I think that they only tell part of the story.
I was just wondering how we compared to the world and our own past. I do know that the manufacturing sector is still pretty big, bigger than people would think. IOW, "we don't make anything anymore" is an exageration.
"our education system has been ruined by the theorists and ideologues".
Do you have any evidence for this? Who are these "theorists and ideologues"?
Commenter Henry8 has it right. Plus, another huge difference between post WW2 and now is that, then, most had nothing and spent thirty years buying all the crap they ever wanted.
Today, not only do we have way, way too much stuff we never even imagined x10, there's nothing on the horizon that might blossom into 18-20 million jobs in the time period necessary.
It's that simple. And it's also why the Banksters are stealing like drunken madmen - it's the only challenge left when you got everything you'll ever need.
There is at least a partial answer most ignore: gov/private partnerships on huge, like massive, infrastructure and 'green' projects, including training for the 2 generations who don't know shit about how stuff is made/built/etc.
I'd have no problem with the AT+T Golden Gate Bridge if they footed half the repair bill in exchange for 50yr naming rights. Or the Viagra Red Line, Nabisco Blue Line subway routes. Etc.
The projects that elicit no private interest will be dealt with AFTER the people are working on the ones that did...
I think any economist that compares debt levels to post WW11 wherein they conclude it not that bad , is dishonest.
People here have listed all the problems with that comparison starting with but not limited to to the fact that the USA was 50 percent of the Worlds GDP then.
Other factors play a role as well in measuring GDP growth. Just as example was women entering the workforce. When of a sudden you double the number of people working thus increasing consumption and tax revenues , such will impact "Gdp Growth".
The other major factor was of course the US dollar as the "Reserve Currency". This allowed the US to maiuplate the world markets and have foreign nations fund their spending.
Finally the nature of Debt In Japan is very different then that of the US. Japan sits on Mountains of foreign reserves and the Bank of Japan is structured differently then is the Federal reserve.
Japans external debt is Minimal unlike that of the USA which has been growing exponentially.
Although I usually agree with Dean Baker, I'm sick and tired of the dichotomous thinking that leads to statements such as "problem x is bipartisan in cause".
Especially from an economist, one would expect some thinking in terms of relative proportions rather than simple black and white. If someone could show that a problem is due to 50/50 percent democrat/republican influence (or even 60/40%), then it might be reasonable to say it's bipartisan. But this kind of very simple analysis is never done, which leaves use of the term bipartisan highly misleading. For one of the more ludicrous examples, we have a media and apparently a President willing to label health care "bipartisan" if one republican senator (out of 40) joins the democrats. This makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I suspect that if appropriate analyses were performed, these problems could not be honestly labelled "bipartisan", and republicans who have to (for once) be held primarily accountable. We need to think in terms of relative, degree of blame.
The budget deficit crisis could be easily solved in three simple steps:
1. Stop the wars!
2. Stop funding Israel!
3. Take back all the Wall Street bail outs!
And to make sure that this doesn't happen again, dismantle the Military Industrial Complex and the Federal Reserve, execute all the Congress/Senatewhores and Wall Street robber barons and members of AIPAC and deport the rest of the Jews.