“Paradoxically, the faster government debt escalates toward an inevitable debt crisis, the less politicians and voters seem to care.”
…
“Why are we no longer responding to soaring debt and its economic consequences? While there are many factors, the three most important are these: 1) We’ve convinced ourselves that deficits do not matter; 2) partisan politics and the collapse of lawmaking have turned deficits into a weapon to be politicized rather than a problem to be solved; and 3) few of us are willing to face the unpopular reality that this issue cannot be resolved without fundamentally reforming Social Security, Medicare, and middle-class taxes.”
…
“The driver of this debt is no mystery. The combination of rising health care costs and 74 million retiring baby boomers is driving annual Social Security and Medicare costs far above their payroll tax and Medicare premium revenues. These annual program shortfalls—which must be funded with general tax revenues and new borrowing—will exceed $650 billion this year on their way to $2.2 trillion annually a decade from now, when including the interest costs of their deficits. Specifically, by 2034 Social Security and Medicare will be collecting $2.6 trillion annually in revenues while costing $4.8 trillion in benefits and associated interest costs.”
…
“Over 30 years, CBO data show Social Security and Medicare facing an annual shortfall of $124 trillion while the rest of the budget is roughly balanced. By 2054, these two programs will be contributing 11.3 percent of GDP to annual budget deficits, or the current equivalent of $3.2 trillion in annual program shortfalls (including the interest costs of their deficits). As for the rest of the budget, CBO projects that tax revenues will continue to rise, and other program spending to fall, as a share of the economy. This means the entire long-term deficit growth is driven by Social Security, Medicare, and the interest cost of their shortfalls.”
…
“We cannot grandfather out of reform the 74 million boomers whose costs are driving the $124 trillion shortfall. Nor can we tweak our way out of this. If the system is to be kept afloat, Social Security’s eligibility age must rise, its benefit growth formulas must be significantly curtailed for above-average earners, and its taxes may need to rise too. Medicare premiums must steeply rise for above-average earners, and its elevated costs addressed either with a new choice- and competition-based premium support system or with ambitious price and payment reforms to scale back costly procedures.”
“History does, in fact, offer sobering lessons on the consequences of unchecked government debt. Noted historian Niall Ferguson remarked in a recent Bloomberg column that his studies have led him to conclude that all great powers that spend more on debt service than on defense soon lose their great power. Whether it’s the British Empire or France’s Ancien Regime, excessive borrowing and spending lead to economic weakness, loss of global influence, and eventual downfall.
The U.S. is already crossing this ominous line. This year alone, interest payments on the national debt will reach $892 billion, which is larger than defense base funding. Annual interest payments will reach $1.71 trillion by 2034, widening the gap into an abyss.”
…
” As we stand at this crossroads, will America heed the warnings of history and take decisive action to address its debt crisis? Hanging in the balance is the future of the nation’s economic strength and global leadership. If we citizens recognize the gravity of the situation and insist upon action, policymakers will have little choice but to work toward a sustainable fiscal future. The alternative—following the path of fallen empires—is a fate that a great nation like America must avoid at all costs.”
“there is only a decade until Social Security hits a brick wall that will trigger automatic cuts to benefits (and even less time until parts of Medicare go over a cliff). Rather than facing that problem and proposing solutions, however, the Republican Party’s newly adopted platform embraces the plan that the old GOP criticized eight years ago: Do nothing and wait for the consequences to arrive.
In the new platform.. the Republican Party says it will “not cut one penny” from Social Security or Medicare and will also oppose efforts to raise the retirement age.”
…
“Choosing to do nothing is still a choice. And we know exactly where the path that both Biden and Donald Trump have picked will end. When Social Security hits insolvency in the early 2030s, beneficiaries will see an automatic cut to their monthly checks. Right now, the trustees that run the program estimate that the cut will be 21 percent, with further cuts likely in future years if nothing changes. This is the outcome that the Republican Party’s new platform promises to deliver.
Indeed, at last month’s debate Trump and Biden both tried to blame the other for trying to change Social Security, while neither presented a workable plan to keep the program solvent or phase it out.”
“The solution to the national debt lies in reevaluating and cutting back on unnecessary and wasteful programs, reforming entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and implementing a more efficient tax system that encourages economic growth.
But none of this can even begin to happen until politicians perceive a demand for it from the American people. Rising debt reduces investment and can slow economic growth, while increasing worries about inflation and the strength of the U.S. dollar. It reduces confidence in the social safety net and increases the risk of a fiscal crisis. Perhaps when these problems manifest, the voters will demand that politicians take the issue seriously. But by then, it may well be too late for the economic stability and growth we have taken for granted.”
“At its current trajectory, the rising national debt—and the increasing burden of making interest payments on it—will reduce Americans’ future income growth by 12 percent over the next 30 years, the CBO projects in a new report. That means the average person will earn about $5,000 less annually than they would in a scenario where the debt was not growing.
“This is the result of crowding out, whereby a higher national debt reduces private investment and slows income growth,” explain the number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonprofit that advocates for reducing the federal deficit. “With additional debt, income growth would slow further.””
“Leeper highlights three fiscal norms. One, established in one of Hamilton’s 1790 reports, is that budget deficits should be followed by budget surpluses (i.e., the government pays off its debts). The second is that ordinary spending should be paid for with taxes while emergency spending can be paid with borrowed funds to be repaid later. The third is that austerity becomes necessary when interest payments on outstanding debt become a sufficiently large fraction of federal expenditures.
Despite their informal nature, these fiscal norms have historically constrained U.S. fiscal policy in a meaningful way, even without a gold standard or other formal devices often found in history. They’re also important because they determine long-term expectations for fiscal policy. These expectations, in turn, influence bond prices, inflation, and the real economy, keeping things relatively stable.
So far, adherence to these informal fiscal norms has paid off. U.S. Treasuries are a cornerstone of the global financial system, serving functions akin to money worldwide. However, the norms are weakening.”
“”Households who buy government debt reduce their savings in productive private investments,” Kent Smetters and Marcos Dinerstein wrote in 2021 for the Penn Wharton Budget Model. “As the spending is unproductive, the economy is poorer and total savings is lower due to capital crowd out.”
“Government spending redirects real resources in the economy and can crowd out private capital formation,” they add. “An additional $1 trillion debt this year could decrease GDP by as much as 0.28 percent in 2050.”
If you take that insight and apply it to a world of governments on a collective borrowing spree, you end up with a hobbled global economy where prosperity becomes increasingly elusive.
“Medium-term growth rates are projected to continue declining on the back of mediocre productivity growth, weaker demographics, feeble investment and continued scarring from the pandemic,” note IMF’s Adrian, Gaspar, and Gourinchas. “Projections for growth five years ahead have fallen to the lowest level in decades.”
Heavy government borrowing also creates risk for the financial sector by putting banks at the mercy of massive debtors of uncertain creditworthiness. “The more banks hold of their countries’ sovereign debt, the more exposed their balance sheet is to the sovereign’s fiscal fragility,” note the IMF analysts.
Heavily indebted governments also reduce their ability to act as backstops in case of financial crisis as they become the likeliest causes of crises of the future. As they continue to borrow, they reduce the likelihood that productive private economic activity will grow them out of their financial problems.
“Higher government debt implies more state interference in the economy and higher taxes in the future,” The Economist points out in its interactive overview of global government debt. Also, add the editors, rising debt “creates a recurring popularity test for individual governments” which often goes poorly in terms of fiscal responsibility because paying outstanding bills isn’t popular with voters.”
“Contrary to what Trump and Biden imply, it is impossible to “protect” Social Security and Medicare by doing nothing. Inaction will guarantee automatic benefit cuts in less than a decade.
In 2033, according to the latest projections, Social Security’s trust fund “will become depleted,” and “continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.” Two years before then, Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund “will be sufficient to pay 89 percent of total scheduled benefits.””
“Despite failing to enact blanket student loan forgiveness, Joe Biden has still managed to forgive more than $130 billion in federal student loans since taking office in 2021—and due to a series of Education Department rule changes, even more loans are set to be forgiven in the coming years.”
…
“Under the REPAYE plan, previously the most popular IDR plan, borrowers were required to make regular monthly payments of 10 percent of their discretionary income (calculated as earnings above 150 percent of the federal poverty rate) for 20 years in order to receive forgiveness. But in 2022, Biden announced the Education Department would replace the REPAYE plan.
In its place, the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan is a significantly more generous alternative, only requiring monthly payments of 5 percent of borrowers’ discretionary income (now calculated as earnings above 225 percent of the federal poverty rate), with forgiveness after just 10 years for balances less than $12,000. Late or incomplete payments would still count during the required repayment period, unlike under the REPAYE plan.”
…
“In all, the new IDR plan is estimated to cost taxpayers nearly as much as Biden’s original attempt at forgiving $475 billion over the next decade (blanket forgiveness was estimated to cost up to $519 billion). While Biden claimed that his recent forgiveness would help swaths of Americans “buy a home start a business even start a family,” it certainly isn’t typical taxpayers—the majority of whom do not have the benefits of a college degree, or the student loans to match—who will end up benefiting.”