The Debt Ceiling Deal Does Not Go Nearly Far Enough
Projections of huge savings are making the rounds. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have a debt ceiling deal. It's a relief for most people. This deal avoids a default and the need for the Department of the Treasury to make hard choices over which bills to pay. It gives Republicans the sense that a step was taken toward fiscal responsibility and gives Democrats the sense that they've made an unprecedented sacrifice. Many hope their spending restraint days are over. But a deeper look into headline-grabbing projections of huge savings reveals that nothing could be further from the truth.
Much more needs to be done, and it needs to be done pronto.
Indeed, while we may celebrate the end of another round of debt ceiling drama, it won't make much of a difference in the long-term trajectory of the U.S. debt. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the plan as drafted will bloat the debt to 115 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2033, as opposed to 119 percent before the deal, and reduce the deficit by at least $1 trillion and at most by $2 trillion over 10 years.
While it's not nothing, it's a drop in the current deficit bucket, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects to be over $20 trillion over the next 10 years, or 7.3 percent of GDP in 2033. That's almost twice what was projected 10 years down the road at the end of the last financial crisis.
All the above assumes that the CBO's own assumptions—some of which are nowhere near certain—are correct. Even ignoring the likelihood that politicians will use every gimmick in the deal to spend more, 10-year projections are always unreliable. As such, I expect much more spending and borrowing than is currently projected.
For one thing, the CBO's projections are based on current law and existing policies. Future policy changes, such as tax reform or changes to entitlement programs, are almost certainly not fully accounted for. If such changes result in more revenue or less spending, the actual outcomes would be better than projected, and vice versa.
In this case, the CBO assumes that some of the provisions in the 2017 Trump tax cuts will expire on schedule, which would reduce deficits. That's unlikely to happen. Republicans' identity is tied to tax cuts while President Joe Biden has pledged not to raise taxes on those making below $400,000. That points to an extension of the tax cut provisions, which would add an estimated $2.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years ($2.8 trillion counting additional interest payments). Plus, even if taxes did rise, economic growth would slow, reducing revenues, and increasing deficits.
Projections obviously don't account for unforeseen events like natural disasters, economic shocks, or geopolitical upheavals. Yet such events will occur and significantly impact the economy and government finances—and they always lead to deficits larger than projected. With the war in Ukraine still going on and the threat of conflict in the Taiwan Strait, it isn't hard to see additional unplanned defense spending in our future.
The CBO projects future health care spending based on current trends. However, these costs might increase at a faster rate than anticipated. An aging population and changes in workforce participation can have significant fiscal implications. If the CBO's assumptions about any of these factors are inaccurate, it will reduce the precision of their long-term projections.
But the biggest potentially unaccounted for changes are from two things that readers are painfully familiar with: persistent inflation and rising interest rates.
Right now, the CBO projects that the three-month Treasury bill rate will average around 2.5 percent over 10 years—two percentage points below today's level. In a recent talk at the Peterson Institute, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers noted that with so much debt and borrowing, and with inflation above 2 percent likely to persist, a rate of 4 percent would be a better estimate. Adding just 1 percent to the interest level would add about 1.3 percent of GDP in interest payments to the deficit 10 years from now.
Finally, the CBO assumes that inflation will indeed return to its 2 percent target. This is currently unlikely. What's more, if short-term investors get spooked by growing government spending and the lack of plans to pay it back, they might also assume more inflation in the near future. That can jack up inflation today, impacting interest rates and the deficit.
Unless we get an unexpected surprise in the other direction—something like a miracle economic and productivity boost from the AI revolution—expect deficits to be larger than projected. This means Congress needs to get right back to work.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Agreed, but the national government’s debt is way worse than 115% of GDP, because GDP includes government spending.
National debt: 31.8 trillion GDP 2023: 26.2 trillion 2023 projected govt spending: 6.2 trillion Productive sector of economy: 20.0 trillion (26.2 – 6.2) Debt as a percent of productive economy: 159%
Or another way: 2023 projected tax revenues: 4.8 trillion Years to pay off the debt: 6.625 (if all revenue went to principal) Or debt as percent of government income: 662.5%
So if you were making a median US salary of 56.94K, how comfortable would you be taking on an unsecured debt burden of 377K?
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
Make everyone ( $26,000 __ $38,000 ) A Month Online Making nb money online more than $20k just by doing simple work With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just
open this link.======> http://www.pay.hiring9.com
The GOP is just the Washington Generals of the Uniparty. When push comes to shove, their job is to fold but make it look palatable.
I basically make about $14,000 to $18,000 a month online. It’s enough tocomfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only workabout 10-13 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I triedit copy below web….
.
.
GO HERE —————->> https://Creatdoller.blogspot.Com
Maybe if all the supposed libertarians here hadnt “reluctantly” supported Biden, a much better deal would have been possible
The GOP controlled the House, Senate and Presidency just a few years ago, so they had the numbers and still they increased spending. So not sure how Boehm's one vote would have changed the GOPs lack of fiscal restraint while in power?
So not sure how Boehm’s one vote would have changed the GOP’s lack of fiscal restraint
It is not Boehm’s vote, it is Reason’s advocacy. From a libertarian perspective, the Republicans are less sucky that Democrats. If conservatives could gain some measure of control in the GOP they would be dramatically less sucky.
The point remains: the GOP had the House, Senate and Presidency a few years ago and did nothing about reducing the debt or deficit. So why would it be different if Trump were in office now?
You wouldn’t have a president trying to hold out for a $7 trillion budget.
Yeah, only $6 trillion in that case. Trump would be better than what we have now, but is hardly a model of fiscal restraint.
No, because Congress would have just handed it to him on a plate.
From a libertarian perspective, the Reps are barely distinguishable from the Dems. Small-government constitutional conservatives and anyone with any significant libertarian leanings have been marginalized or driven out of the GOP altogether. At this point, they're pissing on your head and you're telling yourself it's raining.
"The GOP is just the Washington Generals of the Uniparty. When push comes to shove, their job is to fold but make it look palatable."
I see absolutely no reason to believe that. The only time the GOP even pretends to care about fiscal restraint is when they have a Dem President to kick around. At this point, they're no longer even pretending very hard.
I disagree, the debt ceiling deal went way too far, and in the wrong direction.
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.Apprichs.com
As long as they promise not to touch Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, increase defense spending, and keep the radish reserve supply fully funded, I'm sure everything else in the budget can be worked out with a little tweaking here and there. And by 'tweaking' I mean the heavy use of crystal meth.
Hey,
The debt ceiling deal has been a subject of debate and contention among policymakers and economists. While opinions may vary, some argue that the recent deal does not go nearly far enough in addressing the underlying issues related to the debt ceiling and overall fiscal responsibility.
One of the primary concerns is that the deal fails to provide a long-term solution to the mounting debt problem. The debt ceiling, which limits the amount of debt the government can accumulate, has often been raised or suspended without addressing the underlying causes of the debt. This perpetuates a cycle of increasing debt and reliance on borrowing, leading to long-term fiscal instability.
Furthermore, critics argue that the deal lacks substantial measures to address the drivers of the debt, such as unsustainable spending levels and inefficient budgetary practices. Simply raising the debt ceiling without implementing concrete plans for reducing spending or increasing revenue only postpones the need for more comprehensive reforms.
Another aspect that falls short is the lack of bipartisan cooperation and compromise. The debt ceiling has often become a political bargaining chip, with each party using it as leverage to advance their policy agendas. This approach hampers the ability to reach meaningful and sustainable solutions, as short-term compromises may not effectively address the long-term fiscal challenges.
Moreover, the deal's failure to address structural issues, such as entitlement reform or tax code revisions, limits its effectiveness in tackling the root causes of the debt. These structural reforms are necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of government finances and prevent the debt from continuing to grow at an unsustainable pace.
In conclusion, the current debt ceiling deal is seen by some as insufficient in addressing the fundamental issues related to the debt. A comprehensive and sustainable approach is needed, focusing on long-term fiscal responsibility, bipartisan cooperation, and structural reforms to ensure a stable and prosperous future for the economy and the nation as a whole.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming..."
It is easy to kvetch from the sidelines, when you have no ability to make the change you want, and no responsibility to negotiate the political path to make it happen.
The point is not to disagree that the bill is not adequate to what is needed, the point is how do you think it is politically possible to get what you think is needed?
How about refuse to raise the debt limit unless actual cuts to the budget are implemented? It has to happen at some point, why not now? If Republicans united on this they could have done it.
And you expect the Democrats to break on that first, rather than the handful of Republicans to cave to pressure of being “irresponsible” about the credit of the US? Why? How?
You have about as realistic a view of your view’s political popularity as the “common good” conservatives have and seem to think that the electorate is going to rally behind what you want to force the Democrats to capitulate and keep GOP squishes in line. I have no idea why you think this.
No, I don't expect much at all. My opinion is immaterial to whether or not the bill passes (so is yours). And I am quite aware of how popular my views are. Nevertheless, they are my views and for me the point is to try to promote in what small way I can what I see as a better path.
You act as if my commenting in an obscure comment section is going to affect what congress does in any way at all, which is even more ridiculous than what you accuse me of doing.
Is this bill better than nothing? Maybe, a little bit. But I'm not going to endorse or celebrate a tiny change that only serves to very, very slightly slow our drive towards fiscal calamity.
The problem is the media will always frame the Republicans (or anyone who wants to balance the budget) as the bad guys. And there just isn't enough public support for cuts to overcome that.
Yes, I really don't expect anyone to do the right thing here. But someone should still say it. Seems to me if no one ever has the balls to actually do something about this, we're heading for massive taxes, massive inflation or more likely some combination of the two.
We have the same issue with the entitlements. Nobody wants to deal with the problem.
A ten year projection in a democracy with elections every two years is never going to be accurate.
As soon as a republican wins the presidency again, then the debt/deficit won't matter to anyone again. That is what all of this is really about. There is a presidential election pretty soon.
Once a republican is president again, upper-bracket tax cuts will be the overriding focus, the debt be damned. Even grover norquist didn't care that the 2017 upper-bracket tax cuts were debt financed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yjVR_FxVd8
Won't have to worry about leftard TRILLION dollar deficits anymore.
The deal and this article is based on a phony COVID emergency induced spending baseline of about 30+% of GDP instead the historic level of about 18% of GDP. There is no 'better'; there are no cuts - there are only massive increases of spending (and debt) from spending 18% of GDP to 25% of GDP with 1% increase built in for each year forward. '...This means Congress needs to get right back to work...' And do what exactly? Increase it from 25% to 35% of GDP? The people better get back to work and get rid of the RINO faction of the GOP but it's probably too late; with this deal they have probably destroyed the Republic, with no way to return back to fiscal sanity, locked down borders, millions being deported, thousands thrown in jail or bankruptcy for hiring illegals, balanced budgets etc. etc.
The fugazi libertarians of Reason in the days before the deal: "OH MY GOD WE'RE ABOUT TO DEFAULT THIS IS REALLY HORRIBLE."
The fugazi libertarians of Reason in the days after the deal: "THOSE FUCKIN REPUBLUCANS DIDN'T DO ENOUGH AS USUAL."
The second one at least has the benefit of being true, but who cates. How many times do I have to tell you fugazis this? You're a complete joke, you talk out of both sides of your disingenuous mouths, you try to have it both ways, you have no credibility whatsoever on this issue, and nobody here actually believes you for a second when you pretend to care about fiscal responsibility.
^^^
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
A trillion isn't just a "drop in the bucket". It's more like a cupful out of a bucket. Maybe it's not enough, but it is actually noticeable.
US Debt Clock; about $32 TRILLION.
Working US Citizens; about 130 million.
Average DEBT per working citizen = $246,153 / each.