Under Multiple Budget Scenarios, the Government's Numbers Still Don't Add Up
Balanced federal budgets aren’t even considered as a possibility.

If you're a glutton for punishment, you might be a follower of the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) depressing analyses of the federal government's fiscal prospects based on tax and spending trends. The term "unsustainable" features frequently, though "fiscal crisis" seems to have recently gained popularity. But circumstances and choices affect outcomes, so the CBO recently peered into its crystal ball based on scenarios that vary from official assumptions about economic conditions and policy choices. The results vary widely, but all examined paths lead to a future of growing debt and a hobbled economy.
For starters, it's worth knowing the CBO's formal projections, as published last month in the 2023 Long-Term Budget Outlook. Reason's Eric Boehm summarized the findings at the time: "The federal government is on pace to borrow $116 trillion over the next 30 years, and merely paying the interest costs on the accumulated national debt will require a staggering 35 percent of annual federal revenue by the end of that time frame." Federal debt will rise from 98 percent of GDP in 2023 to 181 percent in 2053 "and pose significant risks to the fiscal and economic outlook; it could also cause lawmakers to feel more constrained in their policy choices," according to the CBO report.
Frightening Forecast as Best-Case Scenario
But that forecast is based on unrealistically rosy assumptions. Things are likely to be worse.
"In CBO's extended baseline projections, discretionary spending is smaller and revenues are larger, on average, than they have been as a share of GDP over the past 30 years," the CBO notes in The Long-Term Budget Outlook Under Alternative Scenarios for the Economy and the Budget, published last week. "For this report, CBO analyzed a historical-rate scenario in which discretionary spending and revenues (measured as a percentage of GDP) are set for the entire projection period to the average values they had over the past 30 years."
So, if the federal government continues to spend the way it has for three decades, and to collect taxes the way it has for the same period of time, "debt held by the public would exceed 250 percent of GDP by the end of the projection period." What would be the consequences of such staggeringly high national debt on economic growth and American prosperity? The CBO leaves it to our imagination.
"Because of the significant uncertainty about the effects that such high levels of debt could have on the economy, CBO only reports specific economic or budgetary outcomes when debt is below that threshold. CBO does not interpret debt exceeding 250 percent of GDP as having reached a tipping point because the agency cannot predict with any confidence whether or when abrupt macroeconomic changes might occur in response to the amount and trajectory of federal debt."
Given that debt at 181 percent of GDP would "pose significant risks to the fiscal and economic outlook," a refusal to even speculate about the effects of debt 70 percentage points higher sounds…bad.
It's Not All So Gloomy. Sort Of.
Not all of the variations examined in the report are so grim. The report also considers scenarios under which labor and capital productivity grow at different rates than predicted. If it grows 0.5 percent faster than anticipated, debt would rise to 137 percent of GDP in 2053; if 0.5 percent slower, it would rise to 228 percent of GDP.
If private investment is crowded out by government borrowing by twice as much as forecast in the long-term outlook, federal debt would rise above 250 percent of GDP in 2053, but if there's no crowding out, it would rise to 145 percent of GDP.
The report also examines what happens if, as is currently predicted, the Social Security trust fund is exhausted in 2033. While the CBO is required to assume uninterrupted payments for its baseline budget projections, the alternative scenario looks at the result of payments reduced to the amount available from dedicated funding sources starting in 2034. "The required reduction would amount to 25 percent in 2034 and would rise gradually to 28 percent in 2053."
As you'd expect, reducing Social Security payments would lower federal debt—to 132 percent of GDP in 2053. It's also predicted to be economically disruptive, initially (but temporarily) shrinking the economy. Interestingly, the CBO predicts better outcomes over time than in its baseline outlook because reducing payments would promote savings and investment and keep people in the job market.
"In the long run, though, output would be higher than it is in the extended baseline, mainly as a result of three factors. First, the supply of labor would expand. Second, private investment would increase following a rise in private savings as some workers chose to save more while working to offset the effect of smaller benefits on their income and spending in retirement. Third, the amount of funds available for private investment would grow, owing to smaller budget deficits and an associated reduction in borrowing by the federal government, which would reduce interest rates and boost output."
Balanced Budgets Are Too Unlikely To Consider
Perhaps because CBO economists don't want to fritter their time away on pure fantasy, none of the scenarios contemplate balanced budgets, with the government spending no more than it collects. All the alternatives assume continuing deficits, with spending exceeding revenues and contributing to debt.
It's difficult to avoid the impression that the CBO is telling Congress and the White House that it doesn't think they're capable of acting responsibly. That's probably right. National debt is currently $32.59 trillion and rising. "The federal government has spent $1.39 trillion more than it has collected in fiscal year (FY) 2023," according to the Treasury Department. "Compared to the national deficit of $515 billion for the same period last year (Oct 2021—Jun 2022), our national deficit has increased by $878 billion." Borrowing for the first nine months of 2023 already exceeds that for the entire previous fiscal year.
"High debt levels slow income and wage growth, increase interest payments on the national debt, reduce the fiscal space available for the nation to respond to a recession or other emergency, place an undue burden on future generations, and increase the risk of a fiscal crisis," the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget warned after the June release of the CBO's official long-term budget outlook. "Troubling as they are, CBO's projections may ultimately prove optimistic, as they assume policymakers will allow numerous policy expirations to take effect – including large parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 – and contain discretionary spending growth over the next decade."
Based on assumptions in line with past federal behavior, the group forecasts federal debt at 222 percent of GDP in 2053. That's well within the range contemplated by the CBO in its own alternative scenarios, and approaching the level beyond which government economists decline to contemplate consequences.
Maybe federal finances won't ultimately be quite so dire. But politicians seem determined to accumulate deficits and debt with unpleasant consequences for American prosperity.
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
I absolutely do not understand why we do not have a balanced budget. We are not at war. We face no financial crisis other than overspending. We aren’t in any national emergency of any kind.
There is no reason why the federal government cannot limit its spending to what it collects. My state can do this. Many states can.
I’m thinking we really do need a Ramaswamy in office to “bring the pesticide” on the growth of government agencies. That will set a good example. But it will only be an example. It is Congress who holds the purse strings.
Give me competent governance! We can all argue about policy later, but first we must have an organization that is at least as fiscally competent as your corner grocer.
We are not at war.
Poverty, drugs and terrorism would beg to differ.
You may be showing your age. Poverty was Johnson’s thing. Drugs was HW Bush’s thing. Terrorism was GW Bush’s thing. Today’s grifters hang their hats on identity politics. The “war” on racism. The “war” on Ken dolls. Etc., etc.
Yeah, but none of that other shit ever stopped. People just stopped talking about it so much in those terms.
Tell that to the hundreds of federal programs fantastically failing at addressing poverty, or to the DEA fantastically failing at stemming the supply of drugs, or the millions of nonviolent drug offenders in prison, or the TSA that’s stopped exactly zero terrorist attacks.
Do you share the same ire for all the poverty programs propping up illegal immigration? Because you’re constantly supporting that.
It’s a pretty standard position for purist/cynical libertarians to be for free movement of people and against welfare state.
… Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
What is human trafficking? Cops gotta fight something if drugs are legalized.
why we do not have a balanced budget.
Basic accounting realities describe some of the pressure against that.
The US runs a current account deficit of say 4-5% of GDP at a reasonable growth rate. Roughly $1 trillion per year. That must be balanced and that requires that we (meaning everyone who denominates in dollars) must increase our total debt by the identical amount – private or public doesn’t matter – or depreciate our currency by a larger amount relative to other currencies.
Additional private debt has become a Johnny-one-note. Jack up house prices via banking or issue corporate debt in order to buy back equity. Both are completely unproductive – antiproductive really, subsidized by govt, and seemingly incapable of doing anything else even if not subsidized by govt. There hasn’t been private debt issued for productivity purposes for decades now – and the marginal productivity of debt is near zero. When private debt gets too high, then what happens is financial crisis – see 2008.
Public debt actually has more variety of purpose now even if some of them (war, income transfers to old people and the medical sector, etc) are also completely anti-productive. Too high public debt can cause a sovereign/currency crisis – but more likely in rich countries it will simply strangle future growth.
Currency depreciation is how most countries deal with structural current account deficits with the rest of the world. It means over time, inflating the price of imports and making exports more competitive – thus driving down the current account deficit. But the dollar is the reserve currency. Meaning we MUST keep feeding currency into the rest of world. If that stops, then global trade will drop like a rock.
Individually we can affect the price of that new debt and where it occurs. Jacking up the cost of public debt will tend to produce more balanced budgets over time as interest costs on existing debt will squeeze out all other spending options. But that means stop buying cheap shit from overseas, pay down your mortgage, pull all your money out of the banking system, and don’t buy equity of companies that use debt to buy equity. Even if pols were inclined to reduce their spending – it’s pretty clear Americans have no capability to deal with a govt running a balanced budget.
where the fuck is s&p and moody’s with the downgrades of outlooks and credit ratings?
no longer permitted due to esg?
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you?
Just eliminate all federal agencies not specifically authorized by the US Constitution.
Your homework:
Print out the federal cabinet agencies.
For each one, list the part of the constitution that specifically authorizes it.
Look at the federal budget, and subtract the spending of the unauthorized agencies.
Actual cuts in spending are a political impossibility. I think the best that could happen would be freezing the budget (not baseline budgeting, but an actual freeze) and letting inflation do the rest. In six to ten years tax receipts would equal spending, and the budget would be balanced.
The problem with inflation is that it is actually worse than a real tax increase. At least it causes much more pain for the average person.
I see absolutely no reason why there can’t be a simple 2% year-over-year requirement to reduce discretionary spending until the budget is balanced. Cut everything, including government employee pay. That would certainly drive some political motivation.
But, let’s not get too carried away here… entitlements are the problem. Until social security can be greatly modified or phased out over time, we’re really just nibbling at the edges with discretionary spending.
Why reduce spending? Seriously. Just keep spending frozen. Economic growth and inflation will cause tax revenue to increase until it equals the frozen budget, and voila it’s balanced!
That probably is the most politically feasible option. Still would need some changes to the entitlement laws to keep that part of spending frozen. But I’ll be really surprised if anything like that happens before we get to the point where there is literally no other option.
Inflation is not a desired outcome. Even though it might resolve the issue.
The forced spending reduction is intended to drive action from Congress. They clearly don’t want to cut spending across the board. It forces their hand to make actual cuts or the 2% kicks in.
You can dislike inflation all day long, but that won’t make it stop. Even if there was no inflation, economic growth would have the same effect. Tax revenue would grow with the economy, eventually resulting in a balanced budget.
You can dislike inflation all day long, but that won’t make it stop.
Cutting spending to the point of a balanced budget would almost certainly reduce inflation back to more reasonable levels.
Same idea as a mortgage. As time goes on the payment becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of income, right? That’s because it stays the same (yeah it might increase with property taxes but you get the idea) while income increases. Over time it becomes much easier to pay. I’m saying freeze the budget like a mortgage payment, and let federal income increase until they match.
Spending reductions are necessary to compensate for the inevitable “exceptions” that will be made to a spending freeze.
I think the wage for government employees should be indexed to the compensation for jury duty.
Bookmark it. Sarc literally just supported the current GOP plan.
A budget freeze is probably the best case scenario. But why not start with a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, across the board? And a 5% paycut for those who remain? Then switch all new federal employees to 401k plans instead of generous pensions. (Government jobs used to feature low pay and good benefits. Now they have the highest pay around (for the work being done) and the highest benefits too.)
So far all I got is the Post Office. The fed has the authority to collect income taxes, but I assume by the time we wrote the amendment for taxes the fed was already doing whatever the fuck it wanted.
Army and Navy are in the Constitution, as is federal marshals and rules for naturalizing non-citizens and immigration. So is interstate commerce, albeit more to control states from passing protectionists schemes than the monstrosity it has become.
The Navy is in the Constitution. The Army can only be authorized for 2 years at a time.
Here are the Secretary level posts:
Secretary of State * (Article 1, section 8; commerce with foreign nations)
Secretary of the Treasury * (Article 1, section 8; taxes, borrowing, coins)
Secretary of Defense * (Article 1, section 8; Declare war, fund military for 2 years at a time)
Attorney General * (Article 3, section 1; implied via Supreme Court)
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security
* Made up George Washington’s cabinet
Interior might be constitutional to deal with Indian affairs and navigable waterways.
Here’s a question: Was the expansion of the country by means of purchases by the federal government constitutional?
Acquisition of new lands and territory would have been a generally accepted function of national governments at the time. It’s not as if the colonies which revolted against the overseas crown to create the nation existed on their traditional and indigenous lands.
Also, around half of the founders had a fairly firm belief in the “manifest destiny” of the United States to eventually entail the whole of the continent. By that measure, allowing Canada to remain independent could be seen as a failure.
Should have taken Cuba early on, just to save them from what they became later.
Well, Thomas Jefferson, by far the most libertarian President (but not the most libertarian founder) made the biggest purchase of all, but he was conflicted about it.
Sec. Interior makes sense. Someone has to be in charge while all the federal lands are auctioned off.
Sec. Agriculture — no point, let Big Food run itself.
Sec. Commerce — no point, American businesses are very competitive internationally.
Sec. Labor — no point, employment law is a state matter.
Sec. HHS — no point, welfare is a state matter.
Sec. HUD — no point, housing is a municipal matter.
Sec. Transportation — freeways and airports and trains, oh my. I guess this one makes sense.
Sec. Energy — no point, utilities will provide energy for profit.
Sec. Education — no point, education is a local matter.
Sec. Veterans Affairs — seems only fair to support those who served. Could be a post led by a one-star general in the regular Army though.
Sec. Homeland Security — Wasn’t this the point of the NSA before?
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Wait til you see the numbers they told us for covid and the 2020 presidential election…
Oh, but Tuccile believes those numbers totes make sense.
Did they use the new DEI math or the regular kind?
Hey. Tuccille! Who got your vote in 2020?
That day the USA was conquered and consumed by [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] … because that’s what socialists do.
haha money printer go brrrr
They’re just hoping that in 30 years $116 trillion will buy you a venti latte at Starbucks.
In 30 years Starbucks coffee will be free, but only to the elites.
The rest of us will be allowed to mix the used grounds with our bugs every other Friday.
It’s easy to get sidetracked on issues like “slowing income and wage growth” but that’s not the issue here. Slowing something that might have been faster doesn’t tell us whether it should have been slower or faster or whether faster would have been the good thing that it sounds like. The question there is, “based upon what criteria?” Growing the economy is one of those fine-sounding slogans that turns out to be meaningless upon closer examination. How fast should the economy grow? Cancers grow very fast too but few people would say that it’s a good thing. I think it’s fair to say that overall prosperity increasing over time is a good thing, but it doesn’t take much thought to differentiate between increasing prosperity due to increased productivity; and higher wages chasing higher prices in a vicious inflationary cycle. I think it’s important to focus on the real issue: no one, including the CBO experts, knows where the tipping point is. Our Fearless Leaders are playing a game of chicken with “the economy” and, at the same time, playing a game of musical chairs politically. They all want the benefits of unchecked government spending for their constituents back home and their political careers. None of them wants to be the last one standing when the crisis hits, the money is suddenly worthless and angry people are rioting in the big cities demanding food. While it may be comforting to some to point out that “we’ve gotten away with deficit spending so far,” it seems more like whistling past the graveyard to me!
>>Balanced federal budgets aren’t even considered as a possibility.
if you were a member of the power elite would you consider balanced federal budgets?
Even the elite have children. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that the hypothetical Illuminati would want leave their children a decent world to rule. If some shadowy group were really truly in charge and able to pull all the strings do you think they’d undermine their own castles by indebting the nation they rule?
There’s no truly powerful elites. No one is flying the plane. The first class passengers are nervously counting the parachutes while economy puts their seats in full recline. It might end sooner, it might end later, but the ending will be exactly what you would expect it to be.
>>unreasonable to assume that the hypothetical Illuminati would want leave their children a decent world to rule.
the power elite’s world exceeds decent at all times.
The aphorism, “Never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to incompetence,” comes to mind.
I’m pretty sure we can just strike out a couple hundred trillion dollar coins and have this fixed up by dinnertime. No need to worry, Top Men are on this…
Yellen’s got some platinum, and a striking hammer.
I’m sure everything will work out fine. We have republicans and democrats in charge, what could go wrong?
The deficit is up by $878Billion year over year, or in the math of Bidenomics, “decreased to an extend unprecedented in human history”.
Regarding the projection which assumes discretionary spending to track the 30-year average as a portion of GDP, how much would the current spending level need to be decreased to get from its current level to that average ratio?
When you find yourself in a giant hole, stop digging.
4 trillion dollars a year was enough to run the whole federal government as recently as 2018 (just 5 years ago). Federal tax revenues are now over 4 trillion dollars per year. Lop off the extra 2 to 3 trillion that was larded on in the name of COVID, and the budget would be balanced right away.
It’s not even about the gigantic debt that we have now. It seems to me that the fact is that the government is trying to sit on all the chairs at once. We see in real time that they are trying to simultaneously inflate the military budget and continue to fulfill all social obligations. Who will pay for it? I see it in the sense that the authorities will try to get into our pocket. Again. The topic of crypto is very close to me and I shudder every time I see new requirements from SEC. Maybe everything will be in a soft version, like in Japan. Read more about opening a Bitcoin crypto platform this summer. But what if they go all the way and want to pull out from under our feet the only uncontrolled financial instrument? Here’s something to think about.
I earn 200 dollars per hour working from home on an online job. I never thought I could accomplish it, but my best friend makes $10,000 per month doing this profession and that I learn more about it.
.
.
HERE————➤ https://serviceuk8.blogspot.com
Google paid $95 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $51005 by working at home for 10 hours a day….. Everybody must try this job now by just use this
Open this…. http://Www.Easywork7.com
I work an online job from home and earn 185 dollars per hour. I never imagined I could do it, but my best friend, who makes $15,000 a month at the job, encouraged me to find out more about it. This has limitless possibilities.
.
.
Details Are Here—————->>> https://Www.Coins71.Com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,900 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,900 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
The DEBT is not the DEFICIT. And the DEFICIT is not the DEBT.
Government BORROWING drives up the debt, not government SPENDING.
The solution to our debt problem is simple: STOP ISSUING DEBT-BASED MONEY! Begin issuing pure “unbacked” fiat money to fund the deficit, rather than going further into debt. The inflationary impact of unbacked dollars is no worse than the inflationary impact of the same amount of debt-backed dollars. Issuing unbacked dollars will halt the increase in the national debt and its hundreds of billions of dollars in annual interest. Paying off part of the maturing debt each year and rolling over the rest will eventually bring the national debt (and its taxpayer-financed interest payments) down to zero. See http://www.fixourmoney.com .