20 Years to Disaster
"The United States has about 20 years for corrective action after which no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt."

For decades, budgetary experts have warned that the U.S. federal government is backing itself—and the country—into a corner with expenditures that consistently exceed revenues, driving the national debt ever higher. The latest red flag is raised by the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), which says that the federal government has no more than 20 years to mend its ways, after which time it will be too late to remedy the situation.
20 Years to Control Spending
"Under current policy, the United States has about 20 years for corrective action after which no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly (i.e., debt monetization producing significant inflation)," Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters, authors of the October 6 Penn Wharton Budget Model brief, write in summarizing their findings. "Unlike technical defaults where payments are merely delayed, this default would be much larger and would reverberate across the U.S. and world economies."
The reason for worrying about accumulating deficits and the resulting growing debt, the authors explain, is that "government debt reduces economic activity by crowding out private capital formation and by requiring future tax increases or spending cuts to accommodate future interest payments." If debt gets too big, lenders can't be paid back, credibility is shot, the dollar loses value, and the economy tanks.
"It would be an unfettered economic catastrophe," economists Joseph Brusuelas and Tuan Nguyen predicted earlier this year of such a scenario. "Our model indicates that unemployment would surge above 12% in the first six months, the economy would contract by more than 10%, triggering a deep and lasting recession, and inflation would soar toward 11% over the next year."
So long as investors believe federal officials will eventually balance their books, you have a grace period as debt grows—that is, until the debt burden is so enormous that it crushes economic activity.
"Even with the most favorable of assumptions for the United States, PWBM estimates that a maximum debt-GDP ratio of 200 percent can be sustained," the authors add. "This 200 percent value is computed as an outer bound using various favorable assumptions: a more plausible value is closer to 175 percent, and, even then, it assumes that financial markets believe that the government will eventually implement an efficient closure rule." (That's a mix of tax and spending changes to curtail deficits and debt.)
The 20-year countdown assumes that investors remain optimistic about the willingness and ability of U.S. officials to bring spending in-line with tax revenues. "Once financial markets believe otherwise, financial markets can unravel at smaller debt-GDP ratios," according to the PWBM analysis.
For the purposes of this analysis, PWBM focuses not on total national debt (currently 123 percent of GDP) which includes debt owed by the government to itself, but on still-substantial debt held by the public (about 98 percent of GDP). That would seem to leave some wiggle room except, as PWBM points out, "financial markets demand a higher interest rate to purchase government debt as the supply of that debt increases… Forward-looking financial markets should demand an even higher return if they see debt increasing well into the future. Those higher borrowing rates, in turn, make debt grow even faster."
That's already happening.
Increasing Costs and a Looming Deadline
"To finance trillions of dollars in spending beyond what incoming revenue can support, the US Treasury is now issuing more debt in the form of Treasury securities than global financial markets can readily absorb," Yahoo! Finance's Rick Newman wrote October 30. "That forces the borrower—the US government—to pay higher interest rates, which in turn pushes up borrowing costs for consumers and businesses in much of the Western world."
Just when the U.S. federal government hits that magic unsustainable debt-to-GDP ratio of between 175 and 200 percent depends on investor confidence and how much the markets charge to finance more borrowing. PWBM estimates it will happen between 2040 and 2045—if we're lucky.
PWBM's estimate isn't far off from the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) official July 2023 forecast that debt held by the public will hit 181 percent of GDP by 2053. But the CBO is bound by law to make certain unrealistic assumptions that the federal government will be constrained in its financial conduct. Occasionally, the CBO stretches its remit to include alternative scenarios which aren't quite so rosy.
"If, between 2023 and 2053, discretionary spending and revenues were at their 30-year historical averages as a percentage of GDP, then federal debt held by the public in 2053 would exceed 250 percent of GDP," the CBO predicted last summer.
To put that in context, the U.S. Treasury concedes that "since 2001, the federal government's budget has run a deficit each year. Starting in 2016, increases in spending on Social Security, health care, and interest on federal debt have outpaced the growth of federal revenue."
Options for Fixing the Mess
In September, PWBM explored three policy options to render fiscal policy less disastrous: increasing taxes on high incomes, reforms to Social Security and Medicare that reduce payouts and increase taxes, and a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Tax increases alone buy time but still "allow the debt-to-GDP ratio to grow from 100 percent today to 150 percent in 2050, which means that fully stabilizing debt requires additional reforms," the authors note. They predict the options emphasizing entitlement reforms and a mix of tax increases and spending cuts would both stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio, with entitlement reform allowing the greatest economic growth.
With PWBM putting tax increases on the table, it's worth emphasizing, as Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy pointed out for Reason in 2011, that "since 1950 annual federal revenue has averaged 17.8 percent of GDP, fluctuating within a relatively narrow range. Despite endlessly creative attempts to squeeze more dollars out of taxpayers, the feds haven't been able to pull in much more than that on a regular basis." A decade later, this has not changed. The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank has tax revenues hitting 19 percent of GDP last year—the highest share in two decades. The IRS may scream about a "tax gap" between what is owed and what it collects, and lawmakers may supercharge the tax agency with funds, but fixing the federal government's spendthrift ways by squeezing taxpayers won't just be unpopular—it's a scheme that defies historical trends.
Spending cuts and entitlement reforms will also elicit resistance. But at least they're within reach of lawmakers who could spend no more than they collect—or even to run surpluses to pay down debt.
Twenty years to fix the federal budget should be plenty of time. But brace yourself. The record so far suggests it won't be enough.
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 predict that Democrats will increase spending, calling it an investment in the economy, while Republican will cut taxes citing the Laffer Curve.
As a result the debt will continue to balloon thanks to more spending and less revenue, while the Parties and their followers will continue to hold themselves blameless while putting all the blame on the other Party and mocking anyone who blames both sides.
Or, to put it another way, tomorrow will be the same as yesterday.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
To think it was only a week ago you realized correctly that just fixing spending to 2019 levels was enough to cut the deficit. Bow youre back to hating tax cuts for political reasons. Principles.
Sarc. Which side is trying to constrain spending? Mccarthy deal, while bad, did seek to do so. Johnson is pushing even deeper spending cuts. Meanwhile dems in the senate are refusing to stick to the agreed to cuts. Yet you can't admit these facts. You're a useful idiot for the narrative.
I’m still waiting for the day you say something that isn’t a lie.
Edit: Actually I'm not. That would be like waiting for a cop to tell the truth. Never going to happen.
You can keep making this idiotic claims all you want. But if you want to pretend you didn’t realize baseline budgeting and spending was the issue and not taxes, ill let you continue lol.
Did federal tax revenues go up or down the year following tax cuts under Trump. Can you answer that question? Or does it ruin your protective narrative of both sides to ignore the spending issue?
I know you have a need to blame conservatives to protect the dems, but can you answer that question above?
To respond I would have to first break down your posts sentence by sentence to address the lies and false premises.
You're not worth the effort.
See. You can’t answer the question. Because you know you’re wrong and you don’t care. Narrative is all that matters.
Did tax revenues increase or decrease after the tax cuts under Trump. Stop hiding and answer.
I count four false premises and lies in that post. Not worth the effort.
Bookmarked for next time you claim people don't ask your views. Lol.
You can't answer because again it ruins your narrative. Narrativr over facts.
You can't answer a simple question.
You're not asking my views. You're telling me what my views are and then daring me to contradict you. I'm not playing your game.
I asked a simple question dumbass your views are wrong. You know they are because you refuse to answer.
You claim his comments are not worth breaking down
yet in your very next reply, you do break it down.
And even funnier, both are "not worth the effort".
I didn't list them and refute them, dumbass.
Exactly. Now you've admitted it. Isn't that step 1 of 12?
You can't list them because you are lying to avoid answering a simple question you know the answer to, but admitting it would refute your initial bullshit.
Not "can't". "Won't".
He, knows. But he’d probably have a stroke if he said something truthful.
No difference in sarc's case. A rock can't float in water. A rock won't float in water. Same difference.
Pumice floats, dumbass.
A. Steel ships float too. It's the air inside, dumbass, like between your ears. Are you comparing your head to a block of pumice?
B. Then you admit you could, you just refuse, because that would be a consistent principle, and that is not your style.
Sarc didn't even realize you were talking about him lol. He wont answer because he knows it counters his bald assertion to achieve both sides criticism.
Rising revenues don't mean jack shit if spending rises even faster. Trump and a GOP Congress doubled the already outrageous deficit in two years without even any phony baloney "emergency" as an excuse. Then, thanks to Trump's unilateral tax increases the economy was already going south even before the pandemic.
It takes real delusion to imagine that the GOP is even remotely serious about controlling spending. The worth of the spending they're attacking is highly debatable, but it's painfully obvious they're just using this as an excuse to attack programs they hate. They've sworn to ignore the entitlement spending that's crashing the budget. Chipping away at non-defense discretionary spending is well up into "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" territory. Even if they could somehow cut NDS by 100%, we'd still be running a deficit.
I'm sure the Dems would be happy to spend away, and I see no need to defend them. But claiming there's a meaningful difference between the side that wants to drive off the cliff at 60 mph and the side that wants to slow down to 55 but shows no sign of steering away from the cliff is just stupid.
I would prefer a US collapse with Taxes at 0% than a collapse with Taxes at 500%
Well, we I ly have 5 years to prevent the entire world from being destroyed by Climate Change so we'd better print five times as much money as currently exists to save us from that. Our children will thank us, no matter how poor they are because of our profligacy. I'm sure the people who tell us that the world is almost over will be able to save us and hey, at this point, why not just have $200 trillion dollars in debt anyway?
In fact, it's better to print it and have it now while it's still worth something!
"University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model"
Stopped there.
University of Pennsylvania has no credibility.
Models have no credibility.
My primary complaint with it is the thought we'd have even twenty years left. I expect catastrophe much sooner.
When Biden (D) joined the senate back in 1973, the US federal debt was less than half a trillion dollars. Absent of a four year hiatus, Biden has been actively part of growing the debt to over thirty-three trillion dollars. Interestingly, Biden is helping to foster in the end of the petrodollar and dollar reserve currency monopoly. At least he isn’t gifting copious amounts of resources to foreign nations using more borrowed money nor is he allowing millions of illegal aliens into the country that would further strain the limited public resources, necessitating further borrowing to address, reducing the value of the previously allocated funds, or a combination.
It's very fortunate for us that he's not doing any of those things.
Hey, wait a minute! He's doing all of those things!
Shit. We're fucked, aren't we?
"nor is he allowing millions of illegal aliens into the country"
Correct. The current wave of migrants are here legally, applying for asylum. They wouldn't be public charges if they were allowed to work, and doing so would address labor shortages in many sectors of the economy. But Republicans prefer to weaponize the problem and Democrats are terrified to oppose them because of the massive nativist bigotry that the Trumpists are fomenting.
Another way to address the problem would be a safe third country agreement with Mexico. We have one with Canada. But Mexico would have to agree. And Mexico would demand a pretty penny in return -- a ban on GM corn imports. Basically, screwing the midwestern corn farmers. They already get massive amounts of corporate welfare. Mexico is 100% wrong on this one, though -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with GM corn.
They wouldn’t be public charges if they were allowed to work, and doing so would address labor shortages in many sectors of the economy.
I get attacked every time I suggest that.
Because it is fucking wrong lol. Simple as that. I've given you the average cost. It is 80k per supported illegal immigrant you retarded fuck. I've given you the current number of open jobs, it is less than the number of illegals you retarded fuck. Jobs don't magically appear. I've even given you the welfare use by LEGAL migrants and it is 40% of their households.
So yes. You are wrong. How dare someone point it out. Your feelings are the truth. Your bumper stickers never lie. Lol.
For someone who claims to be an expert in economics that's a really dumb post.
Which part was dumb retard? Ill even cite for you an example.
Hochul scrounge all of NY for jobs to give to illegals. NYC has 120k illegals right now today. She was able to only find a few thousand jobs.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2023/10/05/hochul-announces-thousands-of-jobs-available-to-illegal-immigrants-in-state-n2629319
Again. All your claims are baseless and not thought out. You don't do any of the work to prove your assertions. Which other claim do you want me to AGAIN show you so you can ignore and remain ignorant?
How about welfare use by LEGAL immigrants?
In 2018, 49 percent of households headed by all immigrants — naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants — used at least one major welfare program, compared to 32 percent of households headed by the native-born.
https://cis.org/Camarota/Welfare-Use-Immigrants-and-NativeBorn-Households
Again everything you say relies on being ignorant to basic facts and basic understanding of whatever subject you opine on.
Good economists take into account both the seen and the unseen. You're only looking at the seen.
https://mises.org/library/which-seen-and-which-not-seen
You should actually read that website. You may learn a thing or two. Hilarious though as you always attack Hoppe, Rothbard, and Mises.
Whats funny is that the article PROVES my point. For example if you gave illegals every open job it would raise the welfare use of current citizens as the current NY unemployment rate is 4.5%. So it would simply be a cost shift from illegals to citizens.
Maybe actually read what you post lol.
Hilarious though as you always attack Hoppe, Rothbard, and Mises.
You've got me confused with the voices in your head again. Get help.
Then you’ll finally read the Hoppe article on immigration? Bet you won’t.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/hans-hermann-hoppe/immigration-and-libertarianism/
Prove me wrong.
Please also note you haven’t had one informed response to any of the evidence I’ve given you this morning lol.
I took a quick look at it and stopped when it started arguing against completely open borders, which is something I've never claimed to support.
So as always you're lying about what I said and believe so you can argue against some caricature.
Jesus fuck. This is just pure intentional ignorance at this point sarc. Just fucking pathetic. He doesn't talk about just pure open borders you retarded fuck. He discusses the intellectual fallacies of the pro migration crowd. Clearly and concisely.
Thank you for proving yet again your reliance on bumper stickers and ignorance.
The current batch if asylum seekers get denied at over 90% dumbass. Economic claims are not a valid avenue for asylum.
You can use euphemisms all you’d like, it doesn’t change the skyrocketing debt their presence contributes to nor does it change Biden (D) choosing not to enforce the border that created the situation.
"he isn’t gifting copious amounts of resources to foreign nations"
Penny wise and pound foolish not to help Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Not stopping the Moscow-Tehran-Gaza-Beijing axis while we can will lead to them dominating the world. We were supposed to have learned this lesson in December 1941 when the America First ideology was proven to be catastrophic.
We also should have learned about how high tariffs were catastrophic from the result of the Smoot-Hawley bill, too.
The MAGA isolationist crowd is promoting precisely the policies that led to the Great Depression and to World War II.
We also should have learned about how high tariffs were catastrophic from the result of the Smoot-Hawley bill, too.
Not according to the majority of people in the comments. Trump likes tariffs which means people who support free markets are leftists. Stupid, I know.
This is hilarious watching sarc so desperate for a friend he is now agreeing with everything a Democrat in the comments says. Lol. Charlie literally defends the left in every thread, so you two have a lot in common.
Thank you for confirming that you believe free marketers are leftists.
Sending my hard earned money to prop up other countries is not free market.
Do you try to make economically ignorant statements, or does it come naturally?
Pour sarc. All his lies and ignorance gets exposed daily here.
Youre not a free market thinker dumbass. You want to raise taxes yo march spending. You support government coercion if markets even in media such as with censorship. You defended covid lockdoens. You openly defend china’s anti free market actions because you save a few pennies at the cost of theft to others.
You can make all the lies and claims you want. But you’re not free market. You support letting anti free market actors run rampant like China. You supported funding Ukraine for fucks sake.
Is it free market to let the mob steal from producers and resale stolen goods without consequences? That is your argument in letting China run free. Youre an idiot sarc.
Once again you manage to make a post without a single truthful sentence.
With that talent for dishonesty you should have gone into law enforcement.
Once again you lie, deflect, and revel in ignorance.
Your MO is noted.
Youre not here for intellectual debate.
You are free to volunteer in Ukraine to support a corrupt, genocidal Bandera worshipping regime as you have been since the start of the SMO. You are also free to donate your money to that and other causes. I’m not interested in the nation playing Karen the hall monitor. It fails miserably (q.v., Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan twice) and it is being done so with borrowed money.
How is that? That's a cold war assumption not backed up by facts. What evidence of Russian territorial ambitions much beyond Russian-sympathetic eastern Ukraine? What evidence of Red Chinese territorial ambitions beyond Taiwan or a few island bases in the South China Sea? Yeah, they got the "Belt and Road initiative", but that is about trade, not military expansion. What history does China have of military expansion much beyond its borders?
I agree with you, with one major exception: it is my money, my choice. They have no right to steal my money and give it away. If there were no theft of my money for their purposes, I would tell Ukraine they can have some, if they stop their corruption. But I don't get that choice.
This is supposed to be a libertarian rag, devoted to independent thinking, minimal government, etc etc etc. Your comment shows no awareness of that. Nice that you drag in FDR and the New Deal and all that, but your only counter answer is more theft of my money for opposing uses.
Foreign aid is the only single line item that a majority of voters are in favor of cutting. And it's only 1 percent of the budget.
Seems like a possible Shika sock.
I'm no fan of Biden and I figure the greatest service he could do the public is to retire. But pretending he's the main, much less sole, driver of that debt is ludicrous. Historically, spending has grown fastest when the GOP held a trifecta, while the lowest spending growth came with a Dem President and a GOP Congress. The GOP's utter disregard for fiscal responsibility ever since Bill Clinton left office has utterly demolished any credibility they ever had on the issue.
The wisdom of our foreign aid spending is highly debatable, but it's barely a drop in the bucket. Meanwhile, both sides swear to do nothing about the real drivers of spending, deficits and increased debt.
Considering Trump and Biden are the two leading candidates in their respective primaries, I don't think Americans care.
We might care, but the major parties and power brokers don't give a shit about what we think.
We want more services from the government, more corporate welfare (particularly for defense contractors and agribusiness), and lower taxes. We absolutely don't care about balanced budgets.
We want more services from the government….
You paint with too broad a brush.
He was talking about him and his best new bud sarc.
You think charlie was invited to sarc’s half-million dollar house party?
You and your middle school buddies playing Chinese whispers is cute. Pathetic and immature of course, but cute.
Was Mike’s upper a sloppy fit in your lower?
I thought I politely asked you to stop projecting your fantasies about JesseAz onto me. Gross.
Fantasies? Huh? You claimed your gathering at the half-million dollar house was a bunch of guys playing with ARs. It was suspected that Mike was there since you shared an update from him that he had not posted publicly.
As for fantasies, there’s a commenter lower in this article talking about the genitalia of several presidents. Ewwww.
The stories you tell about me are like the last person in a game of Chinese Whispers. Wrong on all counts. I’m not going to clarify though. Your lies and imaginings are more entertaining than the truth (which you aren’t interested in anyway).
Mike claimed the sloppy fit was due to the holes in your lower having been drilled out way too big?
Not really. Plenty of people may claim to want to control spending, but the way they vote suggests they only want to cut spending they don't benefit from. Polls tell the same story. People may disapprove of Congress as a whole, but approval ratings for individual congresscritters among their own constituents tend to be much higher. Those who do a good job of bringing home the bacon keep getting reelected. When they finally retire (or drop dead) they inevitably get replaced by someone who promises to do the same. That's why calls to "Kick the bums out!" consistently fall flat. Turns out our guy is okay, it's all those other bums who are the problem.
Yes, there are principled exceptions to this. But we're very much in the minority.
There is no way to fix this as long as most people think the purpose of democracy is to vote themselves material gains, and that someone else will pay the tab.
I know this is a fantasy, but I think just a few years of a federal head tax (about $18,000 each) would reset attitudes about government spending, and even the scope and mission of government.
I don't think a tax on blowjobs would go over very well.
Trump would take it personally and veto it.
You mean Clinton.
Stormy is waving her pinky at you.
So broken.
Leave bill Clinton alone - sarc
No, I was saying he has a tiny penis like Trump. Get with the program.
So broken.
I am so tired of this bullshit. Guess what, monkeyass, just because someone calls out one TEAM doesn’t mean we’re cheering for the other TEAM. Whataboutism isn’t a rational argument, it’s pointless obfuscation. If you want to defend your TEAM, fine, go for it. I’d at least have a little respect for you. I mean, I’d probably still think you were an idiot, but at least I’d think you were an honest idiot.
It's a stupid venal fantasy as well because govt spending doesn't generally go to poor people. Poor people don't have power. You gotta be a real asshole to believe that poor people have the power to decide how govt spends money but don't have the power to actually get rich from that diversion.
Medicare/Medicaid - goes to doctors and medical professionals - and generally the higher income, the more govt gives to them.
Social Security - goes to older folks who are significantly wealthier than average
Defense Spending - Over half goes to investors in military contractors
Interest - Goes to bankers, hedge funds, currency speculators, etc
Everything else - may total about $7,000 per person per year but the VAST majority is distributed very widely from high-income to middle-class.
Roughly $1,800 per person per year is distributed to the poor. An order of magnitude less than you want to accuse them of. And if those poor folks are working, they pay more in taxes than they receive in spending.
Food stamps run about $300 a month for a single individual. I know, because I was on them in 2020 when the government wasn't letting me work. So... you are low by a factor of two for a single program. Then there's Medicare, and any number of other programs.
So given that your numbers are demonstrably incorrect, I see little reason that your views should be paid all that much attention.
See my post. Medicare goes to doctors not patients.
For most people, it does not matter where the all money goes as long as their favored recipients get enough. My hope is that paying $72k for a family of four would make almost everyone choke, and most become budget hawks overnight.
Most people who receive government spending get their entire income (or at least most of it) from government. And then they pay taxes. Since they mostly earn a higher income than average, a flat tax would be a tax cut. I assume that's not what you're advocating.
Wouldn't work. What do you do about people who don't have the income or assets to pay? You know what they say about blood and stones. Throw them in debtors' prison? That's going to cost even more. Exempt them? Once you start handing out exemptions, I find it hard to expect that those exemptions won't rapidly grow until they effectively swallow the program whole.
Let's see. I heard this in 1980, 1992, 2000, 2008, 2016...........
And the debt was much lower then.
Even in 2016 it was "only" 20 trillion. Now it's 33.7 trillion.
In 2000 it was 5.65 trillion.
With interest rates at 5%, just the minimum interest payment on 33.7 trillion is 1.685 trillion dollars per year.
3% on 20 trillion was 0.6 trillion per year.
Also back then, the dollar being the world reserve currency and oil being traded in dollars were monopolies. Brandon’s mumbling, fumbling, and bumbling has put those into jeopardy.
And it was just as true then as it is now. We nibbled a little around the edges of the problem and kept staggering on, but we're rapidly running out of road to kick that can down.
The other option, conspicuous by its absence, is the Magic Money Tree. The government will just print all of [it's own] money it needs and control interest rates and taxation as necessary.
20 years; according to actuarial science, that should not be a problem for me....
You just explained Modern Monetary Theory.
MMT: I prefer to call it the Magic Money Tree. Pretty much magical thinking on a macro scale. I can certainly see why it appeals to our current crop of politicians, and I expect that being able to dissemble about it for the next 20 years is just perfect for them.
Too subtle for sarc. Have pity on the poor guy.
Sarc's comment suggested they understood perfectly well, and I don't think QUT was actually suggesting this as a workable solution.
The United States has about 20 years
for corrective actionto kick the can down the road after whichno amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debtwe are really going to have to learn how to kick the can down the road real hard.That's gonna hurt; I can only speculate that the "person on horseback" who will have to ride in to save us will be a fascist or a Marxist, but either way will be equally demagogic and authoritarian.
I wonder what those automatic cuts to Social Security will do to help?
Nothing. Any income freed up will be diverted to more pressing needs.
SSA to be insolvent by 2035: 11+ years to go for that one. Only then will the seniors want to throw the bums out.
Those cuts will be forced anyway - the system won't be able to afford the cost of living increases to keep pace with inflation. Any scheme to borrow or inflate so as afford those increases will drive inflation more. Raising payroll taxes will be a hard sell to a younger population, the payroll taxes could never be raised enough. The system will likely self-destruct if it doesn't "reduce" benefits in the form of benefits never keeping pace with inflation.
I will be happy to take some of my promised benefits in non-cash equivalents, like federal real estate.
Less than nothing. If legislators won't even discuss the merest possibility of even modest reforms, what on earth makes you think they won't crank the deficit higher to at least pretend to avoid cuts as long as they can?
My $0.02:
Default is already inevitable.
No amount of tax increases without spending cuts can fix the problem. Congress will simply outspend any revenue increases.
Congress has shown zero ability to genuinely reign in spending.
When you have to borrow more every month to make the minimum payments on your previous debts, technically you're already broke.
Let me fix that for you: The voters have shown zero interest in electing a federal government to genuinely reign in spending.
Hurt today vs. a lot more sometime tomorrow/ next year/ etc.
Tomorrow, by virtually unanimous acclaim. Besides, isn't there going a be a giant meteor before then?
So, to summarize: tax revenue increases not gonna happen; spending cuts not gonna happen; social security reforms not gonna happen; debt payment defaults in ten to fifteen years. Possible worldwide monetary crisis is coming. Politicians: no problem, I won't be in office at that point.
The federal government won't default. The consequences to people with relative power would be too unfavorable. Instead the government will monetize the debt, with the Cantillon effects transferring wealth to those same powerful interests.
Did you think they were kidding when they said you'd own nothing?
Well, I've heard the Earth will be uninhabitable in 8 years due to climate change, so who cares about 20 year problems?
If voters cared about the national debt, they would have elected Gary Johnson in 2016.
Might as well have voted for Bernie Sanders..."Gary Johnson: I Agree With 73% of What Bernie Sanders Says"
I did the math before, and the solutions aren't simple. While the deficit varies, it hovers between 1/4 to 1/2 of the entire expenditures. Raising taxes "on the rich" won't cut it, tax hikes would have to be across the board. "Cutting waste" won't cut it, budget cuts would have to include the sacred cows of Social Security and the Military.
Taxes accumulated pay for five large expenditure categories. Everything else is paid for by deficit spending.
Military spending is a whipping boy. It's not nearly as much as people make it out to be and, unlike virtually any other spending - it serves a useful purpose across the board. Don't believe me? Go online and look up the numbers.
Taken over the last half-century, discretionary defense spending/OCOs is just shy of 20% of government spending. For perspective, ALL THE REST of government spending - every branch of government, each politician salary, every agency, every bureaucrat, not to mention all the foreign aid (another favorite whipping boy) - is about 15%.
That's only 35%.
Add in the juice, about 5% last time I checked, and that's 40% of federal discretionary spending.
The other 60%? Entitlements. Yes, 20% of that is social security. The other 40% are all the handouts/bailouts.
And, oddly enough, the budget is roughly the reverse - 60% taxes (about 15% of which is social security taxes), 40% borrowing.
We don't need to tax the rich. Or raise taxes on anyone else. We simply need to be serious and realistic when we say "cutting waste." Meaning WE NEED TO CUT OFF ALL THE ENTITLEMENTS. No more free healthcare, no more welfare, no more foodstamps, no more section 8 housing, no more industry bailouts and subsidies, no more unemployment, none of it. (Also, this simultaneously fixes the border problem as well.)
Then we lump sum payout the social security recipients and cut the tax completely.
The various other taxes stay in place (for now). Without social security we're bringing in 15% less, but the actual cost of government is still less. We put the 5% surplus into the debt (and if we want to kill it faster, we strip funding from Education, Environment, HUD, and HHS - none of which have any meaningful utility as it stands).
We wrap the debt up within a decade or two, and then a nation of self-reliant Americans all get a nice tax cut.
But, as you say - sacred cows. And no legislators I know of have the integrity to do something so critically necessary but that would likely get them assassinated for it.
If someone has a Ouija board, we could contact Mike Hihn and ask him how to fix this.
Would that involve the Hihn Equation?
SNICKERS
Add one chortle. And maybe a snort, or two.
20 years, I don't think so, the tipping point is much closer. $34T is are deferred taxes that need to be collected in the future. People should understand, when a politician wants to spend $1B, that means they need to collect additional taxes of $1B, which is roughly 4% of GDP, but is done is done in an incredibly cavalier manner.-
US GDP was over 23 trillion in 2021, 4% of which is over 900 billion.
I'm always amused when they talk about "debt owned by the public" as if not redeeming debt owned by the SS Trust Fund won't be a problem.
The DEBT is not the DEFICIT. And the DEFICIT is not the DEBT. They are separate problems.
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 crushing $479 billion 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 .
Yet another myth that just won't die. The inflationary effects of endless money printing would be as bad or worse than unchecked borrowing. You can't imagine your way out of debt.