Interest Rates Are High. GOP Presidential Candidates Need To Get Serious About It.
They will either reduce the ability to spend money or to cut taxes.

Remember when Republicans on the campaign trail would talk about how they would make sure to put the U.S. on a fiscally sane path? I miss that time. While a few of the current crop have paid lip service to the idea of constraining spending, no one seems to have a clear plan about how to do it.
It's unfortunate. Letting the spending trajectory we're on further deteriorate will hinder any plans these candidates have for their presidency. It could even jeopardize the fight against inflation.
As a reminder of our fiscal situation, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), we were running a $1.5 trillion deficit in May 2023. That's quite a spectacular number whether in a time of full employment, economic downturn, or emergency. This is in large part due to the spectacular increase in spending to $6.4 trillion. Data compiled by Brian Riedl show that in a little less than two years, "President Biden added $4.8 trillion to 10-year deficits." As a result, deficits are now projected to exceed $3 trillion in a decade.
Naturally, this means lots of debt. Overall debt just crossed over the $34 trillion level with no decrease in sight. Riedl adds that, depending on which assumptions one looks at, it will equal between 181 percent and 340 percent of America's annual GDP in the next 30 years. His projections are based on the CBO numbers, but I think that's too optimistic.
That's in part because interest rates are likely to be higher than what's being projected. That means high interest payments for years to come. This will not necessarily change even if the fight against inflation is really won. In a recent article, Jack Salmon of the Philanthropy Roundtable looks back at the path of interest rates and interest payments during the decade following the last major U.S. inflation period.
"In the early 1980s," Salmon writes, "when interest rates reached double-digit percentages, exceeding 14 percent, and then took some time to subside, the nation witnessed a dramatic rise in interest payments, peaking in the early 1990s at 3.16 percent of GDP."
This came at a time when the average maturity of the debt was even shorter than ours is today (five years as opposed to our current 5.9 years). We should take no comfort in our slight advantage of longer repayment terms. According to the Department of the Treasury, the majority of our debt has a maturity of three years or less, and 31 percent has a maturity of a year or less. That's not a long time. Also, while interest rates back in the 1980s were a little over twice our current level, the debt-to-GDP ratio was roughly four times lower than where it is today.
So even if we assume, wrongly in my opinion, serious relief from interest rates and inflation, we should still count on interest payments staying high for a long time, like they did in the 1980s.
They are already quite significant as the cost of servicing the debt has gone up from $476 billion in fiscal year 2022 to $659 billion in 2023. It is projected to hit $745 billion this year and $1.4 trillion in 10 years. That's an important chunk of our budget going on autopilot, joining the part already dedicated to entitlement programs.
With so much money already allocated, the next president won't have much to use for whatever else he or she wants to do. Of course, it would get much worse if interest rates go up again and inflation persists. Sadly, if politicians continue with the borrowing and spending, there is a good chance of that happening. After all, we got to this point after the pandemic spending splurge.
There's one more reason to take this seriously. The value of owning government bonds is based on the value of the expected future payoff. These payoffs come from primary surpluses (budget surpluses excluding interest payments). The larger the future primary surpluses, the higher the projected return for investors, and the lower the interest rates they'll demand for holding the debt. We, however, only have primary deficits in our future, which eventually lead enough investors to worry about repayment that they demand higher interest rates and fuel fear of more inflation.
These elevated interest payments should be at the center of all candidates' presidential plans, because they will either reduce the ability to spend money or to cut taxes. In the worst-case scenario, it could mean that much of the next presidency will be consumed by beating inflation back—again.
COPYRIGHT 2024 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
"Remember when Republicans on the campaign trail would talk about how they would make sure to put the U.S. on a fiscally sane path? I miss that time."
Well, since all they did was talk about it, who cares now?
Rand Paul talked about it. And got stomped in the primaries by Trump.
And people like KMW attack them while giving Democrats a pass so she can spare me the concern trolling.
^THIS^. I have been shocked at how Reason has turned into a lefty-rag since the more-so 'Libertarian' Trump Administration. It's like they lost their purpose when something actually happened in their favor.
"These payoffs come from primary surpluses (budget surpluses excluding interest payments)."
Actually, they come from a printer in the Treasury department.
Why? Trump is going to win the nomination, and I doubt this will be a priority if he's elected.
IOKIYAR
It was certainly more-so a priority than the current administration is demonstrating by about 10x.
Every time she writes an article like this it is always Republicans that have to do something. How about holding Democrats responsible sometime? Oh wait this is Reason, the Democrat site disguised as a Libratarian site.
It's because Democrats don't even pretend to be fiscally responsible, while Republicans do. Pretend that is.
And if you weren't a Leftist that wouldn't make a lick of difference (both Reason writers and you), in fact the irresponsible attitude of Democrats should generate more ire not less. That it produces nothing is telling of her actual priorities and yours.
You haven't a clue about me. You just slap me with a convenient label to make yourself feel better. Funny that's a Democrat trick. Are you sure that you don't have the whole "leftist" thing reversed?
Makes sense.
Presidents don't set tax rates or write spending bills. This is a legislative branch issue, not an executive one.
Wait, interest rates are high... compared to what?
Compared to the relatively brief period between 2010 and 2022 when they were artificially low.
A lifetime for the kids who run Reason.
And it was a lot longer ago than 2010. The too-low interest rate thing started all the way back at the turn of the century, with Greenspan trying to engineer a soft landing from the dot-com burst. A literal lifetime for some of these children.
Greenspan's response to irrational exuberance left the Fed with no tools, since rates were so low. Caused a housing bubble that burst after half a decade of perverse incentives everywhere in the housing market from buyers to wall street, left the Fed with even fewer tools so they poured money into the market (QE) to goose the economy that was being crippled by shitty federal responses... yeah, and then there was the 2010 to Covid era. Fucking 3% mortgage rates into double digit inflation massively goosed by government spending and handouts are going to fuck up housing markets something fierce for a long time -- want to talk about the divide between haves and have nots? Nope, it's haves and never will haves.
Of course, speaking of perverse incentives, the cheap as chips borrowing made horrific
overspendingdeficit spending look less painful than it really was, to the point where historically normal interest rate change makes debt service terribly expensive. Except, it has always been that bad, but the Fed has artificially tamped the badness down. For two decades.But, yeah, it's just Republican hopefuls in the presidential primary that are the ones to get serious about this.
More QE then? How about austerity?
How many politicians have ever won by promising harder times ahead? Usually, they are going to keep you out of war (Wilson) or keep a warmonger opponent from expanding a war (LBJ) or uniting folks (Obama) or keeping out undesirables at the border (Trump), saving blacks from enslavement (Biden).
Used to joke about growing my own potatoes. Now that red skins went from $2.30 a bag to $6.20 a bag (and worsening quality), it’s no longer a joke. Produce is rotten ever since Biden. Read on Xi Bloomberg that tech inserted itself in grocery to save the planet. lots of climate kickbacks to tech companies. Green new jobs programs = rotten expensive produce.
FJB
Fortunately, there's a third option: Cut Spending!
That's the libertarian conundrum. Cut what exactly? Any cut in spending means someone loses their job or transfer payment. Remember the "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" meme? Cutting spending is great, until someone does it. Then the people affected by it get angry and vote the person responsible out of office.
There's a fourth option - jubilee.
what exactly are they gonna do? These idiots cannot fix it. It's too late.
The fundamental issue is that Americans are neither willing to pay for what we get nor willing to give it up. If we were, a winning campaign could promise to raise taxes or cut some of the 60% of our budget that goes to defense, Social Security, Medicare, and interest.
Yes THIS.... The conquer and consume (dog-eat-dog) mentality entrenched in [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] ideology has taken-over desires for Liberty and Justice for all.
Another recent post (20 Percent of Welfare Spending Goes to the Households Taxed To Fund It) is illuminating. Note that 80% of welfare spending goes to those who are not taxed to fund it, in other words, welfare is mostly transfer payments. Those clamoring for lower taxes and those clamoring for continuing payouts are not the same group, though there may be some (20 -30%) overlap as that post indicates.