CBO: Debt level will rise to 90% of GDP in nine years

posted at 10:40 am on March 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

When Barack Obama starts talking like a deficit hawk … grab your wallets.  According to the latest CBO analysis of the Obama administration’s budget projections, the US will add almost a trillion dollars in debt a year for the next nine years, bringing the national debt to 90% of our annual GDP.  The most amazing part of this is that the new projection only exceeds Obama’s by $1.2 trillion over the same period:

President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation’s economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president’s budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

“An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference,” said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying.”

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it’s headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO’s deficit estimates.

In this case, a picture may be worth a thousand million billion trillion quadrillion words:

The worst deficit under a Republican Congress was $400 billion in FY2004.  It’s also worth noting that the last budget produced by a Republican Congress spent $2.77 trillion (FY2007), and had a deficit of less than half of that peak.  While Republican Congresses added almost $800 billion in annual spending to the budget in six years — an indefensible expansion — that pales in comparison to the $1.1 trillion added by Democratic Congresses in just three years.  Under those conditions, the massive budget deficits shown in the CBO’s graph are simply unavoidable, and the best of the next ten years is double the worst of the Republican Congress from 2001-7.

Don’t expect that debt to come cheap, either.  We’re already seeing signs that our interest rates will have to go up in order to sell more paper, which will cause the deficit projections here to actually fall short of reality.  We could be looking at a collapse scenario where we can’t borrow enough to keep up with our interest payments by the time this decade concludes.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Mortgage debt is backed by collateral. What the government is bulking up on is precisely like credit card debt.

Vashta.Nerada on March 27, 2010 at 11:23 AM

I read the word “precisely” as a sign of danger. Out of anger and confidence, you say the Americans’ national debt is “precisely like credit card debt,” overlooking the circumstance that one’s credit card is not backed by a populace made to pay taxes or face imprisonment, and to stay imprisoned peaceably or be shot. On reflection, is it not amazing that you can say the two are precisely alike in their backing, when they seem so different?

Kralizec on March 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM

the fact is that the world is even worse shape is all that is propping us up.

rob verdi on March 27, 2010 at 1:26 PM

onlineanalyst on March 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Giving the executives an opportunity to repeat themselves in front of the camera seems unstrategic.

Kralizec on March 27, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Kids of 2010 Bury Time Capsule Preserving After-Tax Paychecks for Future Generations http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/03/kids-of-2010-bury-time-capsule.html

Mervis Winter on March 27, 2010 at 1:33 PM

On reflection, is it not amazing that you can say the two are precisely alike in their backing, when they seem so different?

Kralizec on March 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM

No, the two are precisely alike. They are both debt acquired to fund a lifestyle, to be paid back out of future earnings plus interest. In other words, it is ‘bad’ debt, as opposed to ‘good’ debt, which is leverage for durable goods.

The only difference between government debt and credit card debt is that if an individual doesn’t keep up with the payments, a collection agency calls, and if the nation doesn’t keep up, they either demand tax increases, foment inflation, or default.

Vashta.Nerada on March 27, 2010 at 1:35 PM

The CBO uses static analysis, which ignores any market forces. Thus the static analysis always produces numbers better than reality, usually by large percentages. This is why Congress will not allow the CBO to shift to dynamic analysis; the gig would have been up on OCare as just one example.

GnuBreed on March 27, 2010 at 1:39 PM

I never did like the idea of farming, so I suppose I would need to refuse them.

Bishop on March 27, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Don’t worry, folks like us will be declared “enemies of the state”, and wind up being fertilizer.

Rebar on March 27, 2010 at 1:53 PM

I’ve said this before and I will say it again…

… If you have ANY money in the bank or stashed around the house in coffee cans, I highly suggest you go out and buy goods and items that will make your life more comfortable in the case of a total, world wide, economic collapse.

Seeds, livestock, gunpowder, whiskey, and toilet paper should be the first on the list…

Seven Percent Solution on March 27, 2010 at 2:21 PM

What really bothers me is that on the basis of gross debt we are already at 90% but we don’t look at it that way..we subtract the U.S. debt held by the social security trust fund because that’s internal and can be either forgotten or monetized..that’s money you and I paid in and was converted to IOU’s..but hey..that doesn’t count

if I’m wrong on this please someone correct me!!

galtg on March 27, 2010 at 2:45 PM

The CBO uses static analysis, which ignores any market forces. Thus the static analysis always produces numbers better than reality, usually by large percentages. This is why Congress will not allow the CBO to shift to dynamic analysis

The reason that the CBO won’t use ‘dynamic analysis’ is because that becomes politicized. How certain taxes will affect the economy differs between the Heritage Foundation and mainstream economists (or even Warren Buffet for that matter).

bayam on March 27, 2010 at 3:24 PM

The worst deficit under a Republican Congress was $400 billion in FY2004. It’s also worth noting that the last budget produced by a Republican Congress spent $2.77 trillion (FY2007), and had a deficit of less than half of that peak. While Republican Congresses added almost $800 billion in annual spending to the budget in six years — an indefensible expansion — that pales in comparison to the $1.1 trillion added by Democratic Congresses in just three years

Fist, keep in mind that the new administration and Congress are engaged in very intentional deficit spending to help arrest and stop the recession. This isn’t controversial by most standards or by financial experts on Wall Street. You can fairly point out that the new spending won’t be cut back when the economy improves, and that’s a very good criticism.

Second, the absolute deficit isn’t a meaningful yardstick since it’s dictated by tax revenue, which has fallen off a cliff. Not only has tax revenue fallen hard, it was sustained by a bubble during the last year of Bush- that is, it was at an unsustainable, high level that we will never see return anytime soon.

Finally, this country needs to return to the tax and economic policies of the Clinton years (when a Republican Congress was also in power). Tax and fiscal policies were designed to reduce the deficit and were extremely successful. There was a budget surplus in 1999. Yes, it means higher taxes but that’s unavoidable at this point. If you think we can maintain today’s level of low taxes and reduce the deficit, you might as well believe in unicorns and fairies. It was Bush’s irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest coupled with new spending that created such a massive structural deficit in the first place. Even Warren Buffet and Bill Gates will tell you there’s no reason for their effective tax rates to be so incredibly low.

bayam on March 27, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Bayam unfortunately the Clinton years were not all that some pretend.

http://www.sbstatesman.com/2.870/the-clinton-surplus-myth-1.35974

The national debt went up every year. There was no surplus.

CWforFreedom on March 27, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Can we put Barry in jail for killing our nation through debt (from O-care TARP 1 and 2, Stimulus 1 and 2) and using ’smart diplomacy’ to alienate our allies and embolden our enemies? Impeachment is too good for him.

nyx on March 27, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Add to those crimes the fact that ObaMao and his cronies are not allowing us to be energy-independent. They are crippling oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries that would create jobs directly and indirectly, provide tax revenues, and assure our national security.

onlineanalyst on March 27, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Dollars to doughnuts this doesn’t include the real costs we’ll be spending for health care, nor all the borrowing we’ll have to do to cover SS deficits.

bikermailman on March 27, 2010 at 5:41 PM

The national debt went up every year. There was no surplus.

CWforFreedom on March 27, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Bingo. They claimed surplus (Bush started with surplus and look where he took us!) because they used SS surpluses to hide the deficit spending. Administrations of both stripes have done this, to be fair. Ho Chi Obowma won’t have that luxury though.

bikermailman on March 27, 2010 at 5:42 PM

I think the CBO is late to the game. Funny how these numbers come out after the HCR bill passed. I know the CBO is supposed to be a non bipartisan group but I think now they really don’t matter much, espically with zero at the helm tweaking numbers.

Brat4life on March 27, 2010 at 11:14 AM

My sentiments exactly! Anyone else remember that little conference the CBO chief had at the White House.

humdinger on March 27, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Bring it on! I can hardly wait for hyperinflation to allow me to pay off my real estate loan in just a couple of years.

unclesmrgol on March 28, 2010 at 1:20 AM

bayam on March 27, 2010 at 3:24 PM

How does it feel to bat 0.000?

daesleeper on March 28, 2010 at 3:08 AM

Critical point/ I’ve grown enough tobacco to last me till life’s end. I can distill ethanol from any sugar containing material.

I have enough guns and ammo to repulse the muslims.

Damn it feels good to be a gangster.

daesleeper on March 28, 2010 at 3:10 AM

These stats and projections do not include the GSE debt that is carried off book, but verbally guaranteed by Geithner on more than one occasion. Add in the toxic Frannie debt and you are looking at 120%.
Listen to the Eric Sprott interview on King World News…

rhodeymark on March 28, 2010 at 8:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2