A Look at our National Debt

The Congressional Budget Office pipes up.  Here’re some highlights from its January 31 annual Budget and Economic Outlook.

The current-law baseline which the CBO uses is a set of budget projections based on existing law as enacted, including sunsets and expirations.  These assumptions thus accept, for instance, that all temporary tax provisions, including those originally enacted as part of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003—the Bush tax cuts—will expire as scheduled and that the alternative minimum tax (AMT) will not be indexed for inflation past 2011.  Further, under these baseline assumptions, about $1 trillion of spending cuts that mandated under the Budget Control Act of 2011 following the failure of Congress’ supercommittee will begin as scheduled in January 2013.

What flows from this baseline?  The budget deficit falls from the current year’s nearly $1.1 trillion, or 7.0 percent of GDP, to 1.5 percent of GDP in fiscal 2015—primarily due to an optimistic 25 percent increase in total federal revenues during that period.  The CBO cautions, though, that the deficit will resume its expansion post-2015 due to mandatory spending on programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and increasing interest payments on the still expanding federal debt.

The CBO also offered estimates based on an alternate scenario and its assumptions.  In its “alternative fiscal scenario,” the CBO assumes that the expiring Bush tax cuts are extended (excluding the current 2% payroll tax holiday); the AMT is indexed for inflation post-2011; Medicare physician payments are held constant at current levels (rather than falling nearly 30 percent in March 2012); and the spending cuts required under the Budget Control Act do occur.

Using these assumptions, the CBO concludes that annual budget deficits will remain elevated at about 5.4% of GDP over the next 10 years, and the ratio of publicly held debt to GDP will rise from its current elevated level of nearly 72% in fiscal 2012 to over 94% in fiscal 2022.

There are other aspects to this.  The CBO estimates that with the Bush tax cut expiry, economic growth—GDP growth—will be a meager 1.1% until recovery can begin in the out-years.  On the other hand, were these alternate assumptions enacted, GDP growth would be 0.3 to 2.9 per centage points greater than under current law.  Later in the decade, though, higher levels of government borrowing would crowd out private investment, drive up interest rates, and hold back economic growth.

Notice what’s not being assumed in the alternative scenario: real cuts in spending.  The assumptions don’t even include the effects of the fictional cuts of “reduced increases” in future spending.  What is it that drives that “higher level of government borrowing?”  It’s not not enough revenue for the government.  It’s too much spending by the government.

When, and only when, government spending is reduced to sane levels can we begin to pay down our burgeoning national debt.  Only by leaving our money in our hands and not having it taken away from us by ever-increasing taxes and by ever-increasing debt payments can our private investments increase, our job creation increase, our prosperity begin to recover.

h/t: Deloitte

Information Flow, PRC Style

Last month the People’s Republic of China’s government news service, Xinhua News Service, carried a statement from the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) concerning the PRC’s decision about what the Chinese people will be permitted to see on theirthe government’s television sets.  The translation is courtesy of NightWatch.

A recently implemented rule has effectively curbed the “excessive entertainment” trend as two-thirds of the entertainment programs on China’s 34 satellite channels have been cut….  According to an SARFT directive last October, each of the country’s satellite channels would be limited to broadcasting two entertainment programs each week and a maximum of 90 minutes of content defined as entertainment every day during primetime….  The directive also required channels to broadcast at least two hours of news programming.

The restricted programs on the SARFT list include dating shows, talent contests, talk shows as well as emotional stories that were deemed ‘excessive entertainment’ and of “low taste.”  …the satellite channels have started to broadcast programs that promote traditional virtues and socialist core values.  The newly-added programs…are documentaries as well as cultural and educational programs….  The SARFT believes that the move to cut entertainment programming is crucial in improving cultural services for the public….

Nothing like limiting speech “for their own good.”  The Chinese people apparently are sufficiently bereft in judgment that they cannot be left to their own devices—or to their own decisions concerning what speech they might wish to hear.

KnightWatch reminds us that the PRC does not have freedom of speech.  It’s important to note, also, that these broadcasting restrictions are consistent with another fundamental ideological position of the PRC: free markets, free speech, freedom of association, and so on are not inalienable rights; they are privileges granted by government, to be adjusted from time to time solely according to government judgment.

Consider also, the background of this broadcasting move.  In response to increasing influence in the PRC  by Western culture and ideas, which has been facilitated by increasing foreign trade (and some loosening of economic strictures in the direction of freer markets), which in turn helps foster an increasingly prosperous peasant and middle class population (at least by historical Chinese standards), Chinese leadership is pulling back and retightening restrictions.

Last fall, the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee approved an explicitly ideological foundation for cultural activities, announcing a new policy specifically to eliminate many Western entertainment shows and so limit much foreign influence.  Moreover, the PRC government earlier this year ordered internet service providers to ensure that microblog posters (a rough equivalent to the Western Twitter facility) have registered their accounts under their real names—no anonymity here. The government also has pressured those running the microblog platforms to censor themselves “voluntarily.”

So, I ask: of what is the PRC government so afraid?  Oh, wait—it’s the men populating the government…. And I ask further: why do we want these guys for our national banker?

h/t Business Insider