Thursday, December 1, 2011

The National Debt

I scheduled our discussion of the national debt for this week in the hopes that we would have a deal from the "supercommittee" (officially known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction) to discuss. Unfortunately, they were unable to come to any agreement. Instead, I'll talk a little about the readings and then discuss the implications of the lack of a deal.

This week's reading on the national debt is one of the most up to date that we've read so far. Although the chapter was written before the "debt ceiling crisis" of the summer, it asks many of the same questions that the supercommittee has tried to reconcile over the past few months. Most notably, how can we work to reduce our large deficit without stalling or preventing an economic recovery. Of course, the supercommittee is also concerned with the political ramifications of their actions. We have had two bipartisan committees tasked with reducing the national debt, the Bowles-Simpson National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and the Rivlin-Domenici Debt Reduction Task Force. Both of these committees were bipartisan and offered recommendations for reducing the debt as models from which the supercommittee could work (even though the Bowles-Simpson commission failed to reach the supermajority among commission members necessary to fully endorse their plan). Even with these blueprints, the committee was unable to make a recommendation for action. As the chapter points out, Americans want to balance the budget while cutting taxes and increasing spending, an impossible task. Any cuts or tax-increases would run the risk of being politically unpopular less than a year before a major national election.

When the Supercommittee was formed as part of the debt ceiling deal this summer, a system of sequestration or automatic cuts to defense, Medicare (providers only), and Social Security was created as a consequence of the supercommittee failing to pass an additional $1.5 trillion in cuts. The good news is that these cuts will not occur until FY2013, so there is still time for Congress to reach an agreement. Policymakers on both sides are already attempting to over-ride sequestration for their preferred programs, but the Obama administration has vowed to veto any such attempts. It seems as though we have reached an impasse.

So, now that the supercommittee has failed, what can we expect? The Obama administration is hoping that the full Congress can pass extensions on the payroll tax cut and extended unemployment benefits before recessing in December. The Republicans are hoping to avoid raising taxes and to make the Bush tax cuts permanent while further cutting domestic spending and fundamentally altering entitlement programs (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security). Democratic members of the legislature are hoping to preserve Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security while letting the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest members of society expire. Regardless of what happens, as we saw with the debt-ceiling debate, the appearance of a "do-nothing Congress" may be the most damaging aspect of these negotiations to the economy, our democracy, and the faith-and-credit of the US government.

3 comments:

  1. It still continues to amaze me that this country has been unable to resolve its debt problem. This problem has been going on for how many decades now. Not only are we unable to get out of debt but we can’t even balance a budget. I believe that this inability comes from ideological differences. Each party tends to spend the money they want in the areas the want and plan to pay for it, if they plan on paying for it at all, by reducing spending in the areas that the other side wants to increase spending. While I know there will always be differences in how we should spend our money it seems we should have been unable to come to some level of understanding to balance a budget in the last half century. It has recently become even more difficult with the 2 wars we have become involved in not to mention the increasing interest on the debt that we already have. Now as you mentioned we have to try and reduce our large deficit without hurting our economic recovery. I am a believer in Keynesian economics. If the government spends money in times of economic trouble it should help stimulate the economy and avoid recessions. However this means that when the economy is doing well we need to reduce our spending but not spending money is not something Congress has ever been good at. This is just an innate part of the system unfortunately as voters appreciate politicians spending money on programs they like and rarely consider the economic ramifications. I agree that Americans want to balance the budget while cutting taxes and increasing spending. A politician making any changes to spending risks being politically unpopular. At best the country is on opposite sides of what to cut and what to spend on. As you said policymakers on both sides are trying to over-ride sequestration for their preferred programs but I am glad that the Obama administration said they will veto any attempts. We will never get anywhere as long as each side is only looking out for themselves and not willing to make any concessions.

    Travis Gorney PAF340

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find it amusing how both sides can bring facts to support their argument while completely dismissing the other side. It's clear that it will take a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to get the economy back on track but both parties are afraid to be wrong. Or if we're going to keep tax cuts where they are, why not restructure them as incentives.
    The National Debt reading mentions how low tax rates are, in comparison, to European countries but yet companies just sit on their extra revenue. I say offer tax cuts to those companies that are creating jobs and actually taking steps to grow the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice information on here, I would like to share with you all my experience trying to get a loan to expand my Clothing Business here in Malaysia. It was really hard on my business going down due to my little short time illness then when I got heal I needed a fund to set it up again for me to begin so I came across Mr Benjamin a loan consultant officer at Le_Meridian Funding Service He asked me of my business project and I told him i already owned One and i just needed loan of 200,000.00 USD he gave me form to fill and I did also he asked me of my Valid ID in few days They did the transfer and my loan was granted. I really want to appreciate there effort also try to get this to anyone looking for business loan or other financial issues to Contact Le_Meridian Funding Service On Email: lfdsloans@lemeridianfds.com / lfdsloans@outlook.com He also available on WhatsApp Contact:+1-9893943740.

    ReplyDelete