The US’ enormous budget deficit is now exceeded as a share of national income only by Greece and Egypt among all of the world’s major economies. To be sure, the current deficit of 9.1 percent of GDP is due in part to the effects of the recession. However, according to the official projections of the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO), even after the economy returns to full employment, the deficit will remain so large that the US’ national debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to rise for the rest of this decade and beyond.
Understanding how to achieve US fiscal consolidation requires understanding why the budget deficit is projected to remain so high. Before looking at the projected future deficits, consider what happened in the first two years of US President Barack Obama’s administration that caused the deficit to rise from 3.2 percent of GDP in 2008 to 8.9 percent of GDP last year (which in turn pushed up the national debt-to-GDP ratio from 40 percent to 62 percent).
The 5.7 percent-of-GDP rise in the budget deficit reflected a 2.6 percent-of-GDP fall in tax revenues (from 17.5 percent to 14.9 percent of GDP) and 3.1 percent-of-GDP rise in outlays (from 20.7 percent to 23.8 percent of GDP). According to the CBO, less than half of the 5.7 percent-of-GDP increase in the budget deficit was the result of the economic downturn, as the automatic stabilizers added 2.5 percent of GDP to the rise in the deficit between 2008 and last year.
The CBO analysis calls the changes in the budget deficit induced by cyclical conditions “automatic stabilizers,” on the theory that the revenue decline and expenditure increase (mainly for unemployment benefits and other transfer payments) caused by an economic downturn contribute to aggregate demand and thus help to stabilize the economy.
In other words, even without the automatic stabilizers — that is, if the economy had been at full employment in 2008-2010 — the US budget deficit still would have increased by 3.2 percent of GDP. Lower revenue and increased outlays each account for about half of this “full-employment” rise in the deficit.
Looking ahead, the CBO projects that enacting the budget proposed by the Obama administration in February would add US$3.8 trillion to the national debt between last year and 2020, causing the debt-to-GDP ratio to soar from 62 percent to 90 percent. That US$3.8 trillion net debt increase reflects a roughly US$5 trillion increase in the deficit, owing to higher spending and weaker revenues from middle and lower-income taxpayers, offset in part by US$1.3 trillion in tax increases, primarily on high-income earners.
Even this enormous increase in the projected deficits and debt underestimates the fiscal damage that the Obama administration’s budget, if enacted, would inflict. The proposed budget assumes that non-defense “discretionary” spending (which requires congressional approval, unlike so-called “mandatory” spending like Social Security pension benefits, which continues to grow unless the US Congress changes the benefits) will rise by a total of only 5 percent in the decade from last year to 2020, implying a decline in real terms and no scope for new programs. The annual level of defense spending is projected to decline by about US$50 billion in each year after next year — a very optimistic view of US military needs in the decade ahead.
Shrinking the US’ budget deficit to prevent a further rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio from its current level will require reduced spending and increased revenue. That increase in revenue can be achieved without raising marginal tax rates, namely by limiting the amount of tax reduction that individuals and businesses can achieve from the various “tax expenditures” that form an important part of the US tax code, but that is a subject for another column.
On the expenditure side, however, the prospect that the national debt could double during the next decade is just the start of the fiscal problem that the US now faces. The budget outlook in subsequent decades is dominated by the increasing costs of Social Security and Medicare benefits, which are projected to take the debt-to-GDP ratio from 90 percent in 2020 to 190 percent in 2035. Fundamental reform of these programs is the primary challenge for the US’ public finances — and thus for the long-term health of the US economy.
Martin Feldstein is a professor of economics at Harvard University, was chairman of former US president Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers and is a former president of the National Bureau for Economic Research.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US