Deficits and Depression

· Thursday, October 14, 2010

We will learn in November just how angry the public is about a lot of things, from higher taxes to massive unemployment.

But the popular uproar pales in comparison to the sense of humiliation that we Americans are quite broke. In 2008, the public was furious at George W. Bush, not because he was too much of a right-wing tightwad, but because he ran up a series of what were then thought to be gargantuan deficits. The result was that under a supposedly conservative administration, and despite six years of an allegedly small-government Republican Congress, the deficit nearly doubled from $3.3 trillion to $6.3 trillion in just eight years.

Barack Obama apparently never figured out that he had been elected in part because that massive Republican borrowing had sickened the American people. So in near-suicidal fashion, he took Bush's last scheduled budget deficit of more than $500 billion -- in a Keynesian attempt to get the country out of the 2008 recession and financial panic -- and nearly tripled it by 2010. Obama's new red ink will add more than $2.5 trillion to the national debt -- with near-trillion-dollar yearly deficits scheduled for the next decade. All of that will result in a U.S. debt of more than $20 trillion.

What exactly is it about big deficits and our accumulated debt that is starting to enrage voters?

First, the public is tired of the nonchalant way that smarmy public officials take credit for dishing out someone else's cash without a thought of paying for it. Each week, President Obama promises another interest group more freshly borrowed billions, now euphemistically called "stimulus." But the more public money he hands out to states, public employees, the unemployed or the green industry, the more voters wonder where in the world he's getting the cash. The next time a public official puts his name on yet another earmarked federal project, let him at least confess whether it was floated with borrowed money.

Second, there is a growing sense of despair that even vastly increased income taxes cannot cover the colossal shortfalls. At least the old Clinton tax rates of the 1990s balanced the budget. But should we bring them back, we would still run a deficit of more than $1 trillion in 2011 -- given the vast increases in federal spending.

That bleak reality creates hopelessness -- and anger -- among voters, who feel they are being taken for fools by their elected officials. The public opposes tax hikes not because they don't wish to pay down the debt, but because they suspect the increased revenue will simply be a green light for even greater deficit spending.

Third, it does no good for Beltway technocrats to explain how deficits are good at "stimulating" the economy, or why they do not really have to be paid back. Voters know that such gibberish does not apply to their own mortgages and credit card bills.

Voters feel relieved when they can pay off debt and become chronically depressed when they cannot. When the government last balanced the budget in 2000 under the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress, the country collectively experienced as much of a psychological high as it is now collectively experiencing humiliation over being ridiculed as a spendthrift borrower.

So national reputation and sense of self also matter. Americans are tired of hearing about inevitable Chinese ascendency and American decline. They know China is still in many ways a repressive developing country facing huge political, environmental and demographic challenges. But Americans also concede that China's huge budget and trade surpluses result in trillions of dollars in cash reserves -- and hence global clout, world respect and a promising future that seems not likewise true of spend now/pay later America.

Fourth, there is real fear that something terrible will soon come from this unsustainable level of spending. Interest rates are at historic lows. But if they should rise, just servicing the current debt would cost even more hundreds of billions in borrowed dollars. Soon, we will face a bleak choice of either slashing national defense or Social Security -- or both -- just when the nation is graying and the world is becoming more dangerous than ever. Will the Chinese lend us the money to deploy an aircraft carrier off their coast, or finance new American health-care entitlements that they cannot afford for 400 million of their own people?

In this upcoming election, all the old political pluses -- years of incumbency, entrenched seniority and pork-barrel earmarks -- are proving to be liabilities. Instead, the more public officials admit to being in control when trillions of dollars were run up, the more Americans want them gone.

We are humiliated by what we owe. If we cannot pay it back, will at least want political payback.

It's that simple this year.

(C) 2010 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

TJS

Hanson is great, but like all other commentators he is wrong about the national debt - it is far larger than the conventional wisdom states. The term "deficit" is a bookkeeping deception. The annual increase in debt is what's important, and for FY2009 Obama increased the debt by $1.885 trillion, and for FY2010 it increased $1.651 trillion, total $3.536 trillion. Conventional reporting puts the amounts at $1.4 t and $1.3 t, total $2.7 t. The true amount is 31% higher.

The real problem is that government is now 63% of the economy, like Europe. That's 44% of GDP in direct government spending, and about 19% of GDP in the cost of regulations.

We will have high unemployment and slow growth until we chop government way back. I suggest cutting government in half. That would double the amount of money available for the rest of us. How's that for economic stimulus?

Posted October 14, 2010 at 3:19:11 PM


Richard

"At least the old Clinton tax rates of the 1990s balanced the budget."???

No way, Jose!! There was an increase in social security tax revenue that allowed the government to pay off some treasury bonds but Congress spent more than the government took in. The national debt increased every year of Clinton. Look it up.

Posted October 15, 2010 at 12:17:31 AM


Richard

National Debt Budget Deficit

FY1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion

FY1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion

FY1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion

FY1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion

FY1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion

FY1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion

FY2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion

FY2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Posted October 15, 2010 at 12:25:24 AM


TJS

At last, I see someone who realizes the truth. Thanks, Richard. The national debt has always risen, never declined. And the last two years are by far the worst ever.

Posted October 15, 2010 at 4:06:44 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund