iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Rep. Jason Chaffetz

Rep. Jason Chaffetz

Posted: October 1, 2009 11:55 AM

Unhappy Fiscal New Year

What's Your Reaction?

The federal government's fiscal year begins October 1, and there's little reason to believe this year will be better than the last. Publicly held federal debt is forecast to increase from 56% of gross domestic product to 66% in 2010, driven by a budget deficit of $1.5 trillion in 2010. When debts owed to various government trust funds are included, our debt burden will reach nearly 100% of GDP in 2010. When unfunded liabilities of more than $100 trillion from Social Security, Medicare, and government employee pensions are included, our total debt is several times larger than GDP.

Contrary to what some have told us in the past, deficits and debts do matter, and at the levels these debts have been accumulating, they matter a lot. Excessive government debts eventually lead to higher interest rates, inflation, a reduction in private investment, and a higher percentage of tax dollars being used to pay off interest instead of funding programs or cutting taxes. In 2010, nearly $200 billion will be spent on interest payments, almost half of which will be going overseas. Interest payments are forecast to skyrocket to $829 billion by 2019.

So far, we've been able to avoid many of the consequences of excessive debts, but we are living not just on borrowed money but on borrowed time. Increases in the prices of precious metals and foreign currencies are an indication that many investors are already getting nervous and are beginning to hedge their bets against the dollar and the U.S. economy. If supply of government debt exceeds demand for government debt, interest rates will have to increase in order to attract buyers of government debt. High interest rates will slow economic growth.

In 2010, more than 60% of the federal budget is so-called mandatory spending that is on auto-pilot and does not even require appropriations by Congress. Any serious budget reform will have to eventually focus on entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid which are the lion's share of mandatory spending. However, reforming these programs has proven difficult as the current health care debate demonstrates.

Attempts to reduce smaller discretionary programs have proven to be problematic as well. Notoriously wasteful programs such as mohair subsidies and the market access program continue to be funded every year. While large mandatory entitlement programs are considered too large or too politically dangerous to cut, numerous small and mid-size discretionary programs are unfortunately considered too small to worry about.

The federal government currently funds thousands of government programs, so many in fact that getting an exact number of government grants and programs is difficult. Many of these programs have existed for decades and have long outlived their usefulness, assuming they were ever useful in the first place. Congress needs to aggressively identify and terminate these programs.

Several weeks ago, I co-founded the Sunset Caucus. Members of our caucus have already identified programs to be sunsetted. Individually, these proposed cuts may not have a huge impact on the deficit. Collectively, these cuts will add up and, more importantly, will give Congress the courage and the ability to tackle the larger problem of entitlement spending. Obviously, cutting small and mid-size discretionary programs alone will not balance the budget, but Congress has to start somewhere.


 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:45 PM on 10/01/2009
For those whose jaws dropped to their knees reading the Representative's missive, wondering many things, not the least of which is why a member of Congress would portray the founding of a subcommittee of the Republican Study Committee as the founding a full congressional caucus ("I co-founded the Sunset Caucus" whose proper name is RSC Sunset Caucus), there's more to wonder at.

For example, these are the first of the "programs (that) have existed for decades and have long outlived their usefulness, assuming they were ever useful in the first place" which have previously been "too small to worry about" which "Congress needs to aggressively identify and terminate" that have been identified by the Sunset caucus to be eliminated:

The Economic Stimulus Package
The Presidential Election Fund
Americorps
The National Endowment for the Arts
Amtrak
The Nuclear Waste Fund

See, didn't your jaw drop to the floor again?
DanBest
My micro bio is empty
05:02 PM on 10/01/2009
The only thing I want to hear from any republican politician is "sorry, we blew your children's future on tax breaks for rich people who didn't need them and useless wars with no objective"

Your side has no credibility when it comes to deficit reduction. It's like listening to a temperance lecture by a blind drunk.
04:23 PM on 10/01/2009
Deficits do matter, but what we spend the money for and how we spend it matters more. I have no doubt that we could save a ton of money having government employees perform a lot of the tasks that are now contracted out to private firms. Just look at a lot of what the Corp of Engineers do. Rather than doing engineering, their time is spent reviewing plans contracted out at exorbitant cost to private engineering firms because we elect representatives who think 1) that because these people work for the government they must be incompetent and 2) that something is wrong if a profit isn't being made. Our government would be a lot less costly if our representatives believed in the people who work for the government. (Effective overhead would be less because you wouldn't need the additional infrastructure to support the people doing the actual work and there would be no need for someone to make a profit on the project.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TrekBear
This space is intentionally left blank
03:22 PM on 10/01/2009
So where were you and you're cohorts for most of the last 15 years when the GOP was running Congress and running up massive deficits for your favored groups?
02:20 PM on 10/01/2009
Gee, I'd be almost willing to take you seriously if you had identified who said "deficits don't matter". A republican, wasn't it? Vice president Cheney to be exact....

Of course you fail to address which party, and its policies and politicans, gave us the enormous national debt we are carrying. And which party and politicans first began sending US industry to low labor cost nations...no, it wasn't Bill Clinton; he merely sought "bipartisanship" by supporting Bush 1's "free" trade philosophy. Sending American business overseas ended two decades od earnings gains by the middle class.

No, Congressman, you may not have been a member of the conservative Congresses, a co-conspirator of conservative presidents who broke the economic back of this nation....but you joined that mob with your eyes open. Now you're crying in your beer about deficits when our current president is simply (whether doing in correctly or not) trying to repair what NIxon, Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 1/2 have done to this country.

Try to understand, Congressman, it isn't social spending that's hurting the nation, it's conservative economic policies that have stunted America's economic growth. The percent of the federal budget that is social spending is simply a reflection of how America's economy is shrinking.

Another way to think about it, Congressman, social spending is the moral duty an industrialized nation owes to its people. We are not an agrarian nation where unemployed can turn to farming...thus die before they're old enough to retire.
02:49 PM on 10/01/2009
I've always loved a good smack down. Thanks!
04:03 PM on 10/01/2009
exact quote from Ron Suskind's book "The Price of Loyalty" - ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." This was VP Dick Cheney to Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury Secretary, fired for speaking truth to power. Cheney's comment was in the context of Bush's second round of tax cuts when it was clear that they had already blown Clinton's surplus. I'm with Liberal2 on this, if you want to be taken seriously, 'fess up completely rather than sliding this comment in. These born-again deficit Republican hawks talk the talk but they have been unable to walk the walk.