More

Spending The Deficit


The Congressional Budget Office announced last week that the federal deficit for 2009 would be $1.2 trillion--as a share of the economy, the largest since World War II. And that's not even including the proposed stimulus package. Responding to that staggering sum, President-elect Barack Obama warned that without decisive action, "trillion-dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come."

But just how much is $1.2 trillion?

To put this year's deficit in perspective, we thought of a few unrealities that carry a similar price tag:

  • 300 billion gallons of milk to do the body good.
  • 4.8 billion Nintendo Wiis, more than enough to keep our kids happy and coordinated.
  • 72.6 million children's education in 2009--or every student in kindergarten through college.
  • 5,000 dollars to everyone in Japan and 500 dollars to everyone in China--enough to pay down our foreign debt to both countries.
  • 365 free movie tickets for everyone in America.
  • 5 years of free gasoline across the country.
  • 4 major companies: Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Microsoft and Wal-Mart.
  • 2 wars in Iraq; this one, and a second shot at Mission Accomplished.
  • 1 year's worth of everything produced in Canada.


Noble causes, all, but one in particular stands out: compensation for all of Bernard Madoff's defrauded investors with a 2000 percent rate of return.

The authors are Research Analysts of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

Follow Rob Fishman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rbfishman

 
 
  • Comments
  • 22
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:58 PM on 01/18/2009
Just remember that figure of 1.2 trillion in the next few months when car companies make a wonderful case for not making electric or hybrid cars, claiming they are not economically viable.

The market for cars was 18 million at its peak and they say the market now is about 12 million vehicles. Suppose that putting a battery in a hybrid adds 5,000 dollars to the cost of the car.

That means you could subsidize 1 million hybrids with 5 billionn dollars

You could subsidize 10 million hybrids with 50 billion dollars.

You could subsidize 12 million hybrids, the entire annual production of cars in the usa every year, for 5 years, for 300 billion dollars.

It is unlikely that it will cost 5000 dollars to add a battery to a gas vehicle to make a hybrid when they are mass produced in large quantities. The cost will probably be halved. What's more, when the mileage goes up and oil imports slow to a trickle, the dollar will get very strong making foreign goods cheaper and your paycheck worth a lot more in purchasing power.

Just remember what ol' fresh tolya when you hear all the whining and crying coming from the right in the next few months and everybody stands around scratching a hole in their head wondering how they can afford these big bailouts.
11:14 PM on 01/18/2009
People already get tax relief for buying hybrids. The problem is no one is buying hybrids right now as demand has plummeted along with gasoline prices. Second, our domestic auto companies make very little margin from selling hybrid vehicles so it really doesn't help them much to sell more of them. They need to sell high margin vehicles to become profitable again; although GM and Chrysler by any measure are insolvent companies (and GM stock is worth zero).
12:14 PM on 01/17/2009
Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. I surprised that anyone would attempt to publish a credible article and use the rosy scenario numbers babbled forth by the spokes liars of the Federal Government. While last year's official deficit was 455 billion dollars the National Debt increased by 1.017 trillion dollars. The difference is smoke and mirrors. The Social Security Surplus and other Governmental Agencies accounts are spent and replaced with IOUs. The Wars and other "security" items are also kept off budget. Thus in 2007 the reported deficit was 167 billion while the national Debt increased by 580 billion.

What we have seen in the first three months of the fiscal year is Bush's structural deficit of about 50 billion per month (about the average of the last 6 years), falling tax revenues and bailout spending. This yielded a total of 500 billion for the first quarter. Going forward the 1.2 trillion dollar number is meaningless. Realistically that number should be about 1.8 trillion plus at least another trillion for the stimulus and continuing bailouts. So this year's deficit could be about 3 trillion in total.

Oh, I forgot to mention the costs of the potential liabilities taken on by Bush, Paulson and Bernanke in their loan guarantees and other commitments of 8 trillion. If all those "troubled assets" turn out to be worth what Lehman's similar assets sold for (8 cents on the dollar) the deficit will be closer to 10 trillion. Enjoy!
12:08 PM on 01/18/2009
The national debt also increased every single year under Clinton by the way, so it all needs to be put into context. Also, the overall size of the national debt is not what is important. It's its size relative to GDP and the percent size of the budget it takes to make the interest payments. So the good news is that under George W, nominal GDP has increased in lock-step with the national debt (that is, until last year) and the percentage of the national budget allocated to make interest payments on that debt was in 2007 small than in any other year since 1980 (that's occurred because interest rates on the debt are so low).
08:00 AM on 01/19/2009
That is true however the debt under Clinton went up 1.537 trillion over 8 years for a 37% increase. Under Bush it has risen 4.915 trillion or by 86%. Further, in Clinton's last year the debt went up a mere 19 billion or 0.33% whereas in Bush's last year it has increased by 1.44 trillion or 16%. And as stated above Bush and Co. have also cosigned for an additional 8 trillion in obligations.
12:13 PM on 01/17/2009
These are not really good examples of how big a number like that is. Well, the $5000 to all Japanese and $500 to all Chinese aren't bad examples, I guess,
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Pdubya
12:06 PM on 01/17/2009
it is totally bizarre that people continue to accept the term "stimulus" by the government as anything more than usury and more of the same.

credit comes from savings, not more credit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XkabcSkpOA&eurl=http://www.dailypaul.com/
photo
Erdgeist
per omnia extrema
10:11 AM on 01/17/2009
I would like so see President Obama engage in a robust amount of deficit spending to get the economy going and then use the National Debt crisis as a pretext to cut military spending, increase real taxes on U.S. corporations, eliminate off-shoring, and institute a revenue tariff on all imported goods (including oil) which could rake in almost 300 billion dollars a year. Only then will the National Debt go away.
12:11 PM on 01/18/2009
Taking away corporations right/ability to hire people from abroad is not going to happen. Some moderate adjustments to the tax code can be made that may dissuade a few companies from doing so, but that's going to be about it. As for a revenue tariff, that is not going to happen as it would destroy the entire global financial system. It would make the recent US financial collapse look like childs-play as tariffs would almost certainly result in a run on the dollar, particularly by the Chinese and Japanese. It would create massive unemployment to levels not seen since the 1930s.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter007
10:26 PM on 01/16/2009
Democrats certainly were not going to complain about spending. Its part of their platform. Only some conservative Republicans were complaining. In case you didn't notice, Bush had about a 25% approval rating. Democrats only accounted for about 50% of that, More than half of Republicans didn't agree with Bush. They were kept quiet by the party leaders.
10:12 PM on 01/16/2009
It's half of 2010's deficit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joebhed
Greenback Revolutionist
09:22 PM on 01/16/2009
The $1.2 TRILLION deficit for 2009 is akin to an increase in the national debt by that amount.
I believe it was around 1977 that the TOTAL national debt was at $1.2 TRILLION.

For more than the first 200 years of this nation's existence, for every bridge built or mile of highway or building, including many very expensive wars, we did not run up $1.2 TRILLION in national debt.

We talk about $1.2 TRILLION for 2009, but it was just about that level in 2008, and it looks like 2009 might actually be TWICE AS HIGH, over $2 TRILLION.

While some may claim a perspective that makes that $2 TRILLION deficit acceptable, I see it as the culmination of our irrational and unsustainable debt-money system.

The money-managers want us to get out of this death spiral of debt by adding even more debt, even faster.

So my suggestion is that we do away with the deficit.
We do not ADD to the debt-death-spiral.
Rather, we have the Treasury issue payment in United States Notes for the funding that is needed to make the changes to a more sustainable economy, including a sustainable money system.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich is leading the political push for monetary reform, and he has well laid out the rationale for these reforms in his remarks in Congress on the Bailout Bill and the financial mess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR2EtMteHCg&feature=channel_page00
photo
joebaggadonuts
Civilization: Evolutionary pathway of choice.
07:49 PM on 01/16/2009
Deficit, Schmeficit. Think about our future and our current status.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/25456948/what_obama_must_do/print
11:09 PM on 01/16/2009
Schmeficit! Perfect.

But I do believe China is in to us for more than 1.2 tril... somebody square me away on that. Iraq alone is more than a quarter of that at 10 bil a month. They have so many T-bills they don't want any more.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mtracy9
05:29 PM on 01/16/2009
Under President Clinton the U.S. economy was producing budget surpluses and was projected to do so as far as the eye could see. Then Bush and the Republicans came in and decided that they couldn't stand prosperity. They immediately cut the top marginal rate for the rich from 39 percent to 36 percent. Predictably, every year afterward their were record budget deficits, so that by the end of Bush's presidency the national debt had doubled from 5 trillion to 10 trillion.

Obama's plan calls for big spending increases to get the economy out of the recession that Bush left us with, and then afterward to once again raise the top marginal rate for people earning more than $250,000 from 36 percent to 39 percent as it was under Clinton.
07:59 PM on 01/16/2009
The cut of the top tax rate from 39.6% to 35% only added $40-$50 billion a year to the budget deficit. It was the Iraq war, the huge homeland security spending, and the Katrina relief that created the deficits. Actually the 2006 and 2007 budget deficits were some of the smaller ones of the last 40 years. As far as the national debt, it increased under Clinton every single year he was in office too, even when he ran budget surpluses. Note also that the nominal GDP doubled under Bush at the same time the national debt doubled, so as a percent of GDP it remained the same - that is, until recently with the financial crisis.
Konnie
PO'd PROGRESSIVE
04:53 PM on 01/16/2009
its all relative.

if the government was treated as a corporation, there would be another side to the equation:
the asset side. here is the total value of the asset, less the total value of the liability, that would
equal the net profit or loss. just fixating on the deficit or the debt does not show the whole picture
nor the truth to the american taxpayer.

of course what value do you place on the grand canyon, the red wood forest, the grand tetons,
the military academies, the military bases and planes, humvees, etc. see where i am going here?

yes the debt is a boogie man, and the deficit everyone's nitemare, but if put in the proper perspective
of the total worth of our country it doesn't seem out of porportion......maybe SOX should be applied to
the government..................
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joebhed
Greenback Revolutionist
09:55 PM on 01/16/2009
Yes, it’s all relative.
To something.
Depending on our perspectives.

It's probably just my warped perspective on bookkeeping, but I wouldn't see the deficit relating to the government's balance sheet at all.

I see it more of an operating statement thing.
So, rather than assets minus liabilities, which are always supposed to balance, by the way, it's more about revenues minus expenses, which next year are going to run about $2 TRILLION to the negative.

And, that $2 TRILLION is what would get added to the liability side of the government's balance sheet, with a concurrent offsetting amount on the asset side as being due from the taxpayers. At some point in time.
That may sound OK, from your perspective.

I think the amount in that operating budget for payment of INTEREST on our national debt is about $750 BILLION DOLLARS. It could be less, or more.
I am not sure how to compares that to the Grand Canyon.

I would compare it to what it could buy in terms of health care and education and infrastructure and jobs for Americans.

Our debt money system is preventing the people from achieving the goals of a clean environment, a healthy people and a sustainable economy.
So, yeah, from my perspective, that does sound kind of scary.
01:48 PM on 01/20/2009
Correction joe assets do not equal liabilites

A = L + E
03:36 PM on 01/16/2009
Bush and the Republican Congress added a trillion dollars to our deficit every 1.36 years of his presidency... 6 trillion in 8 years.

Every single critic of the stimulus package kept their mouths shut for those 8 years.

Those critics are now trying to prevent Obama from getting less than one sixth as much to try and fix ALL of Bush's mistakes.

I don't recall reading a post like this even, except in regards to the war spending alone.

Please don't try and tell me that Bush could be trusted to spend our money but a Democrat can't be.
07:08 AM on 01/17/2009
At least we saw where the money went for the war. Where's the first half of the TARP? Democrat controlled congress lost that and will lose another 1.5 Trillion in the next year.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
begabug
it's a long story.
12:06 PM on 01/17/2009
did we?