November 07, 2003
There's Good Debt and Then There is Bad Debt
I find it refreshing to see that President Bush does think that adding to the debt of an already deeply indebted country is not a good thing. Too bad it is only Iraq that concerns him and not the country that he has sworn to honor and protect.
President Signs Wartime Supplemental
"I also appreciate that reconstruction funds for Iraq have been provided in the form of grants so that this struggling nation is not burdened with new debt at a moment of new hope."
Here at home, things are not quite so rosy.
Greenspan Warns on Gov't Budget Deficits
If the red ink is not brought under control by the time baby boomers start retiring, Greenspan said it could have "notable, destabilizing effects'" on future growth prospects as increased payouts for Social Security and Medicare collide with rising interest payments on the national debt.
Of course, the Greenspan blames Congress for the deficit and believe they need to "cut spending" to "fix" the problem.
This state of affairs would be bad if we only had to worry about the government debt, yet the problem extends into the private sphere where private debt adds to the ticking timebomb we face as a nation:
Will Debt Destroy Us Again?
Each day it seems that we see a new report of consumers gaining confidence and spending more. This would be wonderful, but for one thing: American consumers are already leveraged to the hilt. In September 2000, Bill Mann penned this classic Fool article detailing how rising corporate debt levels threatened continued economic growth. He picked on an industry that many predicted at the time would continue to grow apace: telecommunications. Some of the facts have changed, but the message is still very, very real: spending money you don't have is a long-term plan that is destined to fail.
America, the once mighty, is drowning in a flood of red ink under the watch of the chief CEO, President Bush.
Posted by Mary at November 7, 2003 02:10 AM | TrackBackRichard Logan (Center for Budget & Policy Priorities) writes:
The budget projections that the Office of Management and Budget issued in July showed deficits of $455 billion in 2003 and $226 billion in 2008. Administration officials have repeatedly cited these figures in claiming that their policies will halve the deficit over five years, and that they thus have “a plan to cut the deficit in half.”What does the White House OMB leave out? Trivial stuff, really:Unfortunately, this claim does not withstand scrutiny. Realistic ten-year budget projections that are based on the Congressional Budget Office budget estimates issued on August 26, and that reflect likely or inevitable costs, show a deficit in 2008 as high as or higher than the deficit in 2003.
The OMB figures exclude all costs in Iraq and Afghanistan after September 30, 2003, fail to reflect the full costs of the Administration’s own “Future Year Defense Plan,” omit the costs of extending relief from the mushrooming Alternative Minimum Tax after 2005, omit the cost of extending a major, popular business tax break that is likely to be extended in some form, and assume significant reductions in domestic appropriations in inflation-adjusted terms that are unlikely to be achieved. A more realistic projection shows the deficit rising from $401 billion in 2003 to approximately $460 billion in 2008, and then climbing further to approximately $650 billion in 2013.There's more. And the CBPP article doesn't even touch on the problems of incurring debt in this way. Capital formation in the US was not really stimulated by the Reagan deficits. There's a very good reason why the normally ultra-conservative body of economic thought has looked upon the Bush Administration with abject dismay.
Posted by: James R MacLean on November 7, 2003 02:35 PM
Here is the link to the article I was trying to find at Brad DeLong's website. The part I wanted to show was the chart, so please follow the link. Thanks.
Posted by: James R macLean on November 7, 2003 02:55 PM