Dissecting the Deficit

August 2, 2012 at 1:48 pm

My colleagues Kathy Ruffing and Jim Horney have shown that the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts, and the legacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan explain virtually the entire federal budget deficit projected for the rest of this decade (that is, through 2019).  That is, there would be practically no deficits over that period if the tax cuts, the wars, and the downturn had not occurred and other policies remained the same.  This widely circulated CBPP chart makes their point vividly.

Last week columnist Robert Samuelson looked at a related — but different — question, one that looks backward in time rather than forward:  why did the federal government amass large deficits between 2002 and 2011, rather than the large surpluses that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected in early 2001?

Over the 2002-2011 period, the negative budgetary impact of so-called “economic and technical” changes — most notably, the 2001 and 2007-2009 downturns — dwarfed that of any single legislative change that policymakers enacted.  Samuelson cites an analysis of CBO data that accordingly ascribes about a quarter of the deterioration in the budget over that period to President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The 2002-2011 period is now history.  For the years ahead, CBPP found that the tax cuts (if policymakers extend them in full) and the wars, plus the lingering effects of the recent downturn, essentially account for the entire deficit between now and 2019.  Indeed, the tax cuts and the wars alone account for nearly half of the public debt by 2019.

Samuelson pointed out that the policies that expanded deficits also raised interest costs.  CBO lists this increase in interest payments as a separate item, and the figures Samuelson presented thus did so as well.  Our analysis takes the logical next step; it illustrates more fully the deficit effect of various tax and spending policies by attributing to them not just their direct cost but the extra interest costs that they caused.  (We also counted other tax reductions enacted on President Bush’s watch, such as the annual “patches” to the Alternative Minimum Tax to keep it from ensnaring millions of middle- and upper-middle-income households, as part of the Bush-era tax cuts’ cost.)

We can’t undo the mistakes of the last decade, but we can start to turn our budget picture around and prepare for the challenges of an aging population and rising health-care costs.  Policymakers can take a big step by letting the tax cuts expire (the upper-income tax cuts now and the middle-income tax cuts when the economy has recovered more fully) or paying for any of the middle-class tax cuts that they propose to make permanent.

Print Friendly

More About Paul N. Van de Water

Paul N. Van de Water

Paul N. Van de Water is a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, where he specializes in Medicare, Social Security, and health coverage issues.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at CBPP.org

2 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. RayW #
    1

    It isn’t clear that this and the prior analysis of the deficit components add much value to our understanding of our current economic conditions and any prudent policy actions. Each of the actual dollars spent by the government sector is income to the non-government sector (private and imports.) So it seems that it would be more interesting to understand how the current income/investments/savings affects demand. The deficit projections are simply projections that describe national account sectoral balances. The deficit balances don’t affect our ability purchase what is needed if it is available to be purchased. In truth, a budget surplus would indicate that the import/export balance and private sector added together would be in deficit.

    The money that is spent is sunk cost and the actual budget balances will be borne out by the private sector’s future behavior. There is a subtext to your article that the government is not currently or will not in the future be able to meet its fiscal obligations or policy desires for spending in a deficit. Examining the mechanics of spending shows that the congress legislatively authorizes spending, but that doesn’t create the money to spend. The bond and securities sales (borrowing) don’t enable the government to spend. We just spend. The budgeting picture is a separate thing.

    Seeing the proposed tax cuts as anything but a mechanism to drain money from the system and in turn reduce demand, is misguided.

    //cheers

    • Barry Fay #
      2

      It is a shame that your post is so muddled. Just the missing words are enough to throw a person off of the scent. I feel like you tried to make an interesting point – like, for instance, that “Seeing the proposed tax cuts as anything but a mechanism to drain money from the system and in turn reduce demand, is misguided.” – but failed miserably in the realm of clarity. Anything so counter-intuitive requires a clear and detailed exposition. Your failure to provide that leads one to assume that you are just beating around in the weeds hoping something important will come out



Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact communications@cbpp.org.




+ 7 = fifteen

 characters available