President’s Budget Commission Veering Off Course on “Debt” Measure?

May 26, 2010 at 6:51 pm

President Obama’s budget commission which is supposed to craft a plan by year-end to significantly reduce budget deficits and debt in the coming years, showed signs of veering off course this morning on the question of what kind of “debt” needs controlling.   That may sound technical but it could prove important, focusing attention on a measure of our fiscal situation that makes little economic sense.

Just to be clear, the federal government faces a serious long-term budget challenge, with deficits and debt projected to rise under current policies to dangerous and unsustainable levels.  But we need to understand the nature of the challenge at hand and how to appropriately measure basic concepts like deficits and debt.

In her presentation to the commission this morning, University of Maryland professor Carmen M. Reinhart asserted that what matters when it comes to debt is what’s called the “gross debt” of the federal government.  A number of commission members enthusiastically agreed.

Most economists and budget experts agree, however, that the right measure is “debt held by the public” – what the federal government borrows in private markets to finance its deficits.  “Gross debt” includes “debt held by the public” plus the money that federal programs loan to one another (e.g., what Social Security and other trust funds lend to the government when their earmarked revenues exceed their immediate spending needs).  That makes the debt level seem much higher.

But, as the Congressional Budget Office explains on pp. 14-15 of its June 2009 report on the long-term budget outlook, intra-governmental debt is “not useful for assessing” the impact of federal borrowing on the economy.

Debt held by the public is important because it reflects the extent to which the government borrows in the private credit markets.  Such borrowing draws on private national savings and international savings, so more borrowing reduces the savings available for investment in the private sector (for factories and equipment, research and development, housing, etc.).  Large increases in such borrowing also can also push up interest rates and increase future interest payments that the federal government must make to individuals and institutions outside of the United States, which reduces the income of Americans.  By contrast, intra-governmental debt (the other part of the gross debt) has no such effects because it is simply money the federal government owes (and pays interest on) to itself.

Two examples show that gross debt is not a reliable indicator of our fiscal situation and could confuse people about what needs to be done and when.

For instance, eliminating the Social Security trust fund and every other trust fund would dramatically reduce our gross public debt – from its current 89 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 58 percent.  But, without reducing our obligations to pay Social Security benefits or raising taxes to finance them in the coming years, that by itself would do nothing to reduce the projected deficits that we will face in the coming decades.

By contrast, reducing future Social Security benefits or raising Social Security payroll taxes would, in fact, lower our projected deficits.  But, because those steps would increase the amount that Social Security would lend to the rest of the government (as explained above), they would do nothing to reduce the gross debt.

What we need is a serious discussion about how to reduce future deficits.  What we don’t need is to use a misguided standard of federal debt that will confuse rather than enlighten our efforts to address those deficits.

Print Friendly

More About James Horney

James Horney

Jim Horney is the Vice President for Federal Fiscal Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, where he specializes in federal budget issues.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at

4 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. David Doney #

    The gross debt is the right figure, because the intra-governmental debt will shortly be converted to public debt. This will occur when Social Security goes into deficit, requiring the U.S. to borrow money on the credit markets, essentially converting the trust fund from intra-governmental to public debt between now and 2036.

    The government does not owe the money to itself; it owes it to the elderly of the U.S., just like it were a Treasury bond. Economists need to wake up to this fact. Think of it this way: What would happen if the $2.4 trillion Social Security Trust Fund were invested for the elderly today in stocks and bonds? You guessed it, the U.S. would have to borrow $2.4 trillion by issuing “real” public debt to setup this fund.

    We also need to begin to start treating the “unfunded liabilities” of Social Security and Medicare as “real” debt, plus the obligations to Fannie and Freddie.

    Further, Japan gets away with its huge debt burden in part because of two factors: a) It has $1 trillion in currency reserves, vs. the $127 billion the U.S. has, which is a nice cushion; and b) Its own citizens buy the vast majority of its debt, versus the U.S. where foreigners own about half the debt.

    So economists please wake up. There is one debt number, it is $13 trillion right now.

  2. Sam Costanzo #

    Equally distressing is Reinhart’s Law that gross debt over 90% of GDP is a red line beyond which the nations potential GDP growth starts declining. This concept is based on crude historical correlations with no theoretical underpinnings pointing to causality. Unfortunately, it has great political appeal to some members of the Commission who want justify urgent and massive expenditure reductions as a means of growing the economy.

    Representative Spatt should be applauded for being wise enough to remind the other members that the composition of expenditures and the tax structure are likely to have a greater effect on potential growth than the size of the debt alone.

  3. CBPP #


    We appreciate you taking the time to submit your very thoughtful comments. Please do not hesitate to continue doing so in the future.

    – CBPP

  4. jonathan #

    I think you could be clearer. Yes, it’s important to distinguish between the gross and the public debt. Yes, it’s important to address the entitlement issues in the gross debt. No, it’s not a good idea to conflate them as though we can attack one big hill and be done with the war. I would say, yes, conflating the issues increases the chances of failure because dealing with entitlements is a completely different political issue.

    BTW, I hope you don’t mind my posting comments. I really like and use the CBPP’s stuff and no one seems to comment so I’m doing it.

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

1 + three =

 characters available