Subscribe

Federal deficits are back, big time. Here's what D.C. can do.

Path to progress

The federal deficit could top more than $500 billion this year. To address it, Washington needs to 'focus.' But that's not easy.

  • close
    House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin (left) and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky walk on Capitol Hill in Washington. A government report released Tuesday estimates that this year's budget deficit will rise to $544 billion, an increase over prior estimates attributed largely to tax cuts and spending increases passed by Congress last month.
    Andrew Harnik/AP/File
    View Caption
  • About video ads
    View Caption
of

The era of falling deficits is over, and America’s fiscal future looks grimmer than expected, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported on Tuesday.

It’s a wakeup call for a nation that has turned its focus away from the issue in recent years. It raises questions about whether Washington can address the rising deficit without resorting to the brinkmanship that created debt-ceiling crises and resulted in an almost universally reviled budget sequester.  

This year, for the first time since 2009, the budget deficit will increase – to $544 billion, up by $105 billion from last year, according to the government report. The reason is mostly because of tax cuts and spending increases that Congress passed last year, but also because of expected slower economic growth and some technical issues.

Longer term, annual federal deficits will total $9.4 trillion over a decade – $1.5 trillion more than expected, the CBO reports.

The report concerned budget-watchers.

“What jumped out at me more than anything else, is that the level of debt held by the public is growing rapidly,” says G. William Hoagland, senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center. In a decade, it’s projected to be $24 trillion – an increase of $10 trillion from today.

At a time when the average voter has “heard nothing in the campaign debates … on the debt,” it demands Washington to “focus,” Mr. Hoagland says.

How did we get here?

The United States has had declining deficits since the Great Recession high of $1.4 trillion in 2009. The economy started growing again and a record number of jobs were created, so revenues increased. It also helped that the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low, making debt repayment cheaper.

That removed some pressure on Congress. But the conservative House Freedom Caucus might be willing to reapply pressure in light of the new report. Even last week, caucus chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R) of Ohio told the Monitor that the caucus has “a lot of concerns” about the agreed-on, bipartisan budget levels for 2017.

How do we get out?

Much was made of the bipartisan “sequester,” or budget caps, that the White House and Congress agreed to in 2011. But that was the wrong place to look for savings, says Hoagland. The sequester dealt with “discretionary” spending such as military and education. What needs addressing is mandatory spending – on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid – which is a much bigger part of the budget.

But in 2012, when Rep. Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin proposed turning Medicare into a voucher system, Democrats released a “granny” ad, which depicted a Ryan look-alike pushing an elderly woman in a wheelchair over a cliff. It was politically devastating for Republicans.

Ryan said on Fox News Sunday that House Republicans will deal with entitlement reform in their 2016 agenda. Matt Mackowiak, a GOP consultant, says such a plan would have a better chance of succeeding with a Republican in the White House.

Where do we go from here?

Even if Republicans take the White House, views within the party differ, Mr. Mackowiak, points out. “Budget hawks, fiscal hawks, realists – there just are too many threads here,” he says.

Moreover, the parties also differ on how to reduce the deficit. “Until Republicans are willing to close tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy and well connected for the purpose of deficit reduction, they have no credibility speaking about the deficit,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) of Maryland said in a statement to the Monitor.

But Democrats, too, differ on spending issues. Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont is calling for “Medicare for all,” or a “single payer plan,” to replace Obamacare. That’s an expensive proposition, which he says can be paid for with higher taxes. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, wants to fix the Affordable Care Act, not replace it.

Still, the CBO report offers an opportunity to get the issue of debt and deficits back out in front of the public, said Michael Peterson, president of the Peterson Foundation, a nonprofit focused on America’s fiscal challenges.

He said in a statement: “The 2016 election is an important opportunity for a national conversation, as voters across the country are calling on candidates to put forward their plans to secure America’s fiscal and economic future.”

About these ads
Sponsored Content by LockerDome
 
 
Make a Difference
Inspired? Here are some ways to make a difference on this issue.
FREE Newsletters
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.
 

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Save for later

Save
Cancel

Saved ( of items)

This item has been saved to read later from any device.
Access saved items through your user name at the top of the page.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You reached the limit of 20 saved items.
Please visit following link to manage you saved items.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You have already saved this item.

View Saved Items

OK