Congressional Budget Office's budget outlook shows problems still linger

The Congressional Budget released its long-term budget outlook. Although the size of the US deficit isn't a problem right now, the CBO projects it to get bigger after a few years. There are five other takeaways from the CBO's budget outlook.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Oct. 26, 2011, before the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. The Congressional Budget released its long-term budget outlook, showing that there are still some budget problems lingering.

The newest Congressional Budget Office long-term budget outlook, released today, is more evidence that the long-term federal budget problem may be forgotten, but it is not gone.

Here are six takeaways.

  1. The size of the budget deficit today isn’t a problem, and it’s not much of a problem for the next few years either. “If current laws governing taxes and spending stayed generally the same…the anticipated further strengthening of the economy and constraints on federal spending built into law would keep deficits between 2.5 percent and 3 percent of GDP from 2015 through 2018,” CBO said. But after that, CBO projects the deficit gets bigger again, reflecting an aging population and rising health costs even if Congress surprises outside analysts and sticks to the caps on annually appropriated spending it has written into law.
  2. The federal debt, measured as a percentage of GDP, is a historically high 74 percent today. It’ll rise to 106 percent of GDP over the next 25 years, which would be tied for the highest in U.S. history, the level attained as a result of World War II. Back then, the debt-to-GDP ratio fell steadily from the peak; this time, CBO projects it’ll keep climbing unless Congress does something.
  3. There is significant uncertainty around these long-term projections, but that is not a reason to ignore them. CBO examines the effects of variation in four items — mortality rates, productivity, interest rates, and health spending. CBO finds that if all four items move in the same direction in terms of their impact on the budget by a moderate amount, the debt-GDP ratio could be as low as 75 percent in 2039, roughly where it is today, or as high as 160 percent.
  4. The magnitude of the changes in policy needed to ensure that the debt-GDP ratio in 2039 returns to its historical average over the last 40 years – around 39 percent – depends on when corrective policies are initiated. If policies were initiated next year, then it would take a cut non-interest spending or an increase in taxes or a combination equal to 2.6 percent of GDP on an annual basis – about $465 billion in today’s economy. If we wait until 2020, it would require annual cuts of 3.5 percent of GDP. Twenty-five years may seem like a long time from now, but the longer we wait, the larger the changes will need to be.
  5. All of these numbers are based on what CBO calls its “extended baseline,” which is predicated on a number of “optimistic” assumptions (from the perspective of debt reduction), namely that all expiring tax provisions are allowed to expire, that tax revenues are allowed to rise continually as a share of GDP that economic growth pushes people into higher tax brackets over time, that there are no major wars, that Medicare reimbursement rates are allowed to drop significantly and spending other than Social Security, health care, and a few refundable tax credits (that is defense, education, infrastructure, research) falls continually as a share of the economy, hitting its lowest share of the economy in more than 70 years.
  6. In an “alternative” scenario that adjusts for these assumptions, one might term it a more realistic view of current policies, CBO finds that the debt-GDP ratio would rise to 163 percent by 2039 – and to 183 percent if the economic ill effects of very high government borrowing is factored in.


You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to