The Deficit and Our Children: Just the Facts
Monday 26 April 2010
by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: Jer Kunz, mag3737)
This is deficit-fest week with President Obama's deficit commission scheduled to have its big public kickoff on Tuesday, followed by an all-day affair sponsored by the Peter G. Peterson Institute the next day. If the deficit hawks succeed, everyone should be really really scared about the deficit by the end of the week and just dying to cut Social Security and Medicare for the sake of our grandchildren.
While there will be many facts about the debt and deficit tossed out at these gala events, there are some important tidbits of information that are likely to go unmentioned. So, courtesy of billionaire investment banker Peter G. Peterson (not), we bring these facts to you here.
1) Under any plausible set of projections, our children and grandchildren will enjoy far higher standards of living than we do today. On average, real hourly compensation is projected to rise by at least 1.2 percent a year. This means that workers in the year 2040 will enjoy compensation levels that on average are more than 40 percent higher than what workers receive today. This means that even if they paid hugely higher taxes, our children and grandchildren will have far more after-tax income than we do today.
There is a problem of inequality so that most workers may not share in this income growth. Due to the growth of inequality, most workers have seen little improvement in living standards over the past three decades. If the trend toward growing inequality continues, then workers in 2040 may not be much better off than workers today, but that is an issue of intra-generational inequality, not inter-generational inequality. Fixing inequality would cause us to focus on issues like trade policy, the ability of workers to join unions and taxpayer subsidies to the financial sector, not budget deficit.
2) The reason that the country is projected to face enormous deficits in the future is our broken health care system. We pay more than twice as much per person for our health care as people in Canada, Germany and other wealthy countries. This gap is projected to grow even larger in future decades. We have little obvious benefit from this additional spending, since people in all these countries have longer life expectancies than we do. If our per-person health care costs were comparable to those in other countries then our budget projections would show huge surpluses, not deficits.
3) The debt to China has nothing to do with the budget deficit and does not present the disastrous risks claimed by the deficit hawks. The United States borrows money from China because of the trade deficit. The budget deficit is beside the point. If we had the same level of GDP and the same value of the dollar against the Chinese yuan, we would have just as large a trade deficit with China today even if the budget were balanced.
If we are concerned about borrowing from China, then we should focus on reducing the value of the dollar, not the budget deficit. If we didn’t have a budget deficit, China could be offsetting its trade surplus by buying private assets like shares of General Electric stock or bonds issued by private corporations. Of course, if China wanted to acquire government bonds it could sell these other assets and buy government bonds any day of the week. So there is no special reason for anyone to be concerned about China owning US government bonds as opposed to any other US financial asset.
Finally, the scare story, that China might one day dump its bonds and send the dollar tumbling, is absurd on its face. Both the Bush and Obama administrations were pressuring the Chinese to raise the value of their currency. Are we worried that one day they will dump their huge holdings of dollars and send the yuan soaring against the dollar? In other words, the deficit hawks want us to be worried that the Chinese government will one day do exactly what we have been asking them to do for years: stop buying up dollars to depress the value of the yuan against the dollar.
The country faces real problems. In the short-term we face the problem of re-employing people in an economy with near double-digit unemployment. In the longer term we need to rebuild the economy on a cleaner more energy efficient path. And we desperately need to fix our health care system. How we deal with these problems will determine the well-being of our children and grandchildren.
Unfortunately, the deficit hawks diverted discussion from the housing bubble when it was growing to ever more dangerous levels. It is unfortunate that even now they can still use their money and power to prevent the country from focusing on the real dangers to the country's future.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
It is possible to pay off
Mon, 04/26/2010 - 12:30 — radline9 (not verified)It is possible to pay off the deficit before it impacts the taxes of our grandchildren. If we reverse the Bush tax cuts and add a few windfall, bank and corporate taxes, we should be able to have a surplus by 2020.
Like Krugman, Baker has
Mon, 04/26/2010 - 12:34 — Anonymous (not verified)Like Krugman, Baker has clearly ceased being an economist and has become a propagandist for corporate interests. The one and only reason to promote deficit financing is is you want to transfer vast sums of money from the pockets of working people to those of the rich (who are the ones who collect the interest). There is absolutely no reason that the US, with a $14 trillion economy, the largest the world has ever seen, can't afford to balance its books and pay its bills. Responsible adults pay their own bills; they don't sentence their children and grandchildren to debt slavery.
17:34--Hmmmm...I don't think
Mon, 04/26/2010 - 13:52 — drosera (not verified)17:34--Hmmmm...I don't think so. Providing stimulus money is spent on actually creating jobs, it doesn't simply gravitate to the pockets of the rich. How would, say, helping out states with stimulus dollars to keep their school systems afloat benefit the rich? How would a program designed to upgrade infrastructure hurt construction workers? How would granting tax credits for green upgrading hurt ordinary homeowners? It's all investments designed to enable us all to survive and produce goods more efficiently, isn't it? And money is actually saved through an educated populace, a transportation system not liable to fail, and homes not leaking energy to the environment. You need to look at expenditures as investments, not just as a way of collecting interest.
Frankly, I find the above
Mon, 04/26/2010 - 13:53 — Rick (not verified)Frankly, I find the above article and the first two comments to be naive. If you really want to see we're this country / world is headed, read JHK, and his latest article, is right on the money, no pun intended: http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/04/a-still-moment.html
reply to 18:53 - Rick, I
Mon, 04/26/2010 - 15:24 — radline9 (not verified)reply to 18:53 - Rick, I read your article by JHK, but didn't find any reason to change my opinion regarding paying off the debt. The lame street media is brainwashing people like you into sheer end of the world terror. Talk about naive.
Infrastructure enriches the
Mon, 04/26/2010 - 17:32 — Jade Queen (not verified)Infrastructure enriches the rich at the expense of the poor, e.g.: unfunded mandates for international contractors who exclude locals from bidding (Spokane water treatment); Portland's converting from an energy-efficient, gravity-fed, sun-cleaned system to concrete boxes buried with radon and water irradiated with mercury bulbs in earthquake territory; Birmingham, Alabama, indebted forever; and the list goes on. A possible kink in the attempt to dehydrate the poor is CA's possibility of ending Prohibition. Plant- and ethnic-medicine works better, costs fewer side effects, and contributes to tourism and state budgets.
Hi folks, Mr. Baker, What
Mon, 04/26/2010 - 22:00 — Joe the Peacenik (not verified)Hi folks,
Mr. Baker,
What about the insanely absurd amount we pour into the seemly bottomless maw of the Pentagon & rampant militarism? This is the true elephant in the room.
Cheers,
Joe the Peacenik
Part of the reason we pay
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 17:20 — Anonymous (not verified)Part of the reason we pay more for insurance, albeit only a part, is that we have a large group of individuals who refuse to take care of themselves as well as a large group of illegal aliens that literally don't have to pay a dime for healthcare. That cost is paid by law abiding tax payers. These are issues that other countries, specifically Western Europe and Canada, simply don't have. This isn't rocket science folks. It's the reality. There are certainly other factors, like the fact we have the pharmaceutical companies pushing doctors and individuals into taking drugs that they most certainly don't need.
xYAXXLjwAGHLfx
Sun, 04/14/2013 - 07:00 — ullysxkz (not verified)bSCxZZ hfkjykilzhul, [url=http://aoyfzhsuaszq.com/]aoyfzhsuaszq[/url], [link=http://hkrcwpgvikrz.com/]hkrcwpgvikrz[/link], http://ydktlexhkiri.com/