• Tag Archives debt
  • Federal Shortfall Equals $670K Per Household

    Federal Shortfall Equals $670K Per Household

    Newly published data from the U.S. Treasury shows that the federal government has amassed $84.3 trillion in debts, liabilities, and unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations. This amounts to $670,000 for every household in the U.S., a fiscal burden that equals 93% of the nation’s private wealth, including the combined value of every American’s assets in real estate, corporate stocks, small businesses, bonds, savings accounts, cash, and personal goods like automobiles and furniture.

    Federal law requires the U.S. Treasury and White House to produce an annual report on the “overall financial position” of the federal government. The law also requires the Government Accountability Office to audit this data, which is then published in the Financial Report of the United States Government.

    Despite the important and shocking nature of this report, a search of Google News shows no results for it, even though it has been almost a week since it was published.

    “A Complete Picture”

    Unlike the federal budget, which primarily uses cash accounting, this Treasury report uses accrual accounting. The Government Accountability Office explains that this accounting method “is intended to provide a complete picture of the federal government’s financial operations and financial position.”

    Cash accounting is the simple process of counting money as it flows in or out. In contrast, accrual accounting measures financial commitments when they are made. For example, as federal workers earn pension benefits, accrual accounting measures these obligations in the year that they are earned. Cash accounting does not measure such liabilities until they are paid, which may not be until years or decades later.

    The federal government requires large corporations to use accrual accounting for their pension plans, because this is the “most relevant and reliable” way to measure their financial health. The same applies to other retirement benefits like healthcare. The official statement of this rule explains that “a failure to accrue” implies “that no obligation exists prior to the payment of benefits.” Since an obligation does exist, failing to account for it “impairs the usefulness and integrity” of financial statements.

    Nonetheless, the federal budget, which is the “government’s primary financial planning and control tool,” is not bound by the accounting rules that the government imposes on the private sector. In the words of the U.S. Treasury, the federal budget is prepared “primarily on a ‘cash basis’.”

    This has major implications for future taxpayers, partly because pension and other retirement benefits are a large part of compensation packages for government employees. When these benefits are included, civilian, non-postal federal employees receive an average of 16% more in compensation than private-sector workers with comparable education and work experience. Postal workers receive an even greater premium.

    The recently released Treasury report shows that the federal government currently owes $7.2 trillion in pensions and other benefits to federal employees and veterans. Paying the present value of these benefits would require an average of $57,000 from every household in the U.S. Yet the vast majority of these liabilities are not reflected in the national debt.

    Social Security and Medicare

    A similar situation exists with Social Security and Medicare, because the government mainly funds the current expenses of these programs with taxes from younger workers who don’t receive benefits until they become senior citizens. Hence, Social Security and Medicare are sometimes called “pay-as-you-go” programs.

    Once again, this is different from the private sector, where “federal law requires that private pension plans operate as funded plans, not as pay-as-you-go plans.” As explained by the American Academy of Actuaries, the law requires private pension plans to pay for “benefits as they are earned” to ensure “intergenerational equity.” In other words, the law prevents older workers from placing the costs of their retirements on younger workers, at least in the private sector.

    Social Security and Medicare differ from pensions, because taxpayers don’t have a contractual right to receive these benefits. In the original Social Security Act of 1935, Congress “reserved” the “right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act.” Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that Congress can change Social Security benefits at will. Nevertheless, paying these benefits is an implied commitment of the federal government, and federal lawrequires that these programs be included in the Financial Report of the U.S. Government.

    Federal actuaries measure the obligations of Social Security and Medicare in several different ways, but only one of them approximates the concept of accrual accounting. This is called the “closed-group” obligation, which is the money needed to cover the shortfalls for all current taxpayers and beneficiaries in these programs. In the words of Harvard Law School professor and federal budget specialist Howell E. Jackson, the closed-group measure “reflects the financial burden or liability being passed on to future generations.” These burdens amount to $29.0 trillion for Social Security and $32.9 trillion for Medicare.

    The Treasury report includes other obligations of the federal government, like environmental liabilities and accounts payable. The report also measures federal assets, such as cash, real estate, and corporate stocks. This excludes federal stewardship land and heritage assets, such as national parks and the original copy of the Declaration of Independence. While these items have tangible value, the report explains that the government “does not expect to use these assets to meet its obligations.”

    Tallying the Treasury’s data on assets and subtracting its obligations shows that the federal government has a fiscal shortfall of $84.3 trillion in debts, liabilities, and unfunded Social Security/Medicare obligations. Divided evenly across all U.S. households, this amounts to an average of $670,000 per household.

    Optimistic Assumptions

    The actual shortfall may be worse, because the Treasury data is based on federal government assumptions that are highly uncertain and optimistic. For example:

    • A paper in the journal Demography found that the Social Security Administration is using an antiquated method to project life expectancies, and as a result, the program “may be in a considerably more precarious position than officially thought.”
    • When the federal government makes student loans, it projects that it will eventually reap a 9% average profit from interest on the loans. However, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that if the federal government accounted for the market risk of these loans, it would show an average loss of 12% on every dollar it lends.
    • The Board of Medicare Trustees has stated that the program’s long-term costs may be “substantially higher” than projected under current law. This is because the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) will cut Medicare prices for “many” healthcare services to “less than half of their level” under prior law. The Trustees explain that this may cause “withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market” and “severe problems with beneficiary access to care.” This would pressure lawmakers to raise prices and thus increase the costs of Medicare.

    Causes and Effects

    The current national debt is $19.9 trillion. This amounts to 107% of the nation’s gross domestic product, which is higher than any point in U.S. history except for two years near the end of World War II. The national debt, however, is mainly measured on a cash basis, and as such, it does not include most of the obligations detailed above.

    These obligations are looming, and this can be seen in Congressional Budget Office projections of publicly held debt, which is a partial measure of the national debt that is often cited by government agencies and media outlets. In 2014, CBO projected that this debt would grow over the next two decades to unprecedented levels unless the government changed its policies. Two and half years later, the actual outcomes are slightly worse:

    The vast bulk of current and impending federal debt is due to increased spending on social programs like Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and food stamps. Such programs have grown from 21% of federal spending in 1960 to 63% in 2015. Under current laws and policies, the Congressional Budget Office projects that almost all future growth in spending will be due to these programs and the interest on the national debt.

    It is often impossible to objectively isolate the effects of a single factor (like the national debt) on an economy. However, a broad range of evidence indicates that excessive government debt can cause far-reaching negative outcomes, such as lower wages, weak economic growth, increased inflation, higher taxes, reduced government benefits, or combinations of such results.

    The Government Accountability Office has warned that “the costs of federal borrowing will be borne by tomorrow’s workers and taxpayers,” and this “may reduce or slow the growth of the living standards of future generations.” This may have already begun. The national debt has risen dramatically over the past decade, and with this, the U.S. has experienced historically poor growth in gross domestic productproductivity, and household income.

    Reprinted from Just Facts Daily.


    James Agresti

    James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts, a nonprofit institute dedicated to publishing verifiable facts about public policy.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.



  • Rand Paul rallies House GOP to oppose $10 trillion deficit with no guarantee of Obamacare repeal


    Senate Republicans passed a budget resolution Wednesday that would repeal parts of Obamacare. However, the resolution would also add $9.7 trillion to the national debt, and for that reason Sen. Rand Paul voted against the measure:

    “I’m disappointed that the first action out of a new Republican Congress that has the majority in the Senate, majority in the House and the White House that their first action will be a budget that never balances and adds $9.7 trillion to the deficit,” Paul told CNN Wednesday. “I just can’t vote for a budget that never balances and adds so much new debt.”

    In effort to thwart the resolution, Paul met with 25 House Republicans Thursday morning — mostly members of the staunchly conservative Freedom Caucus — to convince them to oppose the measure. But while House Republicans were open to Paul’s concerns, they aren’t sure of their vote just yet…

    Paul has made it clear that he wants to repeal and replace Obamacare in full. However, he believes that repealing the law doesn’t have to come at the price of an unbalanced budget.

    Source: Rand Paul rallies House GOP to oppose $10 trillion deficit with no guarantee of Obamacare repeal –


  • Monetizing the Debt Would Create Hyperinflation. Let’s Not. 

    There’s an invisible hyperinflation monster lurking right around the corner, which lots of people are having trouble seeing. And no, this is not a sarcastic barb aimed at conservatives who were wrong about QE and inflation — it’s aimed at people who were right, but don’t fully understand why they were right.

    Recently I’ve seen more and more people suggest that the US could simply monetize the debt, by printing money. They point to the fact that the Fed has done lots of QE, and yet inflation remains below 2 percent. So why not go all the way?

    First, let’s be clear what it means to monetize the debt. Here’s what it does not mean:

    1. It does not mean replacing interest-bearing Treasury bonds with bank deposits at the Fed, which pay an equivalent interest rate. That accomplishes nothing. You need to replace interest-bearing debt with non-interest-bearing money.

    2. It also does not mean buying back the debt only so long as interest rates are zero, but immediately selling the debt off at the slightest sign of higher interest rates, to prevent hyperinflation. That also accomplishes nothing.

    If you seriously want to monetize the debt, you’d have to buy back the debt held by the public, with newly issued base money. There are two data points that suggest this will lead to hyperinflation:

    1. Currency in circulation is about 8% of GDP.

    2. Treasury debt held by the public is about 80% of GDP.

    My claim is that if the Fed suddenly monetized the entire debt, and indicated that this action was permanent, the following would occur:

    1. In the very short run, the monetary base would balloon to 80% of GDP, mostly excess bank reserves.

    2. Within days, the excess reserves would leave the banking system, and become part of the currency in circulation. The base would now be more than 95% currency.

    3. Within a year NGDP would grow at least 10 fold, so that currency fell from 80% to no more than 8% of GDP. Indeed the increase would probably be even larger, and the currency stock would probably fall to well below 8% of GDP. That’s because during hyperinflation, velocity also tends to increase.

    4. RGDP would show relatively little change; the price level would increase at least 10 fold.

    If I am right, then why haven’t the relatively large increases in the base under QE led to large increases in the price level?

    One answer is that the Fed is paying interest on reserves, so they aren’t actually monetizing the debt. That’s true, but it’s quite possible that the QE program would have created relatively little inflation even in the absence of IOR, as we saw in America in the 1930s, and more recently in Japan and Europe.

    The better argument is that temporary currency injections are not very inflationary. By temporary, I mean for as long as interest rates stay near zero. But once rates rise above zero, banks don’t want to hold excess reserves, and all those reserves would flow out into currency in circulation. And that’s highly inflationary.

    Why do I think this would happen so rapidly? Consider the case where the market thought there was only a 3 percent chance that my theory was correct. In that case, the expected price level in 2017 would not be 1,000 percent higher, but rather a mere 30 percent higher than this year’s price level. But even 30 percent expected inflation is really high! It’s so high that banks would not want to hold onto non-interest-bearing reserves that were rapidly losing purchasing power. As the banks got rid of this “hot potato,” the price level would begin soaring, just as I predicted. In other words, there’s no stable equilibrium between 1 percent inflation and more than 1,000 percent inflation. Anything in between would imply the public is willing to hold implausibly large cash balances (as a share of GDP), despite relatively high expected inflation.

    Thus QE is only compatible with very low inflation if the public believes there is only an infinitesimal chance that the QE is permanent. Because the actual QE has not resulted in high inflation, we know that the public has a very high level of confidence that the QE is not permanent (or that if permanent, interest will be paid on the excess reserves.)

    So there really is an invisible inflation monster, lurking around the corner. The reason we never see it is because the Fed is sensible enough to not walk around the corner. They have the good sense not to print zero interest money to pay off the debt and make the money supply increase permanent. You may not see the invisible hyperinflation monster, but trust me: the monster is there. If the Fed did what some people recommend we’d see his ugly face almost immediately. And it would not be a pretty sight.

    Source: Monetizing the Debt Would Create Hyperinflation. Let’s Not. | Foundation for Economic Education