Analysis Of The Federal Budget Deficit And The National Debt

Overspending is a pertinent problem facing the lawmakers in Congress. In 2012 discretionary spending reached $1.3 trillion and mandatory spending $2 trillion, while only bringing in $2.5 trillion in revenue. Since the turn of the century back in 2000, non-mandatory spending by the government has topped out a whopping $16.1 trillion just in the past 13 years (Boccia, Frasser & Goff 2013). This persistent overspending on programs and services that are not necessary to the functionality of the country is what is causing the deficit to rise year after year. To remedy this issue the government must either increase the revenue it brings in through taxes and trade or reduce the amount of money it spend or perhaps even both. In 2012 thirty-one cents of every dollar that Washington spent was borrowed (Boccia, Frasser & Goff 2013). Most of which went to large programs such as Social Security and Medicare and if these large, growing programs, or just the budget in general, do not undergo financial reform it could spell disaster for the economy and fiscal state of the nation.

The U.S. government borrows large sums of money in times of national emergency, such as times of war. The U.S. entered many wars that greatly contributed to the national debt. The government also engaged in multiple social programs that increased the debt, such as the bailouts during the housing crisis in 2008-2009. To keep the economy from collapsing, the government borrowed enormous amounts of money. Half way through this housing crisis the deficit exceeded one trillion dollars. The deficit decreased to under $500 billion after the massive spending cuts deal in 2011.

In response to a rapidly increasing national debt, President Barack Obama signed into law in August of 2011 the Budget Control Act (BCA) which mandated $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts, known as sequestration, over a 10-year period (Matthews, 2013). The BCA of 2011 was intended to serve as motivation for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to come up with a deal for achieving equivalent spending cuts and avoid a mandatory sequestration (Matthews, 2013). The committee

Leo: Before the end of his term, President Bush passed TARP. TARP was a program that increased government spending to buy all the garbage CDOs. This program involved $800 billion in government spending which was limited to $475 billion due to the Dodd-Frank Act (TARP Programs 1). President Obama continued using expansionary fiscal policy by passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which increased government spending by $787 billion and lowered taxes (Amadeo 1).

In addition, the government spending is one of the components of aggregate demand, consequently, lower GDP. In a demand-deficient recession, consumption and investment tend to decrease due to lower income and revenue, the (X-M) component tends to level off or worsen in short run, which makes government spending an essential device to stimulate the economy. Therefore a decrease in the government spending will cause an even deeper recession and a larger budget deficit.

Costs related to increases in defense spending and homeland security along with funding the conflicts themselves mushroomed. Defense spending increased from 3.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2001 to 5.7 percent of the GDP in 2011 (U.S. Defense). The United States government borrowed the money to finance these measures which in 2011 amounted to over one-quarter of the increase in the United States’s national debt since 2001 (Bilmes). These numbers are particularly disturbing given that in 2001 the U.S. government showed a $127 billion dollar surplus followed by a deficit of $158 billion dollars in 2002 (Greenspan 233). Laws passed after 9/11 projected necessary increases for homeland security and defense, but did not follow traditional budgetary procedures. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which played an important role in reducing the federal deficit, was largely ignored (Greenspan

An economic downturn automatically paves way to a decline in taxation and an increase in government spending. This causes deficit. Nevertheless, if the government tries to reverse the situation by increasing tax rates, it would further result in a deflated economy leading to more unemployment and lower economic growth. A negative multiplier effect may give rise to an increase in deficit. Thus, deficit increases AD in a recession (Carbaugh, 2011).

The historical federal spending of the government has already done significant damage to America; spending habits have increased the federal budget deficit at alarming rates adding $2.7 trillion to the national debt in two years, $1.4 trillion in the 2009 fiscal year and $1.3 trillion in 2010. (Montgomery)   These deficits are largely caused by increases in spending rates. The current Obama Administration has used the recession in their favor to expand both the government and spending.

Any person struggling through difficult times will seek out other means of financial support including borrowing money that may be harder to pay back in the future. The United States will often follow a similar path and spend more money than it earns. Deficit spending in the United States comes with some advantages, disadvantages, and strong criticism. Some feel deficit spending is good for getting the economy back in motion while others contend it does nothing for the economy. The effects of deficit spending are carefully examined to determine if the United States is improving or degrading the future of the economy.

President Obama has introduced a variety of fiscal policy changes during his presidency; some of his ideas, however, did little to strengthen the economy as they were intended to do. For example, in 2001, as President Bush had just entered office, he ushered a reduction of income tax rates in addition to other tax cuts for the middle class, through Congress. While these policies were initially quite slow in boosting the economy, the economic benefits eventually began to surface around 2003 and the economy did begin to exhibit stronger growth. However, President Bush’s tax policy was set with an “expiration date”, set by Congress through a budget process called “reconciliation”

In 2009 the debt was amounted to about $12 trillion , or 83.4 percent of the country’s GDP (“Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2011” table 7.1). Since 2003, the debt has been increasing by more than $500 billion annually. The increase in 2009 was $1.9 trillion. According to the Congressional Budgeting Office, this debt will keep increasing at least for the next decade (“The Budget and Economic Outlook : Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020” 21).

The federal budget is known as the notorious economic tank from which money is distributed to various programs. The money used every fiscal year, which begins October 1st and ends September 30th the next year, belongs to the people. The government raises this money through taxes and they spend it on national defense, Medicare, and social security. The federal budget is an exercise in making choices, and those options will certainly affect individuals living in the U.S. These choices cause debt to pile up on the government, who is struggling to make it disappear. The deficit and debt of a government gauges how well it is being run and how well it has been run in the past. According to The Economist the national debt is the total

For the first time in 50 years, a tax bill passed that granted larger cuts to the wealthy and business owners in hopes to stimulate savings, growth, and investment that will help everyone else. This bill wiped out several years of revenues ($150 billion/year) traditionally used for incremental program increases and deficit reduction. In 1983, the President has able to regain deferral spending powers taken away by a provision in the 1974 Act. This provision was negating by the Supreme Court an unconstitutional on the grounds of violating the separation of powers (Wildavsky et al., 2004, p. 90).

The United States has seen a growth in the deficit beginning in 1991. The deficit equated to 3.6% of the GDP in 1999 and rose to 4.4% during 2000. “For instance,

For as long as Americans can remember there has always been a federal deficit. In fact, the only time in American history when there was no federal debt was under president Andrew Jackson, and it only lasted a single year(Wall Street Journal). The federal government never managed to pay off the debt again, although some administrations, like Coolidge’s and Clinton’s, have managed to run brief surpluses(Wall Street Journal). Yet today there seems to be no limit on the debt and deficit spending, and a key question has been pressed into the forefront of politics and fiscal policy, “is