The Congressional Budget Office, as part of The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027, has just released fiscal projections for the next 10 years.
This happens twice every year. As part of this biannual exercise, I regularly (most recently here and here) dig through the data and highlight the most relevant numbers.
Let’s repeat that process. Here’s what you need to know from CBO’s new report.
- Under current law, tax revenues over the next 10 years are projected to grow by an average of 4.2 percent each year.
- If left on autopilot, the burden of government spending will rise by an average of 5.2 percent each year.
- If that happens, the federal budget will consume 23.4 percent of economic output in 2027 compared to 20.7 percent of GDP in 2017.
- Under that do-nothing scenario, the budget deficits jumps to $1.4 trillion by 2027.
But what happens if there is a modest bit of spending restraint? What if politicians decide to comply with my Golden Rule and limit how fast the budget grows every year?
This shouldn’t be too difficult. After all, even with Obama in the White House, there was a de facto spending freeze between 2009-2014. In other words, all the fights over debt limits, sequesters, and shutdowns actually yielded good results.
So if the Republicans who now control Washington are serious about protecting the interests of taxpayers, it should be relatively simple for them to adopt good fiscal policy.
And if GOPers actually decide to do the right thing, the grim numbers in the CBO’s new report quickly turn positive.
- If spending is frozen at 2017 levels, there’s a budget surplus by 2021.
- If spending is allowed to grow 1 percent annually, there’s a budget surplus by 2022.
- If spending is allowed to grow 2 percent annually, there’s a budget surplus by 2025.
- If spending is allowed to grow 2.63 percent annually, the budget is balanced in 10 years.
- With 2.63 percent spending growth, the burden of government spending drops to 18.4 percent of GDP by 2027.
To put all these numbers in context, inflation is supposed to average about 2 percent annually over the next decade.
Here’s a chart showing the overall fiscal impact of modest spending restraint.
By the way, it’s worth pointing out that the primary objective of good fiscal policy should be reducing the burden of government spending, not balancing the budget. However, if you address the disease of excessive spending, you automatically eliminate the symptom of red ink.
For more background information, here’s a video I narrated on this topic. It was released in 2010, so the numbers have changed, but the analysis is still spot on.
P.S. Achieving good fiscal policy obviously becomes much more difficult if Republicans in Washington decide to embark on a foolish crusade to expand the federal government’s role in infrastructure.
P.P.S. Achieving good fiscal policy obviously becomes much more difficult if Republicans in Washington decide to leave entitlement programs on autopilot.
[…] P.S. The U.S. numbers improved significantly between 2009 and 2014 because of a de facto spending freeze. If we did the same thing again today, the budget would be balanced in 2021. […]
[…] have long claimed that a major goal is balancing the budget within 10 years. That’s certainly achievable with a modest amount of spending restraint. And it’s even relatively simple to have a big tax cut and still achieve balance in 10 years […]
[…] P.S. The U.S. numbers improved significantly between 2009 and 2014 because of a de facto spending freeze. If we did the same thing again today, the budget would be balanced in 2021. […]
[…] P.S. The U.S. numbers improved significantly between 2009 and 2014 because of a de facto spending freeze. If we did the same thing again today, the budget would be balanced in 2021. […]
[…] motivated instead by a desire to shrink the burden of government spending, so I argue for spending restraint rather than tax hikes that would “feed the […]
[…] motivated instead by a desire to shrink the burden of government spending, so I argue for spending restraint rather than tax hikes that would “feed the […]
[…] I shared new data from the Congressional Budget Office and pointed out that we can simultaneously balance the budget within 10 years and have a $3 trillion tax cut if politicians simply exercise a modest bit of spending restraint […]
[…] on new 10-year fiscal estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, I wrote yesterday that balancing the budget actually is very simple with a modest bit of spending […]
[…] New CBO Numbers and the Simple Formula for Good Fiscal Policy, Part I […]
[…] « New CBO Numbers and the Simple Formula for Good Fiscal Policy, Part I […]
Those budget deficit numbers projected to be 1.4Trillion in 2027. Are those phony numbers like the reported 587Billion defecit for 2016. Or real numbers like the actual budget deficit of 1.4Trillion in 2016 as measured by the increase in the national debt as reported by the treasury at their website National Debt to the Penny!!!!!
Two per cent. inflation is high for this country, and should not be accepted as normal.
Hope you don’t mind that I linked this to a comment on Instapundit.
Outstanding analysis – wait to Trump get’s his tax cuts through –
We are planning on doing a conference at USNA on:
“Why This Time Its Different” – why the National Debt is now a National Security Threat as pointed out by several Chairmen of the
JCS and DOD Secretary’s – including General Mattis – and ;
“Living Within the Squeeze” – Unless current budget trends are arrested and/or we throw deficit and debt caution to the wind, DOD will experience a 5 to 10% reduction in real resources in ten years. Do you agree I can sent you the basis for these projections.
We hope to get the best minds together to discuss the ramifications of this for our strategy and planning.
Our team: Dave Walker, Adm Bill Owens, myself, Superintendent of USNA and heads of the Econ., Leadership and maybe Pol Sci Dept. Others.
Would you like to join us?
John Knubel 301 502 1445
Reblogged this on Truth Is Power and commented:
“Here’s how Republicans can balance the budget and shrink the burden of government (assuming they’re on the side of taxpayers)”