Every six months or so, the Congressional Budget Office produces a 10-year forecast and most fiscal experts focus on the projections for deficit and debt.
Those are important (and worrisome) numbers, but I first look at the data showing what will happen to taxes and spending.
And you can see from this chart that the fiscal burden of the federal government is projected to grow at a very rapid pace over the next decade.
Other fiscal experts fret that deficits and debt are increasing between now and 2033, but the above chart shows that the real problem is that the spending burden is rising faster than the tax burden.
The real fiscal fight in Washington is how to close the gap between the red spending line and the green revenue line (supporters of Modern Monetary Theory say we can just print money to finance big government, but let’s ignore them for purposes of today’s column).
Since I think Washington is spending far too much, I want to close the gap by restraining the growth of government.
So here’s a second chart illustrating what would happen if there was some sort of spending cap. As you can see, a spending freeze (like we had from 2009-2014) would balance the budget by 2030.
And spending would have to be limited to 1.3 percent annual growth if the goal is to balance the budget within 10 years,
We can solve the problem. That’s the good news.
The bad news is that politicians don’t want to restrain spending.
And, even if they did want to do the right thing, adhering to a 1.3 percent spending cap would require serious entitlement reform. So don’t hold your breath hoping for immediate progress.
P.S. The numbers are out of date, but here’s a video that explains how spending restraint is the key to fiscal balance. And here’s a video on how some other nations made enormous progress with multi-year spending restraint.
[…] there’s not even a chance of getting a far-more modest spending cap that would merely be designed to balance the budget over a 10-year […]
[…] good news is that we know how that spending restraint is en effective way to reduce debt. We even know that’s the way […]
[…] and foremost, I noted that the only good solution is long-run spending restraint. Fortunately, that’s been done before. There have been three […]
[…] There is a solution to America’s fiscal […]
[…] I suspect he knows what should be done(including genuine entitlement reform), but is afraid Trump will attack him from the […]
[…] I suspect he knows what should be done (including genuine entitlement reform), but is afraid Trump will attack him from the […]
[…] surplus by 2033 or 2050, which is not that important but nonetheless would be interesting to see (here’s how it can […]
(1) “Politicians don’t want to restrain spending.” Concur.
(2) At first I thought, “Well, you can’t freeze spending b/c certain programs are actually necessary and need to keep up with inflation.” But then I realized, “Don’t just freeze spending but also end all the programs (and agencies) that don’t work, esp those that don’t support a constitutional power of the federal govt…then plenty of revenue to fund programs that are necessary & effective, probably with a surplus.”
Dan,
Your chart assumes that tax revenues aren’t affected by a spending cap. I suspect that all else being equal, a strongly enforced spending cap would result in increased tax revenues due to resultant economic growth that wouldn’t have otherwise occurred.
Chuck Wright
You missed out some VERY important words, Dan.
… supporters of Modern Monetary Theory INCORRECTLY say we can just print money to finance big government AND SIMPLY IGNORE THE CONSEQUENCES …