Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process

[DougMacG]

I don't go past the paywall either.  Just showing it's a 'mainstream' source reporting it.  As they did reporting the coldest winter in recorded history in Antarctica last year.  But they don't read their own reporting when it comes to changing the narrative.  It is said once, then back to the agenda.

[Crafty_Dog]

I used a different browser.

Here it is:
================

U.S. deficit explodes even as economy grows
A strong economy usually reduces the deficit. Not this time.

By Jeff Stein
September 3, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

Morning light inside the Capitol Rotunda. Congress will return soon to try to come to an agreement on federal spending for the next fiscal year, but rising deficits could complicate lawmakers' work. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)


The federal deficit is projected to roughly double this year, as bigger interest payments and lower tax receipts widen the nation’s spending imbalance despite robust overall economic growth.

After the government’s record spending in 2020 and 2021 to combat the impact of covid-19, the deficit dropped by the greatest amount ever in 2022, falling from close to $3 trillion to roughly $1 trillion. But rather than continue to fall to its pre-pandemic levels, the deficit then shot upward. Budget experts now project that it will probably rise to about $2 trillion for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates for lower deficits. (These numbers ignore President Biden’s $400 billion student debt cancellation policy, which was struck down by the Supreme Court this year and never took effect.)

The unexpected deficit surge, which comes amid signs of strong growth in the economy overall, is likely to shape a fierce debate on Capitol Hill about the nation’s fiscal policies as lawmakers face a potential government shutdown this fall and choices over trillions of dollars in expiring tax cuts. The Senate will return this week from August recess, and the House will be back the following week. Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) approved a deal in June to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, but it did little to alter the long-term debt trajectory.

The higher deficit may undermine Biden’s attempts to take credit for reining in the budget ahead of the 2024 presidential election. And it could pose a challenge to Republican lawmakers, who — despite their calls for fiscal responsibility — are pushing to extend more than $3 trillion in tax cuts they approved in 2017.

“The deficit will basically double from 2022 to 2023,” said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “This should prompt a serious evaluation of federal policy going forward, though I worry it won’t.”

The surge in red ink has confounded many economists’ expectations. Typically, deficits contract when the economy grows, because businesses and consumers owe more in taxes and the government does not need to spend as much to protect those who have lost their job. Then deficits normally expand again in downturns, as those factors go into reverse. And yet the current surge in the deficit is coinciding with a period of unusually strong economic growth, amid historic lows in unemployment and robust corporate profits.

Jason Furman, who served as a top economist in the Obama administration and is now an economics professor at Harvard, said the current jump in the deficit is only surpassed by “major crises,” such as World War II, the 2008 financial meltdown or the coronavirus pandemic. Only during these national catastrophes did the United States see deficit numbers this large as a share of the economy or this substantial an increase in the deficit, Furman said. The U.S. economy is expected to grow at a steady 2.1 percent this year.

“To see this in an economy with low unemployment is truly stunning. There’s never been anything like it,” Furman said. “A good and strong economy, with no new emergency spending — and yet a deficit like this. The fact that it is so big in one year makes you think it must be some weird freakish thing going on.”


From August 2022 to this July, the federal government spent roughly $6.7 trillion while bringing in roughly $4.5 trillion. That represents a total increase in spending of 16 percent relative to last year and a 7 percent decrease in revenue, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The deficit fell dramatically the year before in large part because of the expiration of trillions in emergency covid aid approved during the Trump and Biden administrations. But even as covid spending continued to fall this year, other factors pushed overall spending up.

Think you can tame the national debt? Play our budget game.

The Treasury Department is also on track to take in substantially less in new revenue this year, in part because of the stock market’s slump last year. In 2021, amid a cryptocurrency bubble and an explosion in housing prices driven by rock-bottom interest rates, investors recorded huge gains that led them to pay capital gains taxes at record levels. But then the bubble burst, leading to a sharp drop in capital gains tax revenue. Automatic adjustments to the tax brackets to account for inflation also reduced tax obligations for many Americans, resulting in less incoming revenue relative to last year.


Then a number of other spending increases contributed to the rising deficit — Social Security payments increased because they are indexed to inflation; the government spent more on education, veterans benefits and health care; and the bipartisan infrastructure law, as well as the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, started sending billions of dollars out from the government’s accounts.


Experts are fiercely divided on the extent to which the higher deficit amounts to a pressing problem for the economy.

The federal government can still issue more debt even as interest payments rise, with demand for the dollar remaining strong. That isn’t always the case: In Argentina, soaring debt levels have forced the government to impose limits to prevent citizens from taking money outside the country. Other government debt crises have been marked by catastrophic drops in the exchange rate, amid investor concerns that the currency will be devalued. These signs of distress have not materialized in the United States.

Fears of a debt crisis during the Obama administration also consistently failed to materialize, emboldening those who regarded the warnings of fiscal conservatives demanding budget cuts as overblown and ideologically motivated.

See how the national debt grew to $31 trillion

“If you think of places that have actually had problems of real fiscal sustainability which have gotten to the point of crisis — we know what those places look like, and this doesn’t look anything look like that,” said Matthew C. Klein, publisher of the Overshoot, a subscription research service focused on the global economy. “You can argue about whether you want it or not, but this is really not a crisis.”

And yet other economists remain highly concerned about the long-run fiscal picture. Larger government deficits lead to higher interest rates, which can distort private investment and drive up the cost of loans, like home mortgages. Brian Riedl, an economist at the Manhattan Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank, said the United States appears on track for annual deficits that could rise to close to $3 trillion by the early 2030s.

“A debt growing much faster than the economy will drive up interest rates, reduce economic investment, and over time make interest payments the largest federal expenditure — risking a federal debt crisis,” Riedl said.

Other experts pointed out that the perception of higher deficits could make it harder for policymakers to approve spending to fight the next economic downturn, even if the United States does in fact have additional room to spend.

“If there is a perception that the deficit is too high, it will become ‘too high’ as it becomes self-limiting — the government will begin to drastically limit spending to influence how the deficit is perceived,” said Kyla Scanlon, a financial analyst who founded Bread, which produces financial education.

The shift could also have more immediate political consequences. Biden has routinely touted the decline in the deficit from 2021 to 2022, claiming to have restored fiscal responsibility to the White House after Donald Trump added more than $7 trillion to the national debt.

“Unlike House Republicans, President Biden takes reducing the deficit seriously — and he will continue calling out Republicans for their hypocrisy on the debt,” White House spokesman Michael Kikukawa said in a statement. The statement also emphasized that Biden’s budget proposals would reduce the deficit by trillions of dollars through higher taxes on the rich and corporations.

Still, Republicans are likely to also continue insisting that they are more responsible fiscal stewards. But GOP leaders are pushing to extend roughly $3.3 trillion in tax cuts, including breaks for large businesses and a reduction in the estate tax paid only by a small minority of wealthy families.



By Jeff Stein
Jeff Stein is the White House economics reporter for The Washington Post.

[DougMacG]

Washington Post, deficit doubled in one year story:

1.  "The unexpected deficit surge..."

(Doug)  Excuse me but in the exact words of Rep Jim Clyburn "All of us knew..."
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/all-of-us-knew-biden-ally-says-democrats-knew-inflation-was-coming-after-spending-bill/

"Let me make it very clear. All of us are concerned about these rising costs, and all of us knew this would be the case when we put in place this recovery program," Clyburn said on MSNBC after host José Díaz-Balart asked about Americans' struggles with surging food and energy prices. "Any time you put more money into the economy, prices tend to rise."

(Doug). Of course it was all inflationary. Of course it was going to explode the deficit. Of course it was going to kill the private economy. Who couldn't see that coming? They all knew.  Like the release from the strategic petroleum reserve, it bought them a midterm.

2. (Paraphrase) 'We are different than Argentina because we can still issue more debt'.

(Doug). That's reassuring - NOT!

3.  Capital gains taxes are at the center of it:
"investors recorded huge gains that led them to pay capital gains taxes at record levels. But then the bubble burst, leading to a sharp drop in capital gains tax revenue."

(Doug)  In other words , the asset price runup (aka inflation?) was a Ponzi scheme (bigger fool theory) with the government laughing to the bank with their cut.  When the music stopped, investors caught holding the bag were screwed and locked in place with the higher interest rates, can't get out without taking a huge tax hit so the transactions stop and the government gets nothing on asset sales that don't happen.  Nothing to learn there??

4. Note the previous post in the topic, "Republican" Sen. Mitt Romney promising to do NOTHING about out of control spending (entitlements).  Well, Democrats matched and raised him, they promised to do more than nothing; they promised to make everything worse - and delivered on their promise!

[DougMacG]

The Republican house is where spending bills originate, right? But Republicans have only a four-seat majority. If the house freedom caucus exerts any backbone, the speaker will have to side with Democrats in order to pass anything.

In the senate, the Democrats only have a two-seat majority, similar problem. If two or three defect, they have nothing. In the oval office they have the slurring stumbling lame duck with the bully pulpit.

The advantage goes to the side that controls media and big tech.

Luckily it doesn't matter because neither party cares.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/09/budget-showdown-ahead.php

[DougMacG]

Also from Steve Moore, CTUP:
Republicans Always Lose Government Shutdown Fights

Biden and House Republicans look like they are on a collision course for a budget stalemate and a government shutdown as soon as next week.   

This would be the 22nd government shutdown since 1978, as Congress and the White House spar over the budget.

Some shutdowns happened with a Republican president and a Democrat Congress. Some have happened with a Democratic president and a Republican running Congress.

But there has been one similarity of each shutdown: the media has blamed every government shutdown on the Republicans. And in most cases, voters have too. 

We like the solution that Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma has proposed. If appropriations aren’t signed into law in time, programs are automatically funded at last year’s level until a funding bill is passed. 

Lankford tells us that he has support from four Senate Democrats, plus Independent Krysten Sinema. He believes he can get enough Democrats to reach the 60 votes needed to force a floor vote on his amendment. The idea would then go to the GOP-controlled House.

“The Prevent Government Shutdowns Act would do exactly what the title suggests. It’s a simple bill that offers a reasonable solution to one form of recurring congressional gridlock.”

Lankford told the Hotline that under his bill, Congress would have powerful incentives to pass appropriations:
No taxpayer-funded travel allowances for official business
No use of campaign funds by congressional offices for travel
No motions to recess or adjourn in the House/Senate for a period of more than 23 hours
No other votes would be in order in the House and Senate unless they pertain to passage of appropriations.
Lankford says his bill would create a type of Detention Hall for Congress: “We should be forced as members to finish our homework or else stay after class.”

[DougMacG]

https://www.kcbd.com/2023/09/22/arrington-proposes-trillions-spending-cuts-new-10-year-federal-budget/

[Body-by-Guinness]

… remain unspent:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2023/10/14/get-very-mad-the-350-billion-covid-bailout-of-states-was-entirely-unncessary-n1735077

[ccp]

"why not"

Agree

We have to or else.

I still recall the great Rush explaining why it cannot get done by either party in 7 simple words:

Spending is the source of their power!

Stopping it is asking these politicians to give up power.

Good luck 

[DougMacG]

ccp:  "I still recall the great Rush explaining why it cannot get done by either party in 7 simple words:
Spending is the source of their power!
Stopping it is asking these politicians to give up power."
-----------------

That's exactly how we got here.

It's hard to put words to this madness. 

a) We spend 40% more than we take in.
usdebtclock.org

b) Interest rates on the public debt just tripled BECAUSE of this and because of the accumulation of said debt.

c). We got away with this, mostly, until now,  as compared to say Argentina, because we are the world's reserve currency.

d) The loss of reserve currency status is happening as we speak largely because of the above.

e) Spending for defense and security is a constitutional and moral responsibility. Spending on Ukraine to stop Russian expansion can be argued good or bad  either way but it is a .008 share of spending, one deck chair on a Titanic.  Spending on Israel is way less. 

f) Sending checks to ourselves is what ccp refers to, power to the elected Representatives, NOT HELPING EVEN THE PEOPLE RECEIVING IT MUCH LESS THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE. And it is trillions and trillions and trillions.  Wake up people.

g). The part we spend over what we take in, currently 1.9 Trillion per year, 40% over revenues, is play money - getting mixed in with the real money - at such a fast rate that soon all our money will be play money.

What are we going to do then?

[Body-by-Guinness]

What are we going to do? Crash and burn, at some point.

I’d add an “h” and even an “i” to your list:

h) We spend money supposedly to address grave social concerns that somehow, by golly, never get solved. Should we even attempt to slow down the rate of growth of these programs the MSM squeal about “draconian cuts” and other nonsense. The net effect is the creation of a class of citizens that produce little, consume much, and reliably vote for “improvements” on the failed status quo.

i) Those unproductive programs need to be administered, creating a class of bureaucrats that also vote reliably, and also lobby, campaign, and provide well framed soundbites for their MSM friends.

As I understand it, we are $30 trillion or so, and have spent around $30 trillion on “Great Society” programs since LBJ enacted therm. A coincidence, no doubt, as is the fact if we eliminated h) and i) we’d be living well within our means. Too bad it’ll take a national catastrophe to get there, and even after that the two perspective likely to emerge are that the catastrophe was caused by ineffective spending or that the catastrophe was caused by people that sought to address all the ineffective spending. The latter perspective will have a much larger bought and paid for constituency than the latter, and the solution that constituency is likely to demand will be some sort of command economy as they cast all that oppose that “solution” as modern day kulaks.Those so cast had best keep their powder dry.

[DougMacG]

BBG:  "if we eliminated h) and i) we’d be living well within our means."

   - Yes, interesting coincidence there, $30 T spent, 30T in debt, rough nos. 

There of course are so many other boondoggles (cf PPP, EV etc) it's not limited to that.

If we eliminated paying people to not work it has a doubling effect on less debt incurred; those people start paying in.  And a tripling effect, some would see the madness and start voting differently.

None of this is to say there aren't people in real need.  The point of cleaning up the system is to be in a much stronger position to handle real need.  But it is doubtful the Federal government is ever the best vehicle to help them.

[Body-by-Guinness]

BBG:  "if we eliminated h) and i) we’d be living well within our means."

   - Yes, interesting coincidence there, $30 T spent, 30T in debt, rough nos. 

There of course are so many other boondoggles (cf PPP, EV etc) it's not limited to that.

If we eliminated paying people to not work it has a doubling effect on less debt incurred; those people start paying in.  And a tripling effect, some would see the madness and start voting differently.

None of this is to say there aren't people in real need.  The point of cleaning up the system is to be in a much stronger position to handle real need.  But it is doubtful the Federal government is ever the best vehicle to help them.

FWIW, I don't have an issue with supporting the deserving as they get their life on track and hence would not support a blanket end to all assistance programs. I would however have no problem dumping top heavy administration, perverse incentives, outcomes prolonging dependence rather than supporting independence, would privatize the snot out of whatever I could, and would demand ruthless metrics and accounting.

But yeah, there is plenty outside of Great Society programs that needs to be ripped out by its roots....

[DougMacG]

Among the non-monetary reasons that debt burden and interest rates on the debt are exploding include:

Downgrade of our creditworthiness by the rating agencies

23% increase in the issuance of new debt

Source Wharton School

[Body-by-Guinness]

The URL at the bottom of this takes you to the original post containing tables and other formatting that didn't reproduce here.

“The Path We’re on Is Unsustainable”
Powell Fiscal Path
•The Beacon by Craig Eyermann / October 24, 2023 at 03:17PM//keep unread//hide

When speaking to the New York Economics Club last week, Jerome Powell, the Chair of the Federal Reserve, did not mince words about the U.S. government’s fiscal situation. Barron’s Megan Cassella reported on his comments:

The overall level of the U.S.’s debt isn’t a problem in itself, the Federal Reserve’s Jerome Powell said Thursday. But when asked about the level of government borrowing relative to the past, the chairman suggested that rapidly rising debt levels could become a problem moving forward.

“The path we’re on is unsustainable, and we’ll have to get off that path sooner rather than later,” Powell said.

The next day, the Treasury Department released its final monthly treasury statement for the U.S. government’s 2023 fiscal year, which ended on September 30, 2023. The news, as reported by Reuters, was not good:

The U.S. government on Friday posted a $1.695 trillion budget deficit in fiscal 2023, a 23% jump from the prior year as revenues fell and outlays for Social Security, Medicare and record-high interest costs on the federal debt rose.

The Treasury Department said the deficit was the largest since a COVID-fueled $2.78 trillion gap in 2021. It marks a major return to ballooning deficits after back-to-back declines during President Joe Biden’s first two years in office.

The deficit comes as Biden is asking Congress for $100 billion in new foreign aid and security spending, including $60 billion for Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel, along with funding for U.S. border security and the Indo-Pacific region.

The big deficit, which exceeded all pre-COVID deficits, including those brought about by Republican tax cuts passed under Donald Trump and from the financial crisis years, is likely to enflame Biden’s fiscal battles with Republicans in the House of Representatives, whose demands for spending cuts pushed the U.S. to the brink of default in early June over the debt ceiling.

The chart below shows how the U.S. government’s spending and tax collections throughout its 2023 fiscal year compare with 2022:

Cumulative Monthly U.S. Government Spending and Revenue during Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023

Though U.S. government spending in FY 2023 ran ahead of FY 2022 in most of the year, spending significantly slowed in the final two months of the fiscal year. Total outlays for 2023 were $6.13 trillion, a slight reduction from 2022’s $6.27 trillion. Tax collections declined by a larger amount, falling from FY 2022’s record-high $4.90 trillion level to $4.44 trillion, the second-highest figure ever recorded.

An Unsustainable Fiscal Path

Spending might have fallen more if not for Social Security inflation adjustments and a much higher cost to service the U.S. national debt. Here’s Reuters again:

Social Security spending rose 10% to $1.416 trillion due to cost-of-living adjustments for inflation, and spending for the Medicare senior healthcare program rose 4% to $1.022 trillion.

Interest costs on the more than $33 trillion in federal debt also rose sharply, up 23% to $879 billion, a record. Net interest payments, excluding intragovernmental transfers to trust funds, rose 39% to $659 billion, also a record, according to a Treasury official....

Interest rates have soared over the last year and a half as the Federal Reserve jacked up borrowing costs to slow inflation. The average interest cost on the Treasury’s outstanding debt was 2.97% last fiscal year, up from 2.07% the year before.

Meanwhile, CBS MarketWatch reports on why the U.S. government’s revenues fell:

The Treasury said the sharp decrease in revenue was due to lower individual-income tax receipts as capital-gains realizations fell, and to rising interest rates that cut the amount of money the Federal Reserve deposited at the Treasury.

Both these problems result from the high inflation that characterizes President Biden’s tenure in office. Corporate profits fell in 2022 because inflation increased the cost of doing business, including the cost of borrowing from rising interest rates intended to fight inflation. These factors then led to reduced capital gains tax collections in 2023. You can see that consequence in the chart above as 2023’s tax collections deviate from 2022’s levels starting in April 2023. That month, capital gains taxes came due as Americans filed their 2022 income taxes.

All this is what an unsustainable fiscal path looks like. Powell is right in recognizing that “we’ll have to get off that path sooner rather than later.”

The post “The Path We’re on Is Unsustainable” appeared first on The Beacon.

https://blog.independent.org/2023/10/24/path-were-on-is-unsustainable/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=path-were-on-is-unsustainable

[DougMacG]

"The path were on is unsustainable"?

Who woke him up so suddenly? 

It's the Spending Stupid.
-----------------
On the revenues side:

"The Treasury said the sharp decrease in revenue was due to lower individual-income tax receipts as capital-gains realizations fell, "

I've been harping on this.  People can't sell their assets because they would be taxed on the inflation. The federal rate might be a little lower for capital gains but 41 states tax capital gains including the inflationary gain as ordinary income.

I complain because it's killing me, but it's killing our country too.

Look at the absurd cost of housing.  The capital gains tax (on inflation) keeps the old owner from selling and drives up the cost for the new buyers.  (There are some exceptions for homestead but a lot of property is not homestead.)

On a retirement fund don't they put a 10% penalty on early withdrawal, and that keeps people from cashing in those assets early.  In my case for a rental house, I can have all of an asset or I can sell it and have 2/3rds of the asset. You're taxed on the proceeds and then you're taxed on the investment you make with the proceeds, taking years or decades just to get back that loss you chose.  Then they hire 87,000 new IRS agents to make sure you still have a piece of paper for every improvement you made.

Nobody wins.  Everybody loses.

Simple answer:  Index capital gains to inflation.  It makes sense to tax a gain but inflation is not a gain.

[Crafty_Dog]

That could fit in the Tax thread as well.

[ccp]

More redistribution

and, of course, I fall into the screwed category:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/social-security-on-life-support-dramatic-changes-coming-with-both-republican-and-democratic-support/ss-AA1j4YrN?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=1b0cae078fb9480bb614d80bd6f04c8b&ei=9#image=3

[Body-by-Guinness]

… your daily dose of federal fiscal sleight of hand:

https://blog.independent.org/2023/10/30/the-smoke-and-mirrors-of-government-spending-in-2023/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-smoke-and-mirrors-of-government-spending-in-2023

[DougMacG]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-gop-bill-israel-aid-irs-budget-cuts/

The House GOP released a $14.3 billion standalone measure on Monday that would pay for aid to Israel by cutting the same amount in funding that was allocated to the IRS under the (misnamed) Inflation Reduction Act

[DougMacG]

… your daily dose of federal fiscal sleight of hand:

https://blog.independent.org/2023/10/30/the-smoke-and-mirrors-of-government-spending-in-2023/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-smoke-and-mirrors-of-government-spending-in-2023

"Accounting quirk".  They doubled the deficit and showed it as a decrease.  The poor, misled, gullible public, Dem voters in particular. 

There are simpler measures of deficit, how much new debt did you have to issue? 

I use this site, seems to have accurate, up to date numbers:  usdebtclock.org
It's what the deficit hawks pointed to when Republicans were in charge.

From that site:
Current actual running deficit:  1.86 Trillion
Federal Revenues:  4.425 Trillion

Overspending percentage:  > 42%
We are spending 42% more than we take in.

I can't get anything but a blank stare out of anyone I tell that to.  When I say both parties are to blame, then I can get a nod of agreement.

Round that to $2 trillion per year we are adding to our borrowings, and the interest rates on new debt and reissuances of old debt has more than tripled.  At the link, the site shows current net interest cost per year at 675 Billion.  That will pass $1 Trillion per year in VERY short order, nearly 20% of revenues, and never go down.

But it makes no difference.  We aren't even trying to balance the budget anymore.  It's play money.  We aren't Venezuela or Argentina.  The whole world has to use our currency.  Oops, they don't anymore, and "it can't happen here" is EXACTLY what they said there.

The only response Democrat policy makers have is squeeze the private sector harder.  Just what we need in a stagnating economy, less private sector investment.  Good f'ing grief.

[DougMacG]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/30/treasury-to-borrow-776-billion-in-the-final-three-months-of-the-year.html

[Body-by-Guinness]

… your daily dose of federal fiscal sleight of hand:

https://blog.independent.org/2023/10/30/the-smoke-and-mirrors-of-government-spending-in-2023/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-smoke-and-mirrors-of-government-spending-in-2023

"Accounting quirk".  They doubled the deficit and showed it as a decrease.  The poor, misled, gullible public, Dem voters in particular. 

There are simpler measures of deficit, how much new debt did you have to issue? 

I use this site, seems to have accurate, up to date numbers:  usdebtclock.org
It's what the deficit hawks pointed to when Republicans were in charge.

From that site:
Current actual running deficit:  1.86 Trillion
Federal Revenues:  4.425 Trillion

Overspending percentage:  > 42%
We are spending 42% more than we take in.

I can't get anything but a blank stare out of anyone I tell that to.  When I say both parties are to blame, then I can get a nod of agreement.

Round that to $2 trillion per year we are adding to our borrowings, and the interest rates on new debt and reissuances of old debt has more than tripled.  At the link, the site shows current net interest cost per year at 675 Billion.  That will pass $1 Trillion per year in VERY short order, nearly 20% of revenues, and never go down.

But it makes no difference.  We aren't even trying to balance the budget anymore.  It's play money.  We aren't Venezuela or Argentina.  The whole world has to use our currency.  Oops, they don't anymore, and "it can't happen here" is EXACTLY what they said there.

The only response Democrat policy makers have is squeeze the private sector harder.  Just what we need in a stagnating economy, less private sector investment.  Good f'ing grief.

Sweet link Doug!

[ccp]

" https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/frank-howard-legendary-washington-senators-slugger-passes-away-at-87/ar-AA1j75cX?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=8dc059edc9a9481085967e9e7bd952e2&ei=10"

you noticed this too.

libs never agree that they are ( or mostly ) responsible but may occasionally agree if you include both just to cut the discussion off.

however the Repubs do share some blame here as noted in this case.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-11-15/pentagon-failed-audit-shutdown-funding-12064619.html

[ccp]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/economist-paul-krugman-details-how-republicans-are-still-waging-war-on-social-security/ar-AA1kFSzb?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=75fa767f0186418eb9c79e5debb3824c&ei=14

basically just needs more revenue 

in other words "tax the rich"

and no problem.

This guy is so totally obnoxious
belongs right at the bottom of the keg along with Myorkas

 

[ccp]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-nikki-haley-has-said-about-cutting-social-security/ar-AA1kR3Bt?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=b0b678e2d19d4e82903530824dd9ba0d&ei=9

odd

I have been reading for yrs how Soc Sec would be in trouble by end of 2020's.
Now we have nothing to worry about till 2030's and even then it is no big.  payouts would only drop to 80% of now .

So Soc Sec should not be threatened for '24 election
and put off any fix till the last minute .  Dems can spend away and call for the rich to pay the whole time .

I am supposed to conclude that Haley is wrong and she is a threat to Soc Sec .   So we all better vote for a DEm  Biden or Newsome

At the same time the climate change calls for action NOW!
2 billion people are at risk of being under water.

[DougMacG]

Uninformed Electorate, John Hinderaker, Why we are headed for bankruptcy:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/12/why-we-are-careening-toward-bankruptcy.php

[Body-by-Guinness]

Your tax dollars inaction. Or something:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/12/long-after-covid-pandemic-ended-not-one-federal-agency-has-more-than-50-of-its-staff-at-office/?utm_source=rss

[DougMacG]

https://mailchi.mp/33ef6f107d34/unleash-prosperity-hotline-886-weekend-edition-868592

[DougMacG]

From border discussion, majority of illegals are on welfare:
ccp: "is this nuts or what?"

[Doug]  It's so much worse than that, I don't have words for it.

The hearing backlog is 3 million meaning court date for pretend refugee status is never and nearly none show up for it anyway.

But the welfare part of it, are you kidding?  If they're illegal, why are they eligible?  Like a bank robber demanding they open an account in his name and fund it, and he can come back anytime without consequence.  But we're so far past that because Leftists want this and Democrats all go along and they are the majority apparently.

But what money are we spending as we spend 40% more than we take in.  Just funny money devaluing real money, making everyone poorer as we pretend to make ourselves richer by writing endless checks and funding EBT cards to people and we don't even know who they are.

33 Trillion debt and rising over 333 million people is already $100,000 owing for every man, woman and child.  Average household size is 2.5.  Every small household owes a quarter million before you go out and try to buy a house, and a not very fancy house costs a half million or more depending on where you are.  Did I mention interest rates tripled, meaning debt costs tripled, rising in principle and interest every minute of every day.

Add to that math, half the people have no intention of ever paying in, and your share of the debt burden is more than double that.

This is WAY beyond nuts.

Decline is a choice.

Collapse is a choice.

Then what?

[ccp]

Then what ?

I don't know.
China invasion?

https://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-fed-monopoly-money-image-2013-3

[DougMacG]

I wonder if this should go under spending or vote fraud. Aren't these the same groups featured in 2000 mules? A half billion for "justice" to the "non-profits" in the name of "Environmental protection".  I guess we're not low on money.

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-announces-600m-11-grantmakers-fund-thousands-environmental

[ccp]

" I wonder if this should go under spending or vote fraud. "

another darn DEI SCAM

using our money to bribe democrats to vote and be soldiers partisan soldiers

 

[DougMacG]

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2023/12/biden-signs-order-finalizing-52-pay-raise-feds-2024/392978/

Biden signs order finalizing 5.2% pay raise for feds in 2024
The measure confirms that the federal workforce will see its largest pay increase in more than 40 years.



https://www.cato.org/blog/good-news-federal-worker-pay

[Crafty_Dog]

So, fed pay more than doubled in 23 years , , ,

[DougMacG]

So, fed pay more than doubled in 23 years , , ,

Yes they are making increases 30% over and above the inflation rate year after year.

Why does this happen?  Voter loyalty along with serious political contributions - all to one side.

Who's looking out for the taxpayer interest?  No one.

[DougMacG]

34T x 5% = 1.7T on interest alone, if recent rates become permanent. And what if interest rates double again while total debt keeps climbing?  We might have ourselves a crisis, if we don't already.

https://citizenwatchreport.com/debt-crisis-escalates-34-trillion-u-s-federal-debt-raises-alarms-as-interest-expense-soars-to-unprecedented-levels/

"Debt crisis escalates: $34 trillion U.S. federal debt raises alarms as interest expense soars to unprecedented levels."

The most recent trillion of debt happened in 3 months.

Meanwhile, Biden and Democrats are letting the most recent tax rate cuts expire. That is the opposite of supply side economics. Faced with stagnation, we raise tax rates, cutting our future growth rate.

It's not an accident. They opposed the cuts then. They denied that they worked. And they want them to expire, they want the tax rates to return to their previous higher levels. As Obama told Charlie Gibson years ago, it's a matter of principle. The wrong principles, envy thy neighbor, etc.

Economic growth with spending restraint is the only way to survive this debt burden and the powers that be oppose both.

[Crafty_Dog]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ccp]

"Meanwhile, Biden and Democrats are letting most recent tax rate cuts expire. That is the opposite of supply side economics. Faced with stagnation, we raise tax rates, cutting our future growth rate."

An exact example  what Bobby Jindal was pointing out.

As soon as Trump left the WH we got communism right back.

1.7 trill just on the interest 

We are in never never land when a billion means nothing.
Even 100 billion is not even significant to the big spenders.

Dems - bid spenders - big shots. 

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&ei=UTF-8&p=hey+big+spender+song&type=E210US1494G0#id=1&vid=493edd10bec6de601307925f8546a700&action=click

[Crafty_Dog]

Speaker Johnson’s Spending Deal
House Republicans have a chance to show they can actually govern.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
Jan. 8, 2024 6:25 pm ET



Can House Republicans govern in 2024—even a little—after the lost year of 2023? One modestly promising sign is the budget deal that House Speaker Mike Johnson struck with Democrats over the weekend on federal spending levels for fiscal 2024.


The agreement largely hews to the debt-ceiling deal of last spring, with a few additional fiscal benefits. Fiscal 2024 discretionary spending (through this September) will remain at $1.59 trillion, as specified by statute in the Fiscal Responsibility Act agreed to by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Biden in May. That’s a minor victory by itself since Senate appropriators intended to bust that cap by adding another $14 billion.

Defense spending will total $886 billion, while non-defense discretionary comes in at $704 billion. The rub is that Mr. McCarthy and the White House negotiated several side deals that increased domestic spending by an additional $69 billion. While that number remains, Mr. Johnson managed to offset $16 billion with other cuts. Democrats agreed to surrender $10 billion more of their Internal Revenue Service fillip, bringing that total to $20 billion in fiscal 2024. Another $6.1 billion will come out of unspent Covid-era funds.

Overall, domestic discretionary spending remains essentially flat, while defense dollars increase by roughly 3%. That breaks the Democrats’ longtime demand for parity between defense and social-welfare spending. Mr. Johnson’s team also managed to kill several gimmicks that threatened to make emergency spending and changes to entitlement accounting part of the permanent budget baseline.

With the top line set, Congress can now move to pass the 12 appropriations bills to fund the government before the looming staggered deadlines of Jan. 19 and Feb. 2. After years of continuing resolutions and blowout omnibus bills, this would be progress for a GOP that promised to restore regular order.

The House has moved all 12 bills out of committee, and seven through the floor. The Senate has passed only three. A House-Senate conference committee on bills, once they pass each body, is crucial for giving Republicans leverage to end the Nancy-Pelosi-era policy riders that remain in effect.

House Freedom Caucus members are denouncing the deal as a sellout, but they always do. Could they do better with a three-seat margin in the House and Democrats in charge of the Senate and White House? There’s no evidence they have a plan beyond the futile gesture of shutting down the government.

Meeting the budget deadlines lets Republicans focus on Mr. Biden’s border mess, where a united GOP might extract real concession on security in return for weapons for Ukraine and Israel. The alternative is for the GOP to fracture over this spending deal, threaten a shutdown, and produce more headlines about GOP dysfunction. Could they be dumb enough to defenestrate another Speaker?

The cheapest trick in politics is to pound the table in outrage at everyone else’s failure without offering a constructive idea for doing better. This is part of the GOP’s current affliction, and the Speaker’s deal is an antidote.

[Body-by-Guinness]

It frosts me to no end that the feds feel they are entitled to tell me how much water can flow through my toilet on a single flush among other bits of regulatory overreach they regularly embrace. As such it's refreshing to see such acts stymied, as they were here:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/doe-blocked-from-undoing-trump-dishwasher-washing-machine-rules

[ccp]

From American Thinker.

First time I recall seeing the differentiation here:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/01/if_youre_a_hammer.html

[DougMacG]

https://confoundedinterest.net/2024/01/16/debt-star-massive-money-printing-will-accelerate-as-debt-soars-34-trillion-in-current-federal-debt-and-212-trillion-in-promises-to-the-99-will-require-lots-of-money-printing/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://citizenwatchreport.com/debt-crisis-escalates-34-trillion-u-s-federal-debt-raises-alarms-as-interest-expense-soars-to-unprecedented-levels/

[DougMacG]

Link from patriot post, John Stossel on Charles Murray, I pick out this one aspect for this thread.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/103840-the-most-dangerous-conservative-2024-01-24

If $25 trillion spent doesn't make something better, actually worsens and perpetuates the problem, shoot the messenger.

(Charles Murray is more known for another book that does not conclude what critics say it does.)

[Crafty_Dog]

Charles Murray has done deep serious work for decades now.

[ccp]

California's Silicon Valley response"

to be first state to have "loneliness minister"   me: [you have got to be kidding]

https://abc7news.com/san-mateo-declares-loneliness-state-of-emergency-first-in-us-mental-health-depression/14373042/

[Crafty_Dog]

Here's the damnedest thing-- they ain't wrong about the problem , , ,

[ccp]

but a government "minister"?

[Crafty_Dog]

Pasting this one by BBG here as well:

https://blog.independent.org/2024/02/05/total-interest-national-debt-1-trillion-year/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=total-interest-national-debt-1-trillion-year