Follow up: is it realistically achievable ever again, and should it even be a goal to be concerned with?
In: Economics
You are getting some…biased answers here.
Tax revenue isn’t the problem. [See this chart](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S)–tax revenue as a % of GDP since WWII is actually relatively stable. It goes up and down for recessions/expansions but we aren’t starved for revenue. You can play with the data–I used % of GDP to iron out issues with inflation and to map along with economic activity, but pretty much any chart will be relatively similar.
(Tellingly, the average over Reagan’s admin really isn’t all that different than any other decade.)
By the same token…[spending also really hasn’t changed all that much](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S), either.
So, a few points:
1. Right now, the deficit doesn’t really matter. Our debt to GDP ratio is still pretty healthy by governance standards. We have a *long* way to go before there are actual, structural problems…
2. …which will probably happen with Social Security. Once the boomers go full in on SSI, we’re losing both their revenue from taxes and also jacking up the spending. I don’t know if it’s enough to break anything but it’s not great.
3. The debt seems alarming but that’s mostly because of its size. Doing things like “hey, every second [insert some mind-boggling high number] is added to the debt” doesn’t also do the same thing for, say revenue, which is also mind-bogglingly high. Most people just don’t have a frame of reference.
4. Generally speaking, despite not being balanced, the actual “structural” deficit each year tends to not be that big. The main problem is spending for huge projects–recently, that’s the pandemic, the 2009 crisis, and the Iraq War/War on Terror. Before that was the S&L bailout, Vietnam…you get the idea.
5. Since everyone else is being a bit partisan, I will too–the only reason that Lyndon Johnson didn’t bust the budget to pay for Vietnam is because he just printed money instead, causing (in part) the inflation issues of the 1970s. You don’t get credit for causing a different problem. And, yeah, Clinton balanced the budget, while Reagan and the Bushes didn’t…but neither did Obama, or Trump, or Biden. It’s quite the bipartisan habit.
To answer your question, it’s just a “simple” (mathematically, not politically) thing of cutting spending a little and raising taxes a little. Oddly, raising taxes for the rich–what most people in this sub probably support–wont’ do a whole lot, just because there aren’t *that* many rich people.
I don’t want to say it’s not a problem–it is, because (ultimately) we want to pay it back. It’s better to tackle it now than later. But from a structural, year-over-year, functioning government standpoint, we’re nowhere near this being a problem.
Latest Answers