« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

One Trillion, Four Hundred Twenty Billion Dollars

One trillion, four hundred twenty billion dollars.  It’s an astounding number.  It’s more than the entire economy of India and enough to give every man, woman, and child in the United States $4700.

It is also our country’s federal budget deficit for 2009.  That means that in the fiscal year 2009, which runs from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009, the federal government spent $1.42 trillion more than it took in.  To put this in perspective, last year’s deficit was $459 billion – still an astounding number, but less than half the deficit for this year.

When our nation runs with a deficit like this year, we increase our national debt – or the total debt we owe over the life of our country.  Our current national debt is $9.1 trillion, and climbing every day.  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that, under President Obama’s spending plans, our national debt will rise to $17.1 trillion by the year 2019, meaning an increase of $8 trillion over the next ten years.  Most of this debt is held by foreign countries.  China, not known for their great relations with our country, holds the most – more than $800 billion.

If numbers like this don’t shock you, maybe this thought will: what happens when these investors decide they want to cash in their T-bonds and T-bills?  It’s not that hard to imagine.  Right now, the United States government seems to have no interest in paying off any of our debts, so investors will be much more like to want to cash in their holdings or to purchase less T-bonds and T-bills.  This would result in an even further drop in the dollar’s value and the federal government would be forced to pay higher interest rates to attract more investors.

Higher interest rates leads to an even higher national debt.  For FY2009, the federal government paid $190 billion in interest.  If our total debt rises to $17.1 trillion as the Congressional Budget Office predicts, our interest would quadruple to almost $800 billion by 2019.  In comparison, the budget for the state of Oklahoma for FY2009 was $7.1 billion.  So the federal government’s interest in 2019 would be more than one hundred times the state budget of Oklahoma.

Even worse, higher interest rates on T-bills and T-bonds would increase interest rates across the board, resulting in higher rates on loans to buy a home or to expand a business, which can lead to fewer new jobs and a decrease in our overall economy.  In addition, the continued decrease in the dollar would cause the price of imported goods to rise, increasing costs for consumers, thus increasing inflation.

While I know there are economists who stand by the president’s plan to spend, spend, spend, I think that we must look down the road to see the real long-term effect it will have.  Fiscal responsibility cannot just be a catch phrase used during elections.  It must be a philosophy that we practice.  If not for us, then at least for future generations on whom we are saddling this enormous debt.

Frank Lucas represents Oklahoma’s Third Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives. For more Frankly Speakings, please visit Rep. Lucas’ Blog at http://www.house.gov/lucas/frankly-speaking/index.shtml.

COMMENTS

  • Pingback: American Revolution Two » Blog Archive » A Scary Spectacle

  • Common_Cents

    Into forms that American’s can relate to. That would probably have more impact. Like the $$ per person type figures. Or how many mufflers or Lexus’ the money would buy. Trillions should be stated and sure do make your head spin but many eyes just get glazed over.

    Now when I read about federal employees average compensation is far higher than private employer compensation I was surprised and angered. I suspect other people are like me. Automatic pay raises for congress? Shameful.

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/10/12/business/economy/folbre1.jpg

    From Cato Institute Study

    “According to the latest figures, the average private sector worker compensation: $53,289. The average compensation for federal employees: $106,579. You can expect to be reading in editorial pages across the country that federal employees now make exactly twice the amount of private sector workers. The figures include both wages and benefits.

    And how about salaries without including benefits? The average private sector employee now takes in $43,917. The average federal employee: $71,114.”

    Why don’t conservatives in congress bring up a bill to end the automatic pay raises? Lead the charge.

  • janis

    the jaw-dropping figure that we are being charged $500 million dollars a day for interest alone on the national debt. So in a week’s time, we rack up another 3.5 billion just in interest alone. And of course that figure grows again by the next week.

    If a business ran this way, they’d have been closed down long since and the owners would have been jailed for so misusing the investors’ money.

  • Richard Mullins

    and something that hasn’t really done yet.

  • http://redlense.blogspot.com/ jlynnr

    Nothing irritates me more than to hear about the pay hikes the shlubs in congress give themselves. Well, that’s not entirely true. Also high on my peeve meter is all the federal employees trolling around the military bases my husband has SERVED on. The government matches their TSP savings (retirement savings), but they don’t do this for active duty. Maybe it’s just me, but if anyone should get this perk (and that is questionable) it should be the guys getting shot at.

    Please know, I am very aware that my husband’s salary comes directly from the tax payer. But the tax payer would do well to know just how much of the Defense Budget goes toward paying over-paid civil service/federal employees. I don’t know much about how this whole thing works, but twenty years living on and around military bases has had me suspecting some palms are being greased. We could afford to have a more than adequate military force if we weeded out some of the higher-paid federal employees trolling around the military and give those jobs back to the (underpaid) active duty members.

    Forgive my digression.

    Bottom line: I agree.

  • edintexas

    We all know that “figures lie, and liars figure”. It is an “apples and oranges” (OK, enough of the cliches) comparison to compare the “average” salary of federal employees to private sector employees. How many burger flippers and french fry friers does the federal government employ? None, any working on federal property are employees of contractors. Same for janitorial services. And lots of other, relatively low paying, jobs. I depend on the Cato Institute for lots of things, but (as with all things) we have to make sure any comparisons are accurate. How about a comparison of the average of all jobs for which a college degree, or equivalent work experience, was required? That would be informative, and would exclude other jobs on both the private sector and government payrolls. Then another comparison could be made for jobs which have only a HS diploma as a requirement. And yet another where no educational achievement is required (though I’m not sure that many such jobs exist in the federal government).

  • publiussteve

    Good synopsis by Rep. Lucas. The fiscal recklessness has been going on for awhile but Obama has thrown jet fuel onto this fire and could care less — as seen in the fact that we will soon be fighting “comprehensive immigration reform” a/k/a mass amnesty again. As the Heritage Foundation reported, if the flawed 2007 amnesty bill had passed, it would have imposed a net cost on U.S. taxpayers of at least $2.6 TRILLION.

  • makemyday

    Congressman Lucas, as a 60 year old business owner in the great State of Michigan, I don’t need to be reminded about the defict and the state of the economy as it is and what it will be. You come with your white gloves on and palms up in a placating gesture to imply how bad the present administration is and what the Democrats are doing to us. I agree with you on that point, but your white gloves cover the green stains caused by your own (re:Republican) pork barrel and earmarks from the last election cycle where you tried to buy your way back into office. In my mind there is no difference between a Republican foolishly spending my tax dollars or a Democrat. Pork and earmarks are pork and earmarks no matter whose signature is on the spending bill. Get it?

  • Jack_Savage

    Care to try again?

  • gonzo55

    The problem has never been real conservatives, it’s been liberal democrats and self-righteous pragmatist RINOS like McCain, Snowe, Collins, Coburn, Grahm, and Specter who never turn down an opportunity to order extra dessert at the taxpayer dinner table.

    This is why it’s so important to defeat liberals like Dede Scozzafava and Charlie Crist and keep them from waving our banner. Only through ideological purity can we cleanse ourselves of the stains of socialism incurred over the last 30 years of liberal spending.

  • makemyday

    Just saying that the deficit is the deficit because of a lack of fiscal responsibility on both sides of the aisle. Granted the Dems have taken it to a new high but a deficit is still a deficit.

  • reason60

    If Congressman Lucas would give us a sense of what direction he thinks the solutionlies.
    Maybe not a detailed budget, but a sense of priorities.

    Which government agencies should be cut so as to reduce spending by 1.4 Trillion dollars? Wouldn’t cuts on this magnitude mean a serious reduction in the scope of what government does?

    Entitlements make up 2 Trillion of the 3.5 trillion we spend- should we cut Social Security or Medicare?
    Defense makes up nearly a Trillion more- should we cut Defense spending?
    Or should we accept increased taxes to bring in more revenue?

    I wrote a diary entry on just this topic; the main point is that returning to fiscal sanity is not a matter of going after easy fixes and low hanging fruit. The decisions ahead of us are painful and will require sacrifice and adjustments to how we think about our government, and our place inthe world.

    It would reflect well on Congressman Lucas’ leadership if he would step forward with a outline of (realistic) priorities.

  • makemyday

    but the problem is not with the conservatives. You have to agree that conservatives were in the minority for last last several years in the Republican party otherwise we wouldn’t be having a discussion on fiscal responsibilty

  • janis

    of R financial villains? He’s been a stalwart on spending, unless I’m missing a whole lot. Care to explain?

  • reason60

    I voted for Reagan eagerly, hoping to restore a balanced budget. Reagan promptly abandoned his signature issue, and accepted historic deficits every year of his term. He never fought against them, never vetoed a unbalanced budget, and was quoted in Newsweek as saying he was not sent to Washing to balance budgets, but to win the Cold War and cut taxes.

    I respect the guy as much as anyone- but a fiscal conservative he wasn’t. We need to look that fact square in the face.

    Further, I can’t think of a single Congressman or Senator who lost an election- even in a “Red” district- because he spent too much. How many “true conservative” voters here have refused to vote for a Congressman because of his earmarks or pork projects? They keep spending the way they do because they keep getting elected for doing it.

    For years, fiscal conservatism has been the great hypocricy of the Right- the thing that everyone talks about, but doesn’t really want to make happen.

    Which of the 2012 contenders is (seriously) talking about balancing the budget?

  • penguin2

    “a new high” that’s kind of the understatement of the century. I think there is a difference between a deficit and bankrupting the country.

  • Jack_Savage

    During some of the Clinton years, there was a budget surplus due to fiscal restraint by Republicans. Republicans have certainly had some – very little, but some – fiscal snafus.

    Having said that, I have a problem with the “both sides of the aisle” Dem=Republican argument. It’s just not true, and makes it seem as though one party is as bad as the other.

    SInce you live in Michigan, I would venture to say that you know this firsthand.

  • makemyday

    It was an understatement! Thanks for clearing it up!

  • gonzo55

    I agree completely (must have been unclear earlier). Conservatives have been in the minority at least since the Gingrich days, so it stands to reason we can’t be blamed for current budget woes (and I do have a few thoughts on who CAN be blamed!).

  • melvinwinter

    http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/10/in-recognition-of-unprecedented-debt.html

  • makemyday

    what my comment about a “deficit is a deficit” referring back to my original comment was that when the Republicans in the last election cycle saw they were in trouble on the home front decided to become what we despise. They spent money like there was no tomorrow trying to win over the hearts and minds of their constiuents. Whether a Republican uses the public coffers to buy favors or a Democrat is immaterial to me, the fact remains the same “Pork is pork”. That is not what we would call fiscal responsibilty, That is called fiscal expediency.

  • gonzo55

    I just personally don’t like Sen. Coburn. He IS good on spending, but he’s too much of a wishy-washy pragmatist, and not enough of a team player for me (has voted against funding our troops, says Iraq was a mistake, indeed sounds like a liberal nutjob on some national security issues, and wrote a book criticizing good conservatives like Gingrich and Hastert after leaving the House). I tend to slip him on to lists of republicans I personally would prefer to see go away, but I do see that this was not appropriate here.

  • eburke

    the same Newt that sat on a couch with SanFranNan and swallowed the Global Warming kool-aid and who just endorsed Dede Scoffaza?

    THAT conservative Newt?

  • gonzo55

    to do more for conservatives than any politician since Ronald Reagan. I could hold my nose and make an argument that RR had squishy liberal tendencies too (which would be absurd). This is because having accumulated so much power for so long, he had to make difficult decisions which weren’t going to please anyone all of the time. It is the same with Gingrich. He does do things I disagree with, and endorsing Comrade Scozzafava is near the top of the list, but his accomplishments are many and I think he is one of the people most responsible for the conservative resurgence of the last 15 years.

  • janis
  • gonzo55

    Ok, not the most high profile speaker, I’ll give you that (SF Nancy wins that battle, lucky us), but he was unfailingly supportive of GWB’s foreign policy and, IMO, a top-notch fiscal guy. He’s not the face of the conservative movement we want, necessarily, but then that’s not how you win congressional elections in Illinois.

  • janis

    wanting to protect Rep. William Jefferson’ “rights” when the Feds wanted to search Jefferson’s office after finding $90,000 in his freezer? Top-notch conservatism in action, that.

  • janis

    And he was, at best, a moderate, which may translate into conservative in Illinois, but not in red states. It didn’t take a lot of political courage to support Bush’s foreign policy, as many Dems did as well for a good while.

  • gonzo55

    He was speaker for 8 years, I don’t expect 100% compliance with my personal beliefs. I at least see the tension between protecting separation of powers and catching crooks like Jefferson there. I certainly think he left the country better off than when he took over (of course, others contributed to this as well). So what makes him a moderate?

  • Xasteius

    Basically, the multigenerational plan would look something like this:

    Some sort of tiered system where people below a certain age (say 35 or so) would have to continue paying SS without receiving benefits when they reach traditional eligible age, other people receive partial benefits until the age bracket of those currently 60 or so is reached, where they get full benefits when they get 65 (complicated, but the fairest scheme I can come up with given the stickiness of the issue).

  • Ausonius

    Dennis…Anyone?…Hastert…Anyone?….Dennis….Hastert…Anyone?

    Where has he been in the fight against All Things ObaMAO!

    Another fine example of non-leading, roll-over Republican leadership!

  • janis

    He left the country with Dems in charge of the Congress and Why? Because he gave cover to people like Mark Foley instead of booting the guy when he knew about Foley’s actions at least a year previous to the Dems leaking the emails, he defended William Jefferson’s “rights” under the separation of powers cover, although sites including this one soundly and rightly condemned his action in this regard, and he was the Congressional leader who should have, could have done a much better job of leading his party to fiscal responsibility and ethical reforms.

    And he didn’t. As for what makes him a moderate? Conservatives live their principles– and so do moderates. It’s just that moderates don’t have too many principles, so their job is not as strenous.

  • gonzo55

    He’s not a dynamic leader who’s active even outside of office like Gingrich or Reagan. I’d certainly take another 8 years of Hastert over another 8 minutes of San Fran Nancy and Dear Leader Obama.

  • makemyday

    Washington has too much of it. Why is it the feds take the preponderance of the money taxed out of the states and send it to Washington in the first place? Once they have it the states have to beg, borrow and steal to get “grants, loans, and funding for projects. Our representatives are graded good or bad based upon there ability to get some of our money back. There is something absurd about this process, it sounds like it is upside down, the feds should be begging the states for money since it originates there in the first place. Take the fed programs we were forced into back to the states, let each state deal with them in the way that best suits their own populace. That puts the money closer to the people, the power over that money closer to the people and the elected officials in charge of that money closer to the people.

  • eburke

    “Conservatives live their principles

  • janis

    and plunk yourself in front of the ‘puter so you can share your wisdom with the rest of us slackers. :-) Seriously, holding Denny Hastert up as a leading conservative is like saying that Andrew Sullivan is a reasonable voice on the left.

    When the day comes that conservatives actually hold the majority in the R party, I fully expect that we will live our principles and not let political expediency guide our actions. Tough thing to do, but once you start the slide into “Anything to get and retain power”, then you’re on the low road to corruption. I think we’ve all seen that happen way too many times, haven’t we?

    We need leaders who will think more of their country than they do of themselves or their colleagues.

  • eburke

    Coming from one of my fav posters…well, let’s say I’m in full-blown ‘aw-shucks’ blushing mode.

    We’re in audit season and since I’m the CFO of this here entity I’ve been a bit busy. Between that…being chairman of the Board of a local Christian high school, and the D-coordinator at a small college whose head coach is a life-long friend….well, let’s just say that just ‘lurking’ has been a challenge

    (But I *have* managed to find the time to let the moths out of my wallet for Messrs. Toomey, Rubio, Hoffman & Devore :-)

  • janis

    As for the CFO gig, are you in a business that is surviving and thriving? Not asking for particulars, just interested in what types of businesses are doing well to okay right now. From the sound of it, you’ve got a full plate! It will be great to see you whenever you can be here.

    And I thank you in return for your lovely compliments. It makes my day.

  • gonzo55

    Sure, you can point to isolated examples where President Reagan spent money on things that you personally would have preferred he not, but the overarching theme of his presidency is a return to responsibility, including at the government level. Unfortunately, Reagan didn’t control Congress while president, and so deficits did increase, but by cutting taxes aggressively and thus paving the way for the record growth of the 90′s, he greatly improved America’s fiscal standing. Imagine where we’d be now if we still had 91% marginal income tax rates!

    I really couldn’t disagree more with Reagan not being a fiscal conservative. Deficits aside, what examples do you have to support this claim, reason60?

  • reason60

    If monstrous deficits can be considered part of an “improved fiscal standing” then Obama is the Messiah.
    The chief example of Reagan’s fiscal liberalism is cutting taxes and increasing defense spending. When he took office, the national debt as a percentage of the GDP was about 30%; when he left, it was nearly 70%.
    No, the President does not make spending bills, Congress does. But not once did Reagan threaten a veto, not once did he submit a budget to be followed.

    Look, I am not doing this to bash Reagan- My point is that by abandoning the idea of a balanced budget- even for good things like winning a war- conservatives lose all credibility to speak the words “fiscal discipline”.

    No one since 1979 version of Reagan has spoken seriously about a balanced budget; even now we have pundits and party leaders glibly using the terms “fiscal discipline” without the slightest intention of getting serious about it.
    What we have in the conservative movement is a bunch of drunks speaking about getting sober….tomorrow.

    Its not because they are bad people, or that they hold liberal views. Its that they aren’t willing to confront the painful choices that a balanced budget would require. All the low hanging fruit, the easy waste, is not nearly enough to even scratch the surface.
    In order to balance the budget, we have to seriously re-evaluate what we want government to do- and that is highly unpopular, even in the reddest of states.

  • StandardCandle

    Thank you for understanding that the fight here is spending… spending/taxing/spending…

    People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones…

    Repent and change your ways…

    P.S. I am moving to your district this next month… prove to me you’re worth keeping.

  • edintexas

    There is no doubt our military should be paid more. That being said, and my being retired USA, a person entering the military out of HS, at age 18, can retire from a military career with 50% of his last year’s salary at 38 (20 years of service), or 75% at 48 (30 years). No civil service employee can retire that young, not even those under the law enforcement and firefighter’s pension system. AND, how much of his military salary did your husband pay into the military retirement system? Exactly – nothing beyond FICA taxes. But those under the civilian system pay into retirement and FICA, They may also pay into the Thrift Savings Program, but understand that the FERS retirement system was intended to REDUCE the government’s costs for retirement from the costs of the Civil Service Retirement System. And finally the retired military person could then enter civil service (as many do) after 20 years and retire at 63 with an additional civil service retirement based on 25 years of service plus age. But he wouldn’t be getting even 50% of the average of his highest 3 years of salary from his civil service time (not counting any amount put into the TSP).

  • jayburd

    The size and budget of State Dept. quadrupled. He did come up with a great idea – The Grace Commission, But promptly abandoned it when he encountered some resistance from Congress. I voted for Ed Clark. I live in Alaska where until recently we’ve had two Republican thieves (Stevens and Young) in office who bragged about how much ‘bacon’ they could bring home. Lisa Murkowski is a do nothing appeaser. There just ain’t a dimes worth of difference in this two-party dog and pony show. Where is the resistance to this budget Armageddon? It ain’t comin’ from any politician.

  • jayburd

    Is bribery and extortion.