What the Debt Deal Might Do to the Economy

Disappointment over this week's budget deal was predictable. Colin Powell once said that "being responsible sometimes means pissing people off." This bill did just that. Either it didn't cut enough, or it cut too much, or cut in the wrong areas, or it didn't include taxes, or it left the door open to new taxes. Very few are happy.

And maybe they shouldn't be. Dig into the details of the bill, and compare it with how similar spending agreements have played out in the past, and you can make sensible arguments that justify everyone's frustrations. The bill probably can't be taken seriously. It probably doesn't cut enough. And it might slow the economy while doing little to close the deficit.

Start with the first argument, that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Most of what the bill does lies not in making sacrifices today, but in vague promises between 2013 and 2023. As a rule of thumb, whenever a bill promises to do something 12 years from now, ignore it. It will almost certainly have no impact on reality. John Cassidy of The New Yorker elaborated eloquently this week:

The United States, like every other country, budgets on an annual basis. What really matters for the economy, and for the unemployed, is how much cash the federal government will spend in the remaining months of the 2011 fiscal year and in fiscal 2012, which begins October 1st. A pledge to cut spending in 2016, say, is just that: a pledge. Between now and then, we will have another bipartisan spending review (that's also part of the deal), a Presidential election, and who knows how many budget battles. The actual 2016 spending outcome will almost certainly bear little relation to the figures in this agreement.

Here's a good example. The 2002 budget agreement proposed spending $2.2 trillion in 2006. The actual number ended up being $2.6 trillion. Whoops. The 2006 plan called for $3 trillion in spending by 2010. The actual number was $3.5 trillion, with nearly all the increase coming from defense spending ($200 billion over estimates) and unemployment benefits ($230 billion over estimates). Projections of future spending are invariably inaccurate. And to the extent the current bill attempts to enforce spending cuts, remember that the debt ceiling itself is designed to enforce restraint, yet has been raised 88 times since the 1940s. Anything can be changed with a vote -- and the tough things usually are.

Even if the planned cuts do materialize, will they be enough to make a difference? It's hard to say. The bill cuts spending in two blocks: $900 billion over 10 years upfront, and between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion over a decade in a deal still yet to be forged. The first $900 billion is designed to cut discretionary spending and defense spending, while leaving entitlements like Social Security and Medicare safe. The second round potentially brings entitlements into the picture, but there's no firm guarantee that it will, and every reason to believe that the bipartisan committee tasked with finding the cuts will avoid entitlement reform as much as they can. Here's their incentive: Even voters bent on austerity get prickly when you tweak their monthly checks.

That could be a problem, as the story of our long-run deficits is about entitlement spending and basically nothing else:

Source: Congressional Budget Office. Y-axis is spending as a percentage of GDP.  

Any serious long-term budget proposal would focus relentlessly on entitlements -- particularly health-care costs -- and ignore everything else, which add up to a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.

To be fair, this isn't a long-term plan. It's a 10-year plan. But just like the long run, deficits over the next 10 years are caused by one overwhelming factor: unemployment and slow economic growth.

Cutting government spending could do a number to exacerbate those problems. Consider: Over the past 18 months, the private sector has added 2 million jobs, while the government sector has shed half a million -- mostly from state and local governments that have relied heavily on federal aid.

The arithmetic for laying off government workers in the name of deficit reduction is fuzzy -- particularly when unemployment is high and those workers might remain jobless. They were paying as much as 35% in federal income taxes, and while jobless they're entitled to unemployment benefits that can equal an even larger portion of their previous pay. Both offset the savings from lower government salaries. Laying off a government worker making $60,000 a year can mean $15,000 in lost tax revenue, $25,000 in added unemployment-benefit costs, and $2,000 in added food-stamp costs. The net impact on the deficit is small. Tellingly, about half of the increase in the deficit between 2007 and today has been caused by lower tax revenue and higher unemployment-benefit costs.

Powell was right. No one's happy. They're even pissed. But was this the responsible thing to do? You tell me below.

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics.

Fool contributor Morgan Housel doesn't own shares in any of the companies mentioned in this article. Follow him on Twitter @TMFHousel. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Read/Post Comments (5) | Recommend This Article (10)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On August 05, 2011, at 5:16 PM, TheMotleyTimbear wrote:

    I hate to say this but the responsible thing would have been to give Health Care reform a shot in 2009...

  • Report this Comment On August 07, 2011, at 1:00 PM, TheMotleyPhil wrote:

    All this "deal" does is "kick the can down the road." Our government is addicted to savings. The addict will always vent and scream at the people who force an Intervention -- hence the visceral hatred being thrown at the Tea Party, the only fiscally responsible people at the table. Only the Tea Party seems to be able to understand that, when you can't pay the mortgage, it' not time to go out and buy a Ferrari...

  • Report this Comment On August 07, 2011, at 1:01 PM, TheMotleyPhil wrote:

    Addicted to spending, sorry. If only...

  • Report this Comment On August 07, 2011, at 1:45 PM, wantingtoretire wrote:

    I don't see any real answer in your article to the headline you gave the article. You seem to be saying the deal will nothing in the short term. Is that correct?

  • Report this Comment On August 07, 2011, at 2:11 PM, DaveNeedsToRelax wrote:

    Just like any ordinary taxpayer knows.... Consistently spending more than you make creates a bigger & bigger problem until resolved. Eventually, the interest payments alone are crushing, leaving that much less room for useful expenditures.

    Politicians don't seem to be in touch with that at all.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1534336, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/3/2016 10:31:38 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Morgan Housel

Morgan Housel is an economics and finance columnist for Analyst, Motley Fool One. More Articles

Today's Market

updated 1 hour ago Sponsored by:
DOW 17,750.91 -140.25 -0.78%
S&P 500 2,063.37 -18.06 -0.87%
NASD 4,763.22 -54.37 -1.13%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes