Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

01-14-07

Six Years Older And Deeper In Debt

The federal deficit for the 2006 budget year was widely reported to be $247.7 billion. That figure, however, was based upon the cash system of accounting. When one looks into the 166-page "Financial Report of the United States Government,” one finds that, under the accrual method of accounting, the deficit for 2006 totaled $449.5 billion--81 percent more than the $247.7 billion. Under the accrual method, expenses are recorded when they are incurred, rather than when they are paid, thus raising costs for liabilities such as pensions and health insurance.

Given a $247.7 billion deficit in 2006, the government spent 10 percent, or $825 per taxpayer, more than it collected and thus had to borrow and incur more expenses on interest. The Congressional Budget Office discovered that legislation enacted over the last six years has increased the national debt by $2.3 trillion, including $633 billion in interest payments alone. In 2006, Uncle Sam spent $1 out of every $12 on interest payments, or $227 billion. That is more than all the federal outlays for education, housing, veterans’ benefits, and environmental protection combined. Presently the gross national debt stands at $8.6 trillion. It is owed by the General Fund which is financed from income tax revenues. Half of the General Fund is needed to pay for the military and for interest on debt.

Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have frequently claimed that tax cuts pay for themselves. Yet, the administration’s own Treasury Department determined that tax cuts would offset no more than 10 percent of their cost. Actually, half of the budget shortfalls since 2001, amounting to $1.2 trillion, were caused by the tax cuts.

While federal revenues have grown over the current business cycle, real per-capita revenues have returned only to the level they reached more than five years ago. According to the nonpartisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), much of the unanticipated revenue growth comes from exceptionally strong corporate profits which have increased more rapidly during the current economic expansion than during any other comparable post-World War II period. Wages and salaries, however, amounted to an unusually small share of income growth.

The CBPP projects that if the President's tax cuts are made permanent and the alternative minimum tax for high-income taxpayers is extended, annual deficits will average about $350 billion for the next ten years until 2016, even if the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan decline substantially. In spite of these nonpartisan projections, Mr. Bush--who never proposed a balanced budget and never vetoed a spending bill--recently promised to submit a plan to balance the federal budget by 2012.

The biggest burden on the American taxpayer is not the few billion dollars annually earmarked by Congress for special domestic projects, but rather the $360 billion so far wasted by the Bush administration for the deficit-financed war in Iraq. Since there is no end in sight to the President’s military projects on the other side of the globe, it is impossible to predict whether one or two trillion dollars more will have to be borrowed. According to the CBPP, “The budget outlook for the next decade is bleak.”

Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information reported that “the Congressional Budget Office has difficulty obtaining data on war obligations, the supplemental requests do not provide enough detail to determine how war funds were obligated, and the Department of Defense is deficient in its financial-management systems, relies heavily on estimates versus actual costs, and provides little documentation.”

In view of the alarming increase in the national debt, it is high time for Congress to return to fiscal responsibility by mandating pay-as-you-go budgeting and pay, rather than borrow, for tax cuts and entitlement increases. We need to settle the nation’s bills now and not pass them along to the next generation.


[To contact the author, phone (217) 243-2423 or e-mail ;
for other articles, log on to http://www.independentcritic.com]