Forecasts predict deficits in the trillions
The Congressional Budget Office and the White House Office of Management and Budget expect the federal government to add between $7 trillion and $9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. How accurate can a 10-year projection be? John Dimsdale reports.
Congressional Budget Office chart showing federal surpluses and deficits. (Congressional Budget Office)
More on Fed. Budget/Govt. Spending
Links
- CBO Report: 'The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update'
(PDF document) - Office of Management and Budget's Mid-Session Review
(PDF document)
TEXT OF STORY
Tess Vigeland: Today, the government's budget forecasters predicted red ink will continue spilling all over Washington. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office and the White House Office of Management and Budget expect the federal government to add between $7 [trillion] and $9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. But how accurate can those 10-year budget projections be? Not very, judging from the government's crystal ball gazing over the past 20 years.
Marketplace's John Dimsdale reports from Washington.
JOHN DIMSDALE: In 1999, the federal government was running a surplus. Back then, James Horney headed up the CBO's projections unit.
JAMES HORNEY: Ten years ago, both the president's Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office projected that in fiscal year 2009 we would have a surplus of between $400 [billion] and $500 billion.
Go back another 10 years to 1989 and forecasters were also way off, says former CBO director Rudolph Penner.
RUDOLPH PENNER: We were projecting big deficits for the turn of the century. The surplus caught us completely by surprise.
So where did they go so wrong? Forecasters obviously can't predict events like wars or recessions. But Alice Rivlin, President Bill Clinton's first director of the Office of Management and Budget, says budget experts at the end of the l990s couldn't foresee changes politicians would make.
ALICE RIVLIN: The rather massive tax cuts. But also big spending increases, notably the addition of prescription drugs to Medicare.
Despite their poor track record, Rivlin says long-term projections help warn the country that government policies are unsustainable.
RIVLIN: We don't know exactly what's going to happen, but we do know that if we don't change course, either on the spending side or the tax side, we will have very massive deficits. And that is not particularly uncertain.
In Washington, I'm John Dimsdale for Marketplace.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
08/26/2009
Inaction cost, $9trillion over the next decade, can not be compared to the balance between estimate and outcome in a worst case of scenario. Time does not fix endless greed and energy depletion.
When the public health is also one of commodity like a house, we come to a tragic and unthinkable conclusion : As to for-profit business, the more and longer ill patients get, the more profits they make, and it will debilitate the overall economy involving education for the future, not to mention continued bankruptcy of middle class.
Of young adults ages 19 to 29, 13.2 million, or 29 percent, lacked coverage in 2007, and that implies the total of this promising reform will be cheaper than expected, I guess.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.