The Trouble With Budget Debates: The Numbers Don’t Hold Up

Since Barack Obama arrived in office, he has predicted a return to stable deficits in the out years, the sort of message that lawmakers, creditors and the American people like to here. But there is problem: Obama’s projections have consistently been too rosy. So each year, his bean counters must readjust the projections. They keep the rosy out-year vision, while admitting that the short term is more grim than they anticipated.

For example, in 2009, the White House projected a 2010 deficit of 8% of GDP. A year later, the 2010 deficit was running at 10.6% of GDP, or 32% higher than projections. The same thing happened the next year. In 2010, the White House projected a  2011 deficit of 8.3%. A year later, that number had been adjusted to 10.9%, or 31% higher. The errors are even worse when the projections are measured a couple years out: In 2009, the White House thought the 2012 deficit would be just 3.5%. This year, Obama thinks the deficit next year will be 7%, or twice as much.

Please forgive my Excel skills but I have tried to chart these shifts below. It’s a little complicated to look at, but let me explain. The three lines show the 10-year deficit projections (as a percentage of GDP) that were made in the FY2010, FY2011 and FY2012 Obama budgets. The numbers on the left are percentage points of GDP that the deficit is expected to run. (The higher the line, the higher the deficits.) You can see that the FY2010 projections were all revised upwards the following year. And that the FY2011 projections were revised upward again in the short term a year later, though the out years look better.

The problem this chart shows is how wobbly projections handicap the budgetary discussion. A cynic would say it shows how things are bad, even though history shows that they will be worse. In 2009, Obama called his budget “A New Era of Responsibility.” It was not that. As we now know, it was a dramatic understatement of how unstable our fiscal situation has become. This is less a result of Obama deception than the fact that the economy crashed far harder than anyone expected, and the Congress, with Obama’s assent, spent more and collect less taxes than expected. While the former might turn around, I am not all that optimistic on the latter.

So just how good are the projections today? Not so much, is my guess, though we have no choice but to use them. Under the White House projections released today, deficits will flatten out at about 3% of GDP–an ostensibly sustainable level if the economy grows at about 3%–starting in 2015. That may be true, but since the bean counters at OMB have not been right yet, I am not holding my breath.

Related Topics: budget, omb, Barack Obama, Budgets, Economy, White House
  • Latest on Swampland

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

  • vstillwell

    Here’s the budget debate I’m having with myself: I’m sick of paying for wars that are stupid. I’m sick of paying for ridiculous weapons systems that aren’t needed. The Pentagon continues to throw money at military contractors, and we can’t even take care of our veterans. Has anyone seen the 670 billion dollar proposal the Pentagon wants to upgrade it’s nuclear triade system? Never mind the fact that a few dozen nuclear weapons going off at once would destroy the earth, but we need to make sure we can deliver thousands of nuclear weapons at any instance. Really?

    All of this to fight a few hundred nut cases in Pakistan. Wow. China can barely float a rust bucket aircraft carrier it bough from Russia, but let’s keep throwing everything we’vte got into the Pentagon.

  • apr2563

    Amen brother.

  • freeinpa

    I’m sick of paying for every whim the left thinks is a god-given right especially if someone else pays for it.

    Can we live without defense? No
    Can we live without NPR, community block grants, high speed trains to no where, EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Interior, ethanol subsidies etc etc Absolutely!!

  • nflfoghorn

    “Can we live without defense? No….
    “Can we live without NPR, community block grants, high speed trains to no where, EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Interior, ethanol subsidies etc etc Absolutely!!”
    .
    But can we have a *life worth living* without said programs you despise?

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Double Amen. However, the Pentagon isn’t the wrong party when it comes to military spending. As was reported right here on Time.com several weeks ago, there are actually weapons systems (the swimming tank, for one) which the Pentagon does not want, but which Congress refuses to stop the development of. If the Pentagon does not want it, don’t build it and save perhaps millions of dollars a year.
    .
    Another budget cutter would be to put an end of private industry involvement in medicare/medicaid. End Medicare Advantage and bring medicaid back to a “fee-for-service” plan. Private entitiies were allowed to take over these government plans because the insurance industry said they could provide care at a lower cost-which isn’t the case because while providing care these private entities also wish to make a profit, so for the same amount of dollars spent fewer and fewer people get care.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Who said the high speed trains would be to nowhere? Isn’t that kinda like Sarah Palin being for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.

  • larch

    Michael, the problem with the budget debates is not that “the numbers don’t hold up” — it’s that the wrong question is being asked.
    .
    As you you finally get around to noting in your fourth paragraph, GDP is smaller as a result of the recession and the excruciatingly (literally) slow recovery. When you divide a number (deficit) by a smaller number (lower GDP), you get a larger percentage.
    .
    This is 5th grade math.
    .
    The corollary is that a larger GDP would mean that _the same deficit amount_ would be a lower percentage of GDP.
    .
    So why isn’t the (your) question “What can we do to grow the economy/GDP faster” instead of, or at least in addition to, “What can we do to cut the deficit”? And, “What will the proposed budget cuts do to the economy/GDP?”
    .

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Excellent points. Another point: the Republicans are just using the financial crisis to justify getting rid of programs they hate.

  • waynebernard

    The greatest issue facing the United States is mounting interest payments on the debt which is now set to rise at a record rate with the release of the new budget deficit projection of $1.5 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office calculates that, under their best case scenario, interest payments could rise to 4 percent of GDP (or one-sixth of federal revenues) by 2035. Interest payments, which absorb federal resources that could otherwise be used to pay for government services, currently amount to more than 1 percent of GDP. Under their worse case scenario, interest payments on the debt will amount to 9 percent of GDP or one-third of federal revenues.

    Here’s an article outlining the interest rate spiral that is facing the Obama administration and the American people:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/01/interesting-look-at-interest-on-us-debt.html

  • tschorr

    The real problem with any budget debate is that everyone is going to have to give up programs that they love and cherish and our politicans have no incentive to tell their respective political base the truth about that. We have serious budget problems that are going to require huge cuts in many, many government programs and possibly some increase in taxes or closing tax loopholes. These are not the kinds of things that get people elected to office. Try running for President in either party and saying if you elect me I am going to slash military spending, raise taxes, and cut entitlement programs – who is going to vote for you? Until the American people are willing to vote for politicians who are willing to talk in a serious way about these issues let alone actually follow through with them nothing is going to happen. We can blame Washington all we want but the real problem lies in large part with us, the American people. Our politicans say and do what they perceive we want them to in order to get elected and stay elected. Until they believe that slashing the budget is really what we want them to do they aren’t going to.

  • apr2563

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052705614.html
    .
    Congress pursues F-35 engine that Defense Secretary Robert Gates doesn’t want
    .

    As the House voted on a $568 billion defense bill, lawmakers tangled over a comparatively minor item: $485 million to pay for a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a plane projected to be the centerpiece of U.S. airpower in the coming decades.

    Gates has opposed the extra engine for years, saying it is unnecessary and a waste of money. But Congress has argued that funding a second engine model for the F-35 would keep defense contractors on their toes by forcing them to compete.

    .
    These engines are manufactured in the states and districts of Boehner and Cantor.
    .

blog comments powered by Disqus