Share This Page

Our increasing debt by the numbers

| Sunday, Jan. 13, 2013, 8:53 p.m.

It could be worse. And it will be.

But there's also good news, and I'll get to that in a few minutes after a short update on the financial shenanigans of the D.C. politicians.

First, as it currently stands, we're well over $16 trillion in the hole at the federal level, not counting the drastically underfinanced pension systems and other ongoing boondoggles at the state and local levels.

In exact numbers, during the few seconds when I began typing this sentence, the quickly spinning U.S. National Debt Clock showed the federal debt to be $16,437,016, 280,142.

That breaks down to $51,679 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. — or $206,716 for a family of four.

But if just the half of U.S. households that pay federal income taxes are counted, the debt averages out to $413,432 per family of four.

That number gets worse by the minute, with $3 billion more in federal red ink currently being added every 24 hours.

Last year, interest payments on the federal debt totaled $220 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

“We'll be spending over $1 trillion a year on interest by 2020,” just seven years away, warns Erskine Bowles, co-chair of President Obama's bipartisan deficit-reduction commission. Already, the current $220 billion yearly interest payment is more than double the annual federal outlays for education.

In 2020, we're projected to have 130 million households in the U.S. If only half of those households pay federal income taxes, as currently, the interest cost on the federal debt for those 65 million households will average $16,000 per year.

Unfortunately, it might be worse than that because we can't count on low interest rates to hold down costs.

First, interest rates generally rise as an economy recovers. Additionally, interest rates are likely to increase if credit rating firms downgrade the ratings on U.S. debt again, or if U.S. debt as a ratio of GDP expands, or if domestic and foreign investors decide that the continuing mismanagement of the American economy makes lending to the U.S. an increasingly risky investment.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama derided President George W. Bush as “unpatriotic” for taking “out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for our first 42 presidents,” combined, “so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back.”

Candidate Obama had the numbers roughly right. The federal debt increased by $4.95 trillion during Bush's eight years — about $1 trillion less than the $6 trillion added to the federal debt during President Obama's first four years.

If $4.95 trillion in red ink in eight years is “unpatriotic,” what's the word for $6 trillion in new debt in four years?

By official projections, Obama, over eight years, is firmly on track to more than double the amount of federal debt incurred during Bush's two terms.

All the news, however, isn't bad. While mirrors and razor blades are being peddled in the street, inspectors from the government got on the ball and threatened Tobi Lyden, owner of an old-fashioned soda shop in St. Paul, Minn., with fines and criminal citations for selling candy cigarettes.

Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur. His e-mail: rrreiland@aol.com

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.