President Obama’s State of the Union speech was filled with big
government jingoism, attempting to tap into the can-do American
spirit to push his expansionist public policy agenda. The media
seized on his declaration that this was a “Sputnik moment.” Obama
said we should respond to current challenges as we did in the space
race and declared that “we do big things.” But it’s worth noting
that when America faced its actual Sputnik moment in 1957, the
nation was in a much better position to respond precisely because
we weren’t as burdened by massive debt from government
programs.
Just a few numbers comparing America’s fiscal position in 2011,
according to the most recent CBO estimates, to
where we stood in 1957, according to historical
data:
-- In 2011, the U.S. will run a projected deficit of 9.8 percent
of GDP, or nearly $1.5 trillion. In 1957, the government was
running a surplus of .8 percent of GDP, or $120 billion if adjusted
for the 2011 GDP estimate.
-- In 2011, debt is projected to be 69.4 percent of GDP, and
trending upward. In 1957, debt was 48.6 percent of GDP as we were
still paying of debt from World War II, but trending downward.
Adjusted for today’s dollars, the debt was $3.1 trillion lower back
in 1957.
-- In 2011, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other health
care programs such as S-Chip cost about $1.6 trillion, or 10.6
percent of GDP. In 1957, Social Security cost 1.5 percent of GDP,
or $226 billion if adjusted. Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip, and
related programs did not exist.
The existence of those programs today, however, produces the
following outlook from the CBO:
Beyond the 10-year projection period, further increases in
federal debt relative to the nation's output almost certainly lie
ahead if current policies remain in place. The aging of the
population and rising costs for health care will push federal
spending as a percentage of GDP well above that in recent decades.
Specifically, spending on the government's major mandatory health
care programs—Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance
Program, and health insurance subsidies to be provided through
insurance exchanges—along with Social Security will increase from
roughly 10 percent of GDP in 2011 to about 16 percent over the next
25 years. If revenues stay close to their average share of GDP for
the past 40 years, that rise in spending will lead to rapidly
growing budget deficits and surging federal debt. To prevent debt
from becoming unsupportable, policymakers will have to
substantially restrain the growth of spending, raise revenues
significantly above their historical share of GDP, or pursue some
combination of those two approaches.
It’s hard to do “big things” when you have to pay for big
government.
Also, when you stopped teaching kids how to read, write and
subtract in about 1972, about the same time you started
de-emphasizing making things.
jo blo| 1.29.11 @ 2:31AM
Yeah, I noticed that this whole argument was fiscal. BIG
problem. This sums up the whole problem: too many 'conservatives'
focus on the economic issues and completely ignore the cultural
ones.
axbucxdu| 1.29.11 @ 12:49PM
Respectfully disagree. These fiscal problems are direct evidence
of the nonsense at the core of leftist/statist philosophy.
Now that more people are sensitive to the sad state of
government finances, this connection just needs more forceful and
repetitive pronouncements made to the citizens that aren't.
shadow_man| 1.28.11 @ 4:07PM
At least repealing DADT will bring some results. I'm fairly
confident we'll see an improvement in the years to come if bigotry
doesn't mess it up.
Truth to Power| 1.28.11 @ 4:46PM
Gay men will bring the same improvement they brought to the
Catholic Church.
MarkJ| 1.28.11 @ 4:11PM
It's also harder to do big things when you get tied up in legal
knots by advocacy groups and even in-fighting bureaucracies within
your own government.
Environment impact statements, anyone?
Obama obviously adores The New Deal. Unfortunately he doesn't
see any irony in the fact that the administrative and regulatory
state it spawned has made large New Deal-style construction
projects often difficult, sometimes even impossible, and quite
expensive to begin much less complete.
112 men reportedly died while constructing the Hoover Dam. We
can only wonder what would have happened if OSHA and the EPA had
been around in the 1930's....
Mike| 1.28.11 @ 7:15PM
Yeah, government jingoism as opposed to corporate jingoism.
bobmontgomery| 1.28.11 @ 3:28PM
Also, when you stopped teaching kids how to read, write and subtract in about 1972, about the same time you started de-emphasizing making things.
jo blo| 1.29.11 @ 2:31AM
Yeah, I noticed that this whole argument was fiscal. BIG problem. This sums up the whole problem: too many 'conservatives' focus on the economic issues and completely ignore the cultural ones.
axbucxdu| 1.29.11 @ 12:49PM
Respectfully disagree. These fiscal problems are direct evidence of the nonsense at the core of leftist/statist philosophy.
Now that more people are sensitive to the sad state of government finances, this connection just needs more forceful and repetitive pronouncements made to the citizens that aren't.
shadow_man| 1.28.11 @ 4:07PM
At least repealing DADT will bring some results. I'm fairly confident we'll see an improvement in the years to come if bigotry doesn't mess it up.
Truth to Power| 1.28.11 @ 4:46PM
Gay men will bring the same improvement they brought to the Catholic Church.
MarkJ| 1.28.11 @ 4:11PM
It's also harder to do big things when you get tied up in legal knots by advocacy groups and even in-fighting bureaucracies within your own government.
Environment impact statements, anyone?
Obama obviously adores The New Deal. Unfortunately he doesn't see any irony in the fact that the administrative and regulatory state it spawned has made large New Deal-style construction projects often difficult, sometimes even impossible, and quite expensive to begin much less complete.
112 men reportedly died while constructing the Hoover Dam. We can only wonder what would have happened if OSHA and the EPA had been around in the 1930's....
Mike| 1.28.11 @ 7:15PM
Yeah, government jingoism as opposed to corporate jingoism.
Tom Osterman| 1.28.11 @ 9:22PM
Corporate jingoism works better.