The president devoted just 189 words to the deficit and our growing national debt, but the fact is that once again this year we will borrow 32 cents out of every dollar we spend. Overall, our national debt now tops $15.2 trillion (with Congress raising the debt ceiling to $16.4 trillion last week). And that doesn’t count the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. Throw those in, and our total indebtedness exceeds $120 trillion.

That means that if one counts only the official national debt, every man, woman and child in America owes $48,700. Include the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, and every one of us is in debt to the tune of $189,000.

Or look at it another way. One can’t pick up a newspaper these days without reading a story about the debt crisis in Europe. France, for example, just had its credit rating downgraded. Yet, measured as a percentage of GDP (the value of all goods and services produced in a country over a year), our budget deficit is roughly a quarter larger than France’s. In fact, among European countries, only Greece and Ireland have larger deficits this year than we do.

The debt figures paint an even grimmer picture. If one includes all the unfunded liabilities of pension and health-care systems, Greece’s total debt equals 875% of its GDP. France, the next-most insolvent country in Europe, owes 570% of GDP. The United States, however, now owes 885% of GDP, more than any other industrialized country.

We have been able to avoid disaster so far only because, as the world’s preferential currency, other countries have been willing to lend us money cheaply. But that is not going to continue forever. And if our creditors begin to hike interest rates, we will be facing the same economic consequences facing so much of Europe today.

The president, when he deigns to mention the issue at all, suggests that this problem could be solved if only the rich pay their “fair share.” Of course some might suggest that the rich already pay their fair share, since the much-reviled 1% earn 16% of all income in this country, but pay 36.7% of all federal income taxes. More important, however, in this context, you simply cannot tax the rich enough to solve our debt crisis.

1
Michael Tanner

Michael Tanner

Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, heading research into a variety of domestic policies with particular emphasis on health care reform, welfare policy, and Social Security. His most recent white paper, "Bad Medicine: A Guide to the Real Costs and Consequences of the New Health Care Law," provides a detailed examination of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and what it means to taxpayers, workers, physicians, and patients.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate
19 Comments So Far
free_willard Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 9:40 PM
MLK was against the Vietnam War, MLK was for nation building here at home.

The Republican establishment today is for Neo-conservatism which wants to social engineer in foreign countries and nation build overseas. Today's Republican establishment puts America last and their corporate contributors first.
Jim3645 Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 11:19 AM
How did Congress raise the ceiling to $16.4 trillion without any fanfare last week. No body put up a fight, no media coverage, nothing? This is crazy, this is insaneness, this has gone from pathetic to absolute lunacy . All of these 535 politicians and this idiot POTUS need to be put in jail for their crimes again the United States of America. I really don't know how much longer this nation can take such stupidity.
SunnySkyJan Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 10:12 AM
Oh Darn. I thought this meant that we were going to receive that $189,000 from the government. ;-) Lets not forget...he's not the Only one that put us in debt.
david176 Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 9:54 AM
The gubmint can take that $189,000 outa what they robbed me out of thru socialist security. and still owe me $100,000 or more when you figure in the same interest and penalty the IRS charges.
Joe 145 Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 8:59 AM
The cure is worse than the problem. We are addicted to spending and the 'freebies' from government. It will take dictatorial powers to reverse course enough to accomplish a long-term turn-around. (Well, the American public COULD elect enough people over the next few decades that will do this, but how likely do you believe this to be?)

The big questiong is: How long before the 'crisis' is reached where our 'margin' is called?
Dr_Zinj Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 8:01 AM
$189,000
We pay about $10,000 a year. So to pay for my wife and I, we'd have to work at the same pay and taxes for the next 37.8 years to break even.
Except I'm 53 and she's 51, so neither of us can be expected to live that long, much less continue to work at our jobs, assuming they last that long in the first place.
That doesn't count our two kids in college who will have about 50,000 each to pay back in loans before they can hope to start paying their share of Uncle's debt; assuming they can even find jobs after graduation.
Topeka Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 11:54 PM
Dr Z,

No, you won't have to work to pay off the debt.

Unicorns will fly over Washington and a Rainbow of Skittles will descend, and we will all sing Kumbaya and live happily ever after.

Of course, they may have to shun a few unbelievers so the unicorns won't be frightened away.
RJBJr Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 8:00 AM
"we will be facing the same economic consequences facing so much of Europe today"

What exactly are you saying, Michael? We know the numbers. Please explain what the consequences are! Put your point in terms the average voter can understand. We aren't Greece. They can be bailed out. Our numbers are far too big for that.

Will the government stop paying benefits to half the population?
Will people be turned out on the streets to fend for themselves?
Will there be food and shelter for the poor when the bubble bursts?
How many people will lose their jobs? How many will lose their homes?
How many businesses depend on government spending, will go out of business?

Please paint a picture for the people instead of trying to recite the math.
RamonAdams Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 12:12 PM
Topeka Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 11:55 PM
or so they hope... note Japan has not reached the "end game"
rickmcqr Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 2:09 AM
Talked to a Tea Party guy about privatizing social security for young people just last week. He said he was 100% for it.

I asked him, "If young people opt out of social security, then where will the money to pay retirees and future retirees come from?"

He said, "Huh?"

I told him, "It's like someone needing their roof shored up because a heavy snow was expected. Someone comes over and the first thing that person does is TAKE OUT BEAMS from the roof. And the beams will not be returned for 40 years."
rickmcqr Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 2:08 AM
I then said, "fixing a roof like this, is the same as allowing young people to opt out of SS. When young peope opt out of SS, there is less money to pay retirees (fewer beams) When young people retire with their private accounts they will not be a burden to society some 40 YEARS FROM NOW."

The Tea Party guy nodded his head. I figured some Republicans are not so bad.
Dr_Zinj Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 8:05 AM
That's if you did it all at once.
If I slam a hammer down on a pile of jello, it's going to splash explosively everywhere, but if I set it on it gently, it will slowly sink through it, leaving it intact except for where the hammer is.
Privatization of Social Security would be a good thing, but the funds for it would have to be built up like any other good insurance program; and that just doesn't exist at the moment with the revolving door ponzi scheme it currently operates under.
Johnny L. Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 1:50 AM
I don't see how we are going to stop this slow motion train wreck. Everyone knows we are broke, but anyone who does anything about it gets smacked down electorally. Suggest reform to medicare and social security and the media and AARP make it seem like you want to roll Grandma off a cliff. Cut federal spending on education (and area that it has no business being in) and you get painted as wanting all our kids to grow up as retards. Defense is the only thing that gets cut (and at this point we need to cut it) but defense is one of the only things the government has a legitimate role in spending on.
Topeka Wrote: Feb 03, 2012 11:57 PM