Who will feel the consequences of irresponsible federal fiscal policy?

High national debt and sustained budget deficits can have a range of significant consequences for an economy and its citizens.

Here’s a breakdown of the key impacts:

1. Higher Borrowing Costs and Interest Payments:

For the Government: As national debt grows, the government has to pay more in interest to its lenders. This means a larger portion of the national budget is allocated to debt servicing, potentially “crowding out” funding for other essential public services and investments like education, infrastructure, or research and development.

For Individuals and Businesses: Increased government borrowing can put upward pressure on interest rates across the economy. This translates to higher borrowing costs for individuals (e.g., mortgages, car loans, credit card debt) and businesses (making it more expensive to invest, expand, and create jobs).

2. Reduced Economic Growth:

Crowding Out Private Investment: When the government borrows heavily, it competes with the private sector for available capital. This can reduce the funds available for private businesses to invest, leading to slower productivity growth and, consequently, slower overall economic growth.

Stagnant Wages and Higher Prices: With less private investment, businesses may invest less in technologies and efficiencies that make goods and services cheaper to produce. This can lead to slower wage growth for workers and higher prices (inflation) for consumers, eroding purchasing power.

3. Increased Risk of Fiscal Crisis:

Loss of Investor Confidence: If national debt reaches unsustainable levels, investors (both domestic and foreign) may lose confidence in the government’s ability to repay its debts. This can lead to a demand for even higher interest rates to compensate for the perceived risk, making it even more expensive for the government to borrow.

Jeopardizing Reserve Currency Status: For countries like the United States, a loss of confidence in government debt could jeopardize the dollar’s dominance as the world’s reserve currency, with far-reaching implications for global financial markets and the U.S.’s economic standing.

Forced Austerity: In a crisis, the government might be forced to undertake sharp and painful measures, such as significant spending cuts or massive tax increases, to restore fiscal stability.

4. Reduced Fiscal Flexibility:

Limited Ability to Respond to Crises: High debt levels can limit a government’s ability to respond effectively to unforeseen crises, such as economic recessions, natural disasters, or public health emergencies. With a strained budget, there’s less “fiscal headroom” to implement stimulus measures or provide necessary relief.

5. Intergenerational Burden:

Future Tax Hikes or Inflation: Sustained deficits and growing debt essentially shift the burden onto future generations. They may face higher taxes, reduced government services, or higher inflation (which devalues their savings) as the government attempts to manage or pay down the accumulated debt.

6. Vulnerability to External Factors:

Foreign Holdings of Debt: If a significant portion of a nation’s debt is held by foreign investors, a larger share of national income and growth accrues to those living in other countries. It can also make a nation more exposed to instability in international credit markets and reduce its control over its own financial markets.

About 30% of federal debt is held by foreign investors.

Who will feel the burden?

It’s important to note that the immediate effects of deficits can vary. For instance, in a weak economy, increased government spending (leading to a deficit) can act as an “automatic stabilizer” by boosting demand and cushioning the economic downturn. However, persistent structural deficits, even in good economic times, are generally viewed as harmful in the long run.

8 comments

  1. Al Lindquist

    as usual Jack many thanks for the facts–this is a whole new world for Quinn –no doubt Quinn had major criticisms of the Biden blowout (just kidding!)– infrastructure –New Green Deal and Inflation Reduction (more green spending) and of course the college loan forgiveness that the Supreme Court stopped.

    took Trump Derangement Syndrome for the left to find their desire to consider balanced budgets–they should have learned from Clinton–but really this is just another reason to dump on Trump–like thee flooding he caused in Texas.

    What was their plan in July of ’24 to right SS –Medicare–Medicaid?

    Like

    1. The Biden plan was the same as the Trump plan – no plan, promise no cuts in benefits until re-elected. WSJ April 13, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-biden-trump-plan-to-cut-social-security-mccarthy-debt-ceiling-payroll-tax-automatic-trust-fund-6a6c7586

      “The Biden-Trump Plan to Cut Social Security: Doing nothing won’t protect beneficiaries. It’ll subject them to automatic 23% cuts in 10 years. …

      Joe Biden and Donald Trump agree on one thing. “I guarantee you I will protect Social Security and Medicare without any change. Guaranteed,” Mr. Biden said in March. Mr. Trump has said: “I will do everything within my power not to touch Social Security, to leave it the way it is.” …

      The Biden-Trump position may sound like a pledge to protect Social Security, but it isn’t. The law “without any change” requires a huge benefit cut in 10 years. …

      Thus consequences of leaving Social Security “without any changes,” as promised by Biden-Trump, are dire. …

      Meanwhile, the Biden-Trump strategy has been to play “beat the clock,” leaving their successors to deal with the crisis. …”

      Like

      1. AL Lindquist

        Thanks again Jack for facts that are appreciated.

        Not surprised but it is amusing that brother Quinn like so many others have discovered the deficit. Just in time for the Trump tax legislation.

        I say; Trump Derangement Syndrome.

        Like

  2. As bad as George W. Bush was, in fact he only added $4.9 Trillion over eight years – or an average of about $600,000 a year – from $5,728,195,796,181.57 to $10,628,881,485,510.23 – with lots of spending in his last year as we entered the Great Recession. His bigger failure was in adding ten trillion of unfunded liability via Medicare Part D – something where the Democrats would have spent even more had they been in charge.

    For comparison, President Obama added: $9.3 Trillion, or about $1.2 Trillion a year – from $10,628,881,485,510.23 to $19,944,429,217,106.77. HIS bigger failure was adding an unknown amount of trillions to the national debt by expanding Medicaid and initiating taxpayer subsidized exchange coverage which has been the primary driver of our ever increasing national debt over the past fifteen years

    President Trump l has two different rates of deficit spending: Until COVID, March 2020, Trump failed to get health reform reversed, or even get a budget passed, so, his spend was mostly a continuation of President Obama – adding  $3.6 trillion in the first three plus years – about $1.2 Trillion a year – from $19,944,429,217,106.77 to $23,517,855,054,159.01. Then, over the next ten months, due to COVID, he allowed Congress to blow out spending which increased the debt to $27,752,835,868,445.35 by the time he left office.

    President Biden also has two different rates of deficit spending. Continuation at a slightly higher rate of COVID spending for the first six months or so through July 202l, adding $670, 000 of spend in less than six months for a spending rate of about $1.4 Trillion from $27,752,835,868,445.35 to $28,427,721,872,418.70. COVID was all but over once the vast majority of Americans received the vaccine. Then, over the next three and a half years, he increased the deficit spending to an average of nearly $2 Trillion a year, increasing to $36,206,593,315,575.15 through the end of his term – January 19, 2025.

    Sorry, there is NO comparison of Bush ll with the Democrats who followed, nor with Trump l.

    President Trump ll has at least started to roll back the financial abuses that led to the dramatic expansion of our annual deficits and national debt due to Health Reform and the subsequent vote buying by President Biden when he expanded access and the subsidies provided for taxpayer-subsidized health coverage.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. By cutting taxes and adding more to the deficit and not even seriously talking about fixing SS or Medicare trusts and by making SS worse?

      Like

      1. Happy to make a wager that Trump ll additions to the deficit from January 2026 to January 2029 will be less per year than Biden’s $2.222 Trillion a year, over the last 3.5 years of his presidency (August 1, 2021 – January 19, 2025) – post COVID as identified above.

        You name the amount of the bet and you can name the charity you prefer, too.

        FYI, as of 7/3/25, the national debt is $36,215,869,297,299.75. When Biden left office on January 19th, it was $36,206,593,315,575.15. According to the Treasury, it hit its highest point on February 20, 2025 when it reached: $36,222,989,450,273.97, and has slightly declined since then.

        See: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny

        Like

      2. With a little luck, I can get in to see Trump or one of his minions and make a recommendation regarding Social Security and Medicare sustainability.

        As you know, I favor letting each individual decide how they want to fill the funding gap – a la annual enrollment and health care costs … what combination of increased taxes and/or reduced benefits do you choose?

        Absent that, my suggestion for President Trump is to raise the FICA rate from 12.4% to 15.4% in the reconciliation bill to be passed by Congress in September 2028 (since they won’t be able to pass budget bills in regular order given the small Republican majorities, and potential Democratic majorities after the midterms). Concurrent with the changes in the tax rate, President Trump would cut benefits prospectively by capping the wage base at $100,000 for all future years – so he can take credit (and blame) for saving Social Security all by himself (threating to veto anything that comes to his desk without those change). To hide the impact from workers and voters, he would allocate the burden 6.2% to workers (unchanged) and increase the burden from 6.2% to 9.2% on employers. At the same time, he would raise the FICA-Med rate from 2.9% to 3.9% (remember there is no cap on FICA-Med taxes, removed by President Clinton in 1993), to be allocated 1.45% to workers (unchaged), and 2.45% to employers, while concurrently reversing the TEFRA and DEFRA changes to make Medicare primary to employer sponsored coverage – as it was prior to 1982. This would allow/encourage more individuals to continue employment (and continue paying FICA and FICA-Med) past age 65 – reducing the number of individuals retiring at age 62 or age 65, and in turn, reducing the burden on the social insurance system.

        Like

  3. Unfortunately the Party of Responsibility deserted that title 25 years ago when George W decided to join the fun of unlimited spending. We’ve been on the runaway freight train since then. There are no adults in National politics.

    Like

Leave a reply to rdquinn Cancel reply