Obamanomics and Trillion-Dollar Deficits

July 28, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (2)

So we're looking at a $500 billion federal budget deficit, at least, in 2009, according to White House sources in published reports. None of this will be news to regular Capital Commerce readers. A few thoughts on this:

1) Neither presidential campaign anticipated this back in early 2007 when they were cooking up their economic agendas.

2) This huge deficit number does not include the cost of any further housing bailouts, such as a $500 million-to-$1 trillion buyout of bad mortgage debt. (It may well be coming, folks.)

3) If Barack Obama is elected, I still believe—this is after talking to his advisers—he is going to try to push through his full energy and infrastructure spending agenda with the help of overwhelming congressional majorities.

4) Why should either president care about what bond investors think about big deficits when Bill Gross, the most famous bond manager on the planet, says a President Obama should run trillion-dollar—yes, trillion—deficits to boost the economy? As he put it in his monthly newsletter:

Due to higher unemployment and energy costs, domestic consumption will soon be $300 billion less than it should be if we are to return to historical economic growth rates. According to that old C + I + G formula (scratch the trade deficit for now) when C + I is reduced by $500 billion, then G should increase by that amount in order to fill the gap. The G, Sir, is youthe government deficit, the fiscal stabilizer popularized by Keynes following the Depression. And since the fiscal deficit for 2008 is likely to press $500 billion even before you take the oath of office, well there you have it: $500 billion + $500 billion = $1 trillion big ones, probably by sometime in 2011 or so. It takes time to spend those types of bucks.

5) Yet there are analysts who think that big deficits will severely limit Obama's spending plans. This from a recent blog posting on the topic:

So what will bond investors think, since they kinda-sorta have an impact on interest rates? Greg Valliere of the Stanford Group recently made the following point to me: "Obama is going to be totally hamstrung by the deficit.... I am shocked about how oblivious people are to the budget deficit."

While Obama's folks are talking about a deficit goal that is about 2.5 percent of gross domestic product or lower for the first term, Valliere thinks Uncle Sam will be running deficits that are 3 percent of GDP or higher in coming years. (We have not consistently run deficits at those levels since the early 1990s.) And if that ratio starts approaching 4 percent ($500 billion banking bailout, anyone?), "the bond market will send a nasty message."

Tags:
economics,
deficit and national debt,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Shouldn't this discussion of a record deficit fall under the topic "Dude, Where's my recession?"

Jimmy, you keep pointing to positive GDP numbers, but you ignore all the data points that go into those numbers.

GDP = Consumption + Investment + Govt Spending + (net exports)

GDP has remained positive due in large part to government spending growing to record levels. Meanwhile, prices have climbed higher on everything we need (food, energy, and debt servicing) and the value of the largest assets (homes and stocks) have dropped significantly. In other words, the consumers' monthly operating costs are rising; its financing costs are rising; and its balance sheets are deteriorating.

Dude...there's your recession.

pr of IL 11:12AM July 29, 2008

Obama and McCain are just following standard Keynesian economics in that deficits don't matter as long as government fiscal policy gives way to greater economic growth. I believe both campaigns are well aware that there is a deficit out there, but both are approaching it differently. McCain's camp is actively not educating McCain on the dangers of deficit spending and are not crafting an easy-to-understand message for normal Americans to grasp. Obama's group act as though only one type of deficit spending (military) is bad and seek to gloss over how expensive his plan will be by only giving out chunks here and there, so to the ordinary working man his policies sound cheap and attractive, but to the astute financial mind (if you know how to add, you're an astute financial mind) you realize that Obama's plan is huge and detrimental. So, in the end it comes down to who is the better politician. And that, my friends, is the person who is promising "change", Obama (ironic, isn't it?).

Chris of AZ 1:16PM July 28, 2008

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement