Are low interest rates masking the deficit?

Artificially low interest rates have allowed the government to finance more than $1 trillion worth of deficits every year from 2009 to 2012. When interest rates do pick up, there may be a very big bill on the table to pay.

|
Carolyn Kaster/AP/File
White House Budget Director Sylvia Matthews Burwell testifies about the federal deficit on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. earlier this year. Low interest rates may be allowing the government to have a false sense of confidence about its economic standing, Penner says.

Thanks to artificially low interest rates, the United States has been able to finance deficits exceeding $1 trillion every year from 2009 through 2012 at very low cost. Throughout the period, the ratio of interest to the GDP has remained almost stable and is not expected to start rising until 2015. Some argue that this has encouraged the Congress to be fiscally irresponsible, although others believe that deficits have not been large enough given the severity of the recession.

But low interest rates will not last. In June, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave the impression – apparently unintentionally — that the Fed would soon reduce its purchases of Treasury debt and mortgage-related securities. That helped propel a major increase in bond yields. The 10-year Treasury rate rose from under 2.0 percent to over 2.8 percent in a matter of days.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline assumes rates will gradually rise over the next few years until the 10-year rate stabilizes at a more normal 5.2 percent in 2018 and thereafter. The implications for federal interest payments are alarming. The bill is assumed to rise almost four-fold between 2013 and 2023 or at a rate of 14 percent per year. Interest would become the fastest growing expenditure item in the budget by far, leaving health costs in the dust.

CBO’s baseline must assume that current law does not change. For example, numerous tax reductions, such as the research and experimentation tax credit, are temporary under current law and the CBO must assume that they expire, even though Congress has routinely extended them over the years.

CBO provides an alternative fiscal scenario that incorporates more realistic policy assumptions. Before the fiscal cliff deal that made most of the “temporary” Bush tax cuts permanent, the alternative fiscal scenario and the baseline were very different. They have come together recently, but the alternative is still more pessimistic than the baseline, implying a debt-GDP ratio of 83 percent at the end of 2023 compared to the baseline’s 74 percent. That would make interest costs grow even faster than 14 percent per year, though the difference is small relative to the usual error in forecasting interest rates.

Countries are often pushed into a sovereign debt crisis because of growing interest payments.  It becomes politically impossible for them to increase taxes or reduce noninterest spending fast enough to keep up with rising interest costs. The debt-GDP ratio begins to explode. A debt crisis is sure to follow.

Today, it is hard to see that happening in the U.S. over the next 10 years. But throw in another recession and/or an increase in interest rates above normal levels and the risks grow.  Recent good news on the fiscal front has caused CBO to project a fall in the baseline debt-GDP ratio from 75 percent in 2013 to 71 percent in 2017. However, it begins to rise after that at an increasing rate. Given these downside risks, a growing interest bill would severely limit government flexibility. And  no one should be happy with that.

Rudolph G. Penner is an Institute Fellow at the Urban Institute.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Are low interest rates masking the deficit?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2013/0710/Are-low-interest-rates-masking-the-deficit
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe