How Will The US Manage Its Growing Debt And Are We Heading Into A Fiscal Crisis

Surname: 1

Name

Professor

Subject

Date

How will the US manage its growing debt and are we heading into a fiscal crisis?

Introduction

Many governments of the world come up with a national budget on every financial year. The

national budget provides a framework of expenditure as well as possible sources of money for

the government to run its activities. America’s national budget also includes information on the

government’s budget deficit. A budget deficit refers to the difference between the amount of

money that the government receives in the form of taxes and other avenues and a government’s

expenses. Expenses in this sense could refer to the many areas where the government spends

money like in the social security programs for the elderly. In recent times, the health care system

has become a major expense to the government as it seeks to reduce the costs of healthcare for

the poor populations in the country through Obamacare.

Like many other governments around the world, the American government often incurs a

deficit in its budget in many ways. To make up for such a deficit, the government seeks funds

from other sources such as issuing treasury bills, notes, or bonds. Through these mechanisms, the

government is able to collect money from institutional or common investors, thus enabling the

government in all the three dimensions to continue its expenditure on various programs. In

essence, such borrowing enables the government to keep running. Government borrowing may

spill over beyond a nation’s securities to global monetary such as the World Bank and

International Monetary Fund. Furthermore, a government may be forced to borrow from private

Surname: 2

financial institutions such as banks depending on the nature of its financial crises and availability

of funds. In other cases, governments borrow money from other governments through bilateral

monetary relations.

All of these deficits make up for the national debt, which is the debt that the government

owes its taxpayers indirectly. In a more detailed explanation, national deficit or debt may include

a government’s future obligations to its citizens such as payment of pensions to retired work

force. Contracts of goods and services that have already been entered into by the government can

also form a part of the government deficit as they will have to be paid by the government. A

government’s deficit, therefore, may seem less at the current time, but it is better measured by all

of the government’s commitments in the future. Since in all of these situations the government

borrows at national level, the debt is known as national debt or government debt and it is owed to

and by all of the citizens of the nation depending on the nature of the debt.

The US national debt has been on the rise in recent years, at least for the last decade.

Traditionally, the US congress has played the all-important role of setting the limit on how much

the government can spend on major expenses such as social security, health care, and

infrastructure (public goods). Rather than increase the limit on expenditure along with the

increasing need for expenditure, the government and law makers have suspended the debt limit.

What this means is that the government has been spending on these facilities without necessarily

observing the expenditure limits or even reducing the government debt. A consequence of this

has been the ever-increasing government deficit as expenditure in the major culprit areas of

social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare among others.

There are fears among many Americans on the direction of the rising national debt. There

are many arguments on the trend as well, on what exactly the government needs to do in order to

Surname: 3

reduce the amount of national debt and national spending altogether. For some, it does not

necessarily require to reduce national expenditure, but rather increase government revenues in

order to counter the increased government spending. On whether there can ever be a way that the

government will be able to run on surplus again, the question of time and effective interventions

lingers on.

Major Causes of National Debt

Statistics indicate that the national debt in the US has been on a sustained increase in the last two

decades. In fact, further reports indicate that the country’s national debt as a part of the Gross

Domestic Product, which is the overall indicator of the performance of the economy, was only

low during the era of President Bill Clinton, almost twenty years ago. The debt seems to have

risen during the Obama administration, reaching 105% of the nation’s GDP. This peak at a time

when the country is making efforts to revamp its economy is raising concerns on whether the

programs started by the American government are sustainable under the very high current debt.

An economic analysis of a country’s financial performance explains that it is fine for a

government to be in debt, but only when the usage of the borrowed money leads to further

growth of the economy. The reasoning behind this is that with a growing economy, the

government will be at a better position to pay back the debt and eventually, be able to even

operate on surplus. However, what draws attention to the current state of America’s debt is in the

manner that the borrowed money is being used. A large amount of the borrowed money in the

US is used in areas that do not hold realistic returns for the economy- social welfare programs

and subsidies among others. While these are extremely noble acts of the government for its

citizens, it fails to make economic sense as these projects do not hold long-term benefits for the

economy.

Surname: 4

The Social Security System

Large chunks of the American budget go into the country’s social security system and defense.

While these two may be considered as necessary evils and that they serve to retain the supremacy

of the US, financing them has only increased the amount of government expenditure and debt

without obvious benefits of pay-off. The increased number of persons retiring from work and the

increased span of life for many Americans only means that the amount of money required to pay

them as retirement benefits increases. What’s more, is that the government takes money from the

current workforce and uses it to pay for the social security system of thousands of retired

workforce, without ensuring returns of money into the economy. A number of social factors are

also to blame for the reduction of revenues for the government from the country’s workforce.

More and more parents in the US opt to have fewer children. This reduces the number of persons

working in the country’s various sectors, thus reducing the amount of revenues raised through

taxes (Huntley n.p).

Government debt means that the government and private sectors in the country take the

brunt of economic downturn. As a result, many companies and the government included opt to

stagnant the pay of workers so that they can reduce the costs of production. What this means is

that workers’ pay has stagnated and as such, remissions from these workers in the form of taxes

have gone down. The government, therefore, cannot raise sufficient revenues to bridge the

government deficit that keeps widening by the day. The overall picture, therefore, is that while

the government is committed to maintaining the nation’s social welfare through its social

security system, limited income and increased cash outflows only serves to widen the

government debt.

The US Healthcare System

Surname: 5

A review of the current government’s debt crisis reveals that health care entitlements

through the new medical systems of Medicaid and Obamacare have pushed federal spending up

by $1.1 trillion. This figure is $900 billion more than the ceiling set by congress for inflation. For

many Americans, especially those opposed to the current proposals of the country’s healthcare,

entitlements in the healthcare system are all to blame entirely for the country’s poor economic

performance and debt gap. The two major healthcare programs of Medicare and to a lesser

extent, Medicaid have become more and more expensive in recent times than they were in the

past. It is more worrying considering that the benefit packages that they offer today have

remained the same as before, despite the rising costs of their provision compared to before.

Buying the two systems of health is now more expensive than it was without the promise of

improved performance or better returns for the same. Furthermore, the cost for buying these

benefit packages is much higher than the amount of revenues in the form of tax that the

government receives on yearly basis.

Figure 1: sources of funding for the US healthcare expenditure

Surname: 6

The addition of prescription drug benefit by Medicare by former president G. Bush has

also served to add on to $300 billion of debt into the economy. The fact that lawmakers do not

typically map out a strategy for the government to raise revenues to cater from the expenses

created only adds-on to the complexity of the US debt crisis. Well, despite the nobleness of

universal healthcare system, especially for the less fortunate in the country, the healthcare system

is largely to blame for the US’s widening debt. Like the social security problem, healthcare

system is actually considered as a form of social security, both of which do not have feasible

benefits for the economy, at least in the short term.

Tax Cuts by President Bush

During the administration of President Bush in 2001-2003, the US government undertook tax

cuts. The decision to cut taxes was informed by the economic recession that had begun in the

second term of the Clinton administration. In efforts to save the country’s economy, President

Surname: 7

Bush signed in a bill that would reduce the amounts of income tax, mainly for the country’s

middle class. Whi9le this strategy was started in 2001, three years down the line it was evident

that this strategy was not working as effectively as it was thought. This was mainly as a result of

the slow rate at which the tax reductions was phasing out. In order to speed up the rate of these

reductions so that the effect could be felt more immediately, president Bush further agreed to

lowering the rates made on capital gains as well as dividends, and phase out completely estate

tax. It was at this point that the government then began to realize tangible benefits of strong

economic growth (McDonald 118).

However, over a decade later, the effects of the Bush tax cuts are being felt in a more

adverse way than ever. These cuts are estimated to have contributed over $1.6 trillion of the

government debt. The government had and still has to find alternative sources of revenues

without the taxes previously collected. In efforts to bridge the gap between the deficits, the

government had to and continues to borrow in order to keep the government running but, without

the previous income. What’s more is that these cuts have been sustained in current

administrations, further lowering the government’s revenues even with the continued rise for the

need to expand government expenditure through systems like healthcare and social security

(Bonner & Addison 54).

Iraq and Afghanistan Wars

Over the last decade, the US spent #1.3 trillion in unexpected and unprofitable wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan. With limited sources of funding for these wars, the government has had to borrow

in order to keep the wars running. These wars have not only proven to be financially expensive

for the US government, but socially costly for the US citizens as well. Public outrage against

these wars continues to rage as the wars are considered more as an invasion than a protectionist

Surname: 8

strategy. The countries are far off American soil and by the time that they were being fought,

they did not pose particular threat to the security of America and its citizens. Like the healthcare

and social security systems already discussed above, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more

recently in Libya were all a loss to the American government and a liability that the government

continues to pay to date (Lynch n.p). The US government did not have much to gain from the

wars, at least financially both in the short and long term. The overall sentiment in government is

in the need for the US to carry out its super-power mandate of ensuring peace and security in all

other countries around the world. However, economists also see this as an aspect of social status

rather than economic status and as such, the wars are all economic liabilities.

Economic Stimulus

In 2009, the US and many European major economic powers underwent an economic recession

that threatened the lives of not only the US government, but also that of many financial

institutions in the country. During the time of the recession, the Obama administration put in

place efforts that were intended to stimulate economic growth through stimulus package, tax

cuts, industry bailouts for financial institutions, benefits for the jobless, and many other related

efforts. The 2009 stimulus package cost $800 billion, which was added on to government debt.

The 2010 tax cuts by Obama through a compromise between the president and Republicans

further added another $400 billion into the debt (Johnson & Kwak 219). The $200 billion bailout

of financial institutions during the recession was yet another extension of the debt. All of these

efforts, which were well-intended to enable the country beat the recession and ensure the

survival of not only the government, but of many private financial institutions for the wellbeing

of the American people, all turned out to have detrimental long-term effects in the government’s

financial status.

Surname: 9

Although the financial recession and the bail-out strategies employed by the government

were not the sole culprits in the government’s increasing debt, they sparked off a journey that

would see the government fail to bridge the debt gap. Failed efforts to limit government spending

and borrowing by congress and lawmakers only meant that the government could go on and on

in indulging in more borrowing. It is all of these aspects that have seen the US government

embroiled in deep debt today. People are more concerned now on how the government can

remedy the situation and reduce or even eventually, do away with the debt and spur the

government on to surplus. There are many options for the government to undertake in saving the

economy. However, the options available all have consequences for the US as a government and

a nation and as such, the government will have to think carefully of a strategy that will spur real

economic growth. This is even more so considering that most of the culprits of the national debt

have been actions done in good faith. For instance, the social security and healthcare systems are

all most noble social gestures that seek to improve the social wellbeing of the American people.

The stimulus packages and tax cuts were in efforts to bail out players in the country’s economy

and possibly, improve the country’s economic performance. Consequently, the next array of

strategies should be drawn quite carefully to ensure that they too, do not end up to dampen the

economy further (Wright 97).

Interventions for US Government Debt

From the short history of the two-decade US government debt, it is clear that interventions to

bridge the debt will have to be more economic than socially beneficial. Perhaps, this is the aspect

of the interventions that makes them more complicated and difficult to adopt, at least by the

current administration. All of the possible interventions would have to be centered on cutting

government expenditure and raising taxes. By cutting government expenditure, the government

Surname: 10

would be able to reduce its tendency to borrow even more. By raising taxes, the government will

be able to increase its revenue amounts, which can then be used to make up for the deficit that

already exists. As earlier stated, these two interventions would have detrimental effects on the

government’s social system, particularly the healthcare system, the social security system, and

the need for the US to protect its image and security through the wars it has previously engaged

in. it is a tough call, especially for a country whose current administration has and continues to

work very hard to ensure that the universal healthcare system (Obamacare) succeeds (Krugman

n.p). The democratic administration also feels a larger obligations to the needs of the less

privileged in the country and hence, the need to protect them through a proper and strong social

security system. The looming general elections also provide a de-synchrony to the whole picture

and the fate of the face of the world super-power remains hanging if it decides to withdraw from

Afghanistan and Iraq, a move that could be considered as a defeat for the US. Whatever the

consequences, the truth is that the US government needs to re-prioritize its strategies and put in

place interventions that will improve the country’s economy.

Taxes

The former Bush administration undertook budget cuts in an effort to increase wealth for the

middle class. Although this trend has continued over the years, it is clear that it is

counterproductive to the efforts to resuscitating the economy. The government must increase

taxes so that it can increase the amount of revenue it collects from the public. It is hoped that

such increased collections can be used to pay part of the debt and eventually, the government

will be running on surplus. Actually, interventions for cutting government tax should focus on

returning the rates of tax to the Clinton-presidency period. This was the only time in the last

three decades that the American government was financially prosperous and ran on surplus.

Surname: 11

Regarding this, the government should ensure that estate and investment taxes are returned to a

position where they remit over $150 billion on a yearly basis (Edwards (a) n.p) .

Expenditure Cuts

It is obvious that a substantial amount of the government debt emanates

from extensive expenditure by the government. Just like household budgets, the government

cannot simply cut its performance in order to stay within its budget. Instead, it has to borrow

over and over in order to fund its expensive spending on various programs in all the three forms

of government and both in entitlements and discretionary forms. In any way, cutting government

expenditure would make sense whether the government was or was not in debt as a self-

regulatory mechanism. Such cuts would spur eminent economic growth by shifting resources

from activities considered to be of low value to the government to those of higher value in the

private sector. Cutting government expenditure would also mean that the citizens get more

freedom and control of their lives and own expenditures by reducing the control of the federal

programs on private citizens’ lives.

It is evident that in recent times, the federal government has expanded its

activities into areas that would be traditionally left to the state, local government, private

businesses, individuals, and even charities. The effect of such expansion is that the private

economy is losing its control in these areas and leads to the creation of a top-down bureaucratic

system, which is alien and deemed inappropriate to the American traditional way of life.

Furthermore, by reducing expenditure by the federal government, the government will be able to

disperse power from Washington into the various parts of the country, thus enhancing democracy

and accountability as well as freedom and control of expenditures. The bottom-line of this

Surname: 12

approach will eventually be reduced expenditure by the government that will lead to a reduction

of debt in the overly debt-burdened government.

In the event that the government does not cut its spending, it is then estimated that federal

government spending will rise from the current 20.1% of GDP to 22.1% by the year 2015

(Congressional Budget Office n.p). This is despite the fact that it is also estimated that revenues

from tax will rise from the current 17.7% of GDP to 18.3% over the same period. What this

means, therefore, is that despite possible growing revenues, the government will continue to

increase its deficits as a result of the rapid growth in government spending. Therefore,

government spending emerges to be the single most important aspect contributing to the rising

debt. However, Keynesian theories posit that cutting on government spending is likely to hurt the

economy even further. This may not necessarily be true, however. This is because in the case of

the US, cutting government expenditure means that such expenditure will be passed on to the

private institutions. Spending will, therefore, continue and even rise in the private sector as it

reduces in the government, whose spending is marred by incidents of mismanagement (Edwards

(b) n.p).

The argument to cut government spending is supported by a case of the Canadian

government. In the 1990s, Canada was faced with a debt crisis, similar to the US’. In retaliation,

the government slashed spending from 23% to 17% in 2000, and it currently stands at 14.5%. A

perfect contradiction to Keynesian theories, the Canadian economy did not collapse as would be

expected with this strategy, but continued to grow even strongly over the last two decades. Using

the example of Canada and studies on the economy, the US government should cease to view

spending as a necessary evil that will help to reduce the deficit. Instead, it should take advantage

Surname: 13

of the situation and spur reforms that will spur economic growth by cutting government

expenditure and expand the freedom of individual citizens to spending.

Government Subsidies

The US government runs one of the widest subsidy programs among the developed countries.

Currently, there are over 2,300 subsidy programs within the government, and a number twice as

it was in the 1980s. The large number of subsidy programs is as a result of the ever-expanding

scope of federal activities, as well as the federal budget. Among the various subsidy programs

that the government runs include school lunches, health care, the energy industry, farming, rural

utilities, aviation, rental housing, public broadcasting, foreign aid, urban transport, job training,

and many others. With each subsidy, a number of effects follow, which serve to hurt the

economy. For instance, a single subsidy will generate a system of bureaucracy, encourage people

to demand for more and more handouts, and spawn lobby groups. Businesses, non-profit groups,

and individuals who benefit and eventually get hooked on to these federal government subsidies

eventually grow to become mere tools of the state. They lose their freedom and independence to

do as they wish and control their resources. Because of the benefits they get from the

government in the form of subsidies, they shy off from criticizing the government and its short-

comings, fearing to lose their benefits in the form of subsidies. Further analysis of government

subsidies establishes that like an addictive drug, they undermine the American people’s tradition

and commitment to individual reliance, entrepreneurship, and voluntary charity among other

aspects of economic performance.

Federal Aid

While the true spirit of the American constitution sought to leave the bulk of powers to the

American people through federalism, policy makers and the judiciary have made efforts to

Surname: 14

discard federalism in recent years. This is mainly through packages of grant-in-aid, which would

be reserved to the local and state governments in a perfect situation. Grant programs define

subsidies that come along with federal controls, and which work to control and micro-manage

the activities of the state and local governments. The total amount of federal aid given to states in

a typical year would amount to $600 billion, which is then distributed to over 1000 programs.

The aid program to states is founded on the theory that the federal government has the capacity

to implement programs at national interest level in order to efficiently and effectively solve

problems at local level. However, this is not the case in practice as most politicians at federal

level are more preoccupied with the competitive need to maximize subsidies for their states.

Because of the large competition in this process and the need to impress the electorate, these

politicians fail to weigh the benefits of the programs they scramble for subsidies, their efficiency,

and to consider the budgetary limitations governing the federal government expenditure.

An even critical analysis of the effectiveness of federal aid to states establishes that such

aid stimulates the tendency to overspend by the state and local governments as well as creating a

web of federal regulations that create complexities and undermine innovation by the state

governments. At all levels of the aid process, emphasis is given to the compliance to regulation

and spending, and not on the evaluation of the programs on which the aid is used, thus it does not

guarantee the quality and effectiveness of public services. Besides, the system creates a form of

bureaucracy that involves the three arms of government, so that accountability erodes with the

system.

The general effect of federal aid to states, therefore, is that it increases the government’s

expenditure without any assurance that the investments made using such aid will benefit the

economy. The grant-n-aid system should be done away with in an effort to bridge the debt gap in

Surname: 15

the country. Making such a move will ensure that government expenditure reduces and hence the

debt bill, and also that the state government will become active and creative in efforts to solicit

for money for its activities. Such solicitation will include economic activities, which will then

spur further economic growth. In fact, a bulk of the programs currently funded by the federal

government should be funded by the state and local governments to reduce the burden for

spending on the federal government.

Another proposal would be for the government to reduce significantly the amount of

foreign aid on an annual basis. While such aid is benevolent to the recipients, it does little or no

good at all to the economy. Besides, theories of development such as the dependency theory

blame foreign aid as the culprit holding back the development of the less developed countries of

the world.

Military Expenditure

Like many of the US citizens, economists feel that the country’s expenditure in military

undertakings has negative effects to the economy. It is now a common argument that rather than

engage in such military offensives, the government adopts a wait-and-see approach to military

offensives, especially those that do not touch on the country’s immediate security and safety.

This strategy would also let America’s friendly nations to bear some or more costs for their own

defenses without having to rely on the US entirely (Friedman & Preble n.p). This is out of the

concern that the US policy makers allow the country to spend large amounts of money for

extraneous military actions besides the basic and immediate role of defending the nation. The

two major military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan offer the basis of this argument. The

nations do or did not offer immediate threat to the country’s safety and security and as such, the

Surname: 16

country should refrain from stretching its already stretched financial resources in military

engagements whose benefits will hardly reach the American people (Benes & Kumhof n.p).

Consequently, the military budget should be cut in a prudent fashion and manner in a part

of the government’s overall strategy to cut expenditure. If the government agrees to cut military

operations, it is possible that it will be able to cut military operations from the current $74 billion

to a possible zero by the following decade.

Health Care and Social Security

As seen earlier, these are two of the major culprits of the rising debt in the country. Although

highly benevolent, they do not hold actual benefits to the country’s economy, hence a major

economic liability for a highly indebted economy. Furthermore, the projected growth in

Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are a major cause of the even further looming debt

crisis. Policy and law makers need to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act in order to reduce

government expenditure on Medicaid and further end the expenditure on exchange subsidies.

Another strategy would be for the law makers to convert Medicaid from being an open-ended

grant to a giant block and as such, grant states more flexibility in the program and its packages.

A similar strategy was undertaken in 1996 in the welfare reform, which in turn encouraged the

state to engage in more innovation to raise more money. If the government were to create a block

giant and cap annual spending growth in Medicaid at 2%, for instance, it would save about $110

billion on an annual basis by the year 2025. Reforms based on personal savings, individual

vouchers, and choice by the consumer for their elderly health care would create strong incentives

for the health care providers to improve the quality of service and reduce the costs of these

services. Not only would such a move improve the quality of services given, but also reduce the

Surname: 17

amount of money the government would have to spend on the program, thus saving billions in

debt.

Regarding the social security system, the reforms should be implemented in order to

ensure that the initial benefits are indexed to prices instead of wages in efforts to slow the growth

of the program. Such a reform would save the government an estimated $39 billion annually by

the year 2025, and increase in the following years. A plan to raise the retirement age would be in

line in order to increase the country’s workforce and postpone, at least for some time, the

retirement benefits accrued. Finally, the government should explore options of trimming the

social security disability insurance and the supplemental security income programs by at least

25% (Summers n.p).

Privatization

A common trend for governments around the world is to sell-off government owned assets and

businesses to private companies and investors. Some of these assets include postal offices,

airports, railways, electricity utilities, and many other formerly public utilities. Privatizations

serves to increase the efficiency of operation of these businesses. Most importantly, however, is

that it reduced the cost of running the services, increasing innovation, and the quality of

operations (Schoen n.p). The US should also follow suit and institute the privatization of various

utilities including Amtrak, airport screening services, air traffic control systems, Army Corps

Engineers, and the various electric utilities. Such a move would serve to improve the

management of these utilities, increase the level of quality of services, reduce budget deficits,

and generally spur economic growth.

An example would be the country’s Air traffic Control (ATC), which is managed by the

country’s federal aviation administration. Efforts by the aviation administration to modernize the

Surname: 18

traffic control systems have often fallen behind schedule and its budget exceeded way overboard.

Privatizing the ATC would will serve to separate it from the government and thus, create room

for a more efficient body to undertake its modernization and other improvement processes.

Canada, a neighbor of the US, privatized its ATC system in 1996 through a non-profit

corporation, Nav Canada. Nav Canada is now able to effectively manage all of the ATC

operations and has grown to become one of the safest systems in the world besides outstanding

innovative management and efficiency. Britain also followed suit and the benefits are evident

(Reinhart & Sbrancia n.p).

Conclusion

Without major interventions and reforms, the US government spending is projected to reach or

even exceed the 30% of GDP in 2030. It is highly unlikely that the government will be able to

raise revenue to match such spending requirement in the increasingly globalizing economy.

Therefore, in order to save the government, policy makers will have to cut the government’s

spending in the near future and reprioritize its spending structure to ensure that expenditure is

allocated to the most deserving and economically-viable needs. Other nations in the developed

sphere have made such reforms and pulled their governments out of debt. It, therefore, is not a

question of whether the US will follow suit, but rather a question of time. Besides, the US needs

to put its national pride aside and instead, prioritize on the needs of its nation against those of

other countries, even if it means giving up its global policing role for the sake of its people’s

economic viability.

Surname: 19

Works Cited

Benes, Jaromir and Michael Kumhof. The Chicago Plan Revisited. International Monetary Fund

Working paper WP/12/202. 2012. Web

Bonner, William and Wiggin Addison. Empire of Debt: the Rise of an Epic Financial Crisis.

Wiley. 2011. Print

Congressional Budget Office, "Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2015 to 2025," March

2015. Web

Edwards, Chris (a). "We Can Cut Government: Canada Did," Cato Policy Report, Cato Institute,

May-June 2012. Web.

Edwards, Chris(b). "Federal Subsidy Programs Top 2,000!" Cato@Liberty, Cato Institute,

January 25, 2010. Web

Friedman, Benjamin and Christopher Preble, "A Plan to Cut Military Spending," Cato Institute,

November 2010, web. www.downsizinggovernment.org/defense.

Huntley, Jonathan. Federal debt and the risk of a fiscal crisis. Congressional Budget Office:

Macroeconomic Analysis Division. Retrieved February 2, 2011. Web

Johnson, Simon and James Kwak. White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National

Debt, and Why It Matters To You. Pantheon. 2012. Print

Krugman, Paul. Bad analysis at the deficit commission. The New York Times: The Opinion

Pages: Conscience of a Liberal Blog. Retrieved February 9, 2011. Web

Lynch, David. Economists see no crisis with US debt as economy gains. Bloomberg. Retrieved

25 March 2013. Web

Macdonald, James. A Free Nation Deep in Debt: The Financial Roots of Democracy. Princeton

University Press. 2006. Print

Surname: 20

Reinhart, Carmen and Belen Sbrancia. The Liquidation of Government Debt. National Bureau of

Economic Research working paper No. 16893. 2011. Web

Schoen, John. Just who Owns the US National Debt? MSNBC.com. March 4, 2013. Web

Summers, Lawrence. Breaking the Negative Feedback Loop. Reuters, June 3, 2014. Web

Wright, Robert. One Nation Under Debt: Hamilton, Jefferson, and the History of What We Owe.

Mc-Graw Hill. 2013. Print

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."