Indentured Grandchildren




A weak economy and elevated spending is the cause of this deficit figure. "The deficit has been boosted by various federal policies implemented in response, including the stimulus legislation and aid for the financial, housing, and automotive sectors," says Elmendorf.

And it gets worse beyond the ten-year budget projections. Director Elmendorf says that "the nation will face further significant fiscal challenges posed by rising health care costs and the aging of the population. Continued large deficits and the resulting increases in federal debt would, over time, reduce economic growth."

"Putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal course will require some combination of lower spending and higher revenues than the amounts now projected," he says. I find it somewhat consoling that he mentions only lower spending and higher "revenues" and not taxes per se. Unfortunately, the idea of pursuing something like a dynamic, growth-oriented supply-side approach with budget restraint and tax cuts for individuals and corporations, now the highest in the free world, is the farthest thing from the minds of either the Hill or the White House.

The CBO does not mention the distinct possibility of runaway inflation, but director Elmendorf is cognizant of the looming entitlement debt bomb as evidenced by his mention of our aging population. These are additional clouds on the horizon of our children and grandchildren. There are also massive liabilities, presently kept off-budget for Fannie and Freddie, as recently pointed out by the Wall Street Journal .

And you thought those toddlers were just cute. They are the ones who are going to pay for this generation so it can party like it’s 2009.

Peter Orszag, White House Budget Director, released his own report just before CBO released its own, no doubt seeking to get ahead of the story. Orszag confirmed that the stimulus package was likely to cost "tens of billions of dollars" more than expected, resulting in next year’s budget skying to just over $1.5 tillion, a figure only slightly less than CBO’s. Moreover, deficits are likely to remain elevated even after the economy recovers, averaging more than $800 billion a year through 2019 at which time the White House estimates the annual gap between spending and revenue will be $917 billion.

According to the Washington Post ‘s Lori Montgomery, "All told, the White House predicts that the nation will have to borrow an additional $9 trillion over the next decade to finance the annual deficits, driving accumulated national debt to nearly $23 trillion in 2019 — or 76.5 percent of gross domestic product, the highest since 1950." This is a higher percentage than even CBO calculates a decade out.

Still, director Orszag has his game face on: "I know some will say this report proves we can’t afford health reform. I think that analysis has it backwards," says Orszag. "Given the long-term nature of the problem, we simply can’t afford to wait."

Cannot afford to wait for what, pray tell? More taxes and debt? Here’s a thought. Deal with entitlement reform and unfunded debt and liabilities first. Then "reform" health care.

My own personal hero, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), from my wife’s home state of Wisconsin, notes that "the Federal Government is borrowing half of its entire budget this year alone, and it is working Americans and their children, who will foot the bill."

"Today’s news confirms what we’ve all know: Washington’s spending binge has made a bad situation even worse — driving deficits to unprecedented levels, and plunging our nation deeper in debt."

Yes, our grandchildren are now our very own indentured servants, compliments of bipartisan spending over the last decade, up to and including this moment. This legacy of debt and taxes is a sad one to leave to America’s future generations to whom we all owe a much better deal than the one they are getting.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • SMG 62

    So… what happened after 1950 to bring the deficit down, so that we are just now getting back to that level?

  • SeanReynoldsNZ

    So Obama has decided to punish the children that he is worried about American children being “punished” with ….

    I remember reading a book in early 2000 called “The Roaring 2000s” that was predicting a massive bust for the Western World over the next decade. Why? Because of the baby boomer generation leaving the workforce and starting to retire, without leaving behind a growing population. Eventually every member of the workforce will be expected to support a crushing burden from their parents generation. How are they going to support their own children?

    Here’s a thought, and it may sound brutal, but retirement is not a right. You have to earn it, or else your own kids can support you. In other words, if you had no children, then you had ample opportunity to work and save. If you squandered your time, then you are going to regret it as you get older. If you were unable to save for retirement because you were caring for a family, then no doubt your children will return the favour.

    For an American regime that views having children as a punishment, it is obvious that they intend to punish future generations for existing by splurging now. But as a foreigner, let me ask you this: You Americans are likely to be unable to pay your debts in the future. Why should I lend you the money? The only real option that you have is to print more greenbacks, making them not worth a Continental.

  • jvista

    SMG 62–

    What happened was a booming economy, combined with a federal bureaucracy that was a small fraction of what it is today. As Sean alludes to, in 1950 it seemed Social Security could go on forever–there were over 16 workers pumping money into the system for each retired beneficiary. Today, because of the decreased birth rate–and abortion–there are less than 3, and it continues to drop even more. Plus, Medicare did not debut until 1965.

  • momof11

    Well, as pointed out by Bishop Nickless of Sioux City, IA, Medicare , Medicaid and Social security worked at the beginning and for a while because we were a culture of life, with an ever expanding base of taxpayer. With the birth dearth the ratio of working people to those who benefit from the tax paid programs is shrinking, making the tax burden greater and greater. If there were more taxpayers the cost per taxpayer would be less, but we as a nation, have contracepted and aborted away
    the potential future taxpayers.

    Sassy answer to the question “why do you have so any children?” To pay YOUR social security.

    Sean, work until you can’t and then have your children care for you? What a concept! And each of my kids would only have to take care of just over one month a year! Sounds to me like the principal of subsidiarity…getting the job done at the lowest level.

  • Kathryn

    I am posting this link to this article on the website because it makes a direct relationship between fertility decline and social security. It also talks about the comment that Sean made above: retirement not being a right (the article doesn’t put it that way, though) and even the disabled and elderly do find someway to contribute to their families.

    I have no plans to “retire” per se (I currently homeschool the boys) I don’t think my husband does either. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t know what to do with myself and I don’t think he would either. It would be nice, though, to work when we want and for how much we want, instead of having to slave away to pay for the Gov’t excesses.

    And Sean: good point–I fail to understand how ANY other countries gov’t or citizenry would want to fund the US. Unless of course, they are being real “predatory lenders”. I wonder what China will do when we default on our debt to them…

  • SeanReynoldsNZ

    Mumof11, Of course, you need to also ensure that you raise your kids so that they would want to take care of you in your olde age too.

    What I suspect will happen is that a lot of parents may find themselves being shipped off to nursing homes instead as their way of being looked after because they raised their children reminding them of the costs and expenses involved in raising kids, or the parents keep reminding their children that they are a burden.