Centerfield

You can say it's me. I wrote that. I meant to get your attention if you were sloppy, and slam you sideways if you were being intentionally dishonest. I will accept an honest apology. The post you linked showed (and contained links to original source material from the Treasury that showed) that the increase in "national debt" was for ALL debt, INCLUDING, not "after subtracting," all surpluses in social security and ALL other trust funds.

I've spent a lot of time around here trying to explain the fallacy of the assorted government "trust funds." The bottom line of which is this: Every single dime of SS or Medicare (or any other program's surplus) that is purportedly placed into one of those completely mis-nomered "trust funds" is in actuality nothing more nor less than another dime added onto the national debt. The money is spent, and replaced with IOU's. Debt. When it comes time to replace that money, those funds can only come from one of three sources or some combination thereof: new public debt, new taxes, or benefit cuts.

Perhaps the term "National Debt" and my term "public debt" mean different things.

They do indeed. The "National Debt" is the sum total of ALL government debt, INCLUDING the trust funds, which are by definition debt, not assets. The "public debt" is debt held by the public, which is the national debt minus all "intragovernmental holdings," i.e., those trust fund balances. The actual operating deficit of the US government is the increase in the public debt, not the national debt. The public debt of the US went up by $242B over the last fiscal year. The national debt went up by $573B. The difference of $331B between the two figures is the amount of money "added" to the assorted government "trust funds"--that is, the amount of future entitlement payments promised out by our politicians that they do not have the cash to pay for, and must cover by one or more of the three methods mentioned above.

The SS/Medicare problem is not going away. As I mentioned in the reply that got your attention, I do not accuse YOU of this particular bit of fugheadedness, but I am truly tired of the folks who insist that there's nothing wrong with SS loudly complaining about the increase in the national debt--especially while simultaneously calling for expanding the "trust funds" as some kind of solution to the SS/Medicare problem.

Posted by: Tully at October 15, 2006 10:30 PM

"if you were being intentionally dishonest"

There was no "if" in your comment. You said I was lying.

You seem genuinely concerned about the deficit and the debt. So why are you attacking me and calling me a liar for a simple mistake of terminology regarding the debt?

Even given my mistake, I don't understand how anyone could read my post and believe my purpose was to deceive people about the size of the debt.

Posted by: Oberon at October 15, 2006 11:40 PM

FWIW, I Googled "define: Public Debt"

The results:

# Federal government debt incurred by the Treasury or the Federal Financing Bank by the sale of securities to the public or borrowings from a federal fund or account.
www.house.gov/rules/glossary_fbp.htm

# Any debt that is fr**ee to be publicly offered and traded in a secondary market.
www.ofina.on.ca/debt/glossary.html

# which is an external obligation of a public debtor, including the national government, a political subdivision (or an agency of either), and autonomous public bodies
www.rrojasdatabank.org/sources2.htm

# The accumulated borrowings of the federal government; also known as the national debt.
wps.aw.com/aw_rohlf_econreason_5/0,5759,11635-,00.html

# the total of the nation's debts: debts of local and state and national governments; an indicator of how much public spending is financed by borrowing instead of taxation
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Government debt ("public debt", "national debt") is money owed by government, at any level (central government, federal government, national government, municipal government, local government, regional government).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_debt

Posted by: Oberon at October 15, 2006 11:44 PM

While I am at it, CR used the word "subtract," so I did the same. In fact, I originally wrote the word "including" but then I thought it would be technically wrong since the debt is a negative number.

Whether we're "including" the surplus or "subtracting" it, the point is the debt is very very large. and the so-called trust fund surpluses only mask the size of the problem.

Posted by: Oberon at October 16, 2006 12:00 AM

Republicans in 1984: "Debt bad. Bad debt. Bad Democrats for creating debt. Debt bad like fire bad."

Republicans in 2004: "Fire good."

Posted by: Marcus at October 16, 2006 02:21 AM

I don't understand how anyone could read my post and believe my purpose was to deceive people about the size of the debt.

You made your statement in terms that completely and unambiguously indicated that the national debt increase was larger than the public debt figure you cited, with said public debt figure NOT being the public debt increase at all, as you clearly and unambiguously stated, but the overall increase in the national debt. You said:

Calculated Risk notes that the public debt rose a just a tad last year: about $574.3 billion (after subtracting surpluses in social security and other trust funds).

No, they did NOT (you've moved what they did say from one side of the balance sheet to the other, thus inverting the sign and doubling the difference!) and it's the other way around from what you stated. Figuring it as YOU expressed it would give us an increase in the NATIONAL debt of $331B MORE than the figure you stated, to a $904B total increase. Your literal statement would have us double-counting the "trust fund" increases to determine the increase in national debt, by using the wrong baseline figure. FACT: The NATIONAL debt increased by $574B last fiscal year, of which $331B was program revenue taxation that exceeded program revenue benefits paid. After subtracting those surpluses in SS, Medicare, and other "trust funds," the true unified budget deficit, real income minus real outgo, was $242B. Which is exactly equal to the INCREASE in the PUBLIC debt. $242B versus $574B versus $904B! Slight difference, no?

Now add (not subtract!) those "trust fund" figures back in to the increase in PUBLIC debt ($242B) and you get the increase in NATIONAL debt ($574B)--but note that those "intragovernmental holdings" figures are nothing more nor less than government's IOU's to itself. A bookkeeping fiction that does not change REAL government income/outgo by one single dime at any point in the cycle. The government collected $242B less in revenues than it spent, and borrowed the coins to cover the shortfall. Money owed by the government to others increased $242B as a result. The rest is shuffling between governmental pockets and Congressional promises.

You got the labels wrong, you got the math wrong, you used the wrong figure for the starting point, and your statement was thus both utterly false and completely misleading. Ignorance, innumeracy, or intent? You pick. I will take your word as to which. :-)

Posted by: Tully at October 16, 2006 12:03 PM

Marcus;

Republicans in 2004: "Fire good."

I'm a Republican and I say "Fire bad!". And there are many other Republicans that say the same. And hopefully a few Democrats. The dilemma is "but voters like fire?" (i.e. million dollar bridges to nowhere, prescription drugs, government pensions...)

Posted by: c3 at October 16, 2006 07:16 PM

Hey kids,

Can we take the personal issues off of the front page? That is why there is email. I don't condone anyone being called a liar, but as someone who has been factually lambasted by the author in question, I don't think he means these things personally.

On the "fire is bad" issue, I agree with Marcus. Republicans of 2006 look, smell, and act like the Democrats of 1994. What I don't get is why people are passionate about returning to the Democrats of 1994. Seems to me that we are damned if we do, and...

Partisan flag waving is pointless because this isn't about party... There is clearly a systematic issue with how Congress is run that leaves us going down the path of fiscal irresponsibility. This is one reason why I strongly support some of the Contract of American language that Republicans once supported, like say a Balanced Budget Amendment, Line Item Veto, etc., etc.

c3 brings up a good point; however, if it wasn't explained to them through 30 second talking points and voters were treated like thoughtful human beings by the two political parties, I believe they WOULD be willing to give up some pork for the sake of the bigger picture. Call me an idealist, I guess.

In the mean time, lets try to remember that we are for the most part on the same side.

Posted by: Mathew at October 16, 2006 08:18 PM

Tully:

1. As you can see above, several published definitions of "public debt" indicate that the term is interchangeable with "national debt". Even if I was wrong, I expect you're the only person who failed to understand my point: the deficit is very big.

2. A deficit is a negative number. When we say the debt is $574.3 billion, we mean the budget has a $-574.3 billion balance. When I wrote "(after subtracting surpluses in social security and other trust funds)" I left out the object of the clause, because I did not imagine you would have so much trouble understanding.

Perhaps it would have helped you understand if I had written "(after subtracting surpluses in social security and other trust funds from the unified budget)". I suspect not.

My post partly summarized CR's post here in which he calculated the the total increase in debt by starting with the Unified Budget deficit, subtracting the SS surpluses, and subtracting surpluses in other trust funds. The resulting number is $574.3 billion.

Posted by: Oberon at October 16, 2006 08:33 PM

Ignorance, innumeracy, or intent? You pick. I will take your word as to which. :-)

I may look back on this day as the day that I decided to quit this blog. Posted by: Todd Pearson at October 16, 2006 11:10 PM

c3,
Just about every Democrat I've ever known has been concerned about the budget and the ways to balance it. Often it's pay as you go - i.e. raise some taxes. (Clinton and Bush 41 saw the wisdom in that and both parties paid heavily politically - Bush41 lost and Clonton lost his congress.) Makes sense in many ways. For instance if you have a war you raise taxes to raise revenues so that our soldiers get the most and best equipment possible , so that the war effort isn't undermanned as it is now, so that the soldiers aren't putting together hillbilly armor for their trucks and humvees, or that they don't have to have bake sales at home to get critical communications equipment, medical supplies and whatnot. EVERYONE shares the pain. Not this war. The wealthy are sharing less and less of it with the rest of us. I'll also note that during WW2 Truman successfully headed a program that stifled war profiteering, something that the current administration and the rubber stamp congress have failed utterly in doing. Hence the opposition to what was mainly tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations over the past 6 years.

If the GOP wins both houses again think of a long session of root cnals - no gas.

Sorry can't spell cnals - the spam filter doesn't like anl.

Posted by: Marcus at October 16, 2006 11:20 PM

Ignorance, innumeracy, or intent? You pick. I will take your word as to which. :-)

Todd Pearson: I may look back on this day as the day that I decided to quit this blog.

You might not be alone in that, Todd. I'm not sure what this is for anymore.

Posted by: WHQ at October 17, 2006 09:21 AM

Marcus;

Just about every Democrat I've ever known has been concerned about the budget and the ways to balance it.

Agreed. And I bet just about every politician in Washington is "concerned" about the budget. Positive thoughts won't make it better; tough action will. And I agree that will entail tough budget cutting action AND prudent action regarding taxes.

Posted by: c3 at October 17, 2006 09:54 AM

Oberon, I called you out on your statement because it was blatantly false-to-fact and misleading as hell as written. Got that? Do not blame me for your poor writing, incorrect usage of technical terms when discussing a technical field, erroneous grammar in expressing numbers in English, or your misquoting of CR. And don't try to justify bad grammar and label errors as somehow being clear and correct, when they're not. Admit it, correct it, and carry on with your point. Not being psychic, I gotta go on what you actually wrote, not what you might have meant. Corrected to proper terms and grammar, your statement would still be misleading, because it conflates two very different things.

You say you did not mean to mislead. I take you at your word, and withdraw any accusation of prevarication. But calling gasoline "deisel" won't make your truck run on it, and calling a snake a lizard won't make it grow legs. I meant to get your attention if you were being sloppy, and slam you if you were being intentionally dishonest. I said so. You're still attempting to rationalize your errors as somehow being correct usage. Whatever. The statement I called you on was false to fact, and misleading, and remains so. Why not simply correct it, instead of defending it? Without distinguishing between internal and external and implicit debt, no rational discussion of debt issues is even possible. Just demogoguery and fear-mongering.

IOW, do you wanna just take noisy umbrage and rant and rave at a perceived insult and defend a blatantly false statement as somehow being true, or do you actually want to seriously examine debt issues? Fear-mongering and finger-pointing, or serious an@lysis? Pick one.

Posted by: Tully at October 17, 2006 10:46 AM

Tully,

I saw Oberon's post as not much more than a link to another site which discussed the National debt. As such, any error on his part couldn't be more than a minor mistake, in my opinion. That error could have simply been pointed out.

Going out of your way to make someone look as bad as possible given such an error is likely to make that person a little defensive. He already apologized for the error.

And I see his point. If you subtract positive surpluses from negative deficits, the number becomes more negative. Perhaps that's not the most straightforward way of phrasing it, but it's not patently incorrect. Calling the National debt the Public debt is, so why not just say so without the outrage? How misleading can a post be when it engages in the most minor of discussion, cites a non-misleading source and links to it?

Why can't you admit to overreacting?

If laypeople are going to participate on this site, you're going to have to give them some leeway. Otherwise, they'll leave.

You can parse and dissect and an@lyse what I've just written all you want, and send your outrage my way, but it the end, I'm just giving you my honest opinion about how such smack-downs are going to affect people's desire to participate around here. What's the point of this site, anyway?

Posted by: WHQ at October 17, 2006 11:25 AM

Seriously, way too much drama.

Posted by: Mathew at October 17, 2006 12:06 PM

As I said, I withdraw any accusation of intentional prevarication, and my point about poor language has been copiously expounded. Oberon has restated his point as:

the point is the debt is very very large. and the so-called trust fund surpluses only mask the size of the problem.

He can amend that if he wishes, or add to it. I would ask, compared to what? And I would note that the "so-called trust fund surpluses" are not masking the problem, they're a major part of the problem.

Posted by: Tully at October 17, 2006 02:25 PM

Large compared to my Visa bill?

Posted by: Marcus at October 17, 2006 04:45 PM

If the content of Oberon's post was wrong or amibiguous enough as to be misleading, then he ought to correct it. I've read his attempts to explain his original post, and I admit that I grow more confused with each new explanation he posts (but maybe's that's just me).

Having said that, however, I find it interesting to see what BS does and does not get "called" on this blog. Thinking back to last June, I can remember an instance in which a commenter (not one of the regulars at this blog) repeated Senator Santorum's claim that we had found the WMDs that we had gone to war for, despite the fact that Santorum's claims were refuted by the Defense Department and former Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay himself (the "WMD" in question were actually depleted shells left over from the Iran-Iraq War back in the 80s). It was a claim that was brought up and quickly shot down on both MSNBC and Fox News. But none of this stopped the commentor in question from peddling this dis*nformation.

And NOT ONE person on this blog bothered to call this propaganda for what it was until I finally did. Now granted, this was a comment and not a post that can be seen on the main blog page, but this particular comment string amassed a significant number of comments, and no one here seemed to think that peddling dis*nformation about the presence of WMD in Iraq (the main justification for going to war in the first place) merited a response.

Merely criticizing the Iraq War or the politicians who waged it unleashes a torrent of diatribes against "leftists", "nutroots", and "cut-and-run Democrats", but when a poster peddles lies about the war . . . utter silence.

After more than a year of mindless partisan talking points and catch phrases, this blog is finally beginning to self-destruct. My own biases nowhatwithstanding, I have REPEATEDLY attempted to offer a third party point of view on the major issues of the day. I have REPEATEDLY attempted to bring up subjects that the politicians and the mainstream media refuse to talk about (the War on Drugs, Ballot Access Reform). I even linked to third party websites that, while not a popular as Mich*lle Malkin or the Daily Kos, certainly contain far more thought and far less partisanship.

And for this, I have been warned against interjecting "libetarian partisanship" should I ever wish to post on the front page like all the cool kids.

So to hell with the Republicans and Democrats in office who vote away our liberties even as they claim they are protecting us, and to hell with the partisan apologists in the mainstream media, the blogosphere, and purportedly "centrist" blogs such as this one.

And to hell with both the national debt AND public debt. I never did much like either of them anyhow.

Posted by: nicrivera2002 at October 17, 2006 05:07 PM

nicrivera2002:

You have got to be kidding. A failure to engage in a debate with the crazy guy on the street corner is an implicit acceptance of his crazy views?

P.S.: I also find it interesting that the contributors to and commenters on this blog are frequently accused of being right-wing wolves in sheeps' clothing.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at October 17, 2006 06:27 PM

Yeah, Tood brings up a point. You can say a lot about the wing nuts at Redstate, but they don't come to Centerfield and accuse us of being closeted Stalinists. It's almost like liberals have stopped thinking. It's too easy to end the argument with, "at least I am not a Bush-loving Republican." That's pretty easy when the Republican President is sitting at below 40, but one day they will actually have to back up their BS with substantial evidence, facts, and sound arguments.

Posted by: Mathew at October 17, 2006 08:33 PM

Tully, I proved that "national debt" and "public debt" can be used interchangeably. However, I apologize for not using the more precise term.

It's too bad you're so focused on nitpicking terminology and grammar instead of solutions. A simple "hey Oberon, you used the word 'public debt' when you should have used 'national debt'" would have been much more effective than calling my innumerate, ignorant, and/or a liar.

And I would note that the "so-called trust fund surpluses" are not masking the problem, they're a major part of the problem.

Since you're so hung up on grammatical precision, let me state that NO, such surpluses are not a major part of the problem. (My "problem" being the budget deficit now and in the foreseeable future. Your problem may be something else.)

When we count the SS and other trust funds surpluses as revenue for purposes of calculating the budget deficit, it makes the budget deficit look smaller, hence partly masking the problem.

You see, the "intragovernmental holdings" figures are nothing more nor less than government's IOU's to itself. A bookkeeping fiction that does not change REAL government income/outgo by one single dime at any point in the cycle.

As far as I am concerned, the REAL government income/outgo is an important number.

Posted by: Oberon at October 18, 2006 10:45 AM

Tully, I proved that "national debt" and "public debt" can be used interchangeably

You "proved" that people use the terms interchangably and quite often incorrectly in other contexts. That doesn't make it correct usage in the specific context of the US government and the US national debt, anymore than calling a carbeurator a "throttle body injector system" makes it one. I'm immovable on that one, but I understand the mistake. For correct usage, see the CBO and Treasury web sites. That is the context it was used in, that is the context where the technically accurate terms are required for any meaningful statements at all to be made.

When we count the SS and other trust funds surpluses as revenue for purposes of calculating the budget deficit, it makes the budget deficit look smaller, hence partly masking the problem.

That's how deficit hawks promote it, but it's incorrect, and conflates two very different things. The SS and other "tust fund" revenue surpluses are real surpluses, real money received in real cash by the federal government. They are counted as revenue because they ARE revenue. Cash revenue. Please note that one can just as easily say that the problem with program revenue surpluses is that they make the national debt look bigger than it really is, as all program revenue surpluses are required by law to be deposited into T-bills, which is directly reflected in "intragovernmental holdings." Same thing, a direct mathematical relationship. But the cash itself by law goes directly into the general revenue fund, and money the government borrows from itself and promises to re-pay itself in the future has exactly, precisely ZERO effect on net cash flow, now and/or in the future. Net cash flow is what counts. The "real" deficit is the cash flow deficit ($242B) which affects only the public debt. The "other deficit" is an unrealized liability, a future promise of the government to itself. It's not "real" money anymore than you writing yourself an IOU and moving it from one pocket to another is "real" money.

That all goes back to the fiction of the "trust funds." The government "trust funds" aren't funds at all, much less "trust funds." They're bookkeeping accounts to track how much money the government has collected in program revenue surpluses for specific programs, and guaranteed to supply to fund future program revenue deficits for those programs. But they're no more (or less) than promises of Congress directing future Congresses to do certain things--and future Congresses can set their own rules and pass their own laws and erase the actions of previous Congresses. The "trust funds" could be eliminated entirely tomorrow, simply vanish into thin air, and the current and future cash flow picture of the federal government would not change by one single dime. That's the precise point I'm trying to get across, and it's important. Without grasping that, you can't do any meaningful examination of real budget trends or future forecasts.

As far as I am concerned, the REAL government income/outgo is an important number.

It is indeed! And for FY2006 the federal government's net cash flow was a negative $242B in real money. All the rest was internal accounting. The $242B is the actual amount of money borrowed in the open market, the amount by which actual spending exceeded actual collections. Real money.

Do you get what I'm saying? One side of the "national" debt, debt held by the public or "public" debt, is real money, externally issued debt backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. The other side of the "national debt" is intragovernmental holdings, internal debt issued by the government to itself, backed by promises of Congress. The first is real money in the real world. The second is politician's promises regarding future moneys the government doesn't currently have.

Get that, and you're more than halfway home to a host of other subjects, most especially the importance and realities of SS/Medicare entitlements reform. Bottom line: Net cash flow is what really counts, both now and in the future.

Posted by: Tully at October 18, 2006 02:38 PM

Since I stepped in this one earlier, I feel the need to agree with Tully on the point that not counting those surpluses does in fact make the deficit look larger and not smaller. I would put it this way: The National debt figure is a particular accounting measure that applies in a particular context and counts all paper promises of money issued by the government, even if those paper promises are to the government itself. But I don't think that it necessarily makes the use of the word "subtracted" wrong. For a simplistic illustration, see the following equation: -242 - 331 = -573. Anyway, from a technical standpoint, Tully is absolutely correct. My problem was with his tone and force, and I feel a lot less strongly about that a day later.

Posted by: WHQ at October 18, 2006 04:39 PM

c3
The unfortunate thing for our country is that the GOP has spent decades demonizing taxes to the point that raising them to even simply pay for the war ( a long tradition in this country) is off the table. Right now there is no way that we can get ourselves out of this budget mess unless yet another sacrificial lamb is offered to the public a la Bush 41 and the 92' Democratic Congress.

Posted by: Marcus at October 19, 2006 07:25 PM

Just to remind everybody, increased tax RATES do not always lead to increased tax REVENUES. Tax REVENUE today is higher than it was the year President Bush took office, even though the tax RATES are lower.

Our way out of "this mess" is to STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY, not raising tax rates.

Posted by: PatHMV at October 20, 2006 12:02 PM

Our way out of "this mess" is to STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY

Specifically, to keep the growth rate of spending lower than the growth rate of actual revenues. Discretionary spending is only 40% of all government spending, and it's been shrinking as a share of the total, despite the uptick of war financing. Mandatory entitlement spending (SS/Medicare/etc.) is the rest, and it's been steadily increasing both as a share of federal spending and as a share of total GDP. Don't control the entitlements and you don't control the spending. Simple enough.

Posted by: Tully at October 20, 2006 12:48 PM