Haver Analytics
Haver Analytics
Global| Aug 20 2018

Odd Couple: "A Genuine Economic Boom" & Bigger Budget Deficits

Summary

At a cabinet meeting last week, White House economic advisor Mr. Larry Kudlow described the economy's performance in 2018 as a "genuine economic boom." Yet, Mr. Kudlow failed to mention that this "economic boom" is being accompanied [...]


At a cabinet meeting last week, White House economic advisor Mr. Larry Kudlow described the economy's performance in 2018 as a "genuine economic boom." Yet, Mr. Kudlow failed to mention that this "economic boom" is being accompanied by a substantial increase in the federal budget deficit.

In fact, a recent report from the Office and Management & Budget (OMB) shows that US borrowing will increase twice as fast as the acceleration in economic output. This unusual dynamic suggests that the current strong run in the economy is neither "genuine" nor sustainable for long as increased borrowing of the federal government is financing it.

In the past year, Congress has approved two major fiscal initiatives; the $1.5 trillion tax reduction plan passed at the end of 2017 and the $300 billion increase in spending for defense and non-defense discretionary programs in February. Perspective on how these new fiscal initiatives may influence the economy growth rate and impact the federal budget over time can be gleaned from the mid-session budget report issued on July 19 by the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

According to the new report, OMB believes that the reduction in business and individual taxes and the increased in federal spending will directly and indirectly boost the economy's performance in the short and longer run, as they are projecting 3% real GDP and 5% nominal GDP growth for the next several years, or about 100 basis points faster than the growth rates of the past several years.

Yet, at the same time, OMB is also projecting big increases in the federal deficit for several years. According to OMB, the federal deficit for fiscal year 2018, which ends on September 30, will total $890 billion. In 2017, OMB had estimated the fiscal 2018 deficit to be $440 billion, or less than half the revised estimate. The same is true for fiscal years 2019 and 2020---OMB now projects deficits of $1.127 trillion and $1.148 trillion, up substantially from its prior estimates of $488 billion and $456 billion respectively.

So let's examine the potential tradeoff between faster GDP growth and the change in the budget deficit. According to OMB figures, an acceleration of 100 basis points in the economy's growth rate with a level of nominal GDP of over $20 trillion will generate roughly $200 to $250 billion in additional economic output per year. Yet, at the same time the federal deficit will run $400 to $500 billion more per year. In other words, OMB is saying that the federal government will need to borrow roughly $2 more for every $1 increase in nominal GDP output over the next several years.

In the end, there is nothing unique or special about the recent improvement in US economy's performance in light of the scale of fiscal stimulus that has been enacted. Yet, what is surprising is how much of an increase in the federal deficit has been and will be required to a get the marginal improvement in the economy's nominal output that OMB is projecting. It is debatable how long the US can continue to borrow at projected rates without some adverse affects on its credit ratings. Furthermore, OMB new projections indicate that US economy does not generate enough federal revenue to stabilize the budget deficit even in good times, so what can we expect in bad times? Stay tuned.

Viewpoint commentaries are the opinions of the author and do not reflect the views of Haver Analytics.
  • Joseph G. Carson, Former Director of Global Economic Research, Alliance Bernstein.   Joseph G. Carson joined Alliance Bernstein in 2001. He oversaw the Economic Analysis team for Alliance Bernstein Fixed Income and has primary responsibility for the economic and interest-rate analysis of the US. Previously, Carson was chief economist of the Americas for UBS Warburg, where he was primarily responsible for forecasting the US economy and interest rates. From 1996 to 1999, he was chief US economist at Deutsche Bank. While there, Carson was named to the Institutional Investor All-Star Team for Fixed Income and ranked as one of Best Analysts and Economists by The Global Investor Fixed Income Survey. He began his professional career in 1977 as a staff economist for the chief economist’s office in the US Department of Commerce, where he was designated the department’s representative at the Council on Wage and Price Stability during President Carter’s voluntary wage and price guidelines program. In 1979, Carson joined General Motors as an analyst. He held a variety of roles at GM, including chief forecaster for North America and chief analyst in charge of production recommendations for the Truck Group. From 1981 to 1986, Carson served as vice president and senior economist for the Capital Markets Economics Group at Merrill Lynch. In 1986, he joined Chemical Bank; he later became its chief economist. From 1992 to 1996, Carson served as chief economist at Dean Witter, where he sat on the investment-policy and stock-selection committees.   He received his BA and MA from Youngstown State University and did his PhD coursework at George Washington University. Honorary Doctorate Degree, Business Administration Youngstown State University 2016. Location: New York.

    More in Author Profile »

More Viewpoints