Skip to main content

Fact-checking Gary Johnson's economic claims: six years to Greece for the USA?

Everybody else is talking more spending.  From Paul Krugman to Barack Obama the mantra is that there has to be more stimulus, more public sector spending to get us out of the doldrums.  Mitt Romney talks about cutting spending, but would increase defense spending dramatically, while taking Medicare off the table for discussion.

Only Libertarian presidential candidate Governor Gary Johnson has been saying that we need to bite the bullet NOW, return spending to what we take in, and deal with the necessary contraction NOW, or else, as he said on CBS:
Johnson said the U.S. is "not immune from the mathematics of continuing to borrow and print money," adding that "we're only six years away from being in Greece's same statistical situation."
So is this truth or hyperbole?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, in FY 2021 the public debt will reach 90% of the US GDP.  At around that point, borrowing becomes ever more expensive, both as confidence in our credit-worthiness decreases and competition from other economies to borrow the same money increases.

At that point, with even the slightest misstep or unanticipated disaster (war, Katrina, etc. etc.) we are at the tipping point to become Greece.

OK, that's nine years off, not six, so Governor Johnson is exaggerating, right?

Wrong.

Take a look at the optimistic assumptions that the CBO had to use to hold off the 90% threshold for so long:

  • GDP growth, fiscal 2015-2018 — 4.2%, 3.5%, 3.4%, and 3.3%. The best we’ve seen in the past eleven years is 3.5%, one time.
  • Real wage growth for workers covered by Social Security, fiscal 2014-2016 — 4.0%, 4.3%, and 3.9%. That’s after inflation.

Miss two, maybe three of these fairly rosey projections and--guess what?--we slide off the cliff a couple years earlier.

Looks like Gary Johnson is credible on this one, which neither Obama nor Romney wants to talk about at all.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...