National Debt Soars $500B In Under A Month
This story was written by CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller
It's the surge you won't hear anyone boast about.
Never before in U.S. history has the national debt increased as much and as rapidly as it has over the past month.
Since September 30, the day the national debt hit the $10-trillion mark for the first time, the government has run up over $500 billion in new debt.
That's more than the federal deficit for the entire 2008 fiscal year, which ended September 30. And it's the most rapid increase in the national debt ever: over half a trillion dollars in less than a month - 23 days to be exact.
The government's latest calculation of the national debt stands at $10,530,893,033,778.21 - that's $10.5-trillion for short. It took less than four months for it to rocket to that level from $9.5 trillion on July 21.
Less than four months! To put it in perspective, consider this: it took the U.S. government over four decades, from 1940 to 1982, to run up its first trillion dollars of debt.
The second and third trillions were racked up much more quickly - each in just four years. And it only took from 1990 to 1992 for the national debt to hit $4 trillion.
On the day President Bush was sworn in, the debt stood at $5.7 trillion. Less than eight years later, the it's within days of having swelled $5 trillion dollars on his watch - an embarrassing milestone for a president who considers himself a conservative and an advocate of fiscal discipline.
What's to blame for the most recent surge in the debt? Above all else, it's the federal government's response to the financial crisis.
"It's the Supplementary Financing Program being run by Treasury to provide cash for the Federal Reserve," says Corrine Hirsh, spokeswoman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.
By that, she means the billions of dollars disbursed by the Fed to keep the financial markets at home and abroad from collapsing. It includes the $124 billion used to keep insurance industry giant American International Group from going bust.
And this week, the Treasury Department started to spend the $700 billion dollars in the congressionally authorized bailout program, so the national debt can be expected to soar even more rapidly in the coming months.
But on January 20, it becomes another president's problem. And unless he slashes federal spending or enacts major tax hikes, the ballooning deficit and debt leave no money for any of the big ticket programs he's promised to deliver.
Instead, the 44th president will have to deal with the problem of how to pay the interest on the expanding debt. If past practice holds, it's a good bet the government will just borrow the money.
By Mark Knoller
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. It's the surge you won't hear anyone boast about.
Never before in U.S. history has the national debt increased as much and as rapidly as it has over the past month.
Since September 30, the day the national debt hit the $10-trillion mark for the first time, the government has run up over $500 billion in new debt.
That's more than the federal deficit for the entire 2008 fiscal year, which ended September 30. And it's the most rapid increase in the national debt ever: over half a trillion dollars in less than a month - 23 days to be exact.
The government's latest calculation of the national debt stands at $10,530,893,033,778.21 - that's $10.5-trillion for short. It took less than four months for it to rocket to that level from $9.5 trillion on July 21.
Less than four months! To put it in perspective, consider this: it took the U.S. government over four decades, from 1940 to 1982, to run up its first trillion dollars of debt.
The second and third trillions were racked up much more quickly - each in just four years. And it only took from 1990 to 1992 for the national debt to hit $4 trillion.
On the day President Bush was sworn in, the debt stood at $5.7 trillion. Less than eight years later, the it's within days of having swelled $5 trillion dollars on his watch - an embarrassing milestone for a president who considers himself a conservative and an advocate of fiscal discipline.
What's to blame for the most recent surge in the debt? Above all else, it's the federal government's response to the financial crisis.
"It's the Supplementary Financing Program being run by Treasury to provide cash for the Federal Reserve," says Corrine Hirsh, spokeswoman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.
By that, she means the billions of dollars disbursed by the Fed to keep the financial markets at home and abroad from collapsing. It includes the $124 billion used to keep insurance industry giant American International Group from going bust.
And this week, the Treasury Department started to spend the $700 billion dollars in the congressionally authorized bailout program, so the national debt can be expected to soar even more rapidly in the coming months.
But on January 20, it becomes another president's problem. And unless he slashes federal spending or enacts major tax hikes, the ballooning deficit and debt leave no money for any of the big ticket programs he's promised to deliver.
Instead, the 44th president will have to deal with the problem of how to pay the interest on the expanding debt. If past practice holds, it's a good bet the government will just borrow the money.
By Mark Knoller
Popular in Politics
- FBI director acknowledges domestic drone use
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities
- Obama on NSA programs: Americans "not getting the complete story" 258 Comments
- Smooth, on-time Obamacare rollout no sure thing: GAO
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 381 Comments
- Senators: U.S. must take "more decisive" military action in Syria
- Obama renews push for a nuclear disarmament legacy
- GOP Sen. Murkowski backs same-sex marriage
It is evident that there is little agreement on the source of the current economic problem facing the nation. With so much confusion, and fingers pointing in opposite directions, NOTHING will get done. Obama has no understanding of economics, and neither does McCain. That doesn''t mean that they can''t appoint talent to help them, but what it does mean is that the individual elected on the basis of supposedly having a vision for the country, will have none as it pertains to the core of its foundation.
Wishes and hope are wonderful ephemerally positive energies for a society to feel, nevertheless, 350 million need to pay the rent and feed themselves.
Pretending that the economic fiasco facing the country is the result of Republican / Bush agendas will only lead to more disastrous policies like the ones that created the mess through the past fifteen years. It is incorrect that "laissez-faire" economics were to blame. If anything, there was tremendous government and bureaucratic meddling to promulgate the process.
This financial mess everyone is in, however, lies more at the feet of a Congress that looked the other way. This was simply Humans acting Human. For example, check out the amount doled out to Congress by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... to whom and how much.
---- Where will the magic come from to REALLY solve this mess?
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/10/leadership-missing-in-action-dont-blame.html
Bush has killed this nations and then when he leaves he is going to leave this mess for the next president and people think his friend mccain is the answer. I know he doesnt get in because if mccain does, we will be in big trouble. we are in trouble now but wait and see if mccain become president
Posted by thefan08 at 11:11 AM : Nov 02, 2008
----------
I can''t tell you how many pro-Democrat posts I have read over the last six months. It has been A LOT.
Tell me. What will our deficit be for each of the next 8 years, assuming a Democratic monopoly?
What will be the odds of a Balanced Budget Amendment passing?
Bush has killed this nations and then when he leaves he is going to leave this mess for the next president and people think his friend mccain is the answer. I know he doesnt get in because if mccain does, we will be in big trouble. we are in trouble now but wait and see if mccain become president
Redistribute? WAKE UP!! The Republicans already have your money! They''''ve taxed you and cut every program that might benefit the common good.
Republicans doubled the national debt in 8 years and mortgaged our children''''s future. They''''ve given billions to banks and oil companies -- nothing for social security, health care or veterans.
Republican policies gutted your college/retirement IRA and now your job''''s at risk.
We can''''t stand four more years of corruption and deceit. And McCain PROMISES more of the same.
Posted by OldTwo at 10:09 AM : Nov 02, 2008
--------------
The Republican monopoly did not work.
I think it is good to vote Democrat for president. And I intend to do so.
This Democrat angel, Republican demon bit has got to go, though.
It will take a Republican Congress to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. And then it would go to the states for approval.
Is there one American who thinks a Democratic monopoly is going to balance the budget? Or even come close?
Redistribute? WAKE UP!! The Republicans already have your money! They''ve taxed you and cut every program that might benefit the common good.
Republicans doubled the national debt in 8 years and mortgaged our children''s future. They''ve given billions to banks and oil companies -- nothing for social security, health care or veterans.
Republican policies gutted your college/retirement IRA and now your job''s at risk.
We can''t stand four more years of corruption and deceit. And McCain PROMISES more of the same.
I''''m sorry that phonies like Reid, Lieberman, and WELLSTONE were against it.
Posted by Hypnotoad72 at 08:42 AM : Nov 02, 2008
--------------
In 1997 the vote was 66-34. 67 votes (2/3) were needed to send the Amendment to the states for ratification.
Republicans voted 55-0 for the Amendment. Democrats voted 11-34 against.
There are things going on behind the scenes, as well.
In 1995 the vote also failed in the Senate by one.
Six Democratic Senators reversed longstanding positions, and voted against the Amendment. Votes were arranged so those up for re-election would vote for it.
Democratic Senators are like a foreign, invading army. Up until now Americans have chosen to appease them.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
That''''s $1666 for evey man, woman and child in the country. I hope your kids enjoy paying that plus what we already owe
Democratic Senators are violently opposed to a Balanced Budget Amendment.
I plan to vote Democrat for president. We''ve seen that a Republican monopoly causes them to forget all about a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Voting Dem for Senate is defeatism. It''s saying we give up. We can''t handle reality. We can''t pay our bills.
No one will enjoy the consequences of reckless debt. The first consequence will most likely be higher taxes. Higher taxes lead to higher unemployment.
Vote Dem for president until Republicans get a Balanced Budget Amendment through Congress.