The real problem facing the government is not the $14.3 Trillion in Federal debt. Sure, it is too high and must be reduced. Yet the unfunded liabilities are the real problem and are multiples larger.
This issue is dealt with by the Cato Institute in this policy analysis entitled Bankrupt: Entitlements and the Federal Budget by Michael D. Tanner. Here is the executive summary (my emphasis added):
The U.S. government is about to exceed its statutory debt limit of $14.3 trillion. But that actually underestimates the size of the fiscal time bomb that this country is facing. If one considers the unfunded liabilities of programs such as Medicare and Social Security, the true national debt could run as high as $119.5 trillion.
Moreover, to focus solely on debt is to treat a symptom rather than the underlying disease. We face a debt crisis not because taxes are too low but because government is too big. If there is no change to current policies, by 2050 federal government spending will exceed 42 percent of GDP.
Adding in state and local spending, government at all levels will consume nearly 60 percent of everything produced in this country. Whether financed through debt or taxes, government that large would be a crushing burden to our economy and our liberties.
Driving this massive increase in the size and cost of government are so-called “entitlement programs,” in particular Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Indeed, by 2050, those three programs alone will consume 18.4 percent of GDP. If one assumes that revenues return to and stay at their traditional 18 percent of GDP, then those three programs alone will consume all federal revenues. Therefore any serious attempt to balance the federal budget and reduce our growing national debt must include a plan to reform entitlements.
It may well be politically convenient to continue ducking entitlement reform. But doing so will condemn our children and our grandchildren to a world of mounting debt and higher taxes.
[...] Why We are Bankrupt (economicnoise.com) [...]
Monty,
I have been following your site and others like it for nearly two years now. Frequently, the authors of some of the articles that you post and link to often ask how it is that demonstrably failed economic policies continue to be espoused and implemented at nearly all governmental agencies. After earning an MBA last year, I decided to further my study in economics and have been researching various graduate programs offered in the Chicago land area. Below is the course description for MA in Economics from Roosevelt University. Please note the third paragraph.
Economics, MA
Economics at Roosevelt University goes beyond the conventional economics that is taught at most universities in the United States and presents students with economic analysis from the perspective of alternative schools of thought. Roosevelt is one of the few universities in the United States where students can study economics from Heterodox points of view, in addition to mainstream Neoclassical and Keynesian points of view.
Pluralism, heterodoxy, intellectual tolerance and diversity of thought and method form the context for the goals of the Economics Department. We do not seek to replace one orthodoxy with another but rather to encourage our students to view economics as an evolving discipline that can help them make sense of the world around them. We seek to provide a series of lenses and analytical skills with which they can critically examine political, social and economic issues, weigh evidence, ask questions, develop their intellectual curiosity and appreciate diversity of thought.
The graduate curriculum of the Economics Department is closely aligned with the mission of the university to educate socially conscious citizens and leaders. Economics as taught at Roosevelt includes the study of income distribution, globalization, caring labor, wages and working conditions, equity, social justice, and democratic economic planning, all of which are an integral part of developing a consciousness of social justice, economic abundance, and individual liberty appropriate to the 21st century.
Perhaps I am reading more Keynesian and socialist philosophy into the program than is actually there. But I have not heard of “caring labor” as a economic thought studied at Mises Institute.
What are your thoughts on this course description?
Dean,
My take is the same as yours, perhaps even stronger. The third paragraph is filled with red-flag buzz words that I would run away from.
A question: Why do you want an MA in economics? It does nothing for your marketability. It is a nowhere land. To trade off a degree in economics you need to get the terminal degree. (An undergraduate degree is what you trade off prior to this. Your major just happens or happened to be in X where X is economics, history or whatever.)
It is likely an MBA would serve you better for job prospects. U of C in Chicago teaches (or at least used to) everything from the standpoint of economics.
Just some thoughts.