Mulvaney: Does focus on the federal debt mean less spending is on the horizon?

It’s good to see the federal debt finally starting to get some attention. Some may wonder why it took so long, but it’s better to be late than never.

In fact, debt is the new cause for some of the biggest names in the financial world. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon also recently weighed in (and this shouldn’t surprise anyone), warning that the roughly $34 trillion in debt will cause a market “revolt.” . he warned:It’s a cliff (and) we’re heading towards it at 90 miles an hour”

Some people might say it’s about 100 miles per hour, but that’s probably outrageous.

Bank of America’s CEO was equally serious. Encourages all of us to “solve” problems, and “do something about it” instead of “praise”. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell recently encouraged us:adult conversation” on the topic.

Even professors no one has ever heard of. I said something about it last week.. When a major publication publishes comments from anonymous academics, you know things must be getting serious.

To all of them, I say this. Welcome to the discussion. I’m glad to finally see the light.

Back in 2013, when Tea Party deficit hawks were literally begging the public to take debt seriously, Wall Street was talking about Washington’s high-spending plans for not using the debt ceiling as a lever in the spending debate. It was one of the loudest voices parroting the point.

Phrases like “We can’t afford not to raise the debt ceiling” were staples of financial talk shows. (Spoiler alert: statements that begin with the words “I have no choice but to…” are a major contributor to crippling debt.)

While Powell’s opinions are certainly welcome, she is taking over a position held by Janet Yellen, who was a constant advocate of increasing government spending. In 2013, shortly before taking office, Yellen lamented the “austerity” of federal fiscal policy and commented that fiscal policy was a “headwind.” At the time, quantitative easing and zero interest rate policies temporarily but dramatically lowered the cost of borrowing funds for the federal government. How much easier would it be to borrow and spend money if borrowing costs were effectively reduced to zero?

For comparison, the deficit in 2013 was approximately $680 billion. And that was the first year that our total debt exceeded our total national income. That year, we borrowed about 25 cents for every dollar we spent. This is about the same as this year.

Anyway, don’t get me wrong. We debt hawks don’t blame corporate CEOs for wanting more government spending at the time. In the end, it was good for them and their shareholders. Similarly, Janet Yellen donated one shilling to Barack Obama in 2013, so spending more was certainly consistent with her party’s policies. Washington is a city that says, “Hey, they’ve done something for me lately.” We can only hope that this newfound fiscal conservatism will help sort things out.

The problem is that that seems highly unlikely at the moment. Corporate leaders and some academics may be aware of the threat posed by debt, but most voters still are not.Debt remains in low single digits, according to recent polls When it comes to priorities for voters. So inflation, immigration, health national security, jobs, and even climate change are put on the back burner.

At least it’s ahead of criminal justice reform.

You need look no further than the current presidential debate to see which way the winds are blowing on spending. Neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden seem interested in cuts. In fact, they seem adamantly indifferent and refuse to even raise the issue. Only Nikki Haley seems to care about it that much, and we can see how far it’s pushing her.

The bottom line is that government spending, the deficit, and the national debt don’t matter to lawmakers until voters decide they matter to them. A senior Republican senator once told President Trump when he rejected the budget proposal I drafted in 2017 that would have slashed spending and ultimately balanced revenue and spending. He said this: Mr. President, no one in this town has lost their job because they spent too much money. Many people have money because they can’t spend enough. ”

It goes on to say that it is an axiom that Washington will not lead. Until voters start caring about the federal debt, most elected officials probably won’t either. And on behalf of fiscal hawks around the world, we welcome the newfound fiscal conservatism of our brethren on Wall Street, academics, and policymakers.

I just hope it’s not too little and it’s not too late.

mick mulvaney He is a former member of the South Carolina House of Representatives and a NewsNation contributor. Under President Donald Trump, he served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and White House Chief of Staff.