The CBO's prediction of the increase in deficits and national debt are WAY off

On May 12, 2025 senator Ron Johnson wrote an editorial in the WSJ in which he noted that the much-touted tax bill contained virtually no spending cuts.

Moreover, the small cuts it did make are "back-loaded," meaning any savings are a few years down the road, meaning the cuts are likely to be rescinded by a craven congress scrambling to be re-elected.

Here's senator Johnson:

In FY 2019 total federal spending was $4.45 trillion (20.6% of GDP).  According to the Congressional Budget Office’s January 2025 projection, total outlays this year (FY 2025), will be $7.03 trillion (23.3% of GDP).
    That’s a 58% increase in spending in just six years.

Assuming an exponential model, that's an average rate of increase of 7.62% per year.  By stark contrast, in a rare, outstanding year GDP might grow 3%, and usually much closer to 2%.  If tax rates aren't increased, and ignoring tariff revenue, that means federal receipts would grow at virtually the same rate.

So let's review: based on the demonstrated history of congress, federal spending is likely to increase by around 7.62% per year, while revenue is likely to increase by around two percent per year.

Doing just a bit of dat ol' raaaacis' "maff," using the well-known, basic equation P(t)=Po e^(rt), assuming 7.62% increase in spending each year, ten years from now (2035) spending is likely to be about $17.14 trillion.

Try it yourself: Po= 8 trillion,  r=growth rate expressed as a decimal, thus 0.0762, and t=10 years.

Using the same equation, starting with $5.5 T in federal revenue next year, and using a very optimistic 2.5% annual increase in GDP (spoiler: ain't gonna happen!) and thus in federal revenue, then in 2035 revenue is likely to be about $7.06 trillion.  That would mean a deficit in 2035 alone of about $10 trillion, compared to the CBO projection of $2.5 trillion (same as for 2035).

So how can there be such a HUGE difference between the CBO projection and my figures?  It's because the CBO takes congress at their word, that dey gon' hold duh spending down to reeel small.  You'll believe that--ignoring the reality of congressional spending--because you want to believe it.   By the same logic, you'll cheerfully ignore my calculations--because the government people are experts, and are never wrong.  And they would never lie to you, right?

So for those who say "Oh, rising GDP will let us grow our way out of this hole," feel free to show me why the numbers I'm about to show you are wrong.  Take as much time as you like.

If you decline, but still claim "We can grow our way out of this hole" you're too damn naive to breathe.

We wanna find the total difference between spending and federal revenue over ten years, using the rates of increase noted earlier.  To do this you have to be able to integrate an exponential function.  Where I went to uni we all had to master this--cuz The Powers That Be thought military officers and pilots needed to know this stuff.   Unless you were a math major you probably didn't run into this.  In finance it's called "accumulated amounts."

So here's where things get really interesting--from Johnson's editorial again:

The CBO projects total federal spending from FY 2026 to 2035 will be $89.3 trillion, which will add $22 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

Really?  Based on the demonstrated, historic rates of increase in both spending and revenue, the deficit in 2035 alone is likely to be $10 Trillion.  When you add up the other nine years the CBO's projection is WAY too optimistic.  In other words, total horseshit.
   Consider that the CBO projects the deficit in FY 2026 to be $2.5 trillion.  Their numbers, not mine.  But since spending has always increased faster than revenue, then the annual deficit must increase each year--as it has.  So consider this:

Even if the annual deficit did NOT increase each year, by 2035 the increase in debt would be $25 trillion ($2.5T per year for ten years).  Yet the CBO says $22T.

If you don't understand that, read it again.

Democrats: "$22 Trillion is even lower than $25 Trillion!  See?  We gonna be jus' fine!"

Except that $25 Trillion was just to show ya--using the CBO's own numbers--that its projected debt increase uses absurd (i.e. rigged) assumptions.  Apparently the CBO somehow believes future deficits won't increase in the next ten years--which would require spending to increase more slowly than GDP.

Seriously?  On what fucking planet?

While you can argue endlessly over how fast spending is increasing every year, no one can deny that on average, spending is increasing at a faster rate than revenue, in which case the deficit will grow larger almost every year.  Not just "grow every year," but increase every year.

Here's where being able to integrate exponential equations comes in:, If we start with 8 T in spending in FY 2026 (per the CBO) and increase 7.62% per year, and then $5.5 T increasing at 2.5% per year, then by 2035 the calculated increase in the national debt--not annual deficit, but the total deficit added over those years--is likely to be close to $57 trillion, more than twice the $22 T projected by the CBO.
   And note that we used an almost certainly over-optimistic 2.5% average increase in GDP (so tax revenue) per year.

I totally understand your disbelief:  The "experts" at the CBO predict a debt increase in ten years of $22 Trillion, so for some guy you've never heard of to claim it's actually gonna increase by $57 Trillion is just ridiculous, eh?

I get it, and I don't blame ya for not believing my numbers.  "Yew cain't know more den duh experts, deplorable!"

I've heard that shit my whole life.  It's not that I'm smarter than their best, but that they can't tell you the truth without getting fired.  I don't have that problem.

They can pretend to believe the bullshit congress puts out, while I think the demonstrated history is a far better predictor.  Even though the CBO is supposed to be non-partisan, the fact is that neither party wants to admit the magnitude of the problem--and every CBO employee knows it.  So I suspect the way the CBO arrived at their far lower number is that instead of using the known historic rate of increase in federal spending, they simply assumed a much lower rate of increase--because they were told to, and doing so makes the increase in debt sound... relatively moderate.

Which allows the Uniparty to continue to spend wildly, recklessly.  Stupidly.  

And certainly if you assume congress can somehow manage to cut the rate of spending increase from 7.62% per year to, say, two percent, then the CBO's numbers work nicely.

Any of ya think that's gonna happen?  Step right up and place your bets.

Not only no but hell no.  Not even close.  If you think congress will cut its rate of spending increase to 2% per year you're naive.

And what the numbers I've just shown mean is that in just ten years the nation's debt will have exploded from $37 Trillion NOT to $59 Trillion (the CBO estimate) but to $94 Trillion.

Or maybe I've forgotten how to integrate exponential functions.  Maybe the formula has changed since I graduated.  "Yeh, dat's it."

Now let me address the bullshit excuse Democrats and RINOs use to convince y'all that huge deficits are NOT a problem:  They claim the huge jump in spending is due to duh Chyna virus.  And it's certainly true that bribem and his Democrats passed a shit-ton of dumb-ass spending in 2021 and 2022--something like six trillion bucks, most of which was pure pork and graft.  

But the virus is long gone, yet spending hasn't dropped back to the 19.3% of GDP in 2019.  You can argue til hell freezes over about why it hasn't dropped, but you're not likely to find one convenient program to blame.  ALL categories have gone up.

And Dems--and their leftist judges--adamantly refuse to allow spending to be cut.  Oh they bleat dat dey totally support reducing waste and fraud in gummint, but that's just bullshit.  In reality they don't want any federal employees fired, don't want a single federal agency eliminated...because they get so much money from public-employee unions!

So they claim that spending only rose this much because of Covid, so my 7.62% annual increase is far too high.  And if, after duh Chyna virus vanished, spending growth had dropped back to what it was from, say, 2015 to 2019 I'd agree.  But it hasn't, so I think the 7.62 figure is pretty sound.  

How about the spending cuts by DOGE?

Great idea, but so far all leftist lower-court judges have blocked all the DOGE cuts and ordered all fired employees to be re-hired, decreeing that only congress can pass laws authorizing the firings and elimination of agencies.  But of course congress won't do that, because even though the GOP has a majority in both chambers, all Dems vote with the party, and there are always a few RINOs who vote with the Dems.  And the Dems always scream that cuts are cruel and hurt working folks.

SO...wanna see the future?

Actually you don't, because you won't like it.  And if you're under 50 you're likely to see it, as will your kids.

It's unavoidable because with few exceptions congress-creeps are self-serving assholes who will cheerfully sell out the American people to make money.  And the bad ones far outnumber the good ones, which explains why "clean," uncorrupt laws rarely get passed. So they'll never cut spending, since that's always been electoral suicide.

So massive deficits will continue, and the government will borrow the money even when the interest rate increases to punitive levels.  Then they'll try printing money.  Then they'll confiscate retirement accounts.  

Ahh, y'say you think that's impossible?  Tell us: before bribem ordered essentially every American to take the jab, or be fired NOT by his regime, *but by your employer!* (very cunning)--would you have believed that possible?

Would you have believed the schools would ORDER that your kids had to take the jab to attend school--even though the CDC and FDA *knew* that children without "co-morbidities" almost never got sick from duh Chyna virus?  

Would you have believed state governors would have ordered restaurants and small stores closed for up to a year--while allowing "big box" stores and bars to stay open?  (By what bizarre logic?)

Would you have believed Dem mayors would pass "ordinances" fining people thousands of dollars for "violating lockdown orders" by two-bit shithead governors, when Fauci KNEW lockdowns didn't help?  

Would you ever have thought a guy on a surfboard 300 yards offshore--without a mask--would be arrested by Cali cops for not wearing a mask?

And yet those things happened.  Or have you all conveniently forgotten?  Wait...of course you've forgotten--because none of that should have been possible in "the land of the free," eh?

So...printing currency, then confiscating retirement accounts will happen, and will buy time for the pols to "retire to spend more time with my family," and move to a safe haven overseas before the shit hits the fan.  Switzerland is nice.  Of course you won't have the cash to do that.

And of course they won't use the word "confiscate."  Instead they'll "borrow" the amount in your retirement account, replacing it with a fancy government IOU at an attractive interest rate.  There will be 140 pages in the new "Emergency Law" detailing how those fancy certificates can be exchanged for cash--just as soon as the emergency is over, eh?  Of course members of congress will be exempt from the "mandatory loan." And the Democrats and their media allies will applaud wildly--like trained seals.

Even after the outrages of the Covid lockdowns, you don't believe either of those things will happen.  Part of the reason is a psychological trait called "normalcy bias:"  "If X has never happened before, it can't happen."

Logically, of course, all rational adults realize that's nonsense.  But that's what people unconsciously believe.

Congress passes laws that spend whatever it wants, and the Treasury is required to borrow whatever amount those stupid laws appropriate.  And congress demands that the president spend every penny they corruptly ordered.

Americans think "The government has always borrowed money, and nothing bad has happened, so...why worry?  And duh pipo in congress are reel smaht, so if dey don' see a problem, mus' not be one, eh?"  And "borrowing" your retirement accounts and printing money are just other ways of doing what congress demands, eh?

Then they'll start cutting defense spending.  That may seem unlikely because defense contractors are among the biggest political donors, but when it comes to re-election, congresswhores will protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and as much graft as possible, so the only fat target left is the military.

The Dems will get voters to support this by claiming "Trump was about to trigger WW3, but thanks to courageous Democrat leaders like Chuck Shumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Bernie and AOC defending ouah precious democracy, we were able to stop him." 

"So at last the world is at peace, citizen.  We have nothing to fear from either China or Russia, so we don't need all those ships and planes!  Same for the number of troops in the Armed Forces--in a safe world we don't need 'em, so why continue to pay for something we'll never need, eh?"

And the Media will eagerly parrot that, claiming cutting "unnecessary military spending" is totally logical, reasonable and long overdue.  "Cutting unnecessary military spending will keep the U.S. out of costly foreign wars," they'll say.  And of course cutting the military will keep the U.S. out of all except existential wars.

The Dems will claim that as long as the U.S. has a strong nuclear deterrent we're unlikely to be invaded.  And since we won't be sending troops overseas, we could eliminate the Army entirely.
  Similarly, if we were to cut the Navy to just submarines (missile subs and attack subs)--mothballing the carriers and most support ships--that will cut another $200 billion a year or so.  Same with the Air Force: leave the missiles and a few dozen big transports and ground the rest.

If congress cuts all military except land- based and submarine missiles, military spending can probably be cut by over half, saving about $600 billion per year.  It won't be nearly enough, but will postpone the crash for a few years.

I think that's a bad plan, but members of congress--the Uniparty--will do whatever they want, regardless of whether a policy is good or bad for the country eh?  Always have, always will.

SO...If a financial crash is unavoidable, why bother writing this--since a few good people will understand the numbers and will be distressed that it's inevitable, eh?

It's to establish a record, so that if this unfolds as the history of our dysfunctional congress suggests, people who read this will know it was foreseen, regardless of what the "experts" said.  See, very few "experts" have the courage to disagree with their peers.  

You'd think at least some would realize the mainstream conclusions have been "cooked" (rigged) to please the pols and Wall Street, eh?  But if a few have done the analysis described above, they're staying quiet.

Anyone remember the newest, most advanced, most luxurious steamship of its day, the Titanic?  Designed and approved by "the experts."  Her captain ignored warnings about icebergs and refused to reduce speed.  Like congress being warned about spending, eh?  How'd that work out?

The "experts" are technically smart, but they're shills, paid by the Uniparty and Wall Street to reassure Americans that everything's fine.  Like telling us bribem was "sharp as a tack," eh?  They'll say anything to keep their cushy jobs and the respect of their fellow experts.  It's ludicrous.  

I'm writing this to encourage young Americans--who may read this 20 years from now--to have the courage to speak out if they think the "experts" are wrong. 

Comments welcome.  Those of you who know me have my email or tel.

Ron Johnson's WSJ editiorial

https://archive.is/sKPCo