Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. A House budget resolution allows $3.3tn of net deficit increases—$4.8tn of increases offset by $1.5tn of required savings—which with interest the authors estimate would permit nearly $4tn of additional debt. The authors estimate debt would reach 126% of GDP in the budget's final year versus 117% under current law.

Marc Goldwein Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Date Posted:

.@MarcGoldwein argues the economic assumptions of the House’s reconciliation plan are “unrealistic” and projects $3.3T in deficit increases. Including interest, this would raise debt by almost $4T to 126% of GDP by 2034 vs.117% under current law.

How much would the House budget resolution raise federal debt?

Core argument: The House budget resolution allows $3.3 trillion of net deficit increases — $4.8 trillion of increases offset by $1.5 trillion of required savings — which, with interest, the analysis estimates would permit nearly $4 trillion of additional debt.

The budget resolution includes $3.3 trillion of net allowable deficit increases – from $4.8 trillion of deficit increases somewhat offset by $1.5 trillion of required savings – that, with interest, we estimate would allow nearly $4 trillion of additional debt. Passing a reconciliation bill consistent with these instructions would increase debt in 2034 (the last year of the budget) to 126% of GDP compared to 117% under current law. The budget’s economic assumptions are overly aggressive, and the ultimate direction of the economic effects is likely ambiguous; if they resulted in modestly positive economic feedback, we estimate debt would be 123% of GDP by 2034, or if they resulted in modestly negative feedback, we estimate debt would be 129% of GDP by 2034. The window of the budget – FY 2025 through 2034 – includes one year where the TCJA doesn’t need to be extended (2025) and one less year of extension (2035) than a 2026-2035 budget would include, which could make the $4.8 trillion of tax cuts and spending increases in this budget window translate to $5.5-$6 trillion of ten-year increases. The Ways and Means Committee’s instruction in particular could be substantially smaller by either paring back extensions and cuts or increasing the savings sought from the committee’s jurisdiction.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The House budget resolution allows $3.3 trillion of net deficit increases — $4.8 trillion of increases offset by $1.5 trillion of required savings — which, with interest, the analysis estimates would permit nearly $4 trillion of additional debt.
  2. A reconciliation bill consistent with the instructions would raise debt to 126% of GDP in 2034 versus 117% under current law, with estimates of 123% under modestly positive economic feedback and 129% under modestly negative feedback.
  3. Because the FY 2025–2034 budget window includes one year requiring no TCJA extension and one fewer extension year than a 2026–2035 window, the $4.8 trillion of tax cuts and spending increases could translate to $5.5–$6 trillion over ten years.

Related Articles:

  • Long Rates Are Too High — A simple model of the relationship between long-term interest rates and Federal Reserve policy expectations shows 10-year rates sitting 40 basis points above what those expectations would predict, consistent with increases in term premium measures from the New York and San Francisco Federal Reserve Banks. Markets worry this extra premium reflects fears about fiscal sustainability.
  • Brazil’s Slow-Burning Economic Crisis Might Be the U.S. Future — Brazil illustrates a feedback loop in which higher interest rates raise debt-servicing costs—now over 7% of GDP—which in turn lift risk premia and inflation expectations, making fiscal policy less sustainable still. U.S. long-term rates have not fallen despite Federal Reserve cuts, partly reflecting an $11tn debt increase and markets pricing the risk that debt is managed through higher inflation.
  • Data Update 4 for 2025: Interest Rates, Inflation and Central Banks! — Interest rates are ultimately driven by macroeconomic fundamentals, with an "intrinsic risk-free rate" defined as the sum of the inflation rate and real GDP growth tracking the observed 10-year Treasury bond yield closely. On this view, central banks' influence comes from preferential access to data on those fundamentals, their capacity to alter them, and their credibility.
Showing 103 database articles primarily about Fiscal Deficits